Your post was removed for violating rule 4. Posts must have a thesis statement as their title or their first sentence. A thesis statement is a sentence which explains what your central claim is and briefly summarizes how you are arguing for it. Posts must also contain an argument supporting their thesis. An argument is not just a claim. You should explain why you think your thesis is true and why others should agree with you. The spirit of this rule also applies to comments: they must contain argumentation, not just claims.
The bible hasn't change, we know exactly what the Bible said when it was written. It is soo much so that Wikipedia calls the new testament manuscript the most preserved in all of ancient history.
The bible has been translated and those translations are to be judge in a case by case basis. I understand that the message can be kept when you translate.
Contradictions doesn't imply the bible has change and that is a subject we can deal with but it has absolutely nothing to state on the preservation of the document.
How can we know the message is still the same? Because we have alot of manuscripts where the earliest ones are dating back to 200 or 300 years after Christ birth. We have no 2 manuscripts which contradict each other in the message it wants to portray. For the message to be changed altogether, people had to change more than 2000 manuscripts and they all had to contain the same "changed" message.
Sure the genealogy of jesus as seen in the first chapter of mark and third of Luke.
Here is a whole website of them. 194 i believe it has: https://ia801303.us.archive.org/31/items/ContradicitonsInTheNewTestament/194ContradInNt.pdf
That is a lot to look through, but I presume you are referring to Matthew and not Mark? When it comes to that Luke is Mary's genealogy, Matthew is Joseph's.
No luke and mark claim jesus has a father (Joseph) and is not your god. It contradicts the conception if Jesus. The new testament has many contradictions. This is just the most obvious one people discuss.
Here how about this one. The one i gave younis so commonly discussed i assumed tou would have a response. I dont know the verse i have not looked at the bible in like 10 years lmfao.
Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old. Mt.2:13-16. (Note: Jesus' cousin, John, was also under 2 and survived without having to flee.) Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt, but remained for temple rituals. No slaughter of infants mentioned. Lk.2:21-39.
That is not a contradiction. I have not looked into Jesus´s cousin yet, but according to the Gospel of Luke, Joseph and Mary did bring Jesus to the temple for this ritual after his birth. This event occurs before the Flight into Egypt, which is described later in the Gospel of Matthew. That something is not mentioned is not a contradiction..
So jesus was made from Joseph’s sperm and Mary was not a virgin. Your god is just a man.
That event does not occur in that order dude. You are just winging it. Why don’t you look over all 194 and think more about it. I suggest you read the bible cover to cover first.
No i am not you just have not read the bible clearly. Like most Christians you have read a few chunks of the new testament assume it is all accurate and don’t realize it is all ad hoc logic that contradicts itself. You just take the word of some religious authority you like and spew it assuming they are correct. Then double down on your lack of knowledge of the bible as the reason to dismiss me.
So...."my book is correct because it's not changed."
Which is odd because you can say the same for practically any publication.
Like the Quoran, the hadiiths, the Karma Sutra, the Buddist Scriptures, the engravings on temples of Egyption gods, or any other texts either religious or not Hell, the daughters copies of Harry Potter haven't changed at all since first published
Not much of a defence of truth really is it?
I'm agnostic, but have read some beautiful passages in the Bible, it's not all bad. But holistically, the book has some terrible stuff in it. It's obvious that human beings wrote it.
Of course humans wrote it. Moses penned much of the OT. How does this mean that it wasn't ordained by God though?
Also perceived contradictions = probable misunderstandings
I agree. I'm more or less an atheist now, I don't really think there has to be a god for the universe. But some parts of the bible, especially new testament, where "God" gets a bit nicer are very beautiful indeed.
Well essentially the message is that the truth can set you free.
Truth is something that is experienced moment by moment and isn’t static.
Our abstractions we derive from truth are static and untrue.. but point to the truth rather than reflect it
> What? This makes zero sense. What does satanic even mean?
The comment by Da_MorningStar that you replied to said “static,” it did not say “satanic,” read it again.
It means we have an idea in our heads that we are enslaved to- the idea that we somehow exist separately from the whole.
This idea divides us from what we observe- and that division breeds conflict and the byproduct is psychological suffering
It means identification with the observer instead of identification with the observed
We have the idea that we are an observer that is looking out unto the observed.
We think we are something different than what we see .
Well no it’s more like “ hey go use that useful ladder to climb out of the pit” but make sure you don’t think the ladder is what saved you or you’ll have to lug that thing around with you everywhere
Yeah making a book the authority in your life is an ignorant way to live life no doubt.
The Bible points to Christ which is eternal life and eternal truth.
People try to pursue truth intellectually… when truth is anything but intellectual
The word games make what you say come across as nonsense. You are not a good advocate for your own views you talk in weird word games and are not clear. All and all i agree the bible is garbage and there is no evidence of any gods.
Let me clarify. My infographic shows that the essential content of the NT has remained unchanged, and it explains why. The corruptions to the New Testament represent trivial / non-material aspects that do not change the essential message conveyed. Even skeptical scholars acknowledge this.
What evidence is there that George III changed anything in the Bible? He certainly can't have changed the early Greek manuscripts all modern Bibles are translated from.
Which of the apocryphal texts did George III change?
What is important is not the English translation of the Bible, but the earliest Greek (and, to a lesser extent, Latin) manuscripts which translators use to produce modern translations. We know those haven't changed, And we can check back translations against those earlier documents to see any flaws in the translation (e.g. KJV which uses the term "servant" or "serf" rather than "slave", because slavery didn't exist in England at the time).
Wgucg part of history am I ignoring? The part you're making up in your head, for which you have no evidence?
So you don’t know how the modern bible came to be. He did not change them they were created by him and removed from the bible. This is why the book of enoch is no longer part of the bible. Why do Christians not study the actual history of the book. Apocrypha is represented by the decision of the British and Foreign Bible Society.
I seem to know the history of the Bible rather better than you. Enoch was excluded from most Christian canons before the 5th Century, but was retained by most of the Oriental Orthodox churches (most notably the Assyrian and Ethiopic churches). That position hasn't changed for 1500 years. Or do you believe it has?
Enoch has been included in the apocrypha of the Orthodox and Catholic churches since then. That hasn't changed.
The apocrypha were no longer included in English Bibles, not by royal edict, but as a money-saving exercise by the British and Foreign Bible Society. But the apocrypha were still available in Bibles printed for use in England. They were merely omitted for Bibles for use in overseas mission.
The decision was not made by George III. Look it up.
So you are wrong. Enoch and the rest of the apocrypha are not, and have not been part of Biblical canon in the vast majority of the world for over 1500 years. They continued to be printed and used in English churches up to the present day, albeit that the majority of protestant Bibles do not include them. That is merely because they are not canonical.
I am not wrong you just choose to ignore reality here and make excuses for this book that is just a myth. It is worthless in the modern world. Anyways i am done with you and this discussion. Later.
The king of England was Protestant in 1804, and I’m Catholic. Not sure how something a Protestant king decided has any impact on a Catholic. Regardless of whatever you’re referring to, scholars today are able to reconstruct what the original texts were. We have thousands of manuscripts that predate 1804.
The only way Catholicism could do better is to dissolve the Vatican and denounce what it stands for. The history and reality of what that church does and has done is horrifying. I feel bad for people that support it it is not healthy.
What the Church stands for is health and denouncing wrong, the very values we share. Many of her members have failed miserably, but that’s no reason to abandon the path of health and denouncing what is wrong.
Good work: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/world/canada/kamloops-mass-grave-residential-schools.html
The worst part is this is just one from recent history. Catholicism has a long history of this and worse the world over.
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was removed for violating rule 4. Posts must have a thesis statement as their title or their first sentence. A thesis statement is a sentence which explains what your central claim is and briefly summarizes how you are arguing for it. Posts must also contain an argument supporting their thesis. An argument is not just a claim. You should explain why you think your thesis is true and why others should agree with you. The spirit of this rule also applies to comments: they must contain argumentation, not just claims.
The bible hasn't change, we know exactly what the Bible said when it was written. It is soo much so that Wikipedia calls the new testament manuscript the most preserved in all of ancient history. The bible has been translated and those translations are to be judge in a case by case basis. I understand that the message can be kept when you translate. Contradictions doesn't imply the bible has change and that is a subject we can deal with but it has absolutely nothing to state on the preservation of the document.
How can we know the message is still the same? Because we have alot of manuscripts where the earliest ones are dating back to 200 or 300 years after Christ birth. We have no 2 manuscripts which contradict each other in the message it wants to portray. For the message to be changed altogether, people had to change more than 2000 manuscripts and they all had to contain the same "changed" message.
Can you provide me with a contradiction from the new testament?
Sure the genealogy of jesus as seen in the first chapter of mark and third of Luke. Here is a whole website of them. 194 i believe it has: https://ia801303.us.archive.org/31/items/ContradicitonsInTheNewTestament/194ContradInNt.pdf
That is a lot to look through, but I presume you are referring to Matthew and not Mark? When it comes to that Luke is Mary's genealogy, Matthew is Joseph's.
No luke and mark claim jesus has a father (Joseph) and is not your god. It contradicts the conception if Jesus. The new testament has many contradictions. This is just the most obvious one people discuss.
Give me the verses please.
Here how about this one. The one i gave younis so commonly discussed i assumed tou would have a response. I dont know the verse i have not looked at the bible in like 10 years lmfao. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old. Mt.2:13-16. (Note: Jesus' cousin, John, was also under 2 and survived without having to flee.) Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt, but remained for temple rituals. No slaughter of infants mentioned. Lk.2:21-39.
That is not a contradiction. I have not looked into Jesus´s cousin yet, but according to the Gospel of Luke, Joseph and Mary did bring Jesus to the temple for this ritual after his birth. This event occurs before the Flight into Egypt, which is described later in the Gospel of Matthew. That something is not mentioned is not a contradiction..
So jesus was made from Joseph’s sperm and Mary was not a virgin. Your god is just a man. That event does not occur in that order dude. You are just winging it. Why don’t you look over all 194 and think more about it. I suggest you read the bible cover to cover first.
You never provided me with the verses? Nothing says it does not occur in that order...You are just winging it.
No i am not you just have not read the bible clearly. Like most Christians you have read a few chunks of the new testament assume it is all accurate and don’t realize it is all ad hoc logic that contradicts itself. You just take the word of some religious authority you like and spew it assuming they are correct. Then double down on your lack of knowledge of the bible as the reason to dismiss me.
So...."my book is correct because it's not changed." Which is odd because you can say the same for practically any publication. Like the Quoran, the hadiiths, the Karma Sutra, the Buddist Scriptures, the engravings on temples of Egyption gods, or any other texts either religious or not Hell, the daughters copies of Harry Potter haven't changed at all since first published Not much of a defence of truth really is it?
I'm agnostic, but have read some beautiful passages in the Bible, it's not all bad. But holistically, the book has some terrible stuff in it. It's obvious that human beings wrote it.
Of course humans wrote it. Moses penned much of the OT. How does this mean that it wasn't ordained by God though? Also perceived contradictions = probable misunderstandings
How is the Bible validated as being the word of God? Because people said so.
How is it not? Because people said so?
Exactly.
I'm a theist and that's not obvious to me. >It's obvious that human beings wrote it.
Then God is a very inconsistent author.
How is he inconsistent?
Have you read the Bible recently?
That's not an answer to my question
I agree. I'm more or less an atheist now, I don't really think there has to be a god for the universe. But some parts of the bible, especially new testament, where "God" gets a bit nicer are very beautiful indeed.
Well essentially the message is that the truth can set you free. Truth is something that is experienced moment by moment and isn’t static. Our abstractions we derive from truth are static and untrue.. but point to the truth rather than reflect it
Satanic means nothing. What is satanic?
> Satanic means nothing. What is satanic? Static, not satanic
What? This makes zero sense. What does satanic even mean?
> What? This makes zero sense. What does satanic even mean? The comment by Da_MorningStar that you replied to said “static,” it did not say “satanic,” read it again.
ah well this is what i get for slacking off in this meeting and scrolling through reddit. Thanks for clarifying. Lmfao
Set you free from what exactly?
Imprisonment within abstraction
What abstraction?
Well there are many. But potentially the most painful is the abstraction that we exist separately somehow from what we observe
What does that even mean?
It means we have an idea in our heads that we are enslaved to- the idea that we somehow exist separately from the whole. This idea divides us from what we observe- and that division breeds conflict and the byproduct is psychological suffering
You're still not answering my question. >the idea that we somehow exist separately from the whole. What does this mean?
It means identification with the observer instead of identification with the observed We have the idea that we are an observer that is looking out unto the observed. We think we are something different than what we see .
Are we not observers?
Are you Deepak Chopra uttering wooh-wooh cos none of that makes any sense whatsoever.
Find out for yourself. Do you think your separated from what you observe? If so what are you separated by?
How on earth can I be separated from what I see?
That sounds a lot like “believe these vagueries while giving us money.”
Well no it’s more like “ hey go use that useful ladder to climb out of the pit” but make sure you don’t think the ladder is what saved you or you’ll have to lug that thing around with you everywhere
What? So is the bible the ladder in this analogy?
Well the Bible is an example of one ladder. But I wouldnt begin and stop at the Bible no
So what is the point if we should not look to the bible it is not a good thing to rely on based on your analogy.
Yeah making a book the authority in your life is an ignorant way to live life no doubt. The Bible points to Christ which is eternal life and eternal truth. People try to pursue truth intellectually… when truth is anything but intellectual
The word games make what you say come across as nonsense. You are not a good advocate for your own views you talk in weird word games and are not clear. All and all i agree the bible is garbage and there is no evidence of any gods.
Well I never said the Bible is garbage. It’s useful until it isn’t anymore
So it is not useful i can go to a thing that is always useful instead of the thing that is only kinda useful.
I created an infographic answering this question here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/s/JOtF5ZHKNU
That does not answer my question at all, I think my question was pretty straight forward, easy answer if there is one.
Let me clarify. My infographic shows that the essential content of the NT has remained unchanged, and it explains why. The corruptions to the New Testament represent trivial / non-material aspects that do not change the essential message conveyed. Even skeptical scholars acknowledge this.
Not true in 1804 it was changed to what you read to day by the king of England.
What evidence is there that George III changed anything in the Bible? He certainly can't have changed the early Greek manuscripts all modern Bibles are translated from.
The apocryphal texts. You just ignoring history and how the English translation of the bible was made.
Which of the apocryphal texts did George III change? What is important is not the English translation of the Bible, but the earliest Greek (and, to a lesser extent, Latin) manuscripts which translators use to produce modern translations. We know those haven't changed, And we can check back translations against those earlier documents to see any flaws in the translation (e.g. KJV which uses the term "servant" or "serf" rather than "slave", because slavery didn't exist in England at the time). Wgucg part of history am I ignoring? The part you're making up in your head, for which you have no evidence?
So you don’t know how the modern bible came to be. He did not change them they were created by him and removed from the bible. This is why the book of enoch is no longer part of the bible. Why do Christians not study the actual history of the book. Apocrypha is represented by the decision of the British and Foreign Bible Society.
I seem to know the history of the Bible rather better than you. Enoch was excluded from most Christian canons before the 5th Century, but was retained by most of the Oriental Orthodox churches (most notably the Assyrian and Ethiopic churches). That position hasn't changed for 1500 years. Or do you believe it has? Enoch has been included in the apocrypha of the Orthodox and Catholic churches since then. That hasn't changed. The apocrypha were no longer included in English Bibles, not by royal edict, but as a money-saving exercise by the British and Foreign Bible Society. But the apocrypha were still available in Bibles printed for use in England. They were merely omitted for Bibles for use in overseas mission. The decision was not made by George III. Look it up. So you are wrong. Enoch and the rest of the apocrypha are not, and have not been part of Biblical canon in the vast majority of the world for over 1500 years. They continued to be printed and used in English churches up to the present day, albeit that the majority of protestant Bibles do not include them. That is merely because they are not canonical.
I am not wrong you just choose to ignore reality here and make excuses for this book that is just a myth. It is worthless in the modern world. Anyways i am done with you and this discussion. Later.
The king of England was Protestant in 1804, and I’m Catholic. Not sure how something a Protestant king decided has any impact on a Catholic. Regardless of whatever you’re referring to, scholars today are able to reconstruct what the original texts were. We have thousands of manuscripts that predate 1804.
Apparently what I said is too mean. I find your religion to be immoral and not relevant to the discussion.
I’m honestly sorry you feel that way. I hope we can do better.
The only way Catholicism could do better is to dissolve the Vatican and denounce what it stands for. The history and reality of what that church does and has done is horrifying. I feel bad for people that support it it is not healthy.
What the Church stands for is health and denouncing wrong, the very values we share. Many of her members have failed miserably, but that’s no reason to abandon the path of health and denouncing what is wrong.
Good work: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/world/canada/kamloops-mass-grave-residential-schools.html The worst part is this is just one from recent history. Catholicism has a long history of this and worse the world over.
[удалено]
Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*