Can you be religious and pro science and technology?

[MattMc750]

There is no empirical science that is not compatible with biblical history. There is also no biblical evidence that technology in itself is contrary to religious belief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

There is also no biblical evidence that technology in itself is contrary to religious belief.

that's a good joke, the 4th century bible is a political document disguised as a religion whatever evidence you are claiming is manifested from prejudice without factual documentation, not exactly a methodology of science.

There is no empirical science that is not compatible with biblical history.

science and history are as compatible as water and oil much less the derivative of a disguised literature.

Those are a lot of big words that are not remotely relevant to my claim nor are they evidence to disprove it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

Those are a lot of big words that are not remotely relevant to my claim nor are they evidence to disprove it.

like your first post, your statement lacks substance I was able to convey by mine, science is incompatible with deception, the 4th century bible.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[BreezeWood]

There is no empirical science that is not compatible with biblical history. There is also no biblical evidence that technology in itself is contrary to religious belief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

There is also no biblical evidence that technology in itself is contrary to religious belief.

that's a good joke, the 4th century bible is a political document disguised as a religion whatever evidence you are claiming is manifested from prejudice without factual documentation, not exactly a methodology of science.

There is no empirical science that is not compatible with biblical history.

science and history are as compatible as water and oil much less the derivative of a disguised literature.

Those are a lot of big words that are not remotely relevant to my claim nor are they evidence to disprove it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

Those are a lot of big words that are not remotely relevant to my claim nor are they evidence to disprove it.

like your first post, your statement lacks substance I was able to convey by mine, science is incompatible with deception, the 4th century bible.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?

that's also a joke, there is no verification for any of the literary events described in the 4th century bible it is you who has no empirical evidence yours is anything but a disguised political agenda ... at the expense of the true religion.

 

[MattMc750]

There is no empirical science that is not compatible with biblical history. There is also no biblical evidence that technology in itself is contrary to religious belief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

There is also no biblical evidence that technology in itself is contrary to religious belief.

that's a good joke, the 4th century bible is a political document disguised as a religion whatever evidence you are claiming is manifested from prejudice without factual documentation, not exactly a methodology of science.

There is no empirical science that is not compatible with biblical history.

science and history are as compatible as water and oil much less the derivative of a disguised literature.

Those are a lot of big words that are not remotely relevant to my claim nor are they evidence to disprove it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

Those are a lot of big words that are not remotely relevant to my claim nor are they evidence to disprove it.

like your first post, your statement lacks substance I was able to convey by mine, science is incompatible with deception, the 4th century bible.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?

that's also a joke, there is no verification for any of the literary events described in the 4th century bible it is you who has no empirical evidence yours is anything but a disguised political agenda ... at the expense of the true religion.

You keep saying 4th century bible, but the Old Testament was of course written BC and most of the New Testament was written in the first century...which I'm sure you will say is part of the deception? I'm sure you're also dying to tell us what the disguised political agenda was as well. There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Mudda]

There is no empirical science that is not compatible with biblical history. There is also no biblical evidence that technology in itself is contrary to religious belief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There is no geologic proof of a world wide flood. The works wasn't made in six days. Need more?

 

[Mudda]

.
that's a good joke, the 4th century bible is a political document disguised as a religion whatever evidence you are claiming is manifested from prejudice without factual documentation, not exactly a methodology of science.


science and history are as compatible as water and oil much less the derivative of a disguised literature.

Those are a lot of big words that are not remotely relevant to my claim nor are they evidence to disprove it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

Those are a lot of big words that are not remotely relevant to my claim nor are they evidence to disprove it.

like your first post, your statement lacks substance I was able to convey by mine, science is incompatible with deception, the 4th century bible.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?

that's also a joke, there is no verification for any of the literary events described in the 4th century bible it is you who has no empirical evidence yours is anything but a disguised political agenda ... at the expense of the true religion.

You keep saying 4th century bible, but the Old Testament was of course written BC and most of the New Testament was written in the first century...which I'm sure you will say is part of the deception? I'm sure you're also dying to tell us what the disguised political agenda was as well. There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The earliest fragments of the bible are dated to several generations after the facts.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
that's a good joke, the 4th century bible is a political document disguised as a religion whatever evidence you are claiming is manifested from prejudice without factual documentation, not exactly a methodology of science.


science and history are as compatible as water and oil much less the derivative of a disguised literature.

Those are a lot of big words that are not remotely relevant to my claim nor are they evidence to disprove it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

Those are a lot of big words that are not remotely relevant to my claim nor are they evidence to disprove it.

like your first post, your statement lacks substance I was able to convey by mine, science is incompatible with deception, the 4th century bible.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?

that's also a joke, there is no verification for any of the literary events described in the 4th century bible it is you who has no empirical evidence yours is anything but a disguised political agenda ... at the expense of the true religion.

You keep saying 4th century bible, but the Old Testament was of course written BC and most of the New Testament was written in the first century...which I'm sure you will say is part of the deception? I'm sure you're also dying to tell us what the disguised political agenda was as well. There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.

- do not contradict biblical claims ... Proof is not my point


oh,"there are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible", prey tell what may they be ...

the christian bible was created in the late 4th century and is a political agenda disguised as a religion, the 1st century died in the 4th. the history of oppression and persecution from that time to the present is the empirical evidence for the deception.

there are no etchings in stone or reliefs in pottery or written manuscripts from the time of any the literary verbal events by the individuals concerned verifying substance for any of the bibles claims. some may have been but the writings of the 4th are distortions by deliberation.

 

[MattMc750]

There is no empirical science that is not compatible with biblical history. There is also no biblical evidence that technology in itself is contrary to religious belief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There is no geologic proof of a world wide flood. The works wasn't made in six days. Need more?

Like I've said in previous posts, this isn't about proof. There is evidence of a flood (i.e. Grand Canyon, stalagtites/stalagmites) and most modern Christian scientists believe in the day = age interpretation of Genesis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Andylusion]

We aren't talking about the NT, Einstein.

While I agree, to Christians, isn't the NT all that matters? If not, why do so many people offer only the "Good News" section of the Bible?

Well I can't answer that question for all Christian groups in the world.

If I were to theorize, possibly handing out the only the New Testament, is a way of reducing cost and maybe increasing the number of Bibles they can carry.

If you look at the Bible as a book of rules to live by, Christians only follow the New Testament. That's our rule book. Thus if you ask a Christian how he should live, and what rules he should follow, we look at the New Testament.

For example, a Christian would answer something like 1 Corinthians 6:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.​

Whereas a Jew would refer to something in the old testament.

However, the problem though is that while the New Testament is our rule book, the Bible itself isn't just a rule book. It's the history of man kind, and why we are here. What our purpose is, and how we got to where we are.

You could say that all you need are the rules to live by, and granted that is a massive benefit to those who follow the rules. But, that doesn't explain the deeper questions in life. How am I? Why am I here? What's the point of all this?

The old testament helps establish all these things. We were created for G-d, to both glorify him, and to at the same time, live in his glory. To be a light of good, shining in a world of dark. All of these are important to living a healthy and happy life as a Christian.

So while you start of with the Jesus and the New Testament, and that is a great place to start, in the end we all need more answers as to how we got to this point, and that's why the Old Testament, is the fundamental foundation for the New Testament. That's why as Christians, we believe in both. Both are vitally important to our faith.

 

[Andylusion]

Those are a lot of big words that are not remotely relevant to my claim nor are they evidence to disprove it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

Those are a lot of big words that are not remotely relevant to my claim nor are they evidence to disprove it.

like your first post, your statement lacks substance I was able to convey by mine, science is incompatible with deception, the 4th century bible.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?

that's also a joke, there is no verification for any of the literary events described in the 4th century bible it is you who has no empirical evidence yours is anything but a disguised political agenda ... at the expense of the true religion.

You keep saying 4th century bible, but the Old Testament was of course written BC and most of the New Testament was written in the first century...which I'm sure you will say is part of the deception? I'm sure you're also dying to tell us what the disguised political agenda was as well. There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.

- do not contradict biblical claims ... Proof is not my point


oh,"there are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible", prey tell what may they be ...

the christian bible was created in the late 4th century and is a political agenda disguised as a religion, the 1st century died in the 4th. the history of oppression and persecution from that time to the present is the empirical evidence for the deception.

there are no etchings in stone or reliefs in pottery or written manuscripts from the time of any the literary verbal events by the individuals concerned verifying substance for any of the bibles claims. some may have been but the writings of the 4th are distortions by deliberation.

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

 

[Andylusion]

There is no empirical science that is not compatible with biblical history. There is also no biblical evidence that technology in itself is contrary to religious belief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There is no geologic proof of a world wide flood. The works wasn't made in six days. Need more?

Like I've said in previous posts, this isn't about proof. There is evidence of a flood (i.e. Grand Canyon, stalagtites/stalagmites) and most modern Christian scientists believe in the day = age interpretation of Genesis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Prove "most modern Christian Scientists believe in the day = age interpretation of Genesis".

I'm curious to see that claim proved.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
like your first post, your statement lacks substance I was able to convey by mine, science is incompatible with deception, the 4th century bible.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?

that's also a joke, there is no verification for any of the literary events described in the 4th century bible it is you who has no empirical evidence yours is anything but a disguised political agenda ... at the expense of the true religion.

You keep saying 4th century bible, but the Old Testament was of course written BC and most of the New Testament was written in the first century...which I'm sure you will say is part of the deception? I'm sure you're also dying to tell us what the disguised political agenda was as well. There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.

- do not contradict biblical claims ... Proof is not my point


oh,"there are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible", prey tell what may they be ...

the christian bible was created in the late 4th century and is a political agenda disguised as a religion, the 1st century died in the 4th. the history of oppression and persecution from that time to the present is the empirical evidence for the deception.

there are no etchings in stone or reliefs in pottery or written manuscripts from the time of any the literary verbal events by the individuals concerned verifying substance for any of the bibles claims. some may have been but the writings of the 4th are distortions by deliberation.

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

.

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

all 12 fragments - 400 BCE is not the 4th century bible, try 1CE > - and do they vilify the writings excluded in the 4th century. where are your etchings in stone made during the period for the events from early to mid 1st century. the corruption does not need to be rampant to be effective. they had their way in the 4th the same as having their way from that time to the present.

 

[Mudda]

There is no empirical science that is not compatible with biblical history. There is also no biblical evidence that technology in itself is contrary to religious belief.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There is no geologic proof of a world wide flood. The works wasn't made in six days. Need more?

Like I've said in previous posts, this isn't about proof. There is evidence of a flood (i.e. Grand Canyon, stalagtites/stalagmites) and most modern Christian scientists believe in the day = age interpretation of Genesis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The GC is evidence of erosion, not a flood. A worldwide flood would have left a worldwide deposit in a layer that would be found all over the world today. There is none.
Christian scientist = not a real scientist.

 

[Andylusion]

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

But what empirical evidence refutes the Bible?

that's also a joke, there is no verification for any of the literary events described in the 4th century bible it is you who has no empirical evidence yours is anything but a disguised political agenda ... at the expense of the true religion.

You keep saying 4th century bible, but the Old Testament was of course written BC and most of the New Testament was written in the first century...which I'm sure you will say is part of the deception? I'm sure you're also dying to tell us what the disguised political agenda was as well. There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.

- do not contradict biblical claims ... Proof is not my point


oh,"there are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible", prey tell what may they be ...

the christian bible was created in the late 4th century and is a political agenda disguised as a religion, the 1st century died in the 4th. the history of oppression and persecution from that time to the present is the empirical evidence for the deception.

there are no etchings in stone or reliefs in pottery or written manuscripts from the time of any the literary verbal events by the individuals concerned verifying substance for any of the bibles claims. some may have been but the writings of the 4th are distortions by deliberation.

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

.

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

all 12 fragments - 400 BCE is not the 4th century bible, try 1CE > - and do they vilify the writings excluded in the 4th century. where are your etchings in stone made during the period for the events from early to mid 1st century. the corruption does not need to be rampant to be effective. they had their way in the 4th the same as having their way from that time to the present.

That's funny, because they specifically compared the current day, in my hands, Bible, to the fragments in the dead sea scrolls and they matched up.

So you say they are not the same... but the fact remains they are.

 

[Mudda]

.
that's also a joke, there is no verification for any of the literary events described in the 4th century bible it is you who has no empirical evidence yours is anything but a disguised political agenda ... at the expense of the true religion.

You keep saying 4th century bible, but the Old Testament was of course written BC and most of the New Testament was written in the first century...which I'm sure you will say is part of the deception? I'm sure you're also dying to tell us what the disguised political agenda was as well. There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.

- do not contradict biblical claims ... Proof is not my point


oh,"there are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible", prey tell what may they be ...

the christian bible was created in the late 4th century and is a political agenda disguised as a religion, the 1st century died in the 4th. the history of oppression and persecution from that time to the present is the empirical evidence for the deception.

there are no etchings in stone or reliefs in pottery or written manuscripts from the time of any the literary verbal events by the individuals concerned verifying substance for any of the bibles claims. some may have been but the writings of the 4th are distortions by deliberation.

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

.

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

all 12 fragments - 400 BCE is not the 4th century bible, try 1CE > - and do they vilify the writings excluded in the 4th century. where are your etchings in stone made during the period for the events from early to mid 1st century. the corruption does not need to be rampant to be effective. they had their way in the 4th the same as having their way from that time to the present.

That's funny, because they specifically compared the current day, in my hands, Bible, to the fragments in the dead sea scrolls and they matched up.

So you say they are not the same... but the fact remains they are.

The earliest fragments of the bible is dated to several generations after the facts where supposed to have happened.

 

[Divine Wind]

Christians care about the ENTIRE Bible. Publishers offer copies of just the NT because there are people who want it for various reasons. You can also buy copies of just the OT, just the Gospels, just the individual books, just the ministry of Christ . . .

1) You say that like you speak for all denominations of Christianity.

2) So you agree adultery should be a death penalty offense? Do you avoid eating pork and shellfish?

 

[Andylusion]

You keep saying 4th century bible, but the Old Testament was of course written BC and most of the New Testament was written in the first century...which I'm sure you will say is part of the deception? I'm sure you're also dying to tell us what the disguised political agenda was as well. There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

.

There are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible, which aren't really necessary since the Bible itself is a compilation of historical writings by many authors. But again, cosmology, physics, biology, geology, etc. do not contradict biblical claims. Proof is not my point. Lack of contradiction is. And though you may think it is funny, I'm still not joking.

- do not contradict biblical claims ... Proof is not my point


oh,"there are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible", prey tell what may they be ...

the christian bible was created in the late 4th century and is a political agenda disguised as a religion, the 1st century died in the 4th. the history of oppression and persecution from that time to the present is the empirical evidence for the deception.

there are no etchings in stone or reliefs in pottery or written manuscripts from the time of any the literary verbal events by the individuals concerned verifying substance for any of the bibles claims. some may have been but the writings of the 4th are distortions by deliberation.

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

.

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

all 12 fragments - 400 BCE is not the 4th century bible, try 1CE > - and do they vilify the writings excluded in the 4th century. where are your etchings in stone made during the period for the events from early to mid 1st century. the corruption does not need to be rampant to be effective. they had their way in the 4th the same as having their way from that time to the present.

That's funny, because they specifically compared the current day, in my hands, Bible, to the fragments in the dead sea scrolls and they matched up.

So you say they are not the same... but the fact remains they are.

The earliest fragments of the bible is dated to several generations after the facts where supposed to have happened.

So, you are repeating yourself. So I will repeat myself.

The fragments dated 400 BCE, match exactly what I'm reading in my Bible today. Word for word.

This is 'fact'.

 

[Mudda]

.
- do not contradict biblical claims ... Proof is not my point


oh,"there are numerous extra biblical sources for the truth of the Bible", prey tell what may they be ...

the christian bible was created in the late 4th century and is a political agenda disguised as a religion, the 1st century died in the 4th. the history of oppression and persecution from that time to the present is the empirical evidence for the deception.

there are no etchings in stone or reliefs in pottery or written manuscripts from the time of any the literary verbal events by the individuals concerned verifying substance for any of the bibles claims. some may have been but the writings of the 4th are distortions by deliberation.

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

.

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

all 12 fragments - 400 BCE is not the 4th century bible, try 1CE > - and do they vilify the writings excluded in the 4th century. where are your etchings in stone made during the period for the events from early to mid 1st century. the corruption does not need to be rampant to be effective. they had their way in the 4th the same as having their way from that time to the present.

That's funny, because they specifically compared the current day, in my hands, Bible, to the fragments in the dead sea scrolls and they matched up.

So you say they are not the same... but the fact remains they are.

The earliest fragments of the bible is dated to several generations after the facts where supposed to have happened.

So, you are repeating yourself. So I will repeat myself.

The fragments dated 400 BCE, match exactly what I'm reading in my Bible today. Word for word.

This is 'fact'.

I'm talking about the NT. Written several generations after the facts.

 

[Andylusion]

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

.

The dead sea scrolls were written 400 BCE. They match up with the Bible perfectly.

Your claim is false.

all 12 fragments - 400 BCE is not the 4th century bible, try 1CE > - and do they vilify the writings excluded in the 4th century. where are your etchings in stone made during the period for the events from early to mid 1st century. the corruption does not need to be rampant to be effective. they had their way in the 4th the same as having their way from that time to the present.

That's funny, because they specifically compared the current day, in my hands, Bible, to the fragments in the dead sea scrolls and they matched up.

So you say they are not the same... but the fact remains they are.

The earliest fragments of the bible is dated to several generations after the facts where supposed to have happened.

So, you are repeating yourself. So I will repeat myself.

The fragments dated 400 BCE, match exactly what I'm reading in my Bible today. Word for word.

This is 'fact'.

I'm talking about the NT. Written several generations after the facts.

You said Bible. That means..... the Bible.

Further, there is no reason to assume that if the old testament, which of course is much older, is accurate to 400 BCE, that somehow the new testament, which is not nearly as old, is less accurate.

Moreover, the oldest semi-complete text is Papyrus 46, which is currently at the University of Michigan. This text contains all of Paul's letters, Hebrews and other parts of the New Testament Bible.

P46 is dated at 200 CE. That means it was only 130 years removed from the authors, since Hebrew was written 70 CE.

Now compare that to any other text of history.

The Gallic Wars By Julius Caesar: Written 75 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

The Histories of Herodotus: Written 400 BCE. Oldest manuscript 900 CE.

Homer’s Iliad: Written 800 BCE. Oldest manuscripts 400 BCE.

Annals by Roman historian and senator Tacitus: Written 100 CE. Oldest manuscript 1100 CE.

Are you claiming that Herodotus, The Gallic Wars, Homer, and Tacitus are all discredited? You would be laughed off the planet. No one anywhere would take you seriously.

Moreover, we only have 640 manuscripts of Homer. That's considered a lot.

We have over 5300 manuscripts of the Bible.

For you, or anyone to question the integrity of the Bible we have today, is ridiculous, because you would also have to completely write off every other ancient text we have.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Christians care about the ENTIRE Bible. Publishers offer copies of just the NT because there are people who want it for various reasons. You can also buy copies of just the OT, just the Gospels, just the individual books, just the ministry of Christ . . .

1) You say that like you speak for all denominations of Christianity.

2) So you agree adultery should be a death penalty offense? Do you avoid eating pork and shellfish?

No, I say that like I'm speaking for NO denominations, but rather like I'm speaking for the overarching tenets of Christianity, irregardless of the individual quibblings of humans (which quibblings, by the way, would probably mean nothing to anyone outside the denominations involved, despite the secular world's insistence on trying to pretend they are huge, doctrinal schisms).

I just had this discussion with my husband the other night, as a matter of fact. As a significantly newer Christian than myself, he wanted to know why we - Christians - didn't simply focus on the teachings and ministry of Christ while he was on Earth, but instead also included studies of the many centuries before Christ - the Old Testament - and the writings of the Apostles who lived after Christ had already died, been resurrected, and returned to Heaven.

I told him there were two reasons. The first is context. The ministry of Christ means nothing whatsoever if you don't know the history of why He came to Earth to be born, crucified, and resurrected, and what the old Covenant was which His sacrifice replaced. (By the way, if you're asking yourself right now, "Covenant? What the heck is she talking about?" then you don't know enough about Christianity to be questioning it or criticizing it, and need to take yourself off to a really good church to be educated before propounding any further on the topic.)

The second is that Christianity is a fairly complex endeavor, a deeply textured and nuanced system of beliefs intended to be applied to every moment of one's day. (Yes, I'm quite aware that the secular world insists on telling us that it's something one does merely in a church building on Sundays that should be separated from everyday life, but no true Christian should be asking or caring what the world thinks on the subject.) Christ's ministry on Earth only lasted about three years, and was never intended to encompass everything God had to say to us on the subject of how to be a Christian. Therefore, we also include other divinely inspired writings and prophecies that He provided for us. (Please don't even bother trying to haggle with me over who was and wasn't divinely inspired, and who should and shouldn't be included in the Bible. I didn't ask for your opinion on what and who to believe, and won't listen to it even if you insist on giving it to me, anyway.)

And finally, in response to your second "question", I have little to no interest in your snarky little "Aha!" cherrypickings, as they only show the truth of the saying that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." If you truly wish to pick apart the beliefs of Christianity based on your vast knowledge of it, may I suggest that you first acquire that vast knowledge and then come back and see me?

 

[Andylusion]

If you truly wish to pick apart the beliefs of Christianity based on your vast knowledge of it, may I suggest that you first acquire that vast knowledge and then come back and see me?

Oh my goodness that was funny. I like it. I LIKE IT!