Can you be religious and pro science and technology?

[Mudda]

Jesus was gay, that's why they killed him.

Hashev says that Jesus got head from the woman at the well.

Got anything other than gossip?

- Jesus only hung around with guys.
- Jesus wore a dress.
- Jesus only banged a girl once, and "once" means he didn't like it.
- Jesus rode a donkey, which was usually reserved for women and slaves, and we know he wasn't a slave.
- Jesus is always depicted as being buff.
As well:
- The direct descendant of Jesus' teachings, the Catholic church, is rife with butt pluggers.
- God threw Adam out of Eden because Adam preferred having hetero sex with Eve rather than stay in gay heaven with god.

And he seemed to like to drink and party with sinners and female prostitutes, and kept all sorts of bad company. A wild and crazy guy. Hardly a threat to national security or the established order or someone even worthy of notice, unless there was something terrifying and explosive hidden in the crazy things he said.. Its not like no one else ever ran amok in roman occupied Judea.

BTW, Not all his followers were men.

That is a false image of Jesus perpetuated by those who forsake woman, wear dresses, and worship God in the form of a man and then get on their knees and eat his flesh.

The romans crucified people for for being a thief, so they just had to dislike Jesus for whatever reason and poof, he's nailed to wood. And one of his own gave him up for a few bucks, so he couldn't have had that big of an impact on people.

Right, just another loony who didn't know when to shut up.

How did it get from that, to a worldwide religion? Why did the romans turn this particular loony into an edible mangod ?

Control and moolah. Religion was just another tool in the toolbox of dominance.

 

[BreezeWood]

OK, so you admit that he must have existed. Good for you.

If its all about about control and money, why did a movement that had no control or money threaten those who already had all of the control and money to the core?

Not "must have" existed, but more like possibly with gusts to probably, lol. But there is no proof whatsoever that he ever did anything. And if he actually got crucified, it was probably because the people with all the money were afraid of those without who would come and take it from them. But they could have just as easily scapegoated Jesus at random and made all the stories about him up.

Sure there is. Those same 24,000 written manuscripts tell the account. The accuracy between the copies is astonishing.

They printed 4 million copies of the book 1984, AND THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!!! Astonishing!!

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

.

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

epic as well for the manuscripts that were discarded in the 4th century to write the NT, were those included in your 24000 copies.

 

[ding]

There are over 24,000 written manuscripts of proof. The early Christians wrote about Him. Jewish historians have written about about Him and secular historians have written about Him.

Books of fiction aren't proof, please try again.

The NT isn't fiction. It is the historical account of the ministry of Jesus Christ.

Yes, buried and hidden in a fairy tale.

To know what he actually taught and to know what even happened you have to decipher the coded language, by thinking hard and digging deeply......

No one ever turned water into wine, walked on water, cured the crippled, healed the sick or raised the dead with a word except figuratively.

To believe that any of those things literally happened is to believe a lie.



"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again."

Why do you believe it is a lie?

Because this is the earth, not fantasyland.

And because there is a rational way to interpret every single miracle of Jesus that conforms to reality and does not require a belief in the supernatural or the suspension of disbelief.

It really isn't that great a leap of intelligence to understand that giving sight to the blind was never about restoring vision but perception. Do not be dismayed. The fact that the miracles were never intended to be taken literally by intelligent people does not make them any less miraculous.

It would be like your mind suddenly being opened to the realization that God cannot be eaten.

Now that would be a miracle!

You mean miraculous like the universe starting in a hot dense state roughly a million billion billion times smaller than a single atom and eventually becoming self aware? There is much we do not know about the physical universe. Quantum mechanics makes all things that are possible.... probable. Who are you to say His miracles were not possible? I accept the accounts without the need to rationalize my own explanation. Why? Because I have tested it and He has transformed me. According to you, I must not be intelligent. I know that is not true. And no, if it is as you say, then it does make it less miraculous.

 

[ding]

OK, so you admit that he must have existed. Good for you.

If its all about about control and money, why did a movement that had no control or money threaten those who already had all of the control and money to the core?

Not "must have" existed, but more like possibly with gusts to probably, lol. But there is no proof whatsoever that he ever did anything. And if he actually got crucified, it was probably because the people with all the money were afraid of those without who would come and take it from them. But they could have just as easily scapegoated Jesus at random and made all the stories about him up.

Sure there is. Those same 24,000 written manuscripts tell the account. The accuracy between the copies is astonishing.

They printed 4 million copies of the book 1984, AND THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!!! Astonishing!!

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

.

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

epic as well for the manuscripts that were discarded in the 4th century to write the NT, were those included in your 24000 copies.

No. They weren't. So what?

 

[ding]

edible mangod ?

You mean like manna from heaven?

 

[BreezeWood]

Not "must have" existed, but more like possibly with gusts to probably, lol. But there is no proof whatsoever that he ever did anything. And if he actually got crucified, it was probably because the people with all the money were afraid of those without who would come and take it from them. But they could have just as easily scapegoated Jesus at random and made all the stories about him up.

Sure there is. Those same 24,000 written manuscripts tell the account. The accuracy between the copies is astonishing.

They printed 4 million copies of the book 1984, AND THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!!! Astonishing!!

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

.

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

epic as well for the manuscripts that were discarded in the 4th century to write the NT, were those included in your 24000 copies.

No. They weren't. So what?

.

No. They weren't. So what?

So what ...

the historical record from that time to the present for the deception of the 4th century to disguise their agenda as a religion speaks for itself and those who continue to deny its legacy rather than righting their wrong.

 

[ding]

Sure there is. Those same 24,000 written manuscripts tell the account. The accuracy between the copies is astonishing.

They printed 4 million copies of the book 1984, AND THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!!! Astonishing!!

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

.

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

epic as well for the manuscripts that were discarded in the 4th century to write the NT, were those included in your 24000 copies.

No. They weren't. So what?

.

No. They weren't. So what?

View attachment 111443

So what ...

the historical record from that time to the present for the deception of the 4th century to disguise their agenda as a religion speaks for itself and those who continue to deny its legacy rather than righting their wrong.

You are like a broken record.

 

[BreezeWood]

They printed 4 million copies of the book 1984, AND THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!!! Astonishing!!

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

.

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

epic as well for the manuscripts that were discarded in the 4th century to write the NT, were those included in your 24000 copies.

No. They weren't. So what?

.

No. They weren't. So what?

View attachment 111443

So what ...

the historical record from that time to the present for the deception of the 4th century to disguise their agenda as a religion speaks for itself and those who continue to deny its legacy rather than righting their wrong.

You are like a broken record.

.

You are like a broken record.

that's called the legacy of christianity ... not everyone is so enamored as you.

 

[ding]

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

.

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

epic as well for the manuscripts that were discarded in the 4th century to write the NT, were those included in your 24000 copies.

No. They weren't. So what?

.

No. They weren't. So what?

View attachment 111443

So what ...

the historical record from that time to the present for the deception of the 4th century to disguise their agenda as a religion speaks for itself and those who continue to deny its legacy rather than righting their wrong.

You are like a broken record.

.

You are like a broken record.

that's called the legacy of christianity ... not everyone is so enamored as you.

I see. Anything else?

Christian Charities

 

[Mudda]

They printed 4 million copies of the book 1984, AND THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!!! Astonishing!!

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

.

Your ability to misapply context is epic. The irony of your choice of using 1984 as your example was ironic.

epic as well for the manuscripts that were discarded in the 4th century to write the NT, were those included in your 24000 copies.

No. They weren't. So what?

.

No. They weren't. So what?

View attachment 111443

So what ...

the historical record from that time to the present for the deception of the 4th century to disguise their agenda as a religion speaks for itself and those who continue to deny its legacy rather than righting their wrong.

You are like a broken record.

And this is its opening song:
"Their religion is socialism which worships big government and social policy. It is based on atheism and deification of man. It proceeds in almost all its manifestations from the assumption that the basic principles guiding the life of an individual and of mankind in general do not go beyond the satisfaction of material needs or primitive instincts. They have no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. Their doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and communality or equality. The religious nature of socialism explains its extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural marxism and normalization of deviance. Their hostility towards traditional religions is that of an animosity towards a rival religion. They can be identified by an external locus of control. They worship science but are the first to reject it."

 

[hobelim]

Who are you to say His miracles were not possible? I accept the accounts without the need to rationalize my own explanation. Why? Because I have tested it and He has transformed me. According to you, I must not be intelligent. I know that is not true. And no, if it is as you say, then it does make it less miraculous.

Thats fine with me. If you can go through life having read a story thats proclaims to be about a matter of eternal life or death without thinking very deeply about it, goodie for you. You were never transformed, you were lobotomized.

And its not about me rationalizing and making something up out of nothing. I have taken from what is there and revealed new meaning, hidden teaching, that you did not know was there before without adding or subtracting a single word. Hidden truth that renders your entire belief system silly and obsolete. You can't say its not there, I have shown it to you. You can't say its irrelevant, it is teaching drawn from the very words of of the man you call God.

And if you really want to know, 'just believing' dogma established in 325 c.e. by superstitious gentiles completely ignorant about Jewish thought, belief, and literary expressions, without thinking very deeply about it, really it isn't very smart at all..

You have confused faith with obstinate stupidity.

Even so, whether you like it or not, munching on Godflesh every Sunday will never be the same.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

Oh yes of course. Most of the original documents are written in Greek, and thus Greek manuscripts are the ones listed.

But if you also look at all the translation made into other languages, honestly it's hard to put a number on how many there are, but tens of thousands is very accurate.

Regardless, most of the ancient texts we consider beyond doubt, have only a few manuscripts that exist.

In fact there are some Shakespeare plays that we have barely anything left of them, and yet we still consider all of them genuine Shakespeare.

The whole idea that "we can't trust the Bible" is, from an intellectual, professional, and scientific stand point, is simply an indefensible claim. End of line. Game over.

So your proof is that other books have just as shady a provenance than the bible does, so the bible must be true. Um...no.

Well if you want to call all the other ancient texts to be all "shady". That's fine. Your choice. But there are literally thousands of people who study ancient texts that would laugh you off the planet. You would be considered the nut case, that you claim I am.

If that's the reputation you want, by all means go to all the universities, and promote your view. See how long that lasts. Take videos by the way. It will make a great youtube clip.

 

[Mudda]

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.

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

Oh yes of course. Most of the original documents are written in Greek, and thus Greek manuscripts are the ones listed.

But if you also look at all the translation made into other languages, honestly it's hard to put a number on how many there are, but tens of thousands is very accurate.

Regardless, most of the ancient texts we consider beyond doubt, have only a few manuscripts that exist.

In fact there are some Shakespeare plays that we have barely anything left of them, and yet we still consider all of them genuine Shakespeare.

The whole idea that "we can't trust the Bible" is, from an intellectual, professional, and scientific stand point, is simply an indefensible claim. End of line. Game over.

So your proof is that other books have just as shady a provenance than the bible does, so the bible must be true. Um...no.

Well if you want to call all the other ancient texts to be all "shady". That's fine. Your choice. But there are literally thousands of people who study ancient texts that would laugh you off the planet. You would be considered the nut case, that you claim I am.

If that's the reputation you want, by all means go to all the universities, and promote your view. See how long that lasts. Take videos by the way. It will make a great youtube clip.

It's completely absurd to claim the bible is true because other books may or may not be true. Each book must be taken on its own merit. You therefore have no proof, just alternate facts.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

Oh yes of course. Most of the original documents are written in Greek, and thus Greek manuscripts are the ones listed.

But if you also look at all the translation made into other languages, honestly it's hard to put a number on how many there are, but tens of thousands is very accurate.

Regardless, most of the ancient texts we consider beyond doubt, have only a few manuscripts that exist.

In fact there are some Shakespeare plays that we have barely anything left of them, and yet we still consider all of them genuine Shakespeare.

The whole idea that "we can't trust the Bible" is, from an intellectual, professional, and scientific stand point, is simply an indefensible claim. End of line. Game over.

So your proof is that other books have just as shady a provenance than the bible does, so the bible must be true. Um...no.

Well if you want to call all the other ancient texts to be all "shady". That's fine. Your choice. But there are literally thousands of people who study ancient texts that would laugh you off the planet. You would be considered the nut case, that you claim I am.

If that's the reputation you want, by all means go to all the universities, and promote your view. See how long that lasts. Take videos by the way. It will make a great youtube clip.

It's completely absurd to claim the bible is true because other books may or may not be true. Each books must be taken on its own worth. You therefore have no proof, just alternate facts.

By all means, promote your claim to any major university you want. Take video. Let's see how that plan of your works. We'll see what all the experts of the world have to say is absurd. By all means. I will enjoy the show.

 

[Mudda]

5300 written in Greek. More than 19,000 in other languages.

Oh yes of course. Most of the original documents are written in Greek, and thus Greek manuscripts are the ones listed.

But if you also look at all the translation made into other languages, honestly it's hard to put a number on how many there are, but tens of thousands is very accurate.

Regardless, most of the ancient texts we consider beyond doubt, have only a few manuscripts that exist.

In fact there are some Shakespeare plays that we have barely anything left of them, and yet we still consider all of them genuine Shakespeare.

The whole idea that "we can't trust the Bible" is, from an intellectual, professional, and scientific stand point, is simply an indefensible claim. End of line. Game over.

So your proof is that other books have just as shady a provenance than the bible does, so the bible must be true. Um...no.

Well if you want to call all the other ancient texts to be all "shady". That's fine. Your choice. But there are literally thousands of people who study ancient texts that would laugh you off the planet. You would be considered the nut case, that you claim I am.

If that's the reputation you want, by all means go to all the universities, and promote your view. See how long that lasts. Take videos by the way. It will make a great youtube clip.

It's completely absurd to claim the bible is true because other books may or may not be true. Each books must be taken on its own worth. You therefore have no proof, just alternate facts.

By all means, promote your claim to any major university you want. Take video. Let's see how that plan of your works. We'll see what all the experts of the world have to say is absurd. By all means. I will enjoy the show.

You're a fucking doofus if you think you can prove the veracity of the bible by pointing to another book and saying "Look! That book is true, so the bible is true as well!" Go ahead, take that (non-)logic to a university and see what they say.

 

[Mudda]

Andy, here's a small test to see if the bible is true: how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and then back again after the flood?

 

[Andylusion]

Oh yes of course. Most of the original documents are written in Greek, and thus Greek manuscripts are the ones listed.

But if you also look at all the translation made into other languages, honestly it's hard to put a number on how many there are, but tens of thousands is very accurate.

Regardless, most of the ancient texts we consider beyond doubt, have only a few manuscripts that exist.

In fact there are some Shakespeare plays that we have barely anything left of them, and yet we still consider all of them genuine Shakespeare.

The whole idea that "we can't trust the Bible" is, from an intellectual, professional, and scientific stand point, is simply an indefensible claim. End of line. Game over.

So your proof is that other books have just as shady a provenance than the bible does, so the bible must be true. Um...no.

Well if you want to call all the other ancient texts to be all "shady". That's fine. Your choice. But there are literally thousands of people who study ancient texts that would laugh you off the planet. You would be considered the nut case, that you claim I am.

If that's the reputation you want, by all means go to all the universities, and promote your view. See how long that lasts. Take videos by the way. It will make a great youtube clip.

It's completely absurd to claim the bible is true because other books may or may not be true. Each books must be taken on its own worth. You therefore have no proof, just alternate facts.

By all means, promote your claim to any major university you want. Take video. Let's see how that plan of your works. We'll see what all the experts of the world have to say is absurd. By all means. I will enjoy the show.

You're a fucking doofus if you think you can prove the veracity of the bible by pointing to another book and saying "Look! That book is true, so the bible is true as well!" Go ahead, take that (non-)logic to a university and see what they say.

I don't think that was the original claim. At least not the claim I was arguing against.

The claim was that we can't trust that the Bible we have, is the Bible that was written.

If you want to argue that what was originally written is wrong... then that's a different argument.

But as far as suggesting that the Bible we have, is somehow drastically modified from what was the foundational basis of the early Christian church, and early Christian beliefs, that argument is false.

Take Homer’s Iliad for example. Is any part, or all of Homer's Iliad true? We could debate that. But is Homer's Iliad the real deal? Is it, what was originally written?

Well, people who study these ancient texts, have standards and requirements, by which they determine authenticity.

The standards by which they have proven the authenticity of Homer's Iliad, and numerous other ancient texts, the Bible not only meets all of them, but exceeds them many times over.

There is no question, no doubt, no debate by anyone of any authority, that the Bible we have today, is in fact the exact same text that was written 2,000 years ago.

You think what was written was wrong. And you have the right to be wrong about that. But short of blatant intellectual dishonesty, you can not argue the Bible has in any significant or meaningful way, changed from that which was written by the Authors.

In order for you to say that the Bible we have, isn't the same as the Bible that was written nearly 2,000 years ago, you would have to say that all ancient texts of the world, are frauds, and all the scholars, and Ph.d of academic study of these ancient texts, are also all frauds.

And that would make you a larger fool than you have claimed I am, by many times over... but it would still make a great youtube video to see you try and make that claim at a university.

 

[Andylusion]

Andy, here's a small test to see if the bible is true: how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and then back again after the flood?

Don't know. Is anything impossible for an all powerful G-d? He created the entire universe. Getting a couple of animals from A to B, to him, is much easier than Amtrak getting people from LA to Seattle.

 

[Mudda]

So your proof is that other books have just as shady a provenance than the bible does, so the bible must be true. Um...no.

Well if you want to call all the other ancient texts to be all "shady". That's fine. Your choice. But there are literally thousands of people who study ancient texts that would laugh you off the planet. You would be considered the nut case, that you claim I am.

If that's the reputation you want, by all means go to all the universities, and promote your view. See how long that lasts. Take videos by the way. It will make a great youtube clip.

It's completely absurd to claim the bible is true because other books may or may not be true. Each books must be taken on its own worth. You therefore have no proof, just alternate facts.

By all means, promote your claim to any major university you want. Take video. Let's see how that plan of your works. We'll see what all the experts of the world have to say is absurd. By all means. I will enjoy the show.

You're a fucking doofus if you think you can prove the veracity of the bible by pointing to another book and saying "Look! That book is true, so the bible is true as well!" Go ahead, take that (non-)logic to a university and see what they say.

I don't think that was the original claim. At least not the claim I was arguing against.

The claim was that we can't trust that the Bible we have, is the Bible that was written.

If you want to argue that what was originally written is wrong... then that's a different argument.

But as far as suggesting that the Bible we have, is somehow drastically modified from what was the foundational basis of the early Christian church, and early Christian beliefs, that argument is false.

Take Homer’s Iliad for example. Is any part, or all of Homer's Iliad true? We could debate that. But is Homer's Iliad the real deal? Is it, what was originally written?

Well, people who study these ancient texts, have standards and requirements, by which they determine authenticity.

The standards by which they have proven the authenticity of Homer's Iliad, and numerous other ancient texts, the Bible not only meets all of them, but exceeds them many times over.

There is no question, no doubt, no debate by anyone of any authority, that the Bible we have today, is in fact the exact same text that was written 2,000 years ago.

You think what was written was wrong. And you have the right to be wrong about that. But short of blatant intellectual dishonesty, you can not argue the Bible has in any significant or meaningful way, changed from that which was written by the Authors.

In order for you to say that the Bible we have, isn't the same as the Bible that was written nearly 2,000 years ago, you would have to say that all ancient texts of the world, are frauds, and all the scholars, and Ph.d of academic study of these ancient texts, are also all frauds.

And that would make you a larger fool than you have claimed I am, by many times over... but it would still make a great youtube video to see you try and make that claim at a university.

Ok, time for you to move the goalposts, no problem.
It doesn't really matter to me if the bible has stayed the same or not (the King James version sure didn't), but if you agree that it's a book of fiction, then we're on the same page.

 

[Mudda]

Andy, here's a small test to see if the bible is true: how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and then back again after the flood?

Don't know. Is anything impossible for an all powerful G-d? He created the entire universe. Getting a couple of animals from A to B, to him, is much easier than Amtrak getting people from LA to Seattle.

So you have no plausible theory, so you simply attribute all the nonsense in the bible to magic? Brah, you need to up your critical thinking game.
So if there's an all-powerful god looking out for us, why doesn't he cure cancer? Deformed babies? ...