Originally posted by joelek
Well, the arguments I've made could come from any version of the Bible I've ever read. I've read from several, though admittedly not all. If you'd care to quote John 1 from some version that doesn't support my arguments, go ahead.
Otherwise, you're just saying that maybe, somewhere, exists some supposed Bible version that might refute my argument. If that's your argument, there's no point bringing "the Bible" into any of your arguments.
From the Aramic Bible,
1. In the beginning of creation
there was the Manifestation;
And that Manifestation was with God;
and God was the embodiment of that Manifestation.
This could the bible itself. The bible could be a manifestation, it could be with god, and god could be the embodiment of that manifestation.
Perhaps somewhere along the line, someone decided that the word embodiment was too big and dropped it.
But, that still doesn't quell my previous concern regarding the verification of the originality of the content, after which the veracity can be examined.
That is to say that, the bible is known to have been edited by the Roman Catholic Church a few times.
The bible's account of hell was not quite so vivid until Dante's Inferno was published.
It's quite Ironic how most of that actually ended up in the bible, given the fact that the author had put the priests at the very depths of hell for hypocrisy.