Where did God come from?

Originally posted by frogstomp
None of your inane banter matters , silly man. the evidence is there if you look for it, Your asinine assertion that anybody that has seen the evidence is claiming a conspiracy is becoming more absurd as i see more and more evidence from the distance past.
Since I am not an atheist the rest of your attempt to trash ...[text shortened]... ma Elish, the Sumerian Kings list,, Xiusudra Flood for starters do your own research.

I've seen most of it and I've given you a reason. Same God, different flavors. That's why He appeared to Moses, to set things straight.

Originally posted by Darfius
Because I agreed with his assessment...

He didn't contradict my point in any way.

Wait.

What?

You agreed that we have no original inspired text? That all the editions of the
Bible are necessarily flawed because they were transmitted (evidently incorrectly
in many place) poorly?

Did you really read my post, particularly the last sentence (that there is no such
thing as an unflawed Bible)?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
I've seen most of it and I've given you a reason. Same God, different flavors. That's why He appeared to Moses, to set things straight.

so the trinity is Vanilla , Strawberry and Chocolate?
or is god Pistaschio, a bit nutty?
He appeared to Moses to tell him to steal the story of Sargon's childhood?
And to rewrite Xiusudra flood story ?

Are you sure He wasnt unflavored Yogurt?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Wait.

What?

You agreed that we have no original inspired text? That all the editions of the
Bible are necessarily flawed because they were transmitted (evidently incorrectly
in many place) poorly?

Did you really read my post, particularly the last sentence (that there is no such
thing as an unflawed Bible)?

Nemesio

I agree. The originals were flawless and we don't have them, so everything else is necessarily flawed. My argument was that it got nearer to perfection the closer you get to the originals. The KJV is far from that.

However, this is restricted to a few copyists' errors. Nothing salvational.

Originally posted by Darfius
I agree. The originals were flawless and we don't have them, so everything else is necessarily flawed. My argument was that it got nearer to perfection the closer you get to the originals. The KJV is far from that.

However, this is restricted to a few copyists' errors. Nothing salvational.

Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others.
Buddha (563 BC - 483 BC)

Originally posted by Darfius
I agree. The originals were flawless and we don't have them, so everything else is necessarily flawed. My argument was that it got nearer to perfection the closer you get to the originals. The KJV is far from that.

However, this is restricted to a few copyists' errors. Nothing salvational.

How does one know that the originals were flawless? Or is this a matter of faith?

Originally posted by Maustrauser
How does one know that the originals were flawless? Or is this a matter of faith?

It's both faith and a natural inference. The current editions are damn near perfect, so...

Not too shabby for a Book written by over 40 different authors over thousands of years on 3 continents.

Kings...slaves...farmers...fishermen...

Not too shabby at all.

Originally posted by Darfius
I agree. The originals were flawless and we don't have them, so everything else is necessarily flawed. My argument was that it got nearer to perfection the closer you get to the originals. The KJV is far from that.

However, this is restricted to a few copyists' errors. Nothing salvational.

So, for example, you would not consider St Mark 16:9-20 to
be inspired, since it was a 2nd century addition.

Or the 21st chapter of St John?

Or the parable of the woman caught in adultery (St John 8ish)?

Let's be clear here.

And, by the way, the older manuscripts have a lot of disagreement
(an average of some 60% verses have disagreement from ancient
manuscript to manuscript).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius

The OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek. What are you talking about?

What I mean is that the content of the LXX & the MT are not 100% the same

Here is a quote from the following website

http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

Some of the differences between the LXX and MT crop up in the New Testament (NT), which draws extensively, but not exclusively, from the LXX. The meaning of the theological vocabulary of the NT is interlocked with that of the LXX, especially in the Pauline writings, and the peculiarities of the LXX are readily apparent in NT quotations. Notable is LXX Isaiah 7.14, which promises that a virgin will be with child. MT Isaiah 7.14 reports her merely as a "woman" (Heb: almah). Thus the argument behind Matthew 1.23, which cites this verse as a prophecy of Jesus Christ, only makes sense given the reading in the LXX. This, and examples like it, prompted early Christians to attribute to the LXX a special status, so as to safeguard the authority of the NT. As a result, the differences between the LXX and MT directly contributed to the distinct directions Judaism and Christianity took in Late Antiquity.


The Gospel of Thomas was clearly the result of Gnostic thinking. The Gnostics were heretics that formed soon after the true church of Christ (not the Catholics, but the body of believers)..
Yes, the Holy Spirit selectively edited, using Palestinian Jews and the council of Catholics

Here is another site that you mght find interesting which goes into some detail about the formation of NT canon

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

I don't deny that men put the ink to the surface

But the Holy Spirit directly inspired every word they wrote.

Even so, man has a propensity for making errors, if you don't believe this, then re read that paragraph that I quoted earlier a few times. Then without looking at it, see if you can type it up.


And what would they have to gain through lying?

Not everybody is as honest as you or I. When you consider the number of dodgy cults that there are in the world today, or miracle preachers (like that beaver tail hair style Benny Hinn) that are just after power or money. Then one should at least admit there is a slight possibility that Jesus & his merry band of men could have also been up to the same old tricks.

Even if it is all genuine, positions of power often attract cleverer people, who mold & use this power to further there own agendas. Look at modern day political spin for examples of bending the truth (WMD etc...) This is true today, it was true 1000 years ago, and it would also be true in Jesus time.

Aside from death of course.

Yes and a lot of other people in this world have also died for their beliefs, So what is your point ?

Why? Have you read the Gospels?

Obviously not as much as you, but I've read enough

(Here is another site that I'm sure that you will like
http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-5g.htm)

What man or group of men could have His insight? His genius?

Aesop, Confucius, Mencius, Aristotle, Socrates, Sun Tzu etc....

Originally posted by Nemesio
So, for example, you would not consider St Mark 16:9-20 to
be inspired, since it was a 2nd century addition.

Or the 21st chapter of St John?

Or the parable of the woman caught in adultery (St John 8ish)?

Let's be clear here.

And, by the way, the older manuscripts have a lot of disagreement
(an average of some 60% verses have disagreement from ancient
manuscript to manuscript).

Nemesio

Where is your proof of this?

Originally posted by Darfius
Where is your proof of this?

Bump

Originally posted by Darfius
Where is your proof of this?

This isn't proof, because your level of proof is beyond anything on this earth.

But a nice exposition on Nemesio's comments can be found here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

Henry

Originally posted by Jay Peatea
From what I read on the net the Greek & Hebrew texts only agree with each other 95% of the time. Obviously I can't confirm this from personel experience, as I can't read greek or herbrew. But certainly it seems feasible. Also there are other regilious text that never made the NT, The gospel of St thomas etc... The fact that there are such things indicat ...[text shortened]... fabrication. I doubt very much that Jesus did things exactly the same as is stated in the bible.

You are looking at this from a naturalist bias. If God directly inspired the texts, then there would be no error, even if men actually moved the pen.