I have seen plenty of Christian sites that say that we have copies of the NT dating back 2000 years ago, so I don't hink we can say they have been changed
44 comments
Wasn't there a big controversy in the church in the 1100s or so about whether Jesus had, in fact, been crucified? IIRC, they decreed that he was and that this was beyond question, so shut up and get back in line or we'll burn you for heresy.
Given the earliest NT books were authored 30 years after Christ's death, you're wrong by over 50 years and these weren't officially compiled for another 3 centuries. (not to mention most were written in the 2nd century)
You'd also be pleased to know there's at least threee different version of the Gospel of Mark with varying degrees of being edited - there was material about Christ spending the night with a man who loved him, which was removed.
I've got a bible that is only a few years old. It hasn't been changed either. But the stories in it have been subject to political, social and religious editing to make them fit the standards of that time, or to make them useful in prosecuting someone.
I think the very oldest fragment of a book which ended up being included in the NT dates from about the beginning of the 4th century.
You really need to use some non-Christian sites to check your information. A lot of Christians sites confuse "It's a fact" with "I really, really *wish* this were a fact."
Considering the fact that the new testament was fully "scripturalized" until the 6th century, CE, I would love to see those 2000 year old "copies" of the new testament.
Even more, they must be entirely "new testaments", since the originals, of which there are none left, were all written no more than 1940 years ago, most 1850 or so.
You people are a work of fucking art, your a bunch of losers, lol, that's right, you wanna know the real me, I can run with the best of em' kid. You don't like what I have to say, then get the fuck out, otherwise, stick to your own mindless garbage about life, I am tired of the stupidity I see coming from people like you, does it make me a better person for treating you all like the piece of garbage you really are? No it doesn't, but sometimes, it feels so damn good.
Yea, it sucks when someone starts talking to you on your level doesn't it. I only wish you all the best, and mabey one day, you can come up here to my level and we can actually have a debate.
<<< Yea, it sucks when someone starts talking to you on your level doesn't it. >>>
Wouldn't know. None of you have tried that yet.
<<< you can come up here to my level and we can actually have a debate. >>>
Perhaps you're getting the impression that this is all we're capable of. Not so, it's just that your posts don't merit any more effort than just laughing.
Post something worth a serious response and you might get one. Until then, your posts will continue to get the response they deserve - namely, derisive laughter and mockery.
ok, I supose you are an Athiest correct? And you probly believe in Evolution correct?
science (sns)
n.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Well, since we know that you can't Observe Evolution, it isn't a science.
Now let's look at religion.
religion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I think that Evolution falls under catagory 4 don't you, I guess that makes Evolution a religion, and not a science.
Don't edit this again, or I will just keep reposting it. :)
Mabey one day you will learn how to write a proper sentance, using proper sentance structure.
BTW, nice job on editing my post, I guess I raise some eyebrows that you just didn't want to discuss didn't I, lol.
"W.T.F. ARE YOU ON??????????"
Well first of all, you don't captalize every letter in one sentance, and you don't add more than one question mark at the end of a sentance.
Which fucking post?
That is an imcomplete sentance.
What was edited?
What was incorrect with my sentence structure in your ever so humble and reliable opinion?
You did capitalize the word mabey, see.
"mabey one day, you'll learn to fucking spell."
P.S. Yours (#37866) had 10 errors!
P.S. I don't care, lol. I will repost my orignal argument, and we will see how long it takes to be brought down again.
ok, I supose you are an Athiest correct? And you probly believe in Evolution correct?
sciÂence (sns)
n.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Well, since we know that you can't Observe Evolution, it isn't a science.
Now let's look at religion.
reÂliÂgion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I think that Evolution falls under catagory 4 don't you, I guess that makes Evolution a religion, and not a science.
Don't edit this again, or I will just keep reposting it. :)
@BigShitFilm
"W.T.F. ARE YOU ON??????????"
Well first of all, you don't captalize every letter in one sentance, and you don't add more than one question mark at the end of a sentance.
YOU DO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING TO RETARDS, CAPICHE?????????????
No? Too bad!
@BigShitFilm
Which fucking post?
That is an imcomplete sentance.
Once again, ignoring the retard clause, you can or should remove redundant duplications if it is a direct sequitur. Given this is beyond you, let's try again:
Which one of your particularly, paifully inept, diabolically stupid posts, do you errantly believe has been edited?
Then perhaps you might care to elaborate on by whom, pray tell?
@BigShitFilm
What was incorrect with my sentence structure in your ever so humble and reliable opinion?
You did capitalize the word mabey, see.
Un-be-fucking-leeevable!
The use of italics implied a direct quote from your atrocious spelling!
I assume you mean didn't
It's really amazing you can concatenate the word 'not' to generic verbs to reverse their meaning and even reduce the number of syllables by removing the 'o'. The things you learn when you pay attention in school.
And finally, what in the name of all things fetid, is bouncing around in that miniscule intellect of yours to inspire you to post an unrelated load of shit, not once, not twice, but three fucking times?
BigChrisfilm #37904
<< "Never argue with a fool, because not only will he get you down to his level, he will beat you with experience." >>
-----------------------
That's a wise warning, all the more so because Chris at least acknowledges himself as a fool -- assuming he actually posted this, and this wasn't just someone else posting under his name to mock him.
~David D.G.
<<< The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Well, since we know that you can't Observe Evolution, it isn't a science. >>>
It's been observed. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria, for one.
<<< I think that Evolution falls under catagory 4 don't you, I guess that makes Evolution a religion, and not a science. >>>
Nope. For one, whether #4 applies will vary from person to person, so it's not applicable for declaring something a religion in general. Secondly, you're welcome to wallow in your delusions all you want - so long as the theory to which all known evidence points (evolution) is taught as such and your delusions are not taught in public science classes (I'd personally prefer them to be taught as examples of how NOT to apply the scientific method, but either way is fine with me). If you don't want to believe it, fine - just don't expect to hold back everyone else at the same time.
<<Quote>>ok, I supose you are an Athiest correct? And you probly believe in Evolution correct?
science (sns)
n.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Well, since we know that you can't Observe Evolution, it isn't a science.
Now let's look at religion.
religion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I think that Evolution falls under catagory 4 don't you, I guess that makes Evolution a religion, and not a science.
Don't edit this again, or I will just keep reposting it. :)
<</quote>>
Nice try. While the process of evolution itself is not easily observable, it is possible to observe fossils and living creatures, and that they have adapted for their environments and changed over the years. Evolutionary theory can be used to make predictions, and genetics (which are inseperable from evolution) have been used in plant and animal husbandry for millenia.
Furthermore, the fourth definition of religion you have their is metaphorical. You can say something someone is utterly devoted to is their 'religion', - in the sense that you could someones 'religion' is football, but that doesn't mean it's an actual religion.
The Last Conformist: "The earliest manuscripts of the NT are from the 4th century, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus being the most important.\n\nThere's little to suggest there's been much changes between the originals and these codices."
You know not whereof you speaketh. Check out Bert Ehrman's books (latest being Jesus Interrupted, highly recommended!): we now know there are more changes, mistakes and alterations amid/between the early texts, than the whole of the NT has words!!!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.