it is the truth, no other book has stood the test of lasting over 2000 years with out being changed. And with all the advanced researchers and analysts in the world not one portion of the bible can or has been disproved. Your university science books need to be revised every year or so...I would trust the one with the better track record.
53 comments
You have no idea how the Bible has been created over time, do you? You don't know how the first canon didn't come about until about the fourth or fifth century, and many gospels were discarded. Parts of the Bible are still being discredited as far as whether they were added later or edited in by people other than the original, translations add new things in, and we're discovering new things about the historical context every day. A group of people actually sit down and vote on whether something seems likely or not, and sometimes it changes.
In other words, you fail.
Without being changed? erm... there's plenty of interpolations in the new testament, eg, the ending of Mark, 1 thessalonians 2.15-16, 1 corinthians 14.33b-35...
it is the truth, no book has stood the test of lasting over 2000 years with out being changed.
Fixed.
Yep, no changes or variations, only 89 different current English versions, (that's right 89, it lists them all) at Bible.com.
No, fundies don't change the book; they change their perception of reality to conform to the book. Once you assume the existence of a magician who can do anything, you can make up any nonsense you want and it can't be disproved. Talking snakes? Magic trees? A flying mass of invisible spaghetti that creates things with his Noodly Appendage? Just say "goddidit".
This guy doesn't know much about the Qumran scrolls, or Eusebius, or the several different Biblical canons, or the fact that people have been arguing over various canonical books (particularly Revelation, but also others) for centuries, does he? And that's only the beginning...
it is the truth, no other book has stood the test of lasting over 2000 years with out being changed. But which one of the many Bible versions, in oh-so-many languages, is the unchanged one? The one you're using by any chance? Damned convenient.
And with all the advanced researchers and analysts in the world not one portion of the bible can or has been disproved. You really believe the Earth is flat and that whales are species of fish, then?
Your university science books need to be revised every year or so... The Bible is revised all the time, you just don't admit you're doing it. Science changes by admitting it's wrong - mythology changes by re-interpreting debunked portions as 'metaphors' and 'allegories'.
'The Earth must be flat, the Holy Book says so! ...Oh, the Earth's not flat after all? Oh well, it was just a metaphor anyhow '.
I would trust the one with the better track record. And this track record is measured in...?
no other book has stood the test of lasting over 2000 years with out being changed
HAHAHA!
I'm assuming this guy means the King James Bible, and probably considers all others to be fake, even though most are much better translations.
Even if it were true that the babble hasn't been changed in 2000 years (hah!), that's no reason to use it as a guidebook. After all, how we live and what we understand certainly has changed over time, making the rantings of primitive sheepherders increasingly irrelevant with each passing day.
Revising is good, because it means that it adapts to fit EVIDENCE. By the way, hasn´t it changed?, after how many translations?
Even if somehow you were a scholar of ancient languages, I'll wager your favorite bible is in English.
You stupid ass for brains.
The language you speak and read is incredibly different than the English that was spoken just 400 years ago, never mind the fact that there was no English language when people were writing what would eventually be incorporated in to the bible.
So if by unchanged, you mean mistranslated and taken out of historical context, then by all means Trust the one with the better track record of being misinterpreted, misused and misquoted.
... with all the advanced researchers and analysts in the world, not one portion of the bible can or has been disproved.
Sure it has. But fundies just invent stuff to get around any proof they're given. For example, when scientists found supernova SN1987 was 169,000 light years away and the Bible said the universe was only 6,000 year old, fundies said the speed of light must have changed or else space is warped and the supernova is really only 15 light year away. They have no evidence for either of these assertions. They haven't even looked for any, and don't intend to. They just say "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" and then invent out of thin air whatever baloney is needed to make the Bible appear "true".
it is the truth, no other book has stood the test of lasting over 2000 years with out being changed.
Apparently nobody's told him of the dozens of different versions of the Bible out there.
And with all the advanced researchers and analysts in the world not one portion of the bible can or has been disproved.
Lot of it hasn't been proven either. Especially that Genesis stuff.
Your university science books need to be revised every year or so...I would trust the one with the better track record.
You have no clue what science is, do you?
Besides, no other book has remained unchanged(a lie)so many years, but what get you from that fact?, because I am supposed to use the one in the NT(in a spiritual sense, not much science, bogus or not), which is updated after, how many translations from how many languages?, yes, I don´t expect to use it to do my daily life, or heal me from a sickness. I just want it as a moral guideline supplier, nothing more, nothing less. However, with those "revised" books, we build airplanes, computers, we make antibiotics...................long live change!!!!
Your university science books need to be revised every year or so. I'll never get over how science's improvements count against science to the fundies. If I made a new fighter jet and a year later upgraded it, does that in itself say anything bad about either design? Nope. They're just getting revised to perform better.
Er, you're wrong there. Just looking at a ladybug, a bat and a rabbit disproves chunks of Genesis. In fact, here is not a shred of evidence for anything at all in the Bible ever happening.
The various versions & translations of the Bible, plus the First Council of Nicea, show that the Bible has undergone alteration. I'm not sure where you get your information, but it is all completely wrong.
I'd tell you that myself, but YouTube is blocked at work. So I suppose today is not the day to shatter your self-inflicted fantasy.
Except the times the Bible was changed.
Isn't something not being changed in 2000 years a bad sign? Could you imagine if medical journals were written with the knowledge of 2000 years ago? That'd completely suck, I fucking hate leeches.
Wait... over 2000 years? Ignoring the literally hundreds of older texts (including some of the scriptures of Zoroastrians, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Hindus, Taoists, Jews etc...), and assuming he's not way off on everything else... Well, Jesus started his ministry at around 30, the Babble says. Assuming a seven-year margin of error regarding Jesus of Nazareth's birth, in untouchblz' favour, that still puts the Bible's publication date a good decade before Jesus even began preaching, let alone dying/resurrecting/whatever. Now that's a fucking miracle.
My list up there got me thinking... How many religions are actually younger than Christianity? Ignoring pagan revivalism and postmodern/satirical religions, I can only count 4: Buddhism (by a tight margin), Islam, Baha'i, Scientology. I must have missed something though, surely?
Wait... over 2000 years? Ignoring the literally hundreds of older texts (including some of the scriptures of Zoroastrians, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Hindus, Taoists, Jews etc...), and assuming he's not way off on everything else... Well, Jesus started his ministry at around 30, the Babble says. Assuming a seven-year margin of error regarding Jesus of Nazareth's birth, in untouchblz' favour, that still puts the Bible's publication date a good decade before Jesus even began preaching, let alone dying/resurrecting/whatever. Now that's a fucking miracle.
My list up there got me thinking... How many religions are actually younger than Christianity? Ignoring pagan revivalism and postmodern/satirical religions, I can only count 4: Buddhism (by a tight margin), Islam, Baha'i, Scientology. I must have missed something though, surely?
Myths and legends, fairy tales and stories need no revising as they are just as much make-believe today as they were yesterday, a decade ago, a century ago, a millennium ago.
Books that describe reality need revising as we find new things about it all the time.
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.