Bible tampered with.

Originally posted by josephw
True. God preserves His Word by several methods. One is by the multiplicity of copies.

What's the earliest copy that still exists? What was in the copy before that is to some extent uncertain.

Originally posted by FMF
What's the earliest copy that still exists? What was in the copy before that is to some extent uncertain.

Not uncertain.

What you fail to understand is that from the original autographs to this very day the Word of God is perfectly intact. What most people fail to understand about the Word of a God is that it wasn't the writers that were inspired, but the Words themselves. Through the process of the multiplicity of copies is God's Word kept until this day. If it were not true that God's Word is preserved then the Word of God is no more than just a lie. An untenable prospect to say the least.

That is the fact.

The untruth is that due to the existence of corrupted copies is the idea that God's Word is unreliable as the truth. We have the truth. Those who question the truth and reliability of God's Word are missing the truth. They can't see the forest from the trees. As much as they may think they have done their homework they really have just bought into the lie. There is ample evidence that the Bible contains God's Word, inerrant and without flaw.

God cannot lie. If God says He preserves His Word, that it is settled in heaven, and that not one jot or tittle will pass away, who and what are you going to believe?

God cannot lie. If one doesn't believe that, then the converse is that they believe a lie.

"What's the earliest copy that still exists?"

The Alexandrian. But it is corrupt. Some seem to think that the oldest copies are the most reliable, but why should one think that? Being the oldest doesn't signify more reliable. The proof of reliability is whether the manuscripts in existence are in agreement.

I recommend you get a copy of William Brady's book Final Authority.

Originally posted by josephw
The proof of reliability is whether the manuscripts in existence are in agreement.

How do we know they are in agreement with the manuscripts that came before the earliest ones in existence?

Originally posted by josephw
What most people fail to understand about the Word of a God is that it wasn't the writers that were inspired, but the Words themselves.

You contend that the writers of the Bible were not inspired by God?

Originally posted by sonship

If you don't want to believe in black holes be my guest,

Could you please quote me where I said I did not or did not want to believe in black holes ?

I said it was a far-fetched concept. I followed that by saying I believe that something far-fetched exists.

Yep, didn't read your post properly, mea culpa

Originally posted by josephw
Not uncertain.

What you fail to understand is that from the original autographs to this very day the Word of God is perfectly intact. What most people fail to understand about the Word of a God is that it wasn't the writers that were inspired, but the Words themselves. Through the process of the multiplicity of copies is God's Word kept until this day. I ...[text shortened]... the lie. There is ample evidence that the Bible contains God's Word, inerrant and without flaw.

But where does one find this inerrant word of God? You already admit the existence of flawed copies of the Bible, so looking in a Bible isn't going to help us. Is the inerrant word of God only to be found in an interpretation of the Bible? If so, whose interpretation and how do we know their interpretation is the correct one?
I am yet to find two Christians that interpret the Bible in the exact same way.

Originally posted by FMF
How do we know they are in agreement with the manuscripts that came before the earliest ones in existence?

You must not be paying attention because your question above reflects a complete misunderstanding of what I said previously.

Or you do understand and are deliberately obfuscating.

So which is it?

Originally posted by FMF
You contend that the writers of the Bible were not inspired by God?

2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Holy men of God were moved, or carried, by the Holy Ghost, not inspired.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The scripture is "God breathed", or inspired of God.

The words are inspired. The men were moved. Subtle difference, but important. Man is carried, or moved, by the inspired Word of God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But where does one find this inerrant word of God? You already admit the existence of flawed copies of the Bible, so looking in a Bible isn't going to help us. Is the inerrant word of God only to be found in an interpretation of the Bible? If so, whose interpretation and how do we know their interpretation is the correct one?
I am yet to find two Christians that interpret the Bible in the exact same way.

"But where does one find this inerrant word of God?"

The incorruptible and inerrant Word of God will find you. That's the end result for the one who seeks to know the truth. The truth is seeking you out. When the truth finds you how will you respond? Unbelief yields no truth, but faith opens the door.

"I am yet to find two Christians that interpret the Bible in the exact same way."

True perception. Let the Word of God say what it says instead of injecting into the text a preconceived idea of what one wants it to say. Doctrinal agendas and failure to study leads to error. Just like everything else in life.

Originally posted by josephw
True perception. Let the Word of God say what it says instead of injecting into the text a preconceived idea of what one wants it to say. Doctrinal agendas and failure to study leads to error. Just like everything else in life.

So basically you believe you are the one person in the world who has got it right. Given that you clearly have just about everything else you ever talk about quite seriously wrong, why should I believe you on this?

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]So basically you believe you are the one person in the world who has got it right.

"So basically you believe you are the one person in the world who has got it right."

The biggest narcissist you ever met! 😵
I'm just like everyone else. Probably wrong about 90% of the time. Sounds to me as if you don't have a counter argument against what I'm saying about the Word of God. Is that why you're using the tact of belittling me?

"Given that you clearly have just about everything else you ever talk about quite seriously wrong, why should I believe you on this?"

Am I to take it that you are always right about everything else when I'm wrong about everything else?

I'm wrong because I believe in God and you don't?

Whatever.

Originally posted by josephw
You must not be paying attention because your question above reflects a complete misunderstanding of what I said previously.

Or you do understand and are deliberately obfuscating.

So which is it?

I am being crystal clear.

I asked "What's the earliest copy that still exists? What was in the copy before that is to some extent uncertain."

You replied: "The proof of reliability is whether the manuscripts in existence are in agreement."

So I asked: "How do we know they are in agreement with the manuscripts that came before the earliest ones in existence?"

This you answered with a deflection.

Originally posted by josephw
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Holy men of God were moved, or carried, by the Holy Ghost, not inspired.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instructio ...[text shortened]... moved. Subtle difference, but important. Man is carried, or moved, by the inspired Word of God.

So, let me get this clear, you contend that men wrote the content of the Bible without actually being inspired by God?

Originally posted by josephw
I didn't say it said it wasn't tampered with.

I said God says He preserves His Word.

You need to know this. It's essential. But first you need to know God exists. 😕

In order to see that it's true, I must first believe it's true? Hm, something fishy going on here.

Originally posted by FMF
I am being crystal clear.

I asked "What's the earliest copy that still exists? What was in the copy before that is to some extent uncertain."

You replied: "The proof of reliability is whether the manuscripts in existence are in agreement."

So I asked: "How do we know they are in agreement with the manuscripts that came before the earliest ones in existence?"

This you answered with a deflection.

"I am being crystal clear."

But your understanding is foggy.

"This you answered with a deflection."

Did not! The deflection occurred in your mind. You seem to not understand simple sentences. I answered your question, but you obviously didn't understand the answer.