How reliable a source...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
really and what bad thing have I done Randolf?

How does Conspiracy to Defraud grab you?

Originally posted by C Hess
Page 7 of this very thread.

But you did not give the link so anyone could check it out. What you quoted does not say that 22% of the original writings already reveal mistakes made in the bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But you did not give the link so anyone could check it out. What you quoted does not say that 22% of the original writings already reveal mistakes made in the bible.

I see, well, what I did there is a little something that I'd like to call: connect the dots.

OP: the only original sources remaining are the dead sea scrolls.
OP: the dead sea scrolls reveal translation and copy errors made in the oldest remaining texts used when putting the bible together.
Wikipedia: the dead sea scrolls only covers 22% of the bible's content.
Conclusion: therefore 22% of the original writings already reveal mistakes in the bible.
Question: how many more mistakes are there in the bible that we can't know about since no more original manuscripts remain?

Originally posted by C Hess
OP: the only original sources remaining are the dead sea scrolls.

I feel I have to point out that the dead sea scrolls are not original sources in any way, shape or form. They are merely the oldest copies known of certain parts of the Bible. Every other part of the Bible also has an 'oldest copy known', and there are no known existing original manuscripts for any part of the Bible.

Originally posted by C Hess
I see, well, what I did there is a little something that I'd like to call: connect the dots.

OP: the only original sources remaining are the dead sea scrolls.
OP: the dead sea scrolls reveal translation and copy errors made in the oldest remaining texts used when putting the bible together.
Wikipedia: the dead sea scrolls only covers 22% of the bible's c ...[text shortened]... takes are there in the bible that we can't know about since no more original manuscripts remain?

You have the wrong dots.

That explains why you have no faith in the Word of God. The topic concerning the preservation of God's Word has to do with the multiplicity of copies, and not in any recent discoveries of manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls.

The Word of God has never been incomplete or rife with errors to begin with. The tribe of Levi was responsible for the making of copies from the very start. And through the multiplicity of copies was the Word of God brought down to this day. After the Levites God used the prophets and Apostles to identify and copy and make from the original autographs multiple thousands of copies that spread throughout the world.

The Word of God, which is contained in a book we call the Bible, is the most preserved and reliable and prolific work of literature known to man.

But it gets complicated. If you have an open mind you'll appreciate this conceptualization: if the Bible contains the Word of God, and all that it says is true, then it only stands to reason that it would be attacked by those who fail to see the truth.

It gets more complicated. Since Westcott and Hort in the 1880's the Bible has been translated into over 1500 different English renditions. For copyright purposes each must be 20% different. That leaves a huge margine for error. Change the words and the meanings are changed. It's little wonder that since that time there has emerged over 50,000 new denominations, all claiming the truth, having doctrinal differences from each other.

It's a mess out there! It's the most complicated mess there is. Even global politics pale in comparison to the morass of religious belief systems.

So how does one find the truth? You don't. The truth will find you.

Isaiah 57:15
For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name [is] Holy; I dwell in the high and holy [place], with him also [that is] of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I feel I have to point out that the dead sea scrolls are not original sources in any way, shape or form. They are merely the oldest copies known of certain parts of the Bible. Every other part of the Bible also has an 'oldest copy known', and there are no known existing original manuscripts for any part of the Bible.

Precisely.

So how do we identify what is the Word of God and what isn't? Through the multiplicity of copies.

See my post above.

Originally posted by josephw
Precisely.

So how do we identify what is the Word of God and what isn't? Through the multiplicity of copies.

See my post above.

So if the Quran, or Book of Mormon were to sell more copies than the Bible, would you accept them as the Word of God?

Why is it that theists so often make arguments that they do not actually accept themselves? Here is a hint: whenever you make an argument, ask yourself if you would accept it yourself if applied to a religion other than your own.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I feel I have to point out that the dead sea scrolls are not original sources in any way, shape or form. They are merely the oldest copies known of certain parts of the Bible. Every other part of the Bible also has an 'oldest copy known', and there are no known existing original manuscripts for any part of the Bible.

An assumption on my part. Thank you for correcting me. Would it at least be fair to say that they're as close to the original writings that we have?

Originally posted by josephw
You have the wrong dots.

That explains why you have no faith in the Word of God. The topic concerning the preservation of God's Word has to do with the multiplicity of copies, and not in any recent discoveries of manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls.

The Word of God has never been incomplete or rife with errors to begin with. The tribe of Levi was ...[text shortened]... humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

The truth will find me? Well, in that case, I guess the truth is that there is no god.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So if the Quran, or Book of Mormon were to sell more copies than the Bible, would you accept them as the Word of God?

Why is it that theists so often make arguments that they do not actually accept themselves? Here is a hint: whenever you make an argument, ask yourself if you would accept it yourself if applied to a religion other than your own.

"So if the Quran, or Book of Mormon were to sell more copies than the Bible, would you accept them as the Word of God?"

Given the topic under discussion that question is moot by reason of it being hypothetically speculative.

"Why is it that theists so often make arguments that they do not actually accept themselves? Here is a hint: whenever you make an argument, ask yourself if you would accept it yourself if applied to a religion other than your own."

You need to learn, when discussing the things associated with God and spirituality, that the rules you attempt to apply are diametrically opposed to those that God uses to do His will in this world. Nothing you can say is going to change the way God works.

So you would be doing yourself a great favor by not being so self willed to the extent that you never see what God is doing, and has done, just for you.

What are you going to say to God when asks you why you dismissed His Word to you as myths and fables, and the writings of mere men?

Originally posted by C Hess
The truth will find me? Well, in that case, I guess the truth is that there is no god.

I'd like to meet this no god.

Can you give a description of it? Did you speak with no god and it told you the truth that it is no god?

Originally posted by C Hess
An assumption on my part. Thank you for correcting me. Would it at least be fair to say that they're as close to the original writings that we have?

Maybe, maybe not. We have no way of knowing. They are the oldest copies we have, but we don't know whether or not they were copied more accurately from common source documents than more recent copies were.

Originally posted by josephw
Given the topic under discussion that question is moot by reason of it being hypothetically speculative.

Avoiding the question I see. Why so dishonest? Are you not confident in your beliefs?

You need to learn, when discussing the things associated with God and spirituality, that the rules you attempt to apply are diametrically opposed to those that God uses to do His will in this world. Nothing you can say is going to change the way God works.

So you would be doing yourself a great favor by not being so self willed to the extent that you never see what God is doing, and has done, just for you.

What are you going to say to God when asks you why you dismissed His Word to you as myths and fables, and the writings of mere men?
I might point out that the people promoting his word were using the most ridiculous arguments that they themselves didn't believe, and behaving evasively when challenged. But as you well know, I am an atheist, and am not too concerned out such an outcome ever coming about, but at least I can give an answer, whereas you were unable to answer a hypothetical question.

Originally posted by josephw
What are you going to say to God when asks you why you dismissed His Word to you as myths and fables, and the writings of mere men?

Who appointed you judge?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Avoiding the question I see. Why so dishonest? Are you not confident in your beliefs?

[b]You need to learn, when discussing the things associated with God and spirituality, that the rules you attempt to apply are diametrically opposed to those that God uses to do His will in this world. Nothing you can say is going to change the way God works.

So y ...[text shortened]... t, but at least I can give an answer, whereas you were unable to answer a hypothetical question.

What convoluted nonsense you can produce!

How is it dishonest? I told you why I wouldn't answer.

You've been told repeatedly all these years the why and wherefore of virtually every conceivable question concerning spiritual matters and what the Word of God says about them, yet you cannot refrain from making it a personal matter in which you feel the need to deride my character with your insinuations of dishonesty, when it is you that is being disingenuous by not replying to those points made, not by me explicitly, but by what the Word of God actually says.

Instead you take clear statements and twist there meaning and then declare that "the people promoting his word were using the most ridiculous arguments that they themselves didn't believe, and behaving evasively when challenged."

Avoidance, blaiming, ridicule, name calling, dodging the question, denial and obfuscation is what those who do not believe what God's Word says about the many topics discussed in this forum do.

What else can you do, after all you don't have an alternative world view of any substance except to say we've evolved from who knows what and that we are merely animals like every other creature without a soul that dies and is forever forgotten. Death is the only thing an evolutionist can bring to the table in the end.

What a message of hope you have going for you!