How reliable a source...

Originally posted by FMF
So you don't feel you have to substantiate any of the claims you make?

I have substantiated the claims that I have made, please point out where I have not, I have demonstrated that the Bible has remained unchanged with reference to the Dead sea scrolls and the shaidic coptic text. If you cannot argue your case objectively then perhaps this is not the thread for you, perhaps you had best go to general and discuss personalities there. I wish i could get interested in your trying at every turn to make threads personal but it does nothing for me, sorry, its quite frankly boring and rather tedious and indicative that you are well, empty and devoid of anything of substance.

Originally posted by twhitehead
All sounds very nice, but can you substantiate it?
List a few classical authors that noone dreams of questioning.
Lets do some actual comparison of evidence and see if your claim stands up to scrutiny, or if you just made it up on the spur of the moment.

You have no idea what you are saying. The burden is on you to substantiate what is true or not...you can read or browse through this book freely. But I suspect you don't want truth....

http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce.htm

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have substantiated the claims that I have made, please point out where I have not, I have demonstrated that the Bible has remained unchanged with reference to the Dead sea scrolls and the shaidic coptic text. If you cannot argue your case objectively then perhaps this is not the thread for you, perhaps you had best go to general and discuss person ...[text shortened]... and rather tedious and indicative that you are well, empty and devoid of anything of substance.

Historical details about how the Bible was published do not constitute evidence of its veracity regarding the claims it creators and subscribers make about Jesus.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
What evidence would be sufficient for you to accept that Jesus didn't rise from the dead?

Bump for Robbie.

What evidence would be sufficient for you to accept that Jesus didn't rise from the dead?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you making an "appeal to authority" regarding the Bible?

We are discussing the veracity of the Bible, so far I have not made an appeal to the authority of scripture in itself, what i have done is provided texts which substantiate my claims, the dead sea scrolls and the sahidic coptic text. You have provided not a shred of evidence for any claims other than your own opinions.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Bump for Robbie.

What evidence would be sufficient for you to accept that Jesus didn't rise from the dead?

I don't know, what have you got? and why aren't you sleeping

Originally posted by FMF
Historical details about how the Bible was published do not constitute evidence of its veracity regarding the claims it creators and subscribers make about Jesus.

more opinion and not a single substantiating fact, meaningless and empty and devoid of substance without it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I wish i could get interested in your trying at every turn to make threads personal but it does nothing for me, sorry, its quite frankly boring and rather tedious and indicative that you are well, empty and devoid of anything of substance.

Does this mean you are declaring some kind of moratorium for personal remarks and will it apply to your own posts?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more opinion and not a single substantiating fact, meaningless and empty and devoid of substance without it.

The fact of the matter is that how the Bible was published does not constitute evidence of its content's veracity.

Originally posted by FMF
The fact of the matter is that how the Bible was published does not constitute evidence of its content's veracity.

you have said that twice, why you feel the need to repeat yourself i cannot say. The charge was that the scribal errors have changed the text significantly, now demonstrated to be false and without a single piece of substantiating evidence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...i have [...] provided texts which substantiate my claims, the dead sea scrolls and the sahidic coptic text. You have provided not a shred of evidence for any claims other than your own opinions.

These texts you mention relate to the history of the Bible and are not evidence of the veracity of the claims the Bible makes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't know, what have you got? and why aren't you sleeping

You ask for evidence, yet I don't think there is any evidence which would persuade you in anyway is there? That is why it's called 'faith'.

As for me not sleeping, it's currently 11:27am where I am.

Originally posted by FMF
Does this mean you are declaring some kind of moratorium for personal remarks and will it apply to your own posts?

take it to general spanky, this is a discussion about scripture.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You ask for evidence, yet I don't think there is any evidence which would persuade you in anyway is there? That is why it's called 'faith'.

As for me not sleeping, it's currently 11:27am where I am.

ok so you have nothing. Ok I was unaware you were on holiday.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have said that twice, why you feel the need to repeat yourself i cannot say. The charge was that the scribal errors have changed the text significantly, now demonstrated to be false and without a single piece of substantiating evidence.

The OP states that the Bible "was compiled by a group of men with their own agenda (choosing what goes in and what is left out) long after the events took place", so the question of veracity has been set rather more broadly than merely "scribal errors".