Copies will do. Yep word for word. All in 66 books, not in 73 though. It can also be tested. Rest of the books failed the tests and the Catholics still have them in their Bibles that has more than 66 books.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We don't have the originals and you can't "hindsight" all the subtle translational issues one would get over two eons, so you can't possibly know that.
Your "word for word" assertion is also simply untrue we have differing versions of the gospel of Mark for instance with various interpolations additions and subtractions and differn't endings for Mark 16.
I see you resorting to insults, but no proof.
You said you can prove it. Go on and prove it...
I just did but you'll have to make that effort to read them. It will take you a while. You want it now so good luck.
Well, I already said that I agree that a MGB must exist. Provided, of course, that "great" is a quantifiable quality (else the superlative doesn´t make any sense).My definition does not render you a thiest if you hold that it is not possible for a MGB to exist.
I would appreciate it if your responses would focus on what I said instead of what you assume me to believe. I am not going to defend your assumptions.However if you say that under this definition you are now a thiest and follow that with, "For further discussion it would be necessary to take a closer look at the rather unspecific adjective "greatest", though" and as such would appear to have the belief that you can refute this argument.
Since the assumed conditions given in the first part of your sentence do not apply, the conclusion doesn´t apply, either.If you believe you can refute the argument and I'm guessing by that little greay head under your handle that you are not at all persueaded by it's stregth, than your "definition of God can define you into theism" objection is null and void.
I just did but you'll have to make that effort to read them. It will take you a while. You want it now so good luck.
Here is a booster: Look up Theomatics
GOSH ! But very interesting to see atheist really that picky, already
Anyway the proofs are based on the original Greek and Hebrew and not the English translations. You'll be waiting for ever if your waiting to deeper into the already provided proofs in my previous posts. It'll be a little treasure hunt for ya. You wouldn't bother sense all atheists have already established theres no proof even if they is one cause Salvation ONLY comes from God.
What does God need to do to show himself for you to believe? UFO and aliens?
Aren't flying spaghetti monsters not good enough?
If you wish, I can quote plenty of atheist authors on the subject of atheism regarding what atheism is, and they are arguably the experts on the subject, being atheists themselves.
Are we done with the battle of the sources yet? No philosophical issues can be settled simply by looking up dictionary definitions or encyclopedia entries. Let's focus on ideas, argumentation, and evidence.
Im an atheist/skeptic and I lack belief in any God, and I dont believe the Christian God exists. My reasons for not believing are too many to list but lets just say I see lots of evidence that he does not exist, and zero evidence that he does. I cant speak for what other non believers claim, just myself.Here is why I have such a problem with this:
In 2009 I came onto this site very secure in my belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I wanted to start studying the arguments for both sides to see if a logical conclusion could be reached and so I started a thread called Atheists, What's Your Problem?????. I put lots of question marks for the troll effect. The point of the thread was to find what arguments you had to not believe in God and to my utter shock and dismay I was met with not that you guys believe God does not exist, but that you lack belief. I have never even heard of that in my entire life. If asked my beliefs on anything I may reply, "I don't know", but never that I lack belief. It made no sense to me, I had to have it explained and I still couldn't understand it. Unfortunately I was given no good reasons to believe God did not exist as well. Not one. Very disappointing.
So here are my reasons for calling this not only fallacious, but devious. The first reason is never in my life when asked about a belief on anything have I answered I lack belief. The very idea of that makes anyone I tell it too raise an eyebrow. I am talking about friends and family who have no dealings arguing on the internet. So it would seem epistemically impossible and intuitively deceptive.
So I looked into the logic behind the reasoning and I believe this to be fallacious on a two tier level.
1) Poison the well
2) Ad Hoc reasoning
Poisoning the well can be 1. Unfavourable definitions (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position) 2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed.
You do that with your lack of belief making it so you do not have to bring up arguments of your own but merely get to play the role of the skeptic. If I don't agree with that then the conversation breaks down into one we are having now.
Ad Hoc reasoning simply means the addition of extraneous hypothesis to a theory to save it from being falsified. However here it is not your position you are trying to keep from being falsified, it is the burden of proof on your end. By combining these two things you have made it so all you have to do now is pick away at the arguments without having to launch arguments of your own.
In closing I feel validated in saying this is outright dishonesty on the part of atheists. You have stacked the deck in your favour, asking for an impossible burden of proof for God's existence (something no atheist has ever been able to explain exactly what that is yet) while not having to defend your reason for thinking He does not exist. Alright for the village atheist I guess, but for the people that study this stuff, it's time to grow a pair.
Yes, please site the many atheists who agree with each other on fallacious reasoning so they may have the advantage come debate.
This wasn't a “battle of the sources”. Yours were copy and pasted from Wikipedia. With their definition of theism Wikipedia states, “Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge.” So which one do you believe? Of course Wikipedia is a crude source being as how I can make entries into it. So again here is atheists making an assertions in their favour. My sources were giving an objective meaning of the word before the lack of belief thing became popularized by internet infidels like yourself. (Although it has been around much longer)
Here is why I have such a problem with this:
In 2009 I came onto this site very secure in my belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I wanted to start studying the arguments for both sides to see if a logical conclusion could be reached and so I started a thread called “Atheists, What's Your Problem?????”. I put lots of question marks for the troll effect. The point of the thread was to find what arguments you had to not believe in God and to my utter shock and dismay I was met with not that you guys believe God does not exist, but that you lack belief. I have never even heard of that in my entire life. If asked my beliefs on anything I may reply, "I don't know", but never that I lack belief. It made no sense to me, I had to have it explained and I still couldn't understand it. Unfortunately I was given no good reasons to believe God did not exist as well. Not one. Very disappointing.
So here are my reasons for calling this not only fallacious, but devious. The first reason is never in my life when asked about a belief on anything have I answered “I lack belief”. The very idea of that makes anyone I tell it too raise an eyebrow. I am talking about friends and family who have no dealings arguing on the internet. So it would seem epistemically impossible and intuitively deceptive.
So I looked into the logic behind the reasoning and I believe this to be fallacious on a two tier level.
1) Poison the well
2) Ad Hoc reasoning
Poisoning the well can be 1. Unfavourable definitions (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position) 2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed.
You do that with your “lack of belief” making it so you do not have to bring up arguments of your own but merely get to play the role of the skeptic. If I don't agree with that then the conversation breaks down into one we are having now.
Ad Hoc reasoning simply means the addition of extraneous hypothesis to a theory to save it from being falsified. However here it is not your position you are trying to keep from being falsified, it is the burden of proof on your end. By combining these two things you have made it so all you have to do now is pick away at the arguments without having to launch arguments of your own.
In closing I feel validated in saying this is outright dishonesty on the part of atheists. You have stacked the deck in your favour, asking for an impossible burden of proof for God's existence (something no atheist has ever been able to explain exactly what that is yet) while not having to defend your reason for thinking He does not exist. Alright for the village atheist I guess, but for the people that study this stuff, it's time to grow a pair.
You do that with your lack of belief making it so you do not have to bring up arguments of your own but merely get to play the role of the skeptic. If I don't agree with that then the conversation breaks down into one we are having now.
Ad Hoc reasoning simply means the addition of extraneous hypothesis to a theory to save it from being falsified. However here it is not your position you are trying to keep from being falsified, it is the burden of proof on your end. By combining these two things you have made it so all you have to do now is pick away at the arguments without having to launch arguments of your own.
In closing I feel validated in saying this is outright dishonesty on the part of atheists. You have stacked the deck in your favour, asking for an impossible burden of proof for God's existence (something no atheist has ever been able to explain exactly what that is yet) while not having to defend your reason for thinking He does not exist. Alright for the village atheist I guess, but for the people that study this stuff, it's time to grow a pair.
This wasn't a “battle of the sources”. Yours were copy and pasted from Wikipedia.
With their definition of theism Wikipedia states, “Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge.” So which one do you believe?
Of course Wikipedia is a crude source being as how I can make entries into it.
So again here is atheists making an assertions in their favour.
My sources were giving an objective meaning of the word before the lack of belief thing became popularized by internet infidels like yourself. (Although it has been around much longer)
In closing I feel validated in saying this is outright dishonesty on the part of atheists.
You have stacked the deck in your favour, asking for an impossible burden of proof for God's existence
while not having to defend your reason for thinking He does not exist.
As a rule of thumb, an agnostic would not be opposed to going to church, whereas an atheist would
I don't see what all the fuss is about, they're both probably both just "disordered brain states". Neurology demystifies again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?