How many creationist here think that atheism and evolution go together?

[AV1611VET]

The gospels alone, had several verses added to it, hundreds of years after the oldest versions we have available.

Assuming that's true ... which it isn't ... but assuming that's true:

Why do you think it took so long?

 

[bhsmte]

Assuming that's true ... which it isn't ... but assuming that's true:

Why do you think it took so long?

Well it is true av. When you have hundreds of years of previous copies with the verses absent and then it magically shows up, yes, verses were clearly added.

Two best examples; the many verses added to mark, which many scholars feel, were added so mark would better align with other gospels.

The story of the adulteress, which also didnt ahow up until hundreds of years later. Why? Some scholars feel, it was a cool story and it was added for effect.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well it is true av.

Okay.

For the sake of arguing, I'm agreeing with you, and I'd like to know what took God so long to tell the whole story.

In your opinion.

 

[bhsmte]

Okay.

For the sake of arguing, I'm agreeing with you, and I'd like to know what took God so long to tell the whole story.

In your opinion.

That is the problem. If a god existed and he told the story, why the need to add verses hundreds of years later?

 

[joshua 1 9]

There's no revisionism about it - we know that the bible has changed over time. It's not news to anyone who has been paying attention.

First thing is that God gave Moses ALL of His plan of Salvation 3500 years ago. Nothing has changed in 3500 years. The only difference is the Old Testament of the Old Covenant looks forward to what Jesus would do at Calvery. The New Testament of the New Covenant looks back to the finished work of Calvery. I know you like to read the skeptics bible and I am only pointing out that I do not see that much difference between the skeptics and the revisionists. They both try build a straw-man argument and they both fail to present their case.

This forum has a creeds that we go by, they go by the The Nicene Creed. Those points are not open for discussion. You can click on the statement of faith link at the top of the page.

http://www.christianforums.com/help/faith/

God gave Moses all of His plan of salvation and NOTHING has changed sense the first four books of the Bible were written. I check everything against what Moses wrote. People come up with all sorts of crazy interpretations but I want to look and see what Moses said about it to verify what interpretations are valid and what is not valid.

You have no faith in God and you have no concept of what He is able to do. There are people reading this and I answer for their sake so they can know the truth. No one knows anything about the Bible when we are born. Its unfortunite that you want to ready and study the skeptics Bible rather then the annotated Bible. Still that is your choice and you have all the freedom to choose. We can choose life, health and prosperity or we can choose death, sickness and poverty. That is the choice we are given, and everyone has the freedom to make their choice.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That is the problem. If a god existed and he told the story, why the need to add verses hundreds of years later?

Nothing has been added to what God gave Moses. God gave Moses all of His plan of Salvation. Noah had all of God's plan and he preached it for over 100 years. Noah was righteous and he knew the way of righteousness. Still people made a choice not to follow God and they were destroyed in the Flood. Each and every person has that choice to make.

 

[The Cadet]

First thing is that God gave Moses ALL of His plan of Salvation 3500 years ago. Nothing has changed in 3500 years.

But the bible has. It demonstrably has. We have old bibles to prove that not just linguistic quirks changed, but the actual content of the books has changed. Look, I'm sorry, but at this point this comes down to nothing more than a denial of reality. If God gave Moses ALL of His plan of Salvation, then the problem has clearly occurred during one of the many, many, many, maaaaany transcriptions (performed by hand by people who were not experts). But to deny that the bible we have today is different from the bible of centuries past is not just wrong, it is denial. I mean, you can find substantial differences not just between manuscripts of now and the past, you can find substantial differences between different bibles published today!

If this is "non-negotiable" to you, then all you're doing is demonstrating that you don't know the first thing about your holy book or its history, and have no interest in learning.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But the bible has. It demonstrably has. We have old bibles to prove that not just linguistic quirks changed, but the actual content of the books has changed. Look, I'm sorry, but at this point this comes down to nothing more than a denial of reality. If God gave Moses ALL of His plan of Salvation, then the problem has clearly occurred during one of the many, many, many, maaaaany transcriptions (performed by hand by people who were not experts). But to deny that the bible we have today is different from the bible of centuries past is not just wrong, it is denial. I mean, you can find substantial differences not just between manuscripts of now and the past, you can find substantial differences between different bibles published today!

If this is "non-negotiable" to you, then all you're doing is demonstrating that you don't know the first thing about your holy book or its history, and have no interest in learning.

Perhaps you are talking about the Minority Text (which are based upon mainly 2 corrupted New Testament manuscripts) compared to the Majority Text (which are based upon over 5,000 New Testament manuscripts). http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

When they found the Dead Sea Scrolls they came to the realization that the Old Testament has remained consistent and unchanged. The reason is because of the mathematical precision makes any mistakes self correcting. Just like the mistakes in DNA for the most part are self correcting.

 

[The Cadet]

Perhaps you are talking about the Minority Text (which are based upon mainly 2 corrupted New Testament manuscripts) compared to the Majority Text (which are based upon over 5,000 New Testament manuscripts). http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

When they found the Dead Sea Scrolls they came to the realization that the Old Testament has remained consistent and unchanged. The reason is because of the mathematical precision makes any mistakes self correcting. Just like the mistakes in DNA for the most part are self correcting.

Also wrong.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/.../the-original-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/

 

[bhsmte]

Nothing has been added to what God gave Moses. God gave Moses all of His plan of Salvation. Noah had all of God's plan and he preached it for over 100 years. Noah was righteous and he knew the way of righteousness. Still people made a choice not to follow God and they were destroyed in the Flood. Each and every person has that choice to make.

The gospels have changed and been added to over time, which is what the discussion was about.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is the problem. If a god existed and he told the story, why the need to add verses hundreds of years later?

Good question.

That's what I'm asking you.

Do you have an answer or not?

 

[bhsmte]

Good question.

That's what I'm asking you.

Do you have an answer or not?

Why the very late additions?

I agree with what many of the scholars state. Mark ended very abruptly, compared to the other gospels and a later scribe likely added verses so they would be more inline with each other.

The adulteress story, was likely something a later scribe and the powers at be thought was a nice story and how they wanted to represent jesus - a marketing decision.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why the very late additions?

I agree with what many of the scholars state. Mark ended very abruptly, compared to the other gospels and a later scribe likely added verses so they would be more inline with each other.

The adulteress story, was likely something a later scribe and the powers at be thought was a nice story and how they wanted to represent jesus - a marketing decision.

Oh, well ... I tried.

You can't get blood from a turnip.

 

[juvenissun]

Things are always made to be so black and white for creationists. Some, it seems, have a hard time with shades of gray and would rather have AN answer, even if wrong, than no concrete answer at all.

In this issue [atheist: evolution/unknown], I am truly expect to see ANY shade of gray, if it could be given.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is true. AV1611. One is the Johannie Comma. The other is the ending of Mark.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The gospels have changed and been added to over time, which is what the discussion was about.

I have no idea what your talking about but I have heard nonsense like Matthew copied from Mark which is total and complete nonsense from people that have no idea what they are talking about. It is as if the skeptics and scoffers are happy to listen to people without even a 1 st grade knowledge of the Bible and they disregard the people with a Phd level of knowledge about the Bible.

 

[Hoghead1]

What you are talking about, Joshua19, is called the Markan hypothesis. It is well supported by modern biblical scholarship. So yes, those saying Math. and LK. borrowed from MK. are on the ball. You need to do some serious studying, before sounding off on maters you really have no knowledge of. Very detailed, compassion studies have been made between the DSS and later Bibles. True, there is much consistency, but there are also significant differences. The Book of Samuel got shorter and Goliath got way taller. The Book of Ester is not among the DSS. And there are other striking differences.

 

[Hoghead1]

Joshua 19, it's the guys with he Ph.D.'s and fluency in biblical languages that push the Markan hypothesis.

 

[Hoghead1]

The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, Joshua 19, went out the window years ago in modern biblical scholarship. Also, again, the Cadet is right. The Bible has changed. Actually there are two Bibles. Remember the Catholic Bible is longer. Originally, Protestant Bibles all had the Apocrypha, then it got dropped, then it cropped up in only pulpit Bibles, now it is back in many editions. In Catholicism, the Apocrypha is considered canon. In Protestantism, no. The reason why we have two Bibles is that the early Jewish community was divided on what is Scripture. The Hebrew-speakers had a shorter version of the "OT, like ours, than did the Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria, who had a much longer OT. Also, you have the Johannie Comma and the ending of Mark, both of which ere added much later.
Your remarks show that you, unfortunately, have not done any serious scholarly study of the Bible and this is leading you to reach conclusions that are way, way off base and then really hurt the credibility of your position.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Okay.

For the sake of arguing, I'm agreeing with you, and I'd like to know what took God so long to tell the whole story.

In your opinion.

Assuming the deity exists and had anything to due with what was written in the bible, I would say the later added verses are frauds put in there by people that seeked to gain from them, or who didn't think the bible was good enough as-is.