Biblical Contradictions

[james2ko]

in your dreams perhaps...and to boot this also proves that the bible is fallible when you said

[yawn] I agree. The translations have errors that the original languages do not.

what was that about tradition?

Very well. Then prove my 3 days and 3 nights scenario wrong. :yes:

you've said this before...yet you keep coming back

While you keep regurgitating refuted premises, I'll keep picking them up and shoving them back in your mouth.

 

[Xchristian]

[yawn] I agree. The translations have errors that the original languages do not.

as I said before, if a 'god' took the trouble of putting all those books together, how comes he couldn't afford a proper half decent translator, or at least consult with our honourable member james2ko before misleading the herds of christians?

 

[waitasec]

[yawn] I agree. The translations have errors that the original languages do not.

tee hee hee
we don't have those either

there are no original copies to compare to silly.

Very well. Then prove my 3 days and 3 nights scenario wrong. :yes:

i did. mark 16:9
the reason you won't accept that is because you found a loop hole...
contrats...:clap

While you keep regurgitating refuted premises, I'll keep picking them up and shoving them back in your mouth.

you wish...
and whats so boring about that?

 

[james2ko]

tee hee hee..we don't have those either there are no original copies to compare to silly.

That's correct. We don't have original copies. Hey, give yourself a pat on the back. You finally got something right. Only one itty bitty problem....It has an original language..silly..

i did. mark 16:9 the reason you won't accept that is because you found a loop hole...contrats...:clap

Thank you..Now I'm just waiting for you to refute the loophole. (jeopardy music playing)

you wish...and whats so boring about that?

GROSSSS!

 

[waitasec]

That's correct. We don't have original copies. Hey, give yourself a pat on the back. You finally got something right. Only one itty bitty problem....It has an original language..silly..

so what? what does that prove...nothing.
only that they spoke a certain language...big deal :woohoo:

Thank you..Now I'm just waiting for you to refute the loophole. (jeopardy music playing)

you don't have the original copies to compare that to silly...

GROSSSS!

open wide...

 

[james2ko]

as I said before, if a 'god' took the trouble of putting all those books together, how comes he couldn't afford a proper half decent translator, or at least consult with our honourable member james2ko before misleading the herds of christians?

Next time He calls, I'll ask Him for ya..

 

[james2ko]

so what? what does that prove...nothing.
only that they spoke a certain language...big deal

It wasn't spoken in an original language..silly. It was written in an original language.

you don't have the original copies to compare that to silly...

Don't need em...Current available copies have been proven to be almost 100% accurate. The few variants that are found are of no consequence to the overall meaning of the text.

open wide...

Say AAAHHHHHH!!

 

[waitasec]

It wasn't spoken in an original language..silly. It was written in an original language.

what are you saying? the language it was written in wasn't spoken?
:biglaugh:
you're funny

Don't need em...Current available copies have been proven to be almost 100% accurate. The few variants that are found are of no consequence to the overall meaning of the text.

accurate based on conjecture?

Say AAAHHHHHH!!

choo choo

 

[james2ko]

accurate based on conjecture?

Nope. Textual criticism.

 

[waitasec]

Nope. Textual criticism.

based on conjecture...
you have no originals to compare them to...


this is when blind faith comes in handy...

 

[james2ko]

based on conjecture. you have no originals to compare them to...

None are needed. Compared to other historical writings with multiple copies, the NT is superior in their quantity, closer in time span from original writing, and better regarding textual reliability.

this is when blind faith comes in handy...

Then it should be easy for you to refute my 3 days and 3 nights argument. (looking at my watch) Im still waiting...

 

[jtartar]

So I'm going to attempt to refute the 463 contraditcions in this linkSAB Contradictions It'll probably take awhile so please bear with me

Vadergirl,
It is good to try to help people, but when they wilfully blind it is a waste of time, Matt 7:6. Or for other reasons cannot see, Luke 10:21, Dan 12:10, Rom 1:18-20.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

None are needed. Compared to other historical writings with multiple copies, the NT is superior in their quantity, closer in time span from original writing, and better regarding textual reliability..

I think the point is that, you have no originals to compare these copies to, thus your assessment of how accurate they are, is baseless. The number of copies of faulty copies, do not hypothetically reflect on integrity to the original. This claim of textual accuracy is often made, but its wrong.

 

[james2ko]

I think the point is that, you have no originals to compare these copies to, thus your assessment of how accurate they are, is baseless. The number of copies of faulty copies, do not hypothetically reflect on integrity to the original. This claim of textual accuracy is often made, but its wrong.

I guess this means we should also render the information in the works of Herodotus, Tacitus, Plato, homer ,Thucydides, and others as textually inaccurate?

 

[waitasec]

None are needed.

well in order for me to be persuaded...they're needed.

Compared to other historical writings with multiple copies, the NT is superior in their quantity, closer in time span from original writing, and better regarding textual reliability.

ha ha ha
you're funny.
these are just your words....meaningless tripe

Then it should be easy for you to refute my 3 days and 3 nights argument. (looking at my watch) Im still waiting...

i did. mark 16:9, and i gave you a break down utter failure

:sorry1: i'm not buying it.

 

[waitasec]

I guess this means we should also render the information in the works of Herodotus, Tacitus, Plato, homer ,Thucydides, and others as textually inaccurate?

straw man...

besides, they are not making extraordinary claims about themselves

evidence, that is what we are looking for to support the claims...there are none.


oh well...

 

[james2ko]

well in order for me to be persuaded...they're needed.


ha ha ha
you're funny.
these are just your words....meaningless tripe

i did. mark 16:9, and i gave you a break down utter failure

:sorry1: i'm not buying it.

Please provide a link your break down of the three days and three night scenario.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Compared to other historical writings with multiple copies, the NT is superior in their quantity, closer in time span from original writing, and better regarding textual reliability.

Therefore? I see no necessary relationship between the fidelity of transmission and the accuracy of what is being transmitted.

Perhaps you could start a thread suggesting why one should infer the latter from the former.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I guess this means we should also render the information in the works of Herodotus, Tacitus, Plato, homer ,Thucydides, and others as textually inaccurate?

Actually, textual analysis show some of their works to have been tampered with as well; Im surprised you didn't mention Josephus. But then again, we know the gospels weren't written by the authors named, except Luke, who was no eyewitness, in any case, so comparing the two groups isn't really valid. The biblical works you're speaking about are anonymously written and you are stressing accuracy where none can actually be established; nobody really cares that much if Thucydides actually wrote his histories; but, a general's presence in historical fields of war are far easier to accurately gauge than the movements of a single street beggar cultist in Jerusalem. Wars change maps and civilizations in ways that can be confirmed. In case you were about to veer toward Alexander or anything...

In any case I was just offering an outside clarification of something you seemed to have missed.

 

[james2ko]

straw man...

besides, they are not making extraordinary claims about themselves

evidence, that is what we are looking for to support the claims...there are none.


oh well...

Please explain in detail why my position is considered a straw man proposal. After all, HH's statement was referring to the accuracy and integrity of the written text, not its claims, which actually renders your statement a straw man proposal...