by XJW4EVR 127 Replies latest watchtower bible
Did the Roman Catholic Church at any time insert or remove passages from the Bible in order to support their dogmas?
Just a quick FYI:
The oldest complete manuscripts we have are the Codexes Sinaiticus and vaticanus, both from 300-350 AD and both BEFORE the RCC officialy existed.
there may have been some deluded rabbi at that time, that about sums it up. there's your evidence. you want your religion, stay out of the science business. or your going to get hurt (emotionally) every time. if you have thick skin, then go ahead.
The oldest complete manuscripts we have are the Codexes Sinaiticus and vaticanus, both from 300-350 AD and both BEFORE the RCC officialy existed.
In your opinion, (1) do we know what the original manuscripts actually said and (2) does it matter?
Cptkirk, I lost all respect for Hitchens after his sniveling Vanity Fair article after being diagnosed with cancer.
In your opinion, (1) do we know what the original manuscripts actually said and (2) does it matter?
There is no reason to doubt that the oldest manuscripts we have were altered or copied incorrect to a degree that mattrs theologically.
Does it matter?
It depends on the individual I would say.
For some YES, it does matter but for others, not as much as you'd think.
There are some great reads on this subject, the works by Bruce Mtezger in regards to the OT are without par in my opinion.
And No, while Bart Ehram raises some interesting points, there is no evidence to back them up.
I like Hitchens, I think he is a great atheist and a very honest one to boot, he just isn't very knowledgeabel about Theology and Christainity, outside of some basic "sunday school" knowledge.
But he doesn't make himself out to be an expert either, he just voices his opinion and is awesome at doing that.
And No, while Bart Ehram raises some interesting points, there is no evidence to back them up.
Please be more specific. Are you calling him a liar, or you simply saying that his conclusions are not persuasive? (He's an agnostic.)
No, Bart raises vaid points but his CONCLUSIONS ( altered copies) doesn't hold water because there is no evidence for them.
Granted the only evidence would be the orginal documents, but Bart takes what he views as seriosu issues and contridictions and says that they are there because the copies are unreliable and altered.
WHich is strange because IF someone was gonna alter stuff you'd think they'd elimente the contridictions and "issues".
I think that Bart is right to cast concern on the transmission process and in holding the Bible as inerrant.
I think I understand you, but I still want to be perfectly clear: Do you or do you not believe that the texts we have now are identical to the original texts?
I think that the texts we have convey the original message.
To what degree is for the individual to decide.
