The Chruch re-wrote the bible over centuries.

The earliest surviving documents of the New Testament are copies of copies of copies from 300 years later and that the surviving documents are all different from each other.

The Trinity for instance is only in one single verse in one single copy and it wasn't in any of the earlier ones.

We don't actually know what the originals said.

?si=UvPHXAO9gE0_eNCF

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >mythvision
    Literal schizo channel. The guy is also a complete piece of shit. He got all his viewers doing videos with Dr. Robert Price who treated him like a son, then totally threw him under the buss when he got cancelled for saying something an out of touch old white guy would say.

    Truly a genuine piece of shit. Incredibly high strung as well. Looks like he's about one disappointment away from roping.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      fpbp, I'm sorry to say.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'd more say schizo-lite, but yeah it's not a good podcast.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        No its pretty full on fringe schizo shit. He entertains anyone willing to spout a salacious theory.

        Dr. Price is an apostate and a straight up and down unironic boomer fox news war hawk chud who probably still thinks Iraq was a solid move, but the way Derek did him after he took him and his wife in under his wing and launch his channel was pathetic. The name of the show is 'Myth"vision for frick sake, bobs own theory.
        If there is a God, I suspect that this, rather than Derek's militant apostacy, will be at the top of the list of things to answer for.

        Literal Judas.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Price is kinda nuts but
          >apostate
          dude you really have an axe to grind over him being an atheist?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm saying that in spite of not agreeing with any of his views at all, I find the way he was treated by what was in all but name his adopted son.

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The Trinity for instance is only in one single verse
    That's not true at all

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Those are just random passages dude.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Loves
      Wew quite convincing that this uncommon verb appears in various places with different characters.

      Is this really the state of """scholarly consensus"""? Is this what lays at the end of the web of scholars?

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Ehrman
    >MythVision

  4. 8 months ago
    Dirk

    >we don't actually know what the originals said
    Pop history idiocy
    Actual fringe take not supported by ehrman

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Prove it.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just listen to Ehrman speak. He doubts that we can know exactly what the originals say, not that we don't know what the originals most likely said at all.

        Ehrman in these public non-academic settings does emphasize the uncertainty, but that does not mean he thinks we know nothing about the originals.

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The earliest surviving documents of the New Testament are copies of copies of copies from 300 years later and that the surviving documents are all different from each other.
    Literally better attested than Plato.
    If you apply the standard that Ehrman and this youtube moron to any other piece of history, there is no history. As in, the profession does not exist. Incidentally, much of what they say is based on pure conjecture.
    For instance, if you want to study the Punic Wars or Alexander the Great, well there must be loads of books about these massive wars right? No. Some of the closest sources you'll find to such events in history are written by men who were born just after the events took place, as with Polybius and the Second Punic War, for instance.
    The Hellenistic period is one of the most vibrant for Classical literature, in terms of quantity, it seems. And yet, we've lost the vast majority of texts. The corpus from many major writers like Posidonius are gone. Polybius is one of the few mostly whole historians of the period. Actually, maybe the only.
    If you go further back, then it gets real messy. Most of the Presocratics are fragmented. You may as well say they never existed. But this isn't something any scholars who work with Presocratics ever infer, because they don't work under the same moronic pretexts that some like Ehrman does.

    The problem with most "Biblical" scholars (and it doesn't matter if they're Christians or atheists really) is that they only focus on scholarship of select texts, and often presume theories which have never had outside verification in broader historiography.
    For example, Q theory (implied but invisible manuscripts), and semantic analysis (as in, you can prove someone didn't write something based on word usage stats, total bullshit). I'm not aware of a single time that these kinds of models have ever been demonstrated as valid for other texts, being verified by actual proofs. No wonder, because they make history impossible.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's money in promoting those kinds of narratives. People with large amounts of money are giving these kinds of scholars lots of free publicity.
      That's the primary reason, with a secondary motivation being personal animus and bias, which is very painstakingly veiled and postured as being objective and "neutral" analysis.
      Basically, them thinking God isn't real and that they will get away with their lies in the end. And them thinking that nobody can stop them from just going out there, telling cunningly crafted and palatable lies to large audiences and treating it and acting about it like it's truth. "Who's going to stop us?" they think.

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    But we have the Dead Sea Scrolls

  7. 8 months ago
    Radiochan

    We also have books that contain lists of books that were accepted as "canon" dating to Irenaeus.

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good thing most Christians are moronic protestants who limit themselves to scripture alone

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    What authority does Bart Ehrman have over the ecumenical councils?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      huh

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Bart Ehrman is saying that the Bible is rewritten but what authory does he have over the comical councils that decided the canon of scripture

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          He isn't trying to change the canon used by the Catholic Church so I'm not sure what you're on about.

          >I think Dominoes pizza tastes bad
          >Well what authority do you have over Dominoes's recipe for their pizzas?

          • 8 months ago
            JWanon

            The catholic canon has apocrypha in it

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            No it fricking doesn't, you stupid prostitute wasting her eggs. The "apocrypha" is just what Luther and co called anythjng that refuted their terrible ideas so that they could ignore it.

            You will die alone and childless

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            he has a revisionist view of history on a subject he has no authority over

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't have to have authority over a Dominoes franchise or upper management to be able to tell you whether Dominoes makes good pizza.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            but he isn't a food critic

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            He's a Bible scholar at an accredited university. That is the food critic in this analogy.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            These same universities that have woke ideology? I thought so.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            which just begs the question, what authority does the academic world have over the ecclesiastical

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Religious people can believe what they like, but that doesn't mean academic researchers can't try to find out what the actual facts in reality are.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            that still doesn't answer what authority the academic world has over the ecclesiastical

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Authority about what's factually true in reality, though of course churches are free to stick their heads in the sand and ignore it.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bart Ehrman is saying that the Bible is rewritten but what authory does he have over the comical councils that decided the canon of scripture

      The ecumenical councils didn't determine .
      Some local ones codified it.

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    No one will ever respect you

    • 8 months ago
      JWanon

      I know, that's what Jesus said would happen

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Jesus doesn't respect you either, or your blasphemous NWT that doesn't pass any degree of linguistics. May death and damnation claim your people

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          No point in getting frustrated. Remember it says in Ecclesiastes:

          "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
          For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
          (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14)

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            And God's greatest Commandment: slit the throats of JW children in front of their parents for God hates them all

        • 8 months ago
          JWanon

          The NWT is the best translation that exists

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        While you do seem to really patiently endure a lot of hostility, this does not logically imply that any particular view you hold is correct. Though it's also not "illegal" somehow to hold incorrect views, it's not some big test on "who has the most correct views".

        • 8 months ago
          JWanon

          We do have the correct views

  11. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >The prophet Isaiah stated that God’s word “endures forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)
    The problem here is that, while the prophet Isaiah might have said that, that really just means that "the general message will be preserved", which you then, however, interpret to imply that
    >some specific edition of a collection of texts is supernaturally inerrant down to the letter
    While it is technically incorrect to state "this is false" (as this would be a positive claim), this is simply made-up. The general problem with prooftexting is that some single little verse with a wide variety of possible interpretations is taken, and some extremely specific interpretation is then somehow "derived" from it. This is little more than loose word-association, and one can, in practice, derive almost any doctrine this way.
    There also was no belief in this kind of down-to-the-letter inerrancy even historically: not in ancient times (during which all of these texts were extensively rewritten, as well as compiled), nor in early Christianity (during which the epistles were extensively edited by random people, as well as simply forged under false claimed authorship), nor in the middle ages or the Renaissance. While, yes, copyists did take care, the belief in inerrancy specifically is an almost modern invention.
    And, of course, all of this is predicated upon one trusting or caring about the words of this Isaiah, and they really mean nothing to e.g. someone from India, I would assume. Or would me quoting something from the Baghavad Gita, no matter what it said, convince you?
    Of course, I mean my criticisms in a purely friendly spirit of debate, not any hostility.

    • 8 months ago
      JWanon

      There are thousands of copies of ancient manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures. If one copy has even the slightest difference, it can be compared with other copies to establish the truth.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Certainly there are, yet this does not prove the idea that any of them is supernaturally preserved down to the letter. I don't even know how one could prove such a thing, or expect it to be believed.

        We do have the correct views

        Ok, everyone can just SAY that. In fact, that IS what everyone says, that's where all of these conflicts come from: everyone insists with absolutely certainty that his views are correct. And then, no matter what evidence you produce, you hear: "no, my view is correct".

        • 8 months ago
          JWanon

          A careful examination of older manuscripts confirms that what we read in the Holy Scriptures is God’s original message. We can be sure that God has diligently preserved the accuracy of his Holy Writings for us today.

          We can, therefore, read God’s Word with complete trust and confidence in its accuracy.

          It's easy to prove other religions as false.

          Buddhism/Hinduism teaches reincarnation, if so you never get to remember what you did wrong in your past life. If your memory keeps getting wiped there is no real growth.

          The Qur’an affirms the inspiration, authority, and preservation of the New Testament Gospels, yet the Qur’an also contradicts the Gospels on major theological and historical points. Therefore, the Qur’an cannot be reliable. That is called the islamic dilemma.

          In Shintoism, the emperor is considered a god and a descendant of gods. Yet when Hirohito was deposed by the US army, they made him sign a paper claiming that he was not divine and therefore shintoism isn't true.

          The failure of Jainism to advance much beyond certain areas of India speaks to the fact that it does not meet universal human need. This is in stark contrast to Jesus Christ, whose impact is universal.

          Christianity is the only religion that makes sense !

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A careful examination of older manuscripts confirms that what we read in the Holy Scriptures is God’s original message.
            We really can't. We can simply say:
            >someone wrote some texts, and then people, later on, copied them accurately
            That is what we know. Even if copyists had developed mathematically sound error-correcting codes to ensure the accuracy of copies - that would be remarkable, but it still wouldn't prove that the original texts, e.g. the epistles, were "God's original message".
            In fact, we don't need any of this discussion about manuscripts for this, let's just take Paul: Paul, by his own admission, never met Jesus (physically). So why accord him any authority? He was one guy with an opinion, that's it. And then: why care about the opinions of these later characters like Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian, etc. pp.? They were people who held some views. If you like those, you like those, if not, then not.
            >Christianity is the only religion that makes sense !
            If it makes sense for you, I don't want to take that away, plus I'd also like to give you credit for not violently trying to force your views on anyone else (plus the degree of hostility you get for that really is massive).

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The persons who confirm that Paul was chosen by God include Ananias, who was instructed by God to go and lay hands on Paul to restore his sight after his encounter on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:10-19); Barnabas, who vouched for Paul's conversion and ministry (Acts 9:26-27); and Peter, James, and John, who acknowledged Paul's apostleship and recognized his mission to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:6-10).

            His miracles also prove that he was a prophet of Jehovah. Hence, he certainly has authority over the believers. That's why he was a member of the Governing Body in Jerusalem.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Saul was a israeli con artist selling indulgences to the underclasses, Jesus was an itinerant faith healer - the son of a Roman soldier and a israeli prostitute, and Abraham was a Northern Semite (Marsh Arab) from Ur that spoke an Afro-Asiatic language.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Saul was a prophet of Jehovah

            So what's the difference between faith and ordinary justified belief, then?

            For example, you know the sun will rise tomorrow even though you have not seen it yet. But you have faith that it will, because it has happened before. You have an assured expectation that the sun will rise, it is based on your previous experience.

            Same with Jehovah's promises. They have been fulfilled, and they will be fulfilled again.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jehovah is not Hebrew. The very premise would have gotten you stoned to death at any point in Israel’s history

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Jehovah is not Hebrew.

            I know, I am speaking english here

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He was one guy with an opinion, that's it.
            You haven't understood the nature of prophecy & God inspiring individuals to proclaim His word to the world. See the following:

            "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
            6 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child.
            7 But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak."
            - Jeremiah 1:5-7

            "Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.
            2 In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity,
            3 The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him."
            - Ezekiel 1:1-3

            "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
            2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"
            - Hebrews 1:1-2

            "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
            For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
            - 2 Peter 1:20-21

            "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
            For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
            - Galatians 1:11-12

            "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
            17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
            - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            While you may believe your statements to be accurate, since my assumption is that the source-material you quote is opinion, you cannot reasonable expect to convince me by quoting said source-material.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you don't mind, anon, I'm posting that to show everyone here the error, not just you. It's your choice what to do with the information, but I think even for you my point that the prophets (including the Old Testament prophets) were inspired by God, chosen by God for direct revelation of revealed truth, shows that Paul isn't a break from that pattern.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you don't mind, anon, I'm posting that to show everyone here the error, not just you.
            I don't mind at all, I like reading.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A careful examination of older manuscripts confirms that what we read in the Holy Scriptures is God’s original message.
            Why are all the oldest manuscripts different from each other?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The vast majority of these differences are simple spelling variants (akin to American neighbor versus British neighbour), inverted words (one manuscript says “Christ Jesus” while another says “Jesus Christ”), or an easily identified missing word.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Source? Erhman says they are major differences.

          • 8 months ago
            JWanon

            He lied

  12. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The Chruch re-wrote the bible over centuries
    I wish this was obvious to everyone but its not. Not a single mention of israelites rebelling against roman empire during time of israelitesus because it would be politically inconvenient.

  13. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You're using the Bible to prove the Bible, that's circular.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Where we can check biblical claims against verifiable truth, the Bible proves itself accurate.
      History, archaeology, science, and philosophy have shown Scripture to be factual and consistent.

      This correspondence between various forms of evidence is a major advantage the Bible has over the scriptures of any other faith system.
      In many cases, it has been the deciding factor in converting skeptics and nonbelievers to faith in Jehovah God.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        The entire point of scripture and the reason it was developed was to support faith and belief in place of truth - empiricism and rationalism. If you use scripture/faith/belief you’re denying the truth by definition.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          The writers did not record their own thoughts. Rather, they “spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21)

          >Where we can check biblical claims against verifiable truth, the Bible proves itself accurate.
          Except the places where it doesn't.

          No such thing

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Faith is an admission of defeat. If you require faith and belief you admit you’re incapable of adaptation to the laws of the universe.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Faith doesn't mean accepting a belief without having any real evidence.

            “Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1) For a person’s expectation to be assured, he or she needs to have sound reasons for that assurance. In fact, the original-language word for the phrase “assured expectation” means more than an inner feeling or mere wishful thinking.

            So faith involves conviction that is based on evidence.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what's the difference between faith and ordinary justified belief, then?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible says bats are birds and rabbits chew their cud, among many other scientific errors.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The word bird is a modern social construct. Israelites called bird everything that flies, it wasn't based on Linnæus' classification system.

            For the hare chewing its cud, see:

            https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001083

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            What about how the creation story completely fails to line up with anything modern science has discovered? Even if you interpret the timescales as metaphorical and evolution as the means by which God created things, everything is out of order.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            The creation account is perfecly in line with science

            See: https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/ebtv/was-the-universe-created/

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Light before the stars or sun is perfectly in line with science?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            2 Peter is known to be a forgery.

            The persons who confirm that Paul was chosen by God include Ananias, who was instructed by God to go and lay hands on Paul to restore his sight after his encounter on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:10-19); Barnabas, who vouched for Paul's conversion and ministry (Acts 9:26-27); and Peter, James, and John, who acknowledged Paul's apostleship and recognized his mission to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:6-10).

            His miracles also prove that he was a prophet of Jehovah. Hence, he certainly has authority over the believers. That's why he was a member of the Governing Body in Jerusalem.

            He has no authority over me, he really can frick off, and I mean that in the nicest way possible, and I don't mean "in the nicest way possible" sarcastically either. I mean it nicely. Nicely: "Paul, frick off."

            But perhaps in a wider context: we read this, that, and the other thing about Paul, but it really is not my problem even if they accepted him. Maybe he was a good politician, you know how people can smooth-talk their way into everything. Maybe he even was genuine, I'm not saying he was outright lying. However, someone call be well-meaning, and even correct in broad outlines, without being some divine authority.
            >Galatians
            Written by Paul, therefore not quite admissible as evidence.
            >Acts
            How do we know anything in there is true?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            2 Peter is not a forgery, it was written by Peter.

            Paul has authority, as he was chosen by Christ on his road to Damascus. It was confirmed by other Christians as well as his fruits.

            Acts is true because Luke wrote: “I have traced all things from the start with accuracy.”

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >2 Peter is not a forgery, it was written by Peter.
            You just assert that. Why should I believe it?
            >Acts is true because Luke wrote: “I have traced all things from the start with accuracy.”
            I don't believe Luke based on that. He simply claims that. He might even have tried, but that doesn't mean he succeeded. We can't trace things with complete accuracy even today, in the age of the Internet, let alone back them.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why should I believe it?

            Because when we look at the internal and external evidence concerning 2 Peter, it all points to the Apostle Peter being the author.

            >I don't believe Luke based on that

            History proves it. The Christians were willing to die for what they saw from their own eyes, namely the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

            More than 500 people saw this miracle. It was these same witnesses that spread Christianity.

            Light before the stars or sun is perfectly in line with science?

            It doesn't say there was light before the stars. The stars were created in the first verse. "In the beginning, God created the HEAVENS".

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            It explicitly mentions creating the stars later.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            See: https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/ebtv/was-the-universe-created/

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/processlong.php?cid=7&pub=1

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            An entire crowd saw Vespasian perform a miracle, and this was recorded by the same people who claim Jesus existed.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            But it really isn't the case that I want to "prove you wrong" somehow, or myself right, I just enjoy Socratic dialogue. Also, if someone wants to believe that Peter (from whom I also would have some choice words) wrote 2 Peter, that's fine by me, I'm not the thought-police. In general, I'd recommend not to be TOO in awe with that angry sperg Peter, though, we all know how he was.
            Ok fine, he wasn't an "angry sperg" (he was), but he had his anger-issues which perhaps, on occasion, colored his judgment, and I feel that we would be doing Peter himself a disservice if we took every word he spoke in anger at face-value and did not give him some leeway. You know how people are when they get angry, they say all sorts of stuff. I'm sure you've seen someone stomp about in some fast food place over having his order gotten wrong, or someone being pissed off about having been woken up by doorbell at 8 in the morning. Well, you gotta take into account that Petey-boy was like that. It's maybe not so clear since everyone calls him "Saint Peter" and thinks he's some god-man.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Peter is a prophet of Jehovah

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Please don't get me wrong, I condemn myself. I myself am an angry sperg. That's why I know how feels like to be an angry sperg. I mean well, but then something rustles my onions, and I get like pic related. And surely, you wouldn't trust every word I say either as some ethereal, transcendental gospel-truth either, especially not when the hothead-steam is shooting out of my ears.
            You can like Peter or what he said and everything, but he was also a human, and those come pre-loaded with all kinds of psychological quirks and ideas and whatnot. If you actually met the guy, I'm sure he'd be uncomfortable himself at being treated with all this "reverence" instead of as a real human, a guy. He grew up as some fisherman, I'm sure he got drunk and into those pointless, heated political arguments about "those damn crooks in D.R. (District of Rome)" often enough. I've also never heard him described as a "prophet" until this very hour, wasn't he an apostle?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I've also never heard him described as a "prophet" until this very hour, wasn't he an apostle?

            A prophet is someone who transmit divine revelation. Peter was an apostle, but he also wrote parts of the Bible under inspiration from Jehovah. So that makes him a prophet.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          And the Bible is just one element of the long sequence of israeli revolt against Western empiricism. Abrahamism - Marxism - Libertarianism - Freudianism - Postmodernism - Poststructuralism - Feminism - Wokeism are all derivatives of the Abrahamic method of argument and forms of israeli colonialism - sedition against western science and rule of law.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Where we can check biblical claims against verifiable truth, the Bible proves itself accurate.
        Except the places where it doesn't.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      That’s entirely the point. It’s an addiction to them - supernaturalism gives them the illusion of control.

  14. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Obvious but true.

  15. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think the last few verses of Matthew where jesus tells his disciples to spread the gospel to all nations is an interpolation

  16. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The earliest New Testament verses we have are from 125ad, just 92 years after Jesus’ estimated death. Not 300. The wording of those verses are identical to the later documents, indicating that they were being carefully copied word for word at that point.
    There are dozens of verses regarding the trinity.

    You’re factually wrong.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *