You did not rebut the evidence. You simply continued to blow around the same empty claims. In response to your claim that we cannot trust the Bible because it was written by so many different people from so many different cultures, that is exactly a reason to trust it. The Scripture was written by over 40 different people from all walks of life and there is not a single problem with any of the doctrines.

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, my poor confused zealot/anti-friend, you're doing it again. This is why ALL you "Intelligent" Design people never get anywhere with your arguments. It's because you have no argument. You say 88Keyz88 didn't rebut the evidence but you've offered no evidence. You make the UTTERLY OUTRAGEOUS claim that the bible is 98 and a 1/2 percent true, and that's all you give for evidence. So, the bible is 98 1/2 percent true cuz Johnny says so. That's your evidence. An outrageous claim with nothing to back it is not evidence, and that's why "Intelligent" Design remains a laughable pseudo-science.

And we've crossed swords on this topic before and everytime here's how it works: you make a ridiculous claim on the legitimacy of the bible, I utterly shut you down and you walk away with your tail between your legs, never to return, only to resurface on someone else's blog or in a new blog of your own claiming you have evidence again. To view Johnny's previous losses and tail-turning, feel free to go here:
http://bloggerparty.com/james_frey_is_a_great_writer
or
http://bloggerparty.com/bombardier_beetle_proves_evolution_is_false

You keep saying you have proof, I tell you that you don't -specifically WHY and HOW what you're saying isn't proof- and you give up and don't respond, only to pop us someplace else saying you have proof. You don't, Johnny, NOBODY does.

Give up again?

-SenseChange

p.p. If I come off a little hard on you it's because you routinely act like a dick on this site, and you deserve it.

You ask where the figure of 98.5% acuracy for the translation of New Testament came from. You can find a great volume of information on this subject on the internet. There are 4000 or more manuscripts of the NT available plus many others in Greek. There is in addition to these manuscripts and fragments many more in several other languages. An examination of these documents and fragments has determined their accuracy of translation to the degree mentioned.

B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, the creators of The New Testament in Original Greek, also commented: "If comparative trivialities such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like are set aside, the works in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly mount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament." In other words, the small changes and variations in manuscripts change no major doctrine: they do not affect Christianity in the least. The message is the same with or without the variations. We have the Word of God.

Your comment concerning the alternative translation of the "Word" in John 1:1 is suspect. You intimate that you or your father are
knowlegable about and competent in word for word translations of Hebrew and Greek. Can you please give me your qualifications for making such a claim. The word "Logos" has been translated by hundreds of Greek scholars, both Christian and non-Christian to meen "Word". If the meaning of the word was that of "sound" the word "fooneoo"would have been a better word to use as this conveys the meaning "sound" in a more precise way.(See John 3:8)

NT:5455 fooneoo, foonoo;
1. to sound, emit a sound, to speak: of a cock, to crow, Matt 26:34,74 f
2. transitive,
a. to call, call to oneself: tina -- either by one's own voice, Matt 20:32
b. to invite: Luke 14:12
c. equivalent to to address, accost, call by a name: John 13:13

(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

NT:3056 logos, logou, ho

a collecting, collection
I. As respects speech:
1. a word which, uttered by the living voice, embodies a conception or idea; Heb 12:19
2. what someone has said; a saying;
a. universally: Matt 19:22
b. of the sayings of God
equivalent to decree, mandate, order: Rom 9:28
of the moral precepts given by God in the O.T.: Mark 7:13
equivalent to promise: Heb 4:2
through prayer in which the language of the O.T. is employed: 1 Tim 4:5
an oracle or utterance by which God discloses, to the prophets or through the prophets, future events: Rev 1:2,9
c what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism Matt 19:11
3 discourse
a. the act of speaking, speech: Acts 14:12
b. equivalent to the faculty of speech: Eph 6:19
c. a kind (or style) of speaking: 1 Cor 1:5
d. continuous speaking, discourse, Luke 4:32,36
e. instruction: Col 4:3
4. in an objective sense, what is communicated by instruction, doctrine: universally, Acts 18:15
5. anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative: of a written narrative, a continuous account of things done, Acts 1:1
6. a matter under discussion, a thing spoken of, an affair: Matt 21:24
7. thing spoken of or talked about; event; deed Mark 1:45
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.
The word "Logos" has the more precise meaning of speach or communication, hence its translation as "Word". Anyone should be able to see that John intended in John 1:1 that show that Jesus was a direct communication from God. This is similar to Hebrews 1:1 where it is stated "In these last days God has spoken to us through His Son".
As the meaning of the word has been,and is,translated "Word" by so many Greek scholars over the years, the owness is upon you to produce the evidence for the alternative translation. This would require the names and academic qualifications of at least 15 Greek scholars who can give reasons for the change in translation in the face of the overwhelming evidence contrary to your claim.

Sir William Ramsey,a noted historian and skeptic,did extensive research to try and prove that the Book of Acts was historically incorrect. Instead he found that Luke was absolutley correct in every historical detail. Because of this he became a believer and called Luke "a historian of the first order".
The Book of Acts was written before the death of the Apostle Paul. This occured about AD64 during the reign of the Emperor Nero, so all of Paul's letters must have been written before this date.
Acts was the second letter Luke had written to a man called Theophilis. The first one was was his Gospel. This means that Acts was written AD60-AD64 and so his Gospel must have been written before that. This places the Gospel of Luke much closer to the time of the events that it recorded.
It is believed that the Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel and was the source for Matthew and Luke. This makes Mark very close to the recorded events of the life and teachings of Jesus.
With regard to your comment on believing something produced by a "host of writers" You seem to miss the point that these writers agreed on the same doctrines. If they had agreed word for word you would no doubt accuse them of a conspiracy.
Most of your objections are the same as those which have appeared from the the beginning of CHristianity an have been addresses by competent scholars since then.

In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{8}

Look up the meaning of the word "Apocrypha" and you will understand why your rebuttal does not work. The apocryphal books were not accepted by the church fathers. They did not meet the criteria and are not considered biblical literature. You cannot throw the Apocrypha into the mix and think that it messes up my statement.

Are you saying that students who attend a "Bible College" did not receive a "real" education?

I can’t fully agree with you on that one. I am a Christian and my sins weigh just the same as a non-Christian. What amazes me is how much seems to be left out of the bible. It also seems strange how fickle the Christian world is.

One minute, we love Jesus, the next, we hate him. One minute Christianity is truth and then Da Vinci Code comes out and people are terrified that Christians will stop believing in Christ. What a comment for people to make. Christians could stop believing that easily.

Love, peace and empathy

Terry J. Snipes

Check out my other blogs:

SHARE LOVE

My writingUp.com Blog