|
Originally Posted by SuperBobby
I don't care how many degrees he has. His mission is to belittle the Christian faith and doing it without real proof... nothing more. Therefore he is not a reliable source.
|
That does not follow. That logical fallacy is called an ad hominem attack. You must prove his arguments to be weak on the basis of facts, rather than on some presumption of bias. It doesn't matter what his bias is, as long as his evidece, assumptions, and conclusions hold up under scrutiny. I've said it before, and I will say it again. Learn how to debate!
|
Quote:
Like I said...go to some Christian forums where they have a few scholars there. They'll give you sources and proof that he is a liar.
|
So why can't you do exactly that, and then bring those sources here for us? You can feed the "I don't have time..." line as long as you like, but you're the one trying to convince us here. None of us has any personal stake in trying to prove the alternate point of view, which puts the onus on you, sir.
|
Quote:
And yes, those other Gospels did NOT have enough proof or reliable sources that they were valid. That is why they never made it into the bible.
|
I would have to point out that although not enough proof could be found to satisfy the far-from-impartial scholars who were responsible for the canon Bible, that does not mean that they are not valid. It simply means that they have not been proved valid. You should have learned that distinction in high-school.
|
Quote:
You probably haven't even heard of the Dead Sea scrolls found in 1948. When they translated the OT book of Isaiah 58 years ago from the DS scrolls, they compared it to the 'then current' Isaiah in the bible and found the meaning had been preserved PERFECTLY.
|
Even if this process of comparison were acknowledged to be entirely free of bias, and to have been conducted in a fair and even handed manner, the book of Isaiah is only one of many. Proving that one book has not been altered might imply that the others have not been, but it cannot prove it.
|
Quote:
And if you have any real knowledge in studying this sort of thing, you would know that. Not to mention, Isaiah is arguably one of the most important books in the Old Testament.
|
What would be your point? It is an important book, I understand why just as wel as you do, and I don't deny that fact. However, what does that prove? It's certainly not the most important book of the Old Testament, and even if it were, it still can't be taken as a representative sample, when the books of the bible have been subjected to such different treatment over the years. You know perfectly well that prior to the definition of the canon Bible, the various books that comprise it had been in the keeping and stewardship of many different groups for years prior to that. Any one of them might have introduced deliberate distortions during the process of copying by hand, and we would never know.
There's nowhere I can't reach.
85242
35212
Soluzar