Jesus' tomb found

[relativestranger]

d**n missed an important point, one word can drastically alter what is being said

what type of slipper did cinderella wear?

[solitarysoul]

relativestranger said:

actually the quoran is the most accurately preserved document we have today.

and again i have seen all that before

eye witness is not writing down what someone else has said, so only two were eye witness as you say

and it was not just copied as originall there were about fourty gospels, it was edited by roman emporor in 200 ad, by edited read cut the bits he needed to start a religion

Do you have any documentation for that? I have plenty to suggest that that is not correct.

[solitarysoul]

relativestranger said:

d**n missed an important point, one word can drastically alter what is being said

what type of slipper did cinderella wear?

One word at most is going to change the meaning of a verse or passage, but not an entire doctrine or teaching.

[relativestranger]

solitarysoul said:

relativestranger said:

actually the quoran is the most accurately preserved document we have today.

and again i have seen all that before

eye witness is not writing down what someone else has said, so only two were eye witness as you say

and it was not just copied as originall there were about fourty gospels, it was edited by roman emporor in 200 ad, by edited read cut the bits he needed to start a religion

Do you have any documentation for that? I have plenty to suggest that that is not correct.

no you dont you have scewed facts, the quoran is as it has NOT BEEN TRANSLATED therefore there is the minimum possibility of error, it exists in its purest form, i hope you have read it or had the passages read for you as it allows a greater understanding of the bible

i noticed you ignored the bit about the severe editing done by emporor, wish i could remember his name

[rsf]

The Qur'an is a 9th century writing from the mind and pen of one man. There is nothing to test it with.

The gospels were tested within the context of the whole bible to see if they were part of the entire story of God, the fall of man, and salvation for His people. If they were not in line, because of contradiction of what was already told in the older manuscripts, then they were not included in the bible.

All the books of the bible work together even though the story was told over thousands of years with many different writers. The Qur'an was written by one man just like the Book of Morman, through the interpretation of one man's beliefs on what He thinks is true. If that was acceptable for inspiration for all the world to believe then maybe I should write me one ;D
I can see it now... The gospel according to Frank LOL!

[rsf]

There are still documents older than Constantine which i think is the emporer you are talking about. And when the copies we have now are looked at compared to them, the bible is very faithful to what they said.

Also with the Dead SeA Scrolls, Most of the Old Testement has been proven to still be unadulterated. What has not been proven yet hasn't been disproven, just hasn't been completely put back together yet.

[relativestranger]

rsf said:

The Qur'an is a 9th century writing from the mind and pen of one man. There is nothing to test it with.

The gospels were tested within the context of the whole bible to see if they were part of the entire story of God, the fall of man, and salvation for His people. If they were not in line, because of contradiction of what was already told in the older manuscripts, then they were not included in the bible.

All the books of the bible work together even though the story was told over thousands of years with many different writers. The Qur'an was written by one man just like the Book of Morman, through the interpretation of one man's beliefs on what He thinks is true. If that was acceptable for inspiration for all the world to believe then maybe I should write me one ;D
I can see it now... The gospel according to Frank LOL!

i know that, wasnt the point, totally correct of course

in reply to the next bit i know the documents are the same just they were chosen BECAUSE they fitted it is not a coincidence that these work, and the dead sea scrolls onyl baguely correlate, although correlate they do, again i dont believe that it is a coincidence that you have to be a cardinal to actually read them

and thank you that name was bugging me, as was the spelling of qur'an

[relativestranger]

rsf said:

There are still documents older than Constantine which i think is the emporer you are talking about. And when the copies we have now are looked at compared to them, the bible is very faithful to what they said.

Also with the Dead SeA Scrolls, Most of the Old Testement has been proven to still be unadulterated. What has not been proven yet hasn't been disproven, just hasn't been completely put back together yet.

the only main difference is interpretation and translation, like the translation in about 400 ad which for some reason created original sin as being pregnancy pains and labour, which it is feasible to assume it wasnt before, and women to be workers for the devil.

yes they are the same words, its how u read them that has changed, and tbf changed considerably again in the last 200 years or so

[rsf]

Ii had to look up how to spell qur'an so don't feel bad. And i only did it to not look stupid. vanity or pride? hehe or both?

[solitarysoul]

relativestranger said:

solitarysoul said:

Do you have any documentation for that? I have plenty to suggest that that is not correct.

no you dont you have scewed facts, the quoran is as it has NOT BEEN TRANSLATED therefore there is the minimum possibility of error, it exists in its purest form, i hope you have read it or had the passages read for you as it allows a greater understanding of the bible

i noticed you ignored the bit about the severe editing done by emporor, wish i could remember his name

I did not ignore what you said, I have already refuted it. As rsf has mentioned, there have been many documents found before 200 A.D. that show very little difference at all in the copies we have today. The only differences are the simple and rare copying errors or typos.

[rsf]

I have a copy of the oldest known Greek manuscripts. It is word for word, and the translation is awkward but necessary. I really should read it more to try and be as true as possible to the original thought.

I believe that labor pains are part of the curse God gave to women because of what it says in Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Saying that women are workers of the devil is just an angry man trying to put women in the place he would have them. I think people can interpret the bible in twisted ways, but if people read it for themselves then God's truth will be evident, and people that push things like that will be exposed for what they really are.

[relativestranger]

solitarysoul said:

relativestranger said:

no you dont you have scewed facts, the quoran is as it has NOT BEEN TRANSLATED therefore there is the minimum possibility of error, it exists in its purest form, i hope you have read it or had the passages read for you as it allows a greater understanding of the bible

i noticed you ignored the bit about the severe editing done by emporor, wish i could remember his name

I did not ignore what you said, I have already refuted it. As rsf has mentioned, there have been many documents found before 200 A.D. that show very little difference at all in the copies we have today. The only differences are the simple and rare copying errors or typos.

no again, he edited it heavily, editing in this case means 'cutting out inconveniant bits, not inconveniant from specific books but whole books were cut

[relativestranger]

rsf said:

I have a copy of the oldest known Greek manuscripts. It is word for word, and the translation is awkward but necessary. I really should read it more to try and be as true as possible to the original thought.

I believe that labor pains are part of the curse God gave to women because of what it says in Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Saying that women are workers of the devil is just an angry man trying to put women in the place he would have them. I think people can interpret the bible in twisted ways, but if people read it for themselves then God's truth will be evident, and people that push things like that will be exposed for what they really are.

ok fair point, i have said before that my actual bible quoting skills are rusty and am rereading it(although unfortunately i dont have such an old version) and since it was because of this site i started with nt

i agree but that is still an interpretation that was made, it doesnt say he shall rule over thee in the torah incidently, an example of how a few words can seriously altar the meaning of a piece, oh it does now, but it wouldnt have around jesus' time

[rsf]

I'll have to look into what that says in Aramaic word for word. I usually only look up things that seem to be in question. Didn't know that was one of them.

[relativestranger]

rsf said:

I'll have to look into what that says in Aramaic word for word. I usually only look up things that seem to be in question. Didn't know that was one of them.

i know, only reason i did was a friend of mine did religios philosophy at degree level when he was searching for a path and had to learn old languages, his lecturor(sp?) pointed it out to him/class

[rsf]

People really dread reading the King James Bible because of thee, thou, thine etc. But Strong's exhaustive concordance goes so perfectly with that. Every word in the Torah, and the Greek scriptures of the New Testement can be traced back to their original meanings. That makes it so cool, and worth the extra effort it requires to learn to read them without ever even noticing. To be Honest, it was that ability to know original meanings of Hebrew Aramaic and Greek that got me so deeply into the word of God.

[relativestranger]

not continuing this talk but...where are you from?

[rsf]

Pennsylvania in the U.S.

[solitarysoul]

relativestranger said:

solitarysoul said:

I did not ignore what you said, I have already refuted it. As rsf has mentioned, there have been many documents found before 200 A.D. that show very little difference at all in the copies we have today. The only differences are the simple and rare copying errors or typos.

no again, he edited it heavily, editing in this case means 'cutting out inconveniant bits, not inconveniant from specific books but whole books were cut

But look. Honestly now, I'm not trying to fight with you or be rude or anything, I'm just trying to show you why this is not true.

We have copies of many of the New Testament books dating back as far as about 130 A.D., and copies of some of the Old Testament books dating back even farther. Now, when comparing these ancient copies to what we have today, we find less than 0.5% error ... just simple typos and such. That shows that they have been remarkebly well preserved. If the emporer did in fact edit the scriptures at a later date, those writings either did not survive or are simply something else other than the Bible we have today, so that point is invalid. The fact of the matter is, the Bible we have today, is almost perfectly the way it has always been, because they show very very little difference at all from the copies we have which were before Constantine's time (or whichever emporer you're refering to).

[relativestranger]

solitarysoul said:

relativestranger said:

no again, he edited it heavily, editing in this case means 'cutting out inconveniant bits, not inconveniant from specific books but whole books were cut

But look. Honestly now, I'm not trying to fight with you or be rude or anything, I'm just trying to show you why this is not true.

We have copies of many of the New Testament books dating back as far as about 130 A.D., and copies of some of the Old Testament books dating back even farther. Now, when comparing these ancient copies to what we have today, we find less than 0.5% error ... just simple typos and such. That shows that they have been remarkebly well preserved. If the emporer did in fact edit the scriptures at a later date, those writings either did not survive or are simply something else other than the Bible we have today, so that point is invalid. The fact of the matter is, the Bible we have today, is almost perfectly the way it has always been, because they show very very little difference at all from the copies we have which were before Constantine's time (or whichever emporer you're refering to).

you're not being rude you are simply not reading what im writing at all

the books IN the bible have not been edited, it is the whole thing that has..i.e all the books LEFT OUT of the bible. it doesnt matter how many times you say the same thing if you dont read what i write