re: The Future of Religion

quote:

---

ctiger69

---

Sounds like you got all the answers baw. Are you jesus?

Maybe you should read the rest of what I wrote instead of picking out single sentences so it sounds out of context.

quote:

---

That is because it is true. In fact it has been proved to be the most accurate historic text in the history of mankind

---

No, it’s really not. I’m not just saying that cause I don’t believe in it, I’m saying that becuase I did two years of very thorough research into the history of it.

It’s not even a fact that Jews were in Egypt at the time of the alleged exodus, in fact its highly unlikely from a historical perspective.

Further, no contemporary author wrote about Jesus, ever. Like, at all. Literally Every story about him is hearsay.

"This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure. This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation. Of this very slight number, the great majority of the variants are easily corrected by comparing them to other copies that don't have the "typos" or by simply reading the context. You should know that copying mistakes occur in such ways as word repetition, spelling, or a single word omission due to the copyist missing something when moving his eyes from one line to another. The variants are very minor. Nothing affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us.

The science of studying ancient literature and its accuracy of transmission to is called historicity. The Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy. If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable, then it would be necessary to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible.

The Bible was written by those who were inspired by God, so it is accurate and true, and represents historical occurrences. When we look at the New Testament, we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally or were under the direction of those who did. They wrote what they saw. They wrote about the resurrection of Christ. They recorded His miracles and His sayings. It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ."

quote:

---

s science grows it begins to prove there is a god/creator which supports religion.

---

Even if this were the case, out of the infinite number of possibilities for a god or gods, you still have a better chance of winning powerball than your hyposthesis being correct.

You're justification for the bible being "accurate" is the translation over centuries. What we mean by accurate is whether or not there is truth in the bible.

I could write a book about blue alien lizards, and even if the translation remains pure over two thousand years, it's still a crock of shite.

quote:

---

i see a lot of hypocrisy in organized religion. for example my in-laws are pro-life but for the death penalty.

---

Your in-laws maintain the same positions that Archbishop Philip Hannan did.

His comment was the Bible is not historic text which I proved his comment was incorrect.

Of course faith is needed to believe in God but once one actually looks at all the evidence it is easier to believe in God and it takes much more blind faith to be an Atheist.

You're trolling, right?