It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: stormbringer1701
...the manuscripts used to compile the KJV are still in the British museum. that means that these original texts are available to check on the good editors of the KJV and other version's editors. Furthermore in the case of the old testament because of the nature of Hebrew every line has a checksum. it cannot be edited or typo'ed without it showing up as a checksum error and of course things like ancient fragmentary copies of Isaiah show practically no divergence from our modern copies of it.
Manuscript evidence for the New Testament is remarkable, far surpassing that which exists for any other ancient book. And those who work with these ancient copies (called "textual critics") are convinced that they have been able to recover a Greek New Testament which is virtually identical to the original.
This evidence does not prove that the Bible is the word of God. But it does demonstrate conclusively that the Bible you have is the same which was first written by its authors. When Teabing (the Da Vinci Code's "historian") asserts, "History has never had a definitive version of the book" and claims that scholars cannot confirm the authenticity of the Bible, he's simply wrong. Is the Bible true?
It is occasionally stated that the Bible has been copied and/or translated so many times that it has become unreliable. The actual evidence refutes this idea. Does that mean the New Testament text we have today is perfect? No, but it is very close. Ezra Abbot places the purity of the New Testament text at 99.75% pure, and A. T. Robertson’s estimate is 99.9%.
Scholars testify there is not one essential doctrine of the Church that is in question because of an inaccuracy in the text. Not one! The facts of the case prove that the text of the Bible is the most reliably established of all the ancient writings. Not only is the New Testament text we have today very close to the original, the evidence shows that the Old Testament text is too.
Hasn’t the text been copied so many times it is unreliable?
originally posted by: stupid girl
The Bible everyone reads now is not edited by the "illuminati". That is a major FAIL. The Masoretic Text is true to the original Hebrew. And we have copious texts in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew of the New Testament. In fact, it is probably the most verified composite of ancient text in the history of mankind. When you have a gazillion copies of the same damn thing written, translated & copied over the course of hundreds of years, that makes it fairly easy to glean a base-sourced original context.
The "illuminati" as you say, didn't get their grubby paws into the mix until the 4th century AD when the Vulgate was done. Unless you count all their gnostic efforts in the first few centuries up to that point. And even so, most of the New Testament are letters written by the Apostles REFUTING gnostic heresy. That is why we have the canon, and that is why it does not include texts that were even suspect to the influence of gnosticism.
Behave, it is not a 'belief system' when one does not believe anything which has zero supporting evidence.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: grainofsand
I won't try to actually convince you of anything, then. Thanks for telling me your belief system, though.
Behave, it is not a 'belief system' when one does not believe anything which has zero supporting evidence.
No it is not.
originally posted by: intrptr
Not believing in something is a belief.
Not believing in something is a belief.
No it is not.
A statement such as "There is no such thing as a soul" would be belief based.
My position is a lack of belief due to zero evidence.
It is a logic based opinion which requires no belief. Try again.
I don't believe in gods, souls, ghosts, pixies, fairies, or anything else along the same lines.
have said nowhere that such things do not exist, just that there is zero evidence so I do not hold a belief similar to yours.
That is all I disagree with, and it sounds awfully similar to the lame claims of religious folk who try to say my lack of belief in gods is a belief in itself. It is not, clearly.
originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: intrptr
Dude, you are clutching at straws, I don't believe in souls due to a lack of evidence.
I do not hold a belief that they do not exist, but I am open to believe in such things if any evidence were to be presented.
originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: searcherfortruth
Of the Ten Commandments...5-10 are excellent tools for getting along in society.
Plus, when born, we as all animals, have no sense of right from wrong.
I don't believe in gods, souls, ghosts, pixies, fairies, or anything else along the same lines.
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.