User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
bible version?

I was just wondering if anyone could tell me what the most widely accepted (by scholars) translation of the bible is. I have relatives who are Jehovah's Witnesses, and with whom I debate occasionally, and they have an idiosyncratic translation, so in cases where their translation conflicts, I would like to be working from the best accepted version for my arguments.

Thanks in advance. J

Scholors don't agree on one version but I go with English Standard Version. It is like the King James Version but without the old english.

jsteele

i would go with the king james because thats the closest to aunthecity you can get to except for a bible in the greek language. esv is kind of paraphrasing.

god bless

Jonathan,

Maybe you can explain something to me. You've claimed that the Bible is 92.7775022% accurate. Which version were you talking about? What is the accuracy of the other versions? Is the King James version recommended by experts like you because it's the most accurate? Is there one more accurate than King James, but is preferred for some other reason?

Here's a bright idea you can share with your fellow Christians: Since you know exactly what part of "the" Bible (which one exactly?) is true and which part is false, why don't Christians create just one version of the Bible that's 100% accurate? It's such an obvious idea, I don't know why Christians never thought of it. Do you?

Once that new Bible is printed up, the other ones should be burned as they are impure. It would end this debate about which version of the Bible to use. Then, if anyone preaches from the wrong version, they can be put to death for preaching false religion, as THE Bible says. I think this would go a long way toward Christianity getting its story straight. Don't you think?

don

im glad you came back to the discussion i hadnt seen any of your posts, i missed you old buddy!

any ways the new testament historians say is 99.6% true. i never said the entire bible. (even though the whole bible is true but historians say that the new testament is 99.6% true) and i think your mistakened the bible was first created in hebrew and in greek. so the person that can understand the bible the best are the ones that read it in hebrew or greek. but i do search it up in greek. and so do most pastors. (they will get a word and translate it to the greek language.) the website i go on is biblos.com

but anyways the first tranbslated bible into english was the geneva bible. it was created in 1599. (that is the second closest you can get to authenticity.) but the english was very old so they wanted to make it simpler by making it in a more modern english. (my dad has been a pastor for 22 years and he has the geneva bible only people that can understand the bible and have studied it for a very long time can understand the old english.) so they decided to make the king james version. then the new king james version and now there are so many. thats why most people that are really serious about christianity have different bibles. for example i have a king james, NIV, new king james, the message bible, geneva bible and i sometime uses my friend's ESV bible. thats why they had so many different translations.

and one more thing the bible is the only religious book that can be translated to any language and make sense. any muslim will tell you that the koran cannot be translated because then it wouldnt make sense. so thats something that seperates the bible from any other religious book.

if i didnt not answer any questions please tell me.

god bless.

Jonathan,

Where are you getting these figures? It seems that you're making them up.

Again, why not create a version that's 100% accurate? I think that Thomas Jefferson came close when he removed all of the supernatural claims from his Jefferson Bible. Christians didn't like that very much. They hate Jefferson, as rule.

Let's see:

Dan Barker (a former minister turned atheist) posed a now-famous challenge of putting the events of the resurrection from the Gospels in a consistent order. Nobody has been able to do this. It's well known that they contradict one another.

The birth story of Jesus is known to be a fabrication at odds with historical events. Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus' alleged life. We've already discussed that the resurrection is mythology. There are conflicting birth lineages for Jesus. The census excuse for the travel to Bethlehem is false. There's the missing 30 years of his life (must not have been important or someone just made up the two weeks or so he supposedly lived). Paul was convinced that Jesus would return in his lifetime and that of most of his disciples, including saying to stop having children because that would complicate things. Jesus claims that you could pray in his name and get anything you wanted is false. This makes the only alleged eye witness to Jesus a liar. The alleged trial of Jesus is almost certainly made up....

Those are what I can rattle off off the top of my head. I think we're well below your claimed percentage of truth.

Please understand that because you want something to be true, doesn't make it so.

I think you're making up things out of your lack of knowledge. It's ok to be mistaken, if you take the opportunity to learn. If you're not willing to do that, then what good are any of your claims?

don

even though nobody has been able to proof if nazerath exhisted nobody has disproved it. i read a couple of websites and they were all stating there opinion not facts.

the ressurection is not a mythology.

and the bible talks about jesus when he was 12 yrs old. so the bible didnt mention it until 18 years later not 30.

paul was not convinced the rapture was going to happen in his lifetime and he never said for people to stop having kids. so all your statements are false.

god bless

Jonathan,

I'll respond to your note if you admit that your claim about the truth percentage of the New Testament is false.

I would also appreciate an apology and a promise that you won't make unsubstantiated claims in the future.

don

yea your deffinetly getting an apology! and that fact is true!

god blesss

Jonathan said, "historians say that the new testament is 99.6% true"

There are no contemporary historical documents for 'Jesus Christ'. Even though there are writings that have survived from the time periods, before, during and after Jesus, and the Christian Church has these records! The writings of Paul are not contemporary accounts: they do not appear until years after the purported time of Jesus and they include a concession that Paul never actually met Jesus. The Gospels come much later (as evidenced by the fact that Paul never cites them) and there is good reason that all four of the surviving, accepted Gospels are based on Mark, which is not historical documentation. Mark is a title not a name; nobody knows who wrote it.

Mark claims that the crowds that Jesus drew were so overflowing that he has to lecture from a boat on the Sea of Galilee. When Jesus travels from Bethany to Jerusalem, throngs of people line the roads to welcome him. Mark also tells us of how Jesus performed miracles before thousands: on two different occasions Jesus feeds thousands through miracles. John E. Remsberg, in 'The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence' makes the comment that no one from this era wrote a single word about the Jesus madness. Someone should have noticed.

Philo not once mentions Jesus. Philo was there when Christ supposedly would have made his triumphal entry in Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead would have taken place, when Christ himself supposedly would have risen from the dead. He never mentions these events. Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity or any of the events described in the New Testament.

Pliny also provides us with a direct refutation of the Gospel claims of earthquakes and eclipses (i.e. such as those found in Matthew). Pliny collected data on all manner of natural and astronomical phenomena, even those which were legendary - which he himself did not necessarily regard as factual, yet he records no prodigies associated with the beliefs of Christians, such as an earthquake or darkening of the skies at a crucifixion, or any star of Bethlehem

Seneca the Younger lived during the purported time of Jesus he was interested in matters of morality and religion very similar to the concerns of later Christians. Yet, he does not take note of any of the miraculous events reported in the gospels. Seneca wrote extensively on many subjects and people, but nothing about Jesus ever. He wrote nothing about the "vast multitude" of Christians, supposedly punished for the fire that ravaged Rome in 64 AD. The lack of any reference to Jesus Christ or Christians by Seneca was an embarrassment to the early Church fathers. There was a futile attempt to rectify this during the 4th century by a forger familiar with Seneca's letters to his life-long friend Lucilius. What emerged was a correspondence purporting to be friendly exchanges between the eminent Roman philosopher, at the height of his fame and political influence, and an unknown traveling preacher we now call St Paul. Today, no serious scholar accepts these as valid communications between Seneca and Paul, they are universally accepted as fraud.

The infamous "Testimonium Flavium" appears to have been inserted into the Antiquities about the time of the 4th century. A key proof for this comes from the fact that while early Christians cited Josephus, none of them ever cited the Testimonium, even in situations where they were striving to provide historical proof for Jesus in debates with Jewish scholars. If Josephus had written the Testimonium, he would have written more than 3 lines concerning the existence of the Jewish Messiah in a book dedicated to Jewish History! Josephus mentions the Jewish messiah in passing in a book dedicated to a history of Judaism?

Tacitus is remembered first and foremost as Rome's greatest historian. Christian scribes were embarrassed by the lack of any mention of Jesus or Gospel events in those years, the years Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection were widely believed at the time to have occurred, by Tacitus. There was a deliberate excision of those years from his writings. There is otherwise no known explanation for why those three years were removed. The removal of the years 29, 30, and 31 (precisely, the latter part of 29, all of 30, and the earlier part of 31. The very years of the purported existence of Jesus 30, 31, are suspiciously missing from his work.

Jonathan said, "the first tranbslated bible into english was the geneva bible. it was created in 1599."

The 1380 Wycliff, 1534 Tyndale, 1539 Great, 1557 Geneva, 1582 Rheims, and 1611 King James versions.

The 'original' Greek text was not written until around the mid-Fourth Century and was a revised edition of writings compiled decades earlier in Aramaic and Hebrew. Those earlier documents no longer exist and the Bibles we have today are five linguistic removes from the first Bibles written. What was written in the 'original originals' is quite unknown. It is important to remember that the words 'authorized' and 'original', as applied to the Bible, do not mean 'genuine', 'authentic' or 'true'.

The Tyndale New Testament was the first ever printed in the English language. Its first printing occurred in 1525/6, but only one complete copy of the first printing exists. Myles Coverdale and John Rogers were loyal disciples the last six years of Tyndale's life and they carried the project forward and even accelerated it. Coverdale finished translating the Old Testament, and in 1535 he printed the first complete Bible in the English language, making use of Luther's German text and the Latin as sources. The first complete English Bible was printed on October 4, 1535, and is known as the Coverdale Bible. John Rogers went on to print the second complete English Bible in 1537. He printed it under the pseudonym "Thomas Matthew", as a considerable part of this Bible was the translation of Tyndale, the English authorities had condemned those writings. It is a composite made up of Tyndale's Pentateuch and New Testament (1534-1535 edition) and Coverdale's Bible and a small amount of Roger's own translation of the text. It remains known most commonly as the Matthews Bible.

In 1539, Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canturbury, hired Myles Coverdale at the bequest of King Henry VIII to publish the "Great Bible". It became the first English Bible authorized for public use, as it was distributed to every church, chained to the pulpit, and a reader was even provided so that the illiterate could hear the Word of God in plain English. Cranmer's Bible, published by Coverdale, was known as the Great Bible due to its great size: a large pulpit folio measuring over 14 inches tall. Seven editions of this version were printed between April of 1539 and December of 1541.

Puritanism arose in the 1560s out of the discontent of radical Protestants over the Elizabethan Religious Settlement of the Church of England. The radicals opposed the settlement, claiming it established a Catholic Church under the control of the Monarch (they described Anglicanism as a "Mingle Mangle". Puritan was originally a derogatory term used by Anglo-Catholics to mock the radicals' belief that the Church was corrupt and needed to be purified. However, within a few years radicals used the term "Puritan" as a badge of honor.

The New Testament was completed in 1557, and the complete Bible was first published in 1560. It became known as the Geneva Bible. Due to a passage in Genesis describing the clothing that God fashioned for Adam and Eve upon expulsion from the Garden of Eden as "Breeches", an antiquated form of "Britches", some people referred to the Geneva Bible as the Breeches Bible.

The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of William Tyndale's original English translation. With marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.)

1582, the Church of Rome produced a Roman Catholic English translation using the Latin Vulgate as a source text, they went on to publish an English Bible.

The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification when multiple meanings were possible. This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known as "The King James Bible." The King James translation included italicized words not found in the Hebrew or Greek texts. King James Version became the Bible of the English people. It became the most printed book in the history of the world. In fact, for around 250 years until the appearance of the Revised Version of 1881 the King James Version reigned without a rival.

Puritans were demanding that James "purify" the Church of England of Roman Catholic practices, and James threatened to run them out of the country. Eventually the Puritans went to America with their Geneva Bible. What followed were the infamous Salem Witch Trials. They were responsible for the Salem Witch Hunts.

The only "evidence" that the Bible is the word of God is the Bible. There is no outside corroboration. The Bible is just a book. It has no more right to claim to be the word of God than "Alice In Wonderland" does. They are stories written by men who were making statements with fairy tales.

IN 1415, Pope Benedict XIII condemned a secret Latin treatise called 'Mar Yesu' and then issued instructions to destroy all copies of the Book of Elxai. No editions of these writings now publicly exist, but church archives recorded that they were once in popular circulation and known to the early presbyters. Knowledge of these writings survived from quotations made by Bishop Hippolytus of Rome (176 - 236) and St Epiphanius of Salamis (315 - 403) along with references in some early editions of the Talmud of Palestine and Babylonia.

Pope Alexander VI (1492 - 1503) ordered all copies of the Talmud destroyed. The Council of the Inquisition required as many Jewish writings as possible to burn with the Spanish Grand Inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada (1420 - 98), responsible for the elimination of 6000 volumes at Salamanca.

In 1550,Cardinal Caraffa, the Inquisitor-General procured a Bull from the Pope repealing all previous permission for priests to read the Talmud he seized every copy he could find in Rome and burnt them. Solomon Romano (1554) also burnt many thousands of Hebrew scrolls and in 1559 every Hebrew book in the city of Prague was confiscated.

The mass destruction of Jewish books included hundreds of copies of the Old Testament and caused the irretrievable loss of many original hand-written documents. The oldest text of the Old Testament that survived, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was said to be the Bodleian Codex (Oxford), which was dated to circa 1100AD. In an attempt by the church to remove damaging information, the Inquisition burnt 12,000 volumes of the Talmud. However, many copies survived and today provide opposing traditions.

Interesting you are now calling Don Baker "old buddy", because as I recall you were calling him a fool not too long ago.

linda

wow yourposts are so boring! you can tell you copy and paste.

anyways the reason why we no recording of jesus other than the bible is because the romans destroyed all the evidence.

why do you write these things. i mean you guys can figure out who did not write the bible but you dont know who specifically wrote it. i mean if mark didnt write it then who did? please answer this question. thats right there is no answer because everything is made up. until you find me the people that wrote all the books that you call false i am going to keep on believing mark wrote the book of mark and paul wrote the epistels.

god bless.

Jonathan,

The burden of proof lies on the one making the claims; in this case you are the one making unsubstantiated claims. You have made claims without doing any research and that is why the facts are so disturbing to you. Anyone with a half-ass education will have to learn how to do research and give corroborating evidence for a fact-based report.

Learn to spell first then you read, then you write, and you give substantiated details. Come prepared with proof - or be prepared to get your ass kicked. Nobody believes unsubstantiated claims! No, you don't like it when someone points out the specific errors in your posts regarding the "authenticity" of the bible, the information base history or the fake names and forged documents. All you have left is name-calling because you have never done any independent research. You can only insult someone who does do research and presents you with the facts. Your insults will not get your point across any better. I doubt that anyone cares what you believe, and I think everyone knows that you are incapable of facing any fact about your silly beliefs.

Proof of something means dates, names and places and your unsubstantiated claims are not proof of anything. It is always boring to read actual history for someone who has very poor reading skills. Looking for the fact based historical records or history by doing research is something that you have never done.

Jonathans - remark - "anyways the reason why we no recording of jesus other than the bible is because the romans destroyed all the evidence."

I know that statement is false and actually it was answer. First learn how to spell and then go back and try to learn how to understand what you read.

The remark Jonathan, "if mark didnt write it then who did? please answer this question."

This was also answered you just couldn't figure it out.

Your "conclusions" merely reiterate how you have come to your crazy-ass, unsubstantiated claims.

If you were serious about learning anything about a subject a fact-based report wouldn't be boring.

randy

guys, give it up to the man that has showed us that atheist are hypocrites, liars, and niave.

your a hypocrite because you told me to stop insulting everybody but you insulted me on a whole post. by the way i have not insulted you in any ways. you also tell me to post up facts but you dont do it yourself.

your a liar because you say things like mark didnt write the book of mark even though you dont show me who actually wrote. i mean come on you have to give me a name. but you dont because that is absolutely false. so please keep your mouth shut if your not gona give answers to my questions.

your niave because you say there is no god but it is impossible for god not to exist.

so please keep your mouth shut and let the big boys handle these debates because your arguments are childish.

god bless.

Jonathan,

You always come on like you think people are impressed with your imbecilic rubbish. Your remarks towards others that are far above you in maturity and astuteness are amusing. Whatever their shortcomings are the "atheist" evidently has been active and curious enough to find out what antiquity has to offer concerning subjects that you are totally ignorant about. You need to rise above your petty level of mental numbness and study ancient history, mythology and study ancient civilizations. Understand that people have always believed incredibly stupid things as much as you do. It is perfectly clear that these atheists have devoted more actual thought and study to religious questions than you have. You are uneducated, gullible and have swallowed as gospel truth whatever the preachers told you.

On whose spurious authority does anyone have to believe an assortment of fantastic fables along with their hypothetical God? We are free to point out the falseness and immorality of the bible if we so choose. If you don't like it, find another perch.

You seem hell bent on making someone here agree that what you believe is true without giving them any testable data. And because someone gave you proof that you were wrong you insulted them first. The only reason was you didn't like the answer you got, and you didn't think they could answer your silly claims. You said that nobody knows the answer. Somebody did know.

In order to find the factual evidence for a valid and appropriate criticism of whatever point someone is making from a standpoint of full knowledge of the issues involved you have to prove that what they said is wrong with facts; not insults. You have proven beyond a doubt that you can not do that. Your belief is a matter of thoughtlessness.

They put forth an effort to understand you and answer your questions. A respect that has not been returned, because you see no reason to try and understand what they are saying. I think you find it devastating to realize that when they apply common sense to religion it is not true or even sensible, if you do realize that? And you cannot argue in a circle about the supernatural with those who confront you with facts that have been gleaned through rational investigation. They have stripped away the unsupported assumptions that are the stock in trade of religion. That is the only thing that they have done, and you consider that wrong because you are willingly ignorant.

Jonathan,

Saying something doesn't make it so. If you can't give any documentation nobody has to believe what anyone says. Just because you do expect someone to believe things on "faith" it doesn't mean a thing as far as reality goes? It is your obligation to investigate what you are claiming to be true. You have no intentions of doing that, because you can't, and you resent anyone who can. Slandering people who prove you are wrong has not been working since you first started doing it. People do have the right to reach different conclusions; especially those who have done the work and you have not. They can speak honestly about what they have studied and learned, and these are honest thoughts. There is no real honest investigation apparent in anything that you have ever written. I think it was proven that the things you were claiming are not true. One was the Geneva Bible being authentic and the first Bible translated in English. Also the colossal fraud and lies at the very basis of Christianity. Gospels palmed off as the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, four of Christ's disciples. Yet scholars are perfectly aware "there is no evidence that either the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, or the other writings, as we have them, existed within a hundred and twenty years after the Crucifixion."

I will add that the public is informed in the margin of our "Revised Bible" that the second half of the last chapter of Mark, from the ninth to the twentieth verses, does not exist in the oldest manuscripts, while some manuscripts give a different ending altogether. The author of the second Epistle to the Thessalonians appears to indicate that shameless forgeries were already rife, and expresses apprehension that his own name should be attached to such frauds (2:2 - 3:17). And the complaint of Celsus, in the second century, that the Christians were perpetually correcting and altering their Gospels.

Who wrote the books? They do not know. What evidence is this? None, unless all things found in books are true.

We know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. No one knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No one knows when they were written, or where. Scholars know that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. Matthew and Luke added these features. The Gospel of Mark is not the original Mark. In the same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document, which is called the "original Mark." This "original" source went missing in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows.

The Gospel of John is acknowledge by Scholars and some Christian Scholars to be a rendition; that gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy.

The Christian Father, St. Irenaeus made the first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

Christ and his disciples are supposed to have been a Jews, and are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must have been Aramaic, the language of Palestine in that age. But every one of the Gospels is written in Greek. They were not translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts. This is there evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived.

The Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority (witness), the original documents, if they ever existed, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.

There is no reliable early evidence of who wrote the gospels. We continue to use these names for the authors of the gospels, but nobody knows who wrote them.

The books are not verified by secular history. Other historians were writing during this time, but nobody seems to have noticed the life of Christ. None of these secular historians note that Herod killed all babies up to two years old in Bethlehem? How could they miss it? Jesus supposedly did many miracles and preached to many. Nobody outside of the small religious group seems to have noticed.

Matthew 27 tells us that, at the death of Jesus, many dead people came out of their graves and appeared to many. No historian mentions it. None of the other gospels mention it. They didn't notice dead people walking around?

If Matthew was correct, many at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost had just seen one or more of the many dead people that had just presented themselves to many in Jerusalem weeks before. But the disciples in the book of Acts, as Luke tells the story, don't even mention it. They ignored their strongest argument. Apparently when Luke wrote the book of Acts, he had never heard of the story written in Matthew. The book of Matthew is for the most part copied from Mark. Matthew is a word for word replica of Mark. A copy of something found in Mark is not independent confirmation.

If you think that there are only 4 Gospels that were written, you are wrong. There are many many more, and many forgeries. The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.

Paul asks, "If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?"

Acts 20:35 Paul told people "to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." Jesus never made such a biblical statement. Paul lied.

Matthew 5:1, 6:9-13 and 7:28 - Jesus delivered the Lord's Prayer during the Sermon on the Mount before the multitudes. Luke 11:1-4 he delivered it before the disciples alone, and not as part of the Sermon on the Mount. But the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Sermon on the Mount and The Lords Prayer existed hundreds of years before the supposed life of Jesus. It was not a Christian innovation.

St Paul snatched the so-called Doctrine of the Faith, the bedrock of Christianity from a Qumran text known as the Habakkuk Commentary; one of the central messages of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This was done to release the priesthood of Christianity from any accountability by cutting it free from the Law which was binding on every Jew - from the highest to the lowest. And there is a high probability that the life of Jesus of the Gospels was created, modeled along the lines of the Teachers of Righteousness that was also part of the messianic Qumran tradition. This is what scholar concluded when the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls first became available.

People can believe anything, but they can't try to force it on others as the "truth" when it isn't.

linda

the geneva bible was the second bible published in english.

ok if mark didnt exist then who wrote it? atheist, scientist, and schollars have not been able to come up with the answer of who wrote mark. i mean you expect me to believe mark didnt write the book of mark even though you have no proof who wrote it. that is ridiculous. that is like going to court and saying that you didnt commit murder but have no proof that you didnt commit the murder.

so please until you find me the name of the person that wrote the book of mark im going to believe a documented book over a niave atheist.

god bless.

Jonathan,

Although it has already been stated eloquently, and with much more interesting details, I think I can simplify it for you. You don't seem to understand that it is the one making a claim that has to produce proof. I do not have to prove anything about your claim, you do. You are saying it is true, therefore you should be proving it by presenting the evidence. I don't have to prove something or someone didn't exist, for which there is no evidence. You have to prove that they did exist or that something did happen with evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Then it can be considered true. In any field the person making the claim has to prove it. Nobody has to believe any claim, of any kind, unless the person making the claim has proven beyond any doubt that it is true. If you claim someone wrote something you have to prove that statement, and nobody has ever found anything that confirms your claim. What is your confirmation?

The Bible is a collection of books. The Bible consists of various books written by various men at different times. The assembling of this collection of various books into one book was done over a long period of time. No original manuscripts exist of the Bible. The Bible is an out of context, biased canon that the Council of Nicea concocted in 325 CE. When the council of Nicea was started in 325 CE there were thousands of gospels that had existed throughout Europe. Although there were several canons it was not until 325 CE that a Council of Bishops in Rome decided to make an official canon. They decided to discard and destroy every book that did not comply with their theology of a divine Jesus and the Trinity.

The so-called "authors" of the Bible, the four gospels are said to have been individuals with these names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, but they were not the authors of the Gospels, and they were not disciples of Christ. The books are titled "The Gospel According To" Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

History shows that these traditional names were given by second century Christians to anonymously written works. This means that these writings were randomly assigned authorship over a hundred years after they were written. In other words these Gospels were not eyewitness accounts or even second hand accounts of the alleged ministry of Jesus. They were written decades later by people who would do anything to show the creditability of their doctrines.

The most widely used Bible is the New International Version, and in its commentary concerning the book of Mark it states, "there is no internal or direct evidence for authorship". In fact most Bibles when introducing this Gospel, as well other writings that are contained in the canon, advise that the authors are anonymous and unknown.

We already know the Gospel "According to Mark" does not identify its own author. Evangelical Christian scholars agree that the author is unknown. Mark is the Gospel that both Luke and Matthew used for their writings, and Mark is said to have been the earliest of the four. "The Gospel According to Mark" are stories that someone collected, edited and wrote down. It wasn't until the second century that the title "According to Mark" or "The Gospel According to Mark" was affixed to this document.

Why should anyone accept the notion of an "Authorized Version" of the Bible when the 'authority' is not reliable? The fact that the original manuscripts do not exist means that nobody can call the Bible authorized or authentic.

In the Old Testament, we find books mentioned in the Bible that can not be found in the Bible, like the book of Jashar, mentioned in Joshua 10:13. That fact certainly does indicate that there was some sort of 'change' in the Bible.

There are some versions that have omitted entire verses from their respective Biblical inscriptions. In reference to Mark 16:9-20 Biblical scholars and say that there is serious doubt that these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and the vocabulary, style and theological content are unlike the rest of Mark. This would indicate more than one author of a book for which no original documents exist.

Excellent information...

You do realize though, that it seems this "Jonathan" is beyond reasoning. No matter what information you bring to the argument you will not win versus someone of this mind set. The only benefit I see to debating with people like this is that the information put out in the process might be able to be seen by those who have not shut down their minds yet.

Keep up the good work yall, never stop using your mind for that which it is for.

I guess you don't realize that nobody was trying to inform "Jonathan" about anything; it was the other way around. Didn't you notice that he was writing to atheists about the inaccuracy of their thinking and yet he can't defend the accuracy of his own? He was trying to inform us about "things" that I think were proven to be wrong, but nobody expected him to admit that. Just in case you missed it 'Jonathan' lost the argument because he never answered the question "what is your confirmation". "If you claim someone wrote something you have to prove that statement, and nobody has ever found anything that confirms his claim."

That's the point and it is very typical of any discussion that anyone will ever have with anyone indoctrinated into any religion. Even those who claim "I don't take the whole Bible literally". I guess they just take what they like?

I would think that the question should be why does someone who is obviously so ill informed, in the face of their own ignorance, continue to try to force their beliefs on others? I never go out of my way to tell anyone that their faith just does not stand up to reason, or that what they believe is based on false claims, until they try to make me believe it too.

Most of them will never admit to being wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence; and so, any argument with any of them would be for no purpose, if in fact that were the purpose, but it is not. It is to let them know that their claims are being disputed and it is very clear that they can not confirm anything that they claim outside of their own religious material or the bible.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

ustream.tv