The Atheist Experience

Again, that says nothing about the originals, only that there are lots of professional copyists.

Because there is evidence of at least one totally additional text that was the original source for what was later copied into parts of Luke and Matthew but was not a source for Mark. So we know that what we do have originates by editing and copying material from Mark and at least one other yet unfound document.What we have in Luke, Mathew and John at least are later creations primarily based on earlier documents. No Phat, I do not want us to become a source, but I do think it would be wise to acknowledge what is actually there and what can actually be known. And yet no original source has ever been revealed.What is clearly evident is that stories did get expanded and revised and embellished way beyond the original. Two examples you and I have discussed extensively are the Great Commission and Paul's experience on the Road Again...If the evidence shows that what we do have are copies and embellishments and revisions of earlier work that is absolutely never been found and unknown, how can anyone honestly try to claim they know what was in the original?Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

But Phat, that is true of EVERY religion and EVERY God. It is evidence that those who claim to believe in that God or that whatever seem to believe in that God or that whatever.

If you look at what is actually written in Exodus it has exactly the style and content of the Saturday Matinee serial; short exciting episodes that each end with a cliff hanger to be resolved in the next nights tale. It was created to be employment for a story teller over an extended stay before moving on to the next encampment. It is also early propaganda, "This is how you became ONE people, more than just your tribe."

You are free to disagree but it's still true today. Every priest, pastor, rabbi, imam makes a living as a story teller. The Bible is a collection of collections of stories, each told originally by a story teller. Which is why you should throw away all the Gods and gods. GOD is not the Gods and gods. All of the Gods and gods are just human creations.

GOD, if GOD exists, is not going to be anything like what humans have created as gods or Gods.

But there is no stronger historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth than there is for any of the Gods or gods humans have created.

Whether or not you will have to do with less is entirely up to you.Again, look at the evidence.Almost every First World nation (and most Second and Third World nations) on Earth except the US has found a way to provide health care even better than the US norm without their citizens having less and less.Almost every First World nation (and most Second and Third World nations) without their citizens having less and less.Almost every First World nation (and most Second and Third World nations) on Earth except the US has found a way to provide infrastructure even better than the US norm without their citizens having less and less.The list goes on.

Hint.Revelation is NOT Genesis 2&3 and so is totally irrelevant in determining what is in Genesis 2&3.

You are free to ignore whatever you want but that does not change the fact that the story actually says what is written. There is no reason that you cannot ignore reality if you so desire. We cannot know what the intent of the authors was but we can know what the authors wrote. And what does the evidence show? Are humans surviving without the need to believe?Edited by jar, : fix quotebox

That is only the conjob of the CCoI.

Utter nonsense and another example of the gross and complete ignorance of the CCoI.The contemporaries of ANY given part of the Bible knew each was a separate and individual scroll and not some whole. Trying to mash them all together is a purely later Christian invention and even there there is no uniformity since "the Bible" is as few as just five books in the smallest canon and over eighty books in the largest canon.There is not and never has been any such thing as "The Bible". Even today the tradition is to acknowledge that it is NOT one unified writing by the convention of "The Books of the Bible" not "The Book of the Bible".Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Yet another absurd attempt to con the rubes.The content of the Bible is what was written in the Bible; apologetics are all just attempts to make the Bible something it is not nor was meant to be by the authors and to find loopholes to get around the actual text as written and try to make it fit the "Bible" and God" the apologists created.

The point is that the Bible is filled with errors, omissions, contradictions and fantasy as well as facts and history and opinions and propaganda.The point is that ringo acknowledges the Bible really says what it says while the apologists try to make it something different to match the God they create and market.

That is not something I market but rather the conclusion of all available evidence. Again, what does the evidence show Phat? Did Jesus ever become a prince or ruler? Did Jesus die?Do you mean a mind that ignores and denies what is actually written and claims that it must mean sothething other than what was written?