Free Invitation to Eternal Life

I joined this discussion only in response to the question of translation issues and manuscript evidence.  I also said I can't condense 20+ years of study into a message board so I asked for particular sources on the inaccuracies of the Bible.  I also said there was debate, but how that debate is settled.  I said there are changes, but how those changes are marked in the NKJ Bible in italics so they are easily readable in English.  I've given examples of meanings in the Greek text and how the change from "tetelesti" means "Paid in full" but is translated in our English Bible as "It is finished" and that ultimately the meaning of the completion of the redemptive work of Christ is not lost in the translation.  I have yet to see specifics from anyone else here.  Give me the text or the link to the document you found in 60 seconds and I'll gladly read and address it.

I'm not addressing corruption in the church.  There is corruption in every institution run by man.  that does not mean that there are not honest people with ethical standards within those organizations--church or secular--that we need to seek as reputable.  Yes, there is blood in church history; there is blood throughout mankind's history, to our great misfortune and shame.  Man has a sin nature and all men have fallen in one way or another.  So we look to the most reputable sources among those men.  I'm not going to dismiss the Bible because there are some who apply it in shameful ways.  I look to the source.  There are disgraceful nonbelievers throughout our history as well.  I'm not going to entertain that argument.  I'm addressing textual evidence for the Bible only.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone who knows how to access the code and in some cases, entries are marked "Edit" and requests are made for people to add to or change Wikipedia entries.  It is the least reliable source of info on the Internet.  Find something that is copywritten and exists in paper form as well so its contents can be verified.

Common sense arguments are usually  just opinions not based on verifiable sources.  Everyone has an opinion; I am only interested in a discussion of verifiable, educated positions.  You are entitled to your opinion.  I would wish more of us held opinions based on a search for knowledge.  If knowledge were the prerequisite to conversations, silence would prevail!

I think it is interesting that when someone brings depth and detail to a discussion of the Bible that can be verified, others see that as a flaw in the discussion.  If you want to discuss a topic intelligently, study is required.  If study is inconvenient, I have no problem leaving anyone to spew opinion.  I know what my beliefs are based on.  I've invited people in this discussion to join me in exchanging reliable sources from the scholars who represent the various sides.  If detailed investigation of facts is not where this discussion will lead, I will gladly withdraw.  I did my study.  If an invitation to jointly study a topic at a time is contrary to what this discussion is about, I have no interest in being here.

The presumptuousness of skeptics who will not produce authenticated positions wastes my time.  Where is the text or link to your article?  I don't think anyone should take any position without having looked into it and studied it from reliable sources.  My faith is not blind.  I'm assuming the other positions discussed here are not based on blind faith either and so I ask for sources.  It is a reasonable thing for an educated person to do.  I wait to see what you have to offer as I will never stop studying any and all positions.

http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm

Sorry, it didn't post and I didn't realize it.  This was supposed to be in my "60 seconds" post.  It kept giving me major problems for some reason.  A CBS conspiracy against me??

I am good bro, thanks.

That first sentence (underlined), is the problem. It is real, yes, and again yes, the church has to be accountable on some level. There are organized churches, and pioneering churches (both of which are corruptible if left open to corruption). Organizations of man! That church is destined to fall prey to evil. It is hard enough to ward off the attacks of satan, do attempt it in your power is futile. A prospering Church is Spirit led in truth and wisdom, and most of all Love. I know I am going off a little, I just want to point out what causes churches and men to fall prey. It is the lack of God. We all have to be accountable though, and the church is not above accountability. "The Church" is a phrase that I do not like to use, since not all churches have the same belief or teaching, etc, etc. We (Christians) are the church. THAT being said, we are still sinners, and fall short.

Settled in your eyes.  Apparently when Saddam said he had no weapons you believed him imediately.  I mean his entire cabinet agreed with him.  Settled right?

ultimately the meaning of the completion of the redemptive work of Christ is not lost in the translationMy arguement has always been the ultimate message is reliable, but the less you quote, the less reliable it is.  I don't think your arguement refutes that in any way.

Then you should end your debate with me.  It goes against your side so you choose to run.  I loose nothing.  (I win nothing either, not implying I would)  It is my assertion that there was such great corruption in the church that there have been changes made to many things and covered up.  An example would the apostles creed.  It wasn't written by the apostles and wasn't written for a reason that really had anything to do with them. 

You can argue that there were  many good people in the church at that time and I will agree with you.  There were good people at Enron too.  Do you really believe that the corrupt did nothing to the bible?

It's not about the application.  It's about the bad guys having control of the thing and who got to see what.  What was kept and what was destroyed.  Does that really not matter.  You honestly can believe nothing wrong ever went on?  I don't say dismiss the whole book.  I just say to be skeptical about certain parts.  Realize that people got their meaty hands in there and a little faith is required now in that part too.  Be realistic.

 Good point.  It helps support my notion that just because people were holy doesn't mean that they wouldn't make changes they shouldn't have.  People are people regardless of faith.

I agree.  However to look up Hades, it is good enough and did the job required of it.  All things have a use, even if you believe otherwise.  The challenge is knowing how and where.

The multitude of assuptions you have made strogly disputes your statement.  Please sell that to someone else.

Are you now claiming knowledge doesn't exist?  A pseudo Descartes role or something?  He got past that point so move on with him.  I would like to think you are not the judgement block for what constitutes knowledge.  I believe your search for wisdom unfotunately appears to have gotten lost focusing on what you know instead of what you don't.  You can claim to have all the expert knowledge in the world.  I have yet to meet a wise man who would make such claims.  As you preach down from your high pulpit, the audience of you is amazed by your self lauding.  I prefer to think of myself as a simple man who gets lucky on occasion.

Actually the flaw is diverting things to an area you feel much more comfortable in and trying to defend the action as anything but that.  Your chess moves are far more transparent than you think.  I don't revel in the awe of you that you seem to.  To attempt to dimiss my arguements as usupportable and unintelligent does nothing to my confidence in my opinion.  However it does show signs of a desparate bluff.  I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not.  It's not what I am seeking.  I  you wish to have an intelligent debate we will do so.  If you feel you are the criteria maker for intelligence, take your arrogance elsewhere.  The message will be lost in the self absorbing nature it is presented in anyway.  If you feel anything I say is unreliable, I like you have no desire to put all of my studies and education here.  If there are perticulars in question here and there, I find that to be reasonable.  It's a message board not congress.

Please, more self affirmation.  You have already posted on the marvels of your work.  You truely must be listed among the scholars.  You know all the support to the bibles authenticity yet none of the arguements against.  What great work you have done.  Everytime  you say how learned you are and ask for sources for a single arguement it makes me chuckle.  Do you see how your own words convict the marvelous claims you shower us with.  The sophists were quite adept at the art of language as well.  Have you ever studied their work?  It's rather fascinating if you haven't.  I think you would enjoy it.

Could it be the fact that you just don't have the knowledge to know they are authenticated?  Just because you ask for proof and are not given it doesn't invalidate an arguement.  The world was still round, long before it could be proven.  You are not all knowing.  The focus on your knowledge and not you