More potential arguments vs the Bible

[KV-44-v1]

They refuse salvation themselves because they view God as evil for possibly not saving ALL. Extremely stupid argument.

Psalm 14:1 and Romans 1:22

 

[KV-44-v1]

sorry I cannot give you the proof that you demand......and when the proof does come, I do hope you can see it for what it is..

Asserting a "great thing" like "man changed God's Word!!!!" needs great evidence. So you are admitting you are IGNORANT on the issue?? Wow. You accuse God's Word of being changed, yet when even slightly pressed you have... NOTHING?? That is SO PRIDEFUL. You think your silly belief that humans are more powerful than God's Word will win???? If you accuse someone of being a criminal should we just believe it? Wow. I am sure glad most lawyers don't operate like your quickness to doubt God's Word.

Also that "man significantly changed Bible" belief seeks to undermine God's Character. So He is in character when He inspires the Bible but then He arbitrarily loses character and fails/refuses to preserve His Word? How arbitrary and anti Biblical.
Shouldn't you know a good amount on this issue????
If you are ignorant why are you making a claim in lack of knowledge??

You are playing a DANGEROUS game. Fighting God's Word by saying mere man changed it is WILD.

Your position is a position of questioning God's Character ("He can't/won't preserve His Word"), a position of pride and humanism (elevating your unfounded idea above God's Word), and ignorance (the fact your belief is indefensible and easy to refute).

 

[Fish153]

Asserting a "great thing" like "man changed God's Word!!!!" needs great evidence. So you are admitting you are IGNORANT on the issue?? Wow. You accuse God's Word of being changed, yet when even slightly pressed you have... NOTHING?? That is SO PRIDEFUL. You think your silly belief that humans are more powerful than God's Word will win???? If you accuse someone of being a criminal should we just believe it? Wow. I am sure glad most lawyers don't operate like your quickness to doubt God's Word.

Also that "man significantly changed Bible" belief seeks to undermine God's Character. So He is in character when He inspires the Bible but then He arbitrarily loses character and fails/refuses to preserve His Word? How arbitrary and anti Biblical.
Shouldn't you know a good amount on this issue????
If you are ignorant why are you making a claim in lack of knowledge??

You are playing a DANGEROUS game. Fighting God's Word by saying mere man changed it is WILD.

Your position is a position of questioning God's Character ("He can't/won't preserve His Word"), a position of pride and humanism (elevating your unfounded idea above God's Word), and ignorance (the fact your belief is indefensible and easy to refute).

In AD 70 at the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple the "Essenes" (a Jewish sect) hid many scrolls in the desert caves near Qumran. In 1947 (one year before the birth of Israel in 1948) a shepherd boy threw a rock into one of the caves and heard a breaking sound. He went into the cave and very close to the front he found clay jars containing scrolls. This was the first discovery. Over a few more years MANY of the caves were found to contain the same types of scrolls. What is amazing though is that none of these clay jars were buried or greatly hidden. They were near the front of the caves. For 2000 YEARS no one found them! Think of that---2000 years and NO ONE found these jars. Then one year before Israel becomes a nation they are found. Coincidence? No---God's timing.

One of the scrolls (many copies of this same scroll were found in other jars) was ISAIAH. Now---after 2000 years you would expect there to be many differences, or errors from today's text. But read:

"For the degree of correlation of the Great Isaiah Scroll (I Qa) to the Masoretic text, Gleason Archer in A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994) states: “Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (AD [sic] 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.”

Did God preserve his Word over 2000 years? Yes--he did. Just as he preserved his people. Scrolls: found 1947---Israel reborn 1948---after 2000 years. Amazing!

 

[Who Me]

Luke did not live in the time of Jesus as one example......

What if the Bible is flawed....from what men have done with it? I asked a question in another thread.....and I would like to ask it of you....

Please provide the evidence that shows that Luke did not live in the time of Jesus?

You say the bible is flawed, again what evidence do you have for this statement?

A little basic research would have shown you that Luke wrote as the companion of Paul who was a contemporary of Jesus.
Atheist historians date the creedal statement Paul gives in Corinthians to have organised within ten years of Jesus's resurrection.
Other historians have evaluated Lukes writing and state that he is always accurate when stating geographical or political facts.

Relevance of this, well with out history books or the Internet could you write a travel blog based one hundred years ago, getting names, places, political organisations All correct.
Luke did, but he was an eyewitness.


Biblical errors. Get a good bible and look at the footnotes.
You will quickly see where there are alternative readings, translation querri3s etc etc.
Interestingly while there are lots of footnotes, there are no queries or quibbles over the passages dealing with our salvation.

Are there errors, well there are around 4000 known errors, note one word misspelt several times in a passage is counted for each misspelling.
Which changes how those " errors " are seen.