Does the Bible have a 2.0 rebrand?

[OddBeMe]

I’ve heard this argument a lot.

Die Harder.

Yes, it corrects issues in the Old Testament

No, it doesn’t correct, just builds on the OT.

Other

[strateguy632]

certain parts of new testament definitely "improve" the previous covenant [old testament" so in a way yes the new testament is like a bible 2.0

[CozyCoffin]

Yeah, it's revealed by the prophet, Sal Volcano.

[OddBeMe]

Live long and prosper.

[AngryCarl]

There are more versions of the Bible than there are days in a year. Pick one you like.

[strateguy632]

wrong those "versions" are names of translations. but same contents and stories and ideas.

[sean1234]

Some of those versions turn Jesus into a ordinary man, change multiple verses, leave out verses and chapters. One was soo changed, it isn't even recognized as Christian by anyone... the quran.

[AngryCarl]

@strateguy632 Well many are translations, yes. But there a many different versions in English.

[sean1234]

... to steadily even slowly lead people astray from the true word of God. I wouldn't doubt by Jesuits or free masons who possibly know what the truth is, but don't agree with it. Even moving a comma before a word instead of after can change the whole meaning of a verse or whole chapter.

[OddBeMe]

@sean1234 so best idea is go off the original gospels. Where are they?

[sean1234]

The Hebrew and Greek texts which is called the king James Version.

[OddBeMe]

@sean1234 those are the original texts? The original documents?

[AngryCarl]

@sean1234 The King James version was an early English translation. It's not necessarily the most accurate.

[sean1234]

Yes, Hebrew and Greek, original.

AND yes the most accurate at least in the English language, not saying bibles in others languages are more accurate, but hear good things about the one in German.

[OddBeMe]

@sean1234 but no originals. So how do you the King James Version is accurate? Or any of them? We can’t compare to originals.

[sean1234]

The old testament is the Torah and tanakh minus the book if enoch which has very non Christian teachings and errors. Anyhow both of them have been unchanged otherwise have they not? As for the new testament...

www.bibleuniverse.com/.../archaeological-finds-that-support-the-bible

www.cbc.ca/.../new-dead-sea-scrolls-1.5951332

There's archeological evidence also. Stuff here and there.

[OddBeMe]

@sean1234 unchanged…like taking out the Enoch? Thank you for proving me right. You have no access to the original gospels (there were several that didn’t make the print, fyi), and you provided proof on why we shouldn’t trust the translated ones we have today.

Stufft could be missing from them. Right?

[sean1234]

www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_sinaiticus.html/

This talks about Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf, a German evolutionist theologian, at St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai. He discovered the first part in 1844 and the second part in 1859.

It's the oldest book of error. Here's a paragraph of it...

A great amount of carelessness is exhibited in the copying and correction. "Codex Sinaiticus 'abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.' On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." (John Burgon, The Revision Revised) It is clear that the scribes who copied the Codex Sinaiticus were not faithful men of God who treated the Scriptures with utmost reverence. The total number of words omitted in the Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone is 3,455 compared with the Greek Received Text (Burgon, p. 75).

Mark 16:9-20 is omitted in the Codex Sinaiticus, but it was originally there and has been erased.

[sean1234]

The point is satan has always attacked the bible. Enoch had things to say, but his works were lost. The book of enoch people know of today is a fraud. All the bible parallels itself. The laws, the word of God in general which is why that book of enoch is untrusted or rather ancient b. s., lol. Bs as in bull $hit

Kjv says the sons of God married the daughters of men, as in the sons of God were good normal human Christian like men marrying evil women.

Book of enoch said the sons of God were literally fallen angels, lol😆 450 feet tall.

More of its humorous crap here...
readingacts.com/.../

[OddBeMe]

@sean1234 And there you have it. No real facts to back your claims, just feelings that Satan is behind the destruction of the Bible.

What if Satan was the good guy and Jesus was the bad guy? Did Satan ever lie?

[sean1234]

There you have what? No real facts? The book of enoch has quite obvious things on it that don't make sense. Written by a person no different than yourself.

I thought the sons of God being regular men like myself quite an obvious thing and sons/daughters of man being like yourself that believe that the bible is just some book.

That makes less sense or no difference to you than fallen angels or 450ft tall monsters having babies with women?

[OddBeMe]

@sean1234 Uhhhh…your sons of God are horrible child rapists and domestic abusers. Just look up religious beliefs in prison. No atheists in there!

[Dargil]

All real translations except one, the JH version tell the same story.

[OddBeMe]

Translations of translations. Wheres the original gospels?

[strateguy632]

odd, original is in greek. bible colleges teach greek if you wanna read the original go to bible college.

[Dargil]

In each translation. The truth is not lost.

[OddBeMe]

Then show , w the original.

[Dargil]

@strateguy632 We won't do that. His purpose is to be contrary. Like lots of libs, he never focuses on asserting a vision or position. He focuses against them. Wrench thrower. But that is the dark side of free speech.

[OddBeMe]

Fucking kidding me? You may not be like that, despite voting for your religious views. But your religion is nothing but asserting itself on everyone else.

[KrakenAttackin]

Funny how liberals only disrespect Christianity but would never dare disparage the Quoran or other religious texts.

[Daniela1982]

@KrakenAttackin That is because the thought of possibly going to an actual hell scares them, so they discount the Bible as fiction.

[KrakenAttackin]

@Daniela1982 I think they are taught that anything "Christian" is "conservative" and therefore "bad". However, any other religion is to be respected and "embraced" no matter how violent or counter-diversity/inclusion it is.

[Daniela1982]

Agree. 😉👍🏼

[OddBeMe]

Because it’s so fcking crazy it’d be like de-constructing scientoligy.

[sean1234]

The new testament is the completed works of the bible.

[sean1234]

... you CAN'T have one without the other!

[OtterMan68]

CHRISTians follow the teachings of Christ.

The OT is just to show how the prophets foretold Christ's coming.

[OddBeMe]

So the Ten Commandments mean nothing?

And when did Jesus say “Disregard all the slavery and rape in the OT.”

[OtterMan68]

Didn't Jesus give two commandments to follow?

[OddBeMe]

He said a lot. But also said “slaves obey your masters even the cruel ones.”

[OtterMan68]

www.franciscanmedia.org/.../

[OddBeMe]

Here’s the problem: Slaves aren’t considered people or Christians. Even the OT says “dont take peoples freedom” but a chapter later says “enslave those enemies of Christianity”.

So this apologetics means very little to me. Sorry.

[OtterMan68]

so be it. Thanks for the civil debate

[OddBeMe]

You too. I think you’re better than your religion.

[Sevenpointfive]

there's a lot better fiction out there

[goaded]

Isn't that called the Quran?

[OddBeMe]

Shhhh! We don’t want to get “aombedb”

[Staximus]

The Bible is for hogwashers

[OddBeMe]

Never thought of hogwash in terms of those who use hogwash…lol

[Dongie]

We'll find out.

[OddBeMe]

Probably not.