Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by TF49


Nope, as I have explained before, there is an abundance and evidence and a surety of proof...... but you don’t see it .....

Further, this guy is commenting on the Bible and presumably offering comment about biblical interpretation.

He is ignorant of the basics but comments anyway.....,simply does not know what he is talking about.....

The “basics” here is not the “reality” of God, nor even the evidence for God. He commenting on what the Bible says and how it is interpreted. As I said, he does not have an understanding..... simple.



That's not an argument. You are offering your opinion. A poorly informed opinion at that.

The fact is, the earliest form of bible, the Codex, is not the same as the current version/s. Nor is this the only problem with the bible.

For example;

Compare differences between the King James Version and Codex Sinaiticus


''The text of Codex Sinaiticus differs in numerous instances from that of the authorized version of the Bible in use during Tischendorf’s time. For example, the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent from the Codex Sinaiticus. So is the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). The woman caught in adultery from John 8 is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus. According to James Bentley, Tischendorf was not troubled by the omission of the resurrection in Mark because he believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark’s gospel was an abridged version of Matthew’s gospel. If this were true, the absence of resurrection in Mark would not be a problem because it appears in the older Matthean gospel. Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.''

''One other omission in Codex Sinaiticus with theological implications is the reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51. Additionally, Mark 1:1 in the original hand omits reference to Jesus as the Son of God.''


Let's look at another example of DBT's self-vaunted scholarship:
Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.''

The short ending of Mark omits verses 9-16, not the whole chapter, so therefore in the short ending we still have the resurrection:

5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”

You should not be putting yourself forth as a scholar if you are not going to present scholarly material.

Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/16/19.