Mazty said:
chriscox1121 said:
you send me a wikipedia link and tell me "L2research"? OK. Anyways, your wikipedia source is only claiming that he ordered 50 copies to be produced from the copies that were already in existence. According to the one source (Eusebius) it was for the use at constanople and the other new churches that were being established. It doesn't have anything to do with him writing the bible as you claimed. The "bible" was not even canonized at the time. You made a very big claim that he wrote the bible, which is completely false.
|
If you don't know how to use a referenced page, than that is your problem, not mine. If you find issues with those reference, then fair enough. But until you do, then it's a good source for an online debate. By writing the Bible I mean he compiled it (him and others) - he didn't go Joseph Smith on it. The fact is though that the first Bible's weren't recorded until about ~300 years after the given events so that should bring into doubt the validity of the stories which would have changed as they had been passed on generation to generation.
|
The comment was made in jest in light of your comment "learn2resarch" and then quoting wikipedia, the irony of what you said is laughable. Anyways, by saying "writing" you implied that he edited or redacted its contents, which i think is easily seen to be false and you are stepping away from your statement or perhaps you weren't clear enough on to begin with. The source you quoted didn't say anything about compiling the bible, it only mentions him wanting to make copies of what was already in existence. You are reading into what the source says. Do you have any evidence that he compiled, edited, redacted its actually contents? or are you just making stuff up?
