Mazty said:
chriscox1121 said:
Mazty said:
chriscox1121 said:
Mazty said:
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?
|
Did he write is, as in J Smith, no. Did he compile it? No one knows. We do know that without the first council of Nicea, that we wouldn't have the established relationship between Jesus and God. Considering how big of a concept that is in Christianity, go figure how much else of the Bible may have been fabricated.
|
so then you are retracting your initial statements then.
|
Clarifying, not retracting. No need to be pedantic.
|
well I'm glad you have finallly given me your position, but I must say its a far cry from the one you initially stated; language does have meaning.
