tiffac said:
ganoncrotch said:
tiffac said:
mrstickball said:
tiffac said:
Note to Fox News, next time read pass the cover of the book.
Also about the discussion if the Bible is factual or not. Its actually both yes and no.
Yes because actual historical figures, prophets have written the gospel and No, because the Bible and its content has probably been changed, edited, cut or censored to benefit the few and use it as their main weapon.
The Vatican. |
You don't realize this, but there are copies/manuscripts available of the Bible that have been discovered that pre-date any Vatican involvment in the Bible. P4, P45, P46, P47, P66, and P75 all pre-date Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and Alexandrinus among others. These manuscripts and fragments were all dated to 200AD and 250AD - which is 50+ years before Vaticanus.
|
But how did this contradict my point that the current form of the Bible has not been tampered by the Vatican?
Edit: You did backed me up though that the Bible has historical basis.
|
Fragments of it are older than the vatican? you can take fragments of a story and write the rest in any way you please, you do realize this right
|
Wasn't that what I said?
|
oh, yeah sorry I'm a bit tired actually meant my reply to Mr stickball and not to you, I agree with you completely having fragments of a story and making a massive book out of it and trying to say that it happened word for word as it was in the bible is just rediculous. Even just in translation so much of the original story can be lost/amended in any way you want really.
