- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Just as a quick side note the Bible was not written in Latin in its original language but was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. As for alterations, the Bible was not altered but the proper term for what you are referring to is called transliteration in which the original text was transcribed into another language. As for the Quran, it as also been transliterated into multiple languages as well, in which is available in English. What you are referring to is the inerrancy of the Holy Bible.
Through many different archaeological finds, such as the scrolls found in Qumran have shown that the Bible has not been altered. Also, the Bible has really not been passed through censorship as much as you claim it has in which you go against what the majority of the scholars suggest. The accuracy of the Bible when subjugated in its authenticity against other ancient texts proves itself to be much more accurate than those in which it is put up against.
One example is of Alexander the Great in which the closest related biography of him is about 400 years later whereas the earliest letter of Paul in the New Testament is right around 15 years(which is the latest date and the earliest date being around 5-7 years) after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Even though the New Testament was written about two millenia ago the Scripture still remains as accurate today as it did in its original form as archeology has shown.
The assertion that the Bible is unreliable because it is disputed so harshly an easily is irrational based on the assumption that some people do not believe in it. The fact of the matter is this, rather I say I am a bible toting Christian or a hard core Atheist will obstruct a person's view of what I may say. With that in mind I will continue anyways with what I would like to say.
You say that faith is highly illogical, however, just saying this simple sentence about faith being illogical is counterproductive within itself. Is it logical to think that what you are saying about faith is true? Do you not have to have faith that what you are saying is based within a foundation of truth. In essence it is illogical to say that faith in and of itself is therefore illogical. Also, what is the basis for logic? Is it based on a common sense of some sort, an absolute truth or upon something else?
Without the Bible it is hard to believe in what is known as truth. The Word of God is infallible and inerrant. THe reason the Bible is so important is that it gives us a written account of the truth of God. For example the New Testament books were written no more than eighty years from the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. The soonest of the New Testament was to be written no longer than that of fifteen years. With that being said the Bible was composed so that we as man can know the Word of God as it was originally written and not passed down from many generations with the possibility of the original message being corrupted.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!