In the gospel of Matthew Saint Peter professes "Thou art thy Christ, the son of God" but in Marks gospel Peter does not profess the latter part but only "Thou art thy Christ".

In fact the first person to profess Jesus was the centurion in the Gospel of Mark.

One explanation I've heard is that Peter was just like the rest of his tribesman in that they saw but did not fully believe. That's why Marks gospel highlights this point, even if Peter said what he said in the gospel of Matthew it wasn't a full fledged belief.

The one counter I would have is this

In the gospel Mark 4:10-12 ~ The Purpose of Parables 10 And when he was alone, those present along with the Twelve questioned him about the parables. 11 He answered them, "The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables, 12 so that they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand,"

But if St Peter didn't have full faith, why did he get the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven but his other tribesman not if they were all the same initially?

Hello, I'm someone on a journey to explore the truth wherever it may lead. Right now I have more of a secular mindset towards religion but I don't nexecessarily have any issues with it.

I have been trying to expose myself to all kinds of thought and philosophical theory in the pursuit of the trut and I'm at point where I would benefit from purposeful discourse with someone who has different views.

If you're willing to have a discussion with me on these topics I would really appreciate it. Feel free to DM me or reach out to discuss further your reasoning or your beliefs, and maybe we could have a fruitful discussion on the nuances of various religious beliefs.

are there good sources (besides acts) for various apostle’s martyrdom? I know Josephus writes about James brother of Jesus the so called Christ. That is a great source.

Another thing I don’t understand is that even if they were immaterial, how this would point the existence of a god. At the most, this would only be a defeater for materialism. But I guess my main contention is that I don’t see how they are immaterial in the first place. The way I see it, the laws of logic are concepts - they’re our descriptions of how the universe tends to behave. They exist solely in our minds. The behaviors are going to be present where we observe them or not, but the laws we have developed to describe them aren’t.

How would you characterize Peterson's apologetic strategy?

Would it be correct to say that that the form of apologetic strategy that Jordan Peterson engages in could be characterized as a form of "postmodern apologetics," that is, the kind of approach that emphasizes the narrative power, psychological and cultural impact of Christianity rather than directly addressing its metaphysical claims?

Thoughts Im having about the byzantine text type, they sound harsh sorry: How could the writers of the Byzantine text type pure heartedly add text to the bible? To my understanding there are almost none Byzantine text type new testamental texts before the year 300 AD. The earliest bible texts we have are Alexandrian text type, which is more minimalistic than Byzantine. So why did the writers of Byzantine or rather Editors add text even though it wasnt inspired like the original text anymore? Wouldnt God have Protected the original original text??

If you think byzantine was written BEFORE alexandrian, even though the evidence seems to suggest a different situation, please explain why.

Is there any explanation how these two types developed and why the byzantine text could be Legitimate?

PS: just potentially speaking - maybe I can lead my thoughts to this conclusion - maybe its not a big Deal that byzantine text type has some additions bc we probably know which verses & can probably still reconstruct the original text which is probably alexandrian. The original meaning of the text is not changed and the Editors probably had no malicious Intent. IF this is the case, does anybody know HOW different the two text types really are? Like is it completely different, is every chapter extremely different or are there just some occassionally added verses?

can you guys give me a scholarly rundown of the epistles? are they all written by their aforementioned writers? what about the dating of them? (I know there are a lot of letters written by different apostles, so you don’t have to give me ALL the presumed dates if they don’t line up) any info would be awesome, thanks so much.

I always used to think the arguments for greek language Nero in Gematria being 'the beast'/antichrist 666 were not convincing enough. But now I found out that the the first times the number in revelation Shows up is in latin written manuscripts, but as 616. These manuscripts are older than the greek 666 ones. And latin word Nero in Gematria is 616! So what a coincidence! 666 is the gematric Code for a lot of names, but 616 is ALSO the latin gematric Code for Nero. Which is pretty convincing... like are the other names also 616?

Are there still counterarguments? Or was Neros 666 just a metaphor for some Antichrist in the future who will be equally bad?

My question is: I dont want Nero to be 666 but he seems like bc the Oldest Text also gives 616. This makes me doubt. Bc why would God let the Antichrist/Beast be Nero?? Also why would he let them use gematria in the scriptures?? Gematria is neither needed by God nor is it 'clean' - I See connections to the whole jewish mystical occult stuff like the Kabbala.

My last straw is that for the first christians Nero was a metaphor for the Antichrist in the future - sb as Bad as Nero.

Hi everyone

This question is for someone who supports presuppositionalism or takes it seriously (which I know some apologists, like WLC, do not).

On my limited understanding based from watching debates by Greg Bahnsen, James White and Darth Dawkins, the argument boils down to "atheists can't (satisfactorily to me) explain where logic/uniformity in nature etc. come from, so your view contradicts itself leaving Christianity as the only coherent and therefore valid option."

I've never understood how anyone can be persuaded by this "Christianity is proven by the impossibility of atheism" because there are many forms of theism which have a transcendent creator, including Deism, Islam and Orthodox Judaism (and probably other religions, I'm unaware of), who is no less capable of "grounding logic" than the Triune God.

So even if atheism were demonstrably invalid, there would be no reason to conclude that Christianity must be true on presuppositional grounds, right?

I could understand if presuppositionalists were using the argument to claim that there must be some god/transcendant creator and then use other grounds for asserting that God is the Triune one, but every presupper I've seen specifically argues for the Christian God.

Am I missing something or is this jus rhetorical dishonesty?

The interpretation of a wedding as in it is only the fathers time to know when to get married - Is this a fairly new solution to the problem of the Son not knowing the hour? This could be problematic as no other in ancient times viewed the verse in this way What type of knowledge is being referred to here, knowledge as in learning something or knowledge as as in declaring something? 3)why does Jesus know some thing using his divine nature (I.e the thoughts of men) and at other times not?

4)The other issue is that there is no clear answer to this, some say that the son does know the hour but does not reveal whereas others state that the son taking on human nature limited his divine knowledge and does not know the hour.

This conundrum makes it hard to understand what is going on here

I'm a young earth creationist, and I'm thinking about asking a series of questions (one per post) for those Christians who are not Young Earth Creationists, but anyone can answer who likes. Here is the fourth one.

(In these questions, I'm asking for your best answer, not simply a possible answer.)

Do you believe there was a world-wide flood (in which the water covered the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits) that took place around 300 years before Abraham?

If not, why?

Also, how do you read Peter's words below?

“Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing ... They deliberately forget this fact, that by the word of God … the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.”

-2nd Peter 3

The idea of Satan vs demons in Jewish belief differ from Christian belief. Satan isn't really an enemy or sole person he's just an adversary Ha Shatan. Basically Satan was made to test mankind it's his role from God.

They believe that there isn't original sin or anything or anything evil working against God. Its all from God. Why did Christianity differ from that?

Pretty self explanatory title. but im pretty curious by what methods we can say to the non believer "Hey my arguments are "Better" than yours and it's more resonable to be a theist rather than a atheist. would like to have a disscussion on what methodology we using to say that.

I agree it is a fallacy for an atheist to claim, "Well, if you were born somewhere else, you would likely not be a Christian." However, what about the following:

You witness two people talking. One person keeps asking random multiplication questions and the other simply uses a random number generator from 1 - 1 billion to answer. "What's 1,583 times 4,832?" The first person asks. The second person hits enter on his random number generator, shows him the result, and says, "this is the answer." Assuming you can't see the result, you would be well justified in believing that the answer provided is incorrect. But isn't this the genetic fallacy? You are saying that he is wrong based solely on the origin of his answer.

I won't go into every detail for the sake of time, so don't stress going over every detail. I am hoping someone can guide me on my train of logic while battling the claims of Islam while defending Christianity below.

1. I believe there are things in Christianity that just have to be accepted based on faith/trust that can't be 100% understood such as Christianity being monotheistic but revealing himself in three beings or things or the stance of creation instead of evolution.
2. One reason I deny Islam is that the Quran claims to be unchanged due to a miracle yet if we look at history there were disputes over the authenticity of the modern Quran that suggest it was changed.

My question is, If I can take stances based on faith in Christianity such as believing in creation instead of evolution why can't Muslims extend that same faith that the Quran is perfectly preserved?

what do you guys make of NDE testimonies? The veridical ones are definitely supernatural but do you guys think it is demonic deception? There are some that are pretty Christian in nature, some hell testimony, some that think that all of the living of universe becomes one, some that recall past lives, also seeing different Jesus, Mary, or other religious figures that aren’t biblical. As a Christian how do we navigate this? there are definitely a lot of liars out there but what of the “real” testimony? Jimmy Akin talks about NDEs but he doesn’t really provide too much opinion on what that means for Christians, he sort of neutrally reports various studies. and there was another Christian apologist that talked about it too and he doesn’t really provide anything other than our conscious lives on. What do you guys make of this?

I'm a young earth creationist, and I'm thinking about asking a series of questions (one per post) for those Christians who are not Young Earth Creationists, but anyone can answer who likes. Here is the third one.

(In these questions, I'm asking for your best answer, not simply a possible answer.)

Do you believe you should make your interpretation of scripture conform to whatever position modern science takes on the relevant issues?

In other words, where the two seem to conflict, do you conclude that your interpretation of scripture is correct or do you conclude that modern science is correct.

I question whether this is as broadly applicable. I replied to a post in /athiests where the author said all Christian’s hate homeless people.

Which of course is not true. I replied with identifying certain sects in the Christian community who don’t follow the Bible. And what the Bible generally says we should do to help the homeless.

And I was banned. My guess in the hours long worth of guidelines posted, the only ‘rule’ I broke was the No True Scotsman fallacy.

It seems like an overly abused pseudo fallacy used as a cop out to exclude or ostracize a person for speaking against an overly broad misplaced assumption about a group of people.

Like it is used as a dialogue stopper because the person can’t put blame on all Christian’s for something.

Am I way off in thinking this?

Why did Norman Geisler speak untruth with the 99,5% accuracy of the NT claim?

I actually admire Geisler. He studied philosophy & theology and has fine credentials. But it does seem like he handled the data negligently. How can you still take him seriously?

I will Post a link in the comments to a McClellan Video explaining this more clearly.

One thing that makes me doubt is contemporary biblical scholarship consensus and academic biblical teachings/bible criticism. Some of their teachings are irreconcilable with faith. (F.e. Bart Ehrmann, McClellan are just one of the most falous scholars & what they are saying is not merely preaching against a higher Power but they represent what is majorily taught in universities & what most liberal scholars (which is the majority) believe. - though this post is not about them but about the teachings of the scholarly consensus)

Yes Im flirting with becoming an evangelical Fundie & I would love the bible to be literally perfect & infallible. But even if one is not an evangelical Fundie it should matter if the bible on the whole is correct. Because Jesus confirmed the Old Testament & thus by denying the OT in the following the New Testament and Jesus gift of eternal life seem invalid, too.

I know there are also conservative scholars but those are not many and the scholarly consensus is eating them up alive.

To dismiss biblical scholar consensus as theories without proof seems too easy and also unfair bc its a science in which loads of hard work was done and many people brooded over it a long time.

I've been trying to convert one of my friends and we started talking about morality. We were discussing how morality comes from God and how there can be no objective morality without God.

And so my friend said that if you need knowledge of God to justify morality (since no morality without God), then God is acting negligently by not directly giving us knowledge of His existence. My friend argues that God's actions prevents human beings from making sense of morality and are therefore dubious and questionable.

What should I say to her?

I'm a young earth creationist, and I'm thinking about asking a series of questions (one per post) for those Christians who are not Young Earth Creationists, but anyone can answer who likes. Here is the second one.

(In these questions, I'm asking for your best answer, not simply a possible answer.)

How long ago do you believe Adam lived?

Modern scholars believe Abraham lived around 2,000 B.C., and the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 say that there are 1,949 years between Adam and Abraham, which would place Adam around 4,000 B.C.

As a young earth creationist, I accept these genealogies as historical (just like Luke did in his gospel), which leads to the conclusion that Adam lived around 6,000 years ago

These genealogies have a special formula that distinguishes them from typical genealogies. The formula seems designed, at least in part, to allow one to calculate how much time passed from Adam to Abraham. The formula says how long each father lived before having a particular son, then it says how long that son lived before becoming the father of the next particular son, and so on. Such a formula allows no room for breaks or omissions in the genealogy, which is unusual, and it allows you to calculate the length of time the whole genealogy spans, which is also unusual.

matthew 7:13-14

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.”

yeah this is from what i’ve seen a metaphor for how many people because it’s easy and comfortable, will choose to reject Christ and go to hell while those who choose to live a life of challenge and difficulty for God will go to heaven, and that’s not a lot if people in this world

what concerns me is that while he will ultimately lose as seen in revelation, won’t this mean that the devil will have ultimately achieved his goal of of turning as many people away from Christ as possible

A lot of times in debate, particularly with atheists, there is an assertion that there is no evidence for the Christian God. I wanted to put together a resource for folks to have when faced with this. I’m posting it around for visibility.

The problem is, people usually assume that only scientific data counts as evidence — and that’s where they miss the point. Evidence comes in all kinds of forms — philosophical, historical, experiential, logical, and yes, even empirical. So critics basically present a false dichotomy by asserting there’s only empirical evidence or no evidence.

Here’s the breakdown:

General Evidence for God

Logical and Philosophical Evidence: Arguments like the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments all point to a transcendent, personal Creator — the universe’s existence, its fine-tuning, and the reality of objective moral values lead to the clear conclusion that there’s a powerful, intelligent, and moral being behind it all.

Design Evidence: The fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life are so precise they suggest intentional design — everything is too perfectly balanced to be the result of random processes — this strongly indicates a purposeful Creator.

Evidence of Imprint: Humans universally long for meaning and something greater — this deep, internal sense of the divine is a reflection of God’s imprint on humanity — it shows we’re made with an inherent recognition of something beyond ourselves.

Experiential Evidence: Personal experiences of the divine are widespread — encounters with God, answered prayers, and lives being transformed offer strong indications of a Creator — even if they don’t immediately point to the Christian God, they show that belief in the divine is grounded in real, personal experiences.

Evidence of Coherence: Theism offers a worldview that makes sense of the universe’s order, morality, and consciousness — it provides a coherent, unified understanding of reality that atheism or materialism can’t match — especially when it comes to purpose and meaning.

Specific Evidence for the Christian God

Historical Evidence: The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ are backed by solid historical evidence — the reliability of the New Testament, external sources, and the apostles’ willingness to suffer for their testimony all point to the truth of Christianity’s core events.

Revelatory Evidence: The Bible’s consistency, fulfilled prophecies, and wisdom point to its divine inspiration — it offers a coherent explanation of humanity’s story and God’s relationship with us — clearly revealing the God of the Bible as the Creator.

Prophetic Evidence: Old Testament prophecies, especially those about Jesus, are fulfilled in precise detail — this gives strong evidence that Jesus is the promised Messiah and affirms the truth of Christianity.

Christological Evidence: Jesus’ claims, His teachings, and His resurrection set Him apart from any other religious figure — the evidence for His resurrection confirms His divine identity and points directly to the Christian God.

Moral Transformation Evidence: Christianity’s teachings have transformed societies — its principles of justice, human rights, and equality have led to significant moral advancements, like the abolition of slavery — showing the power and truth of Christian teachings in shaping the world for the better.

Archaeological and Textual Evidence: Archaeological findings and the study of ancient texts consistently validate the Bible’s historical accuracy — the Bible’s preservation over thousands of years also supports its authenticity and divine origin.

Psychological and Mental Health Evidence: Christian practices like prayer, Bible reading, and community provide measurable mental health benefits — studies show that Christian-informed therapy reduces depression more effectively than secular approaches — underscoring the practical and spiritual impact of a relationship with the Christian God.

When you put it all together, these lines of evidence build a strong case that God exists — and that the Christian God — revealed through Jesus Christ and Scripture — is the most logical and compelling understanding of who that God is.

Hello, fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ! I am a young-ish believer in Jesus without any theological knowledge. I have 2 philosophical questions about the creation of our world by God that keep me up at night. All Christian perspectives are welcome!

1. Why didn't God create us to be more like Him? We would still have free will, but we wouldn't desire/have a need to sin. We would be sinless just like in Heaven and we would still have as much free will as in Heaven. We would still be in a loving relationship with Him. Basically, why did He create humans instead of... Gods?

2. Why didn't God create more humans on different planets of our solar system and our galaxy? The more humans there would be, the more there would be righteousness, virtue, happiness, love and connection with Him. Everything good about His creation would be multiplied. Why not?

Atheists and other critics call God’s ordering of the destruction of Canaanite cities and people to be divine “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide”, but a take a close look at the Canaanites’ sinfulness - idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality, - And you'll that God’s reason for commanding their death was not genocide but justice for sins committed.

The Usual Argument

Atheists/critics will try to exploit the Christian condemnation of genocide. They reason something along these lines:

P1) Christians condemn genocide. P2) God’s command to kill the Canaanites was an act of genocide. C) Therefore, Christians should either:

1. condemn God for commanding genocide or
2. admit that they are being hypocritical.

Four Problems with that Argument

Problem One - The second premise is false, as God punished the Canaanites for specific grievous evils.

The Canaanites practiced gross sexual immorality, which included all forms of incest (Lev 18:1-20; 20:10-12, 14, 17, 19-21), homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13), and sex with animals (Lev 18:23; 20:15-16). They also engaged in the occult (Lev 20:6), were hostile toward parents (Lev 20:9), and offered their children as sacrifices to Molech (Lev 18:21; 20:1-5; cf. Deut 12:31; 18:10).

Not only that, but the Canaanites intentionally tried to transform the scriptural depiction of God into a castrated weakling who likes to play with His own excrement and urine. So they were not neutral to God, they felt contempt and a deep repugnance for Him.

When in Canaanite religion El lost the dynamic strength expressed in his name, he lost himself. Most Ugaritic texts describe him as a poor weakling, a coward who abandons justice to save his skin, the contempt of goddesses. One text depicts EL as a drunkard splashing "in his excrement and his urine" after a banquet. - Ulf Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Ba‘al in Canaanite Religion (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1969), 172.

Problem Two -This wasn’t the entire destruction of a race, as God didn’t order that every Canaanite be killed but only those who lived within specific geographical boundaries (Josh. 1:4). Canaanite tribes (especially the Hittites) greatly exceeded the boundaries that Israel was told to conquer.

The theme of driving out the people groups arguably is more pronounced than the commands to kill everyone. How might this inform our understanding? Here are a few examples:

“I will send [panic] in front of you, and they will drive out the Hivites, Canaanites, and Hethites away from you.” (Ex. 23:29)

“Do not defile yourselves by any of these practices, for the nations I am driving out before you have defiled themselves by all these things.” (Lev. 18:24)

“You must drive out all the inhabitants of the land ….” (Num. 33:52)

When you see both of these kinds of commands, the commands to drive out the people and the command to completely destroy, you see that what is going with Israel obtaining the Promised Land isn’t as straightforward as some skeptics make it sound. There seem to be places, specific cities, likely military outposts, where there was sweeping victory and destruction. But the bigger picture is of the people groups being driven out and not eradicated.

Furthermore, it’s clear all the people groups the Israelites were commanded to completely destroy were, well, not destroyed. They show up later in Scripture. For example, Rahab and her entire family were spared from the destruction of Jericho (Joshua 2). She even made it into the “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11. Also, consider other non-Israelites who are welcomed into the nation of Israel: people like Jethro the Midianite (Ex.s 18) and Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 1), just to name a couple of examples.

In fact, if you read the first book in the New Testament, Matthew’s gospel, you see that its opening chapter — an outline of the genealogy of Jesus — includes Gentiles: Tamar the Canaanite, Rahab the Midianite, and Ruth the Moabite. We see that God’s plan with the Promised Land was not about eradicating specific ethnic groups, but about God’s judgment on false religion and his provision of a land for a people through whom he would offer salvation to all.

Third Problem - God called for the Canaanites to repent. At the time of the flood, Yahweh told the world that they would be judged, and Noah preached to them for 120 years to bring them to repentance before God judged them (Gen. 6:3, 5-8; 1 Pet. 3:19-20). In Gen. 15:16, God stated that Abraham’s descendants could not take the land of Canaan because the Canaanites were not yet evil enough to be destroyed. This implies that God waits until nations or people have become wicked enough before He judges them. This was 400 years before the Judgment of the Canaanites, meaning He gave them a long time to repent from their idolatry and sins.

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they had become so evil that even the other Canaanites were complaining about how evil they were (Gen. 18:20). Thus, that destruction served as a warning to the rest of the Canaanites that if they did not change, they would be judged as well. They knew, therefore, what would happen if they continued in the path of Sodom and Gomorrah. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (around 2100 BC) came 600 years before Israel destroyed the Canaanite nation. God has made it clear that He is willing to relent in His judgment if a nation repents of its sins and changes its ways (Jer. 18:7-8). for 400 years the Canaanites said, no to repentance.

God also placed Abraham and his family in the land of Canaan in order to witness to the Canaanites, as Noah had previously. The righteousness of Yahweh and His covenant with the family of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 15) is what led to Tamar leaving her Canaanite culture and joining the family and covenant of Abraham (Gen. 38). Yahweh not only received her, but He declared her more righteous than even many of the grandsons of Abraham because of her desire to know Yahweh (Gen. 38:26).

When Israel first entered the land, God did not immediately send warriors to kill people; rather, he sent two witnesses to give the people in Jericho a chance to repent and escape the judgment (Josh. 2; Jam. 2:25). Rahab and her family repented, and they not only escaped the judgment but also became a part of Israel.

Problem Four - Thirdly, God punished Israel when they committed the same sins. What happened to the Canaanites was not genocide, but justice due to the unrepentant for their sins.

In Leviticus 18:24-30 God warns Israel that if they commit similar sins that the land would similarly “vomit” them out. Later, when Israel disobeys God and allows the Canaanites to continue to live among them, the corruptive and seductive power of Canaanite sin results in the "Canaanization" of Israel.

God then sent prophets to warn Israel of their coming destruction, but they didn’t repent and God said that they became “like Sodom to me” and He visited destruction on Israel for committing the same sins. This reveals that God’s motive isn’t genocide, but Justice.

So no, God wasn't motivated by Genocide, but rather by meting punishment after His offer of forgiveness was rejected, rejected for centuries.

So this should be a lesson to all that no matter what the depth is of one's sin, God offers forgiveness for those who repent and trust in Jesus.

Excursus

It's hypocritical to accuse God of being immoral if one believes that morality isn't objective

Subjective morality is the belief that moral principles and values are dependent on individual opinions, personal beliefs, cultural norms, and societal contexts; what is considered right or wrong can vary from person to person and culture to culture.

Most atheists/critics are moral subjectivists or moral relativists of one kind or another since they claim there is no such thing as objective morality.

If one truly believes that morality is subjective [as most atheists and critics of Christianity are] how can they then accuse God of being immoral? If there is no objective moral code on what ground do the critics base their moral outrage? Their feet seem to be grounded in mid-air. Shouldn't they say, "It was a different time, culture, opinion, society, so who can condemn that"?

The atheist/critic don't seem to understand that they are hypocritical when they say they are moral subjectivists or moral relativists yet accuse others, including God, of immorality.

Objections addressed on my blog as I get to them. Those that just ignore the argument will likewise be ignored

Dear community,

I recently learned that the 5000 manuscripts/papyri that uphold the credibility of the New Testament argument is actually wrong bc most of the manuscripts are pretty late. I think to be taken into equation a manuscript has to be from very early, like 150 to 300 AD & then we have a few dozen, I dont know if a hundred. Also the earlier the manuscript, the bigger the differences to todays bible which is scary to think of & nobody ever talks about this. There still could have been an argument built on the few early manuscripts alone, but apologists didnt, they chose to talk about 5000 and now I feel Lied to about this by them.

F.e. Josh McDowell in 'More than a carpenter' - I dont have the specific Page at hand but it wouldnt matter anyways bc its in my mother tongue - he says that most of the textual & letteral differences are by punctuation Marks, different words with the same meaning, etc. Stuff that doesnt change the meaning of the text. But where is the proof??? So many exchristians or atheists are saying its not true, that the first manuscripts present a different bible. I cant go to university for a degree in theology, biblical scholarship and greek language to check who is telling the truth. I dont have the time, brains & mental Stability to study in school again. Do you know of a book that Shows in easy steps through examples that the bible is still saying the same as in the year 250 AD? F.e. the papyrus 75, I would need a translation of that so that I can compare it to the bible of today.

Yes Im flirting to become an evangelical Fundie & I would love the bible to be literally perfect & infallible. But even if you are not a evangelical Fundie it should matter to you if the bible we have today is the same one that was written after Jesus death & if the earliest still existing manuscripts are saying the same as the modern texts.

Extra question: also apologists always say " we can calculate what was originally written with what we have at hand today even though we dont have the original manuscripts anymore" - what do they mean with that? Like how does this process look like? To identify how the original written document looked like even if we dont have it in front of us?

Crossposting this

I figure that Christianity normally goes with the dualism view of reality but could the idealism view of reality also work with the religion?

I'm a Young Earth Creationist, and I'm thinking about asking a series of questions (one per post) for those Christians who are not Young Earth Creationists, but anyone can answer who likes. Here is the first one.

(In these questions, I'm asking for your best answer, not simply a possible answer.)

The Young Earth interpretation of this verse is that there was no death in the original creation.

Genesis 1:29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Is there a better way to read this? Why is it better?

recently i have been asking the Chat gpt and it gives answers that are contradictory on atheism and theism - here is an example it would say at one hand atheism is better but on other ones it would say theism? also when you dig deeper it doesnt clarify why - they choose the answer (Unless having pre assumptions) which arent anything "balanced", would like to ask you guys about this- cus most of the time to get historical evidence or responses to objections i use ai like these