I've spent the better part of the past year doing exactly that. I still don't read ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic yet (except a few words), so I can't make as good of arguments as I would like, but the evidence I have seen shows very clearly that the bible is not what it proclaims to be.

How do you rectify that the bible isn't the same for each church? For example, the protestant version has 66 books (interesting number). The Catholic Church has 72. The final edit (72 book version) was created in 325 AD and revised in 383 AD at the various conventions, from which we got "creeds" which every good Christian must memorize and restate. These creeds were designed to nullify arguments, because there was a great deal of argument from the people and the rulers couldn't allow that. It was so not allowed in fact, that the beliefs of the Church were formally stated and written into law (including what was, prior to those laws, the controversial belief in the Trinity) in order to make everyone in the empire believe the same thing, thus uniting them, making them easier to rule. The Bible that is commonly espoused as "the whole truth" was literally the manifesto and founding document for the birth of the Holy Roman Empire. They left out over half the books of the bible, many of which are referenced in the bible we got, but not included. I wonder why...

The OT (written by people who believed they were the Chosen Race and that Israel was their "Promised Land" by God) and the NT don't even talk about the same God. Hell, even the OT has numerous Gods in it, all translated into English as just "God".

The Jews weren't even monotheistic. On the contrary, they believed in a whole pantheon of gods (that's what "Elohim" means, one of the words translated as "God" in English versions). They just believed that YHWH was their Lord God. Other areas of the world had other assigned patron gods. "Thou shalt put no other gods before me." Because there were other gods, but he was their Lord (ruler).

If you think there is no controversy on the subject of interpretation from original texts, I suggest you have never looked at anything that does not support your confirmation bias. There is so much out there. If you would like me to point you in the right direction I would be happy to do so.

I've spent the better part of the past year doing exactly that. I still don't read ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic yet (except a few words), so I can't make as good of arguments as I would like, but the evidence I have seen shows very clearly that the bible is not what it proclaims to be.

How do you rectify that the bible isn't the same for each church? For example, the protestant version has 66 books (interesting number). The Catholic Church has 72. The final edit (72 book version) was created in 325 AD and revised in 383 AD at the various conventions, from which we got "creeds" which every good Christian must memorize and restate. These creeds were designed to nullify arguments, because there was a great deal of argument from the people and the rulers couldn't allow that. It was so not allowed in fact, that the beliefs of the Church were formally stated and written into law (including what was prior to those laws, the very controversial belief in the Trinity) in order to make everyone in the empire believe the same thing, thus uniting them, making them easier to rule. The Bible that is commonly espoused as "the whole truth" was literally the manifesto and founding document for the birth of the Holy Roman Empire. They left out over half the books of the bible, many of which are referenced in the bible we got, but not included. I wonder why...

The OT (written by people who believed they were the Chosen Race and that Israel was their "Promised Land" by God) and the NT don't even talk about the same God. Hell, even the OT has numerous Gods in it, all translated into English as just "God".

The Jews weren't even monotheistic. On the contrary, they believed in a whole pantheon of gods (that's what "Elohim" means, one of the words translated as "God" in English versions). They just believed that YHWH was their Lord God. Other areas of the world had other assigned patron gods. "Thou shalt put no other gods before me." Because there were other gods, but he was their Lord (ruler).

If you think there is no controversy on the subject of interpretation from original texts, I suggest you have never looked at anything that does not support your confirmation bias. There is so much out there. If you would like me to point you in the right direction I would be happy to do so.

I've spent the better part of the past year doing exactly that. I still don't read ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic yet (except a few words), so I can't make as good of arguments as I would like, but the evidence I have seen shows very clearly that the bible is not what it proclaims to be.

How do you rectify that the bible isn't the same for each church? For example, the protestant version has 66 books (interesting number). The Catholic Church has 72. The final edit (72 book version) was created in 325 AD and revised in 383 AD at the various conventions, from which we got "creeds" which every good Christian must memorize and restate. These creeds were designed to nullify arguments, because there was a great deal of argument from the people and the rulers couldn't allow that. It was so not allowed in fact, that the beliefs of the Church were formally stated and written into law (including the previously very controversial belief in the Trinity) in order to make everyone in the empire believe the same thing, thus uniting them, making them easier to rule. The Bible that is commonly espoused as "the whole truth" was literally the manifesto and founding document for the birth of the Holy Roman Empire. They left out over half the books of the bible, many of which are referenced in the bible we got, but not included. I wonder why...

The OT (written by people who believed they were the Chosen Race and that Israel was their "Promised Land" by God) and the NT don't even talk about the same God. Hell, even the OT has numerous Gods in it, all translated into English as just "God".

The Jews weren't even monotheistic. On the contrary, they believed in a whole pantheon of gods (that's what "Elohim" means, one of the words translated as "God" in English versions). They just believed that YHWH was their Lord God. Other areas of the world had other assigned patron gods. "Thou shalt put no other gods before me." Because there were other gods, but he was their Lord (ruler).

If you think there is no controversy on the subject of interpretation from original texts, I suggest you have never looked at anything that does not support your confirmation bias. There is so much out there. If you would like me to point you in the right direction I would be happy to do so.