It’s not that being open to the concept that the Bible is incomplete or altered is unfounded. See: “Thou shalt not kill.” Vs. “Thou shalt not commit murder.” Very, very, very important difference. “Thou shalt not commit murder.” has further expoundings on exactly what constitutes murder, and when it is justifiable to kill, and what should be done in different situations - which clearly confirms that killing is allowed in specific circumstances, but the church won’t teach them or acknowledge those scriptures.

It’s that random claims on the internet aren’t good enough to overturn what we can be fairly sure is accurate to at least 200 years or so, very likely much farther, and very few people are going to have the means to TRULY test them.

It’s also much easier to delve into what’s actually there and see if anything has been taught incorrectly. This has definitely happened, without question. Look no further than the recent Methodist schism for a very clear current example.

My biggest problem with gnostics is that they’re VERY big on claims, WILD claims, and almost never provide even halfway decent sauce. Being open to course corrections is one thing, but it would also take a fool to change their entire worldview without very evidence and ponderance.

It’s not that being open to the concept that the Bible is incomplete or altered is unfounded.

It’s that random claims on the internet aren’t good enough to overturn what we can be fairly sure is accurate to at least 200 years or so, very likely much farther, and very few people are going to have the means to TRULY test them.

It’s also much easier to delve into what’s actually there and see if anything has been taught incorrectly. This has definitely happened, without question. Look no further than the recent Methodist schism for a very clear current example.

My biggest problem with gnostics is that they’re VERY big on claims, WILD claims, and almost never provide even halfway decent sauce.