The issue you're raising touches on a classic theological question known as the "problem of evil."

God's omnipotence and omniscience don't mean He intervenes to stop every evil act. As some have already mentioned, He allows humans free will, which is necessary for genuine love and moral choice.

Evil exists because people choose to do wrong, not because God causes it. However, God will ultimately judge evil and bring justice. His patience reflects His desire for people to repent and turn to Him, avoiding judgment. Just because He hasn't stopped or judged Evil, doesn't mean He can't or won't.

Romans 3:23 states, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," highlighting humanity's universal condition of sinfulness. Romans 3:10 adds, "As it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one.'"

In light of this, if God were to immediately judge evil, all would be deserving of judgment - hopefully He wouldn't start with you. However, 2 Peter 3:9 reminds us, "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." This reflects God's desire for people to turn from their sins and find salvation, rather than face immediate judgment.

Hope that helps.

Yes, correct. No blood cells. If I remember correctly, they were made up of metals and proteins. Makes one wonder what [they're] trying to turn us into.

Why don’t they just use the same tin can they used back in the 60’s? Oh, that’s right, they destroyed that tech.

Mmhmm

I'm more interested in that red bracelet he wears. If that's a Kabbalah bracelet, then he's Jewish controlled.

Kabballah = Jewish Mysticism

I think there needs to be a paradigm shift in our approach to knowledge and discerning truth

What do you suggest?

What are we to make of the fact that the Rothchilds own, and therefore control, the Vatican?

In 1823, the Rothschilds took control over the financial operations of the Catholic Church, worldwide. They became the official bankers of the Holy See and managed its debts, assets, and investments.

The Rothschilds arranged a loan for the Holy See, which was in financial distress after the Napoleonic Wars. The loan was for a sum of £400,000 (equivalent to £4 billion in 2021) and was negotiated by James Mayer de Rothschild and Alessandro Torlonia, acting for the Pope Gregory XVI

In 2020, the Rothschilds formed an alliance with the Vatican of Pope Francis, under the name of 'Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican'. The alliance claims to promote a more sustainable and equitable economic system (code words for NWO).

Catholic Church = Jewish controlled

Which god?

Welcome, fren.

Yes, precisely.

Logically this perspective ends up in some sort of Solipsism.

Nope. I understand you 100%.

I know EXACTLY where you're coming from.

Indeed, it is the epicenter for the creation of The Matrix

I KNEW this is where this was headed!

I used to think this, too. But then I learned it was only half true, and that there is a bigger picture that you are being led, unawares, into. Part of the Hegelian dialectic which we are being subjected to. The "Light bearers" are unknowingly laying the ground work for the Beast system.

We must break free from these shackles (Matrix) we have been placed in before we can see the "true light." The question is: WHo is the True light??

I understand precisely where you are coming from, my friend.

Maybe I'll put a post together about this "Light vs Dark" battle and this "Matrix" mentality which has grown into a Worldview.

Red Leader 2....disengaging for now.

Consider these quotes from five different, prominent biblical scholars affirming the reliability of the biblical text despite variations in ancient manuscripts:

1. Bruce M. Metzger: Quote: "The quantity of manuscript evidence for the New Testament is far greater than that for any other work of ancient literature. There are about 5,700 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, etc.). The sheer number of manuscripts and the relatively short time span between the original compositions and the extant copies provide a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the text of the New Testament."

(Source: Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 51.)

2. F.F. Bruce: Quote: "The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice."

(Source: Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? InterVarsity Press, 2003, p. 15.)

3. Craig L. Blomberg: Quote: "The vast majority of these variants involve a single letter, the omission of a single word or phrase, or an obvious slip of the pen that could hardly have affected the overall meaning of a passage. The remaining variants that are of significance for interpretation and that affect more than a word or two, are noted in most modern translations in the margins and, if they are particularly significant, discussed in the footnotes. Few, if any, affect more than a verse or two in any document, and none affect any significant Christian doctrine."

(Source: Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs. B&H Academic, 2016, p. 19.)

4. Daniel B. Wallace: Quote: "There are about 300,000 individual variations among all the manuscripts, and while this may sound like a lot, it is a small number when one considers the wide range of documents, the long period of time involved, and the fact that 80 to 90 percent of the differences are completely insignificant, involving spelling or style."

(Source: Wallace, Daniel B. Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence. Kregel Publications, 2011, p. 29.)

5. N.T. Wright: Quote: "The Christian claim was not that God had given a set of dictation, but that God had guided and directed the writing of these books so that they would be trustworthy witnesses to the great events that had happened."

(Source: Wright, N.T. Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today. HarperOne, 2013, p. 71.)

These quotes from biblical scholars highlight the consensus across diverse backgrounds and beliefs that while variations exist in ancient manuscripts, they do not undermine the reliability of the biblical text for understanding historic facts, Christian faith, and practice.

Regarding your first response. Let's break down the points you've made and address them individually:

1. Control of the Narrative by a Few at the Top: You argue that in today's world, a small group of individuals at the top control the narrative, while the majority of people, whom you refer to as "True Believers," are unaware of any ulterior motives. You draw an analogy to corporate governance, where a board of directors holds ultimate authority, and suggest that only this small group needs to be compromised for control over the entire organization or, by extension, the world economy.

Counterpoint: While it's true that power dynamics exist within organizations and society at large, the claim that a small group of individuals control the entire narrative overlooks the diversity of voices and perspectives in the world. History is shaped by a multitude of factors, including political, economic, social, and cultural influences, and it's simplistic to attribute it solely to the actions of a few elites. Additionally, there are countless instances throughout history where grassroots movements, social revolutions, and shifts in public opinion have challenged and changed dominant narratives, demonstrating that power is not always concentrated at the top.

2. Pattern of Control throughout History: You assert that patterns of control similar to those observed in corporate governance can be found throughout history, suggesting a consistent manipulation of events by a small aristocratic elite. You argue that your report demonstrates evidence of this pattern of control, aiming to reveal the mechanisms through which such manipulation occurs.

Counterpoint: While it's valid to examine patterns and structures of power throughout history, it's essential to avoid oversimplification and reductionism. Historical events are shaped by a complex interplay of various actors, interests, and circumstances, and attributing them solely to a single pattern of control overlooks this complexity. Furthermore, historical research and scholarship often uncover diverse and conflicting interpretations of events, indicating that historical narratives are contested and subject to ongoing debate rather than being dictated by a monolithic elite.

Regarding your second response:

1. Consensus Beliefs and Preservation of Facts: You argue that consensus beliefs follow a pattern similar to the process of canonization, wherein only certain facts are preserved while others are removed or suppressed to fit a particular narrative. You mention examples like the changing of Deut 32:8 and the addition of the Johannine Comma as instances where texts have been altered to drive a specific narrative.

Counterpoint: While it's true that historical texts, including religious scriptures, have been subject to editing, translation, and interpretation over time, it's essential to distinguish between deliberate manipulation and the natural processes of transmission and translation. While there have been instances of intentional alteration for ideological or theological purposes, scholars of textual criticism use rigorous methods to identify and address such changes, aiming to reconstruct the most accurate version of the original text possible. Additionally, the existence of textual variants and discrepancies in ancient texts does not necessarily invalidate their overall reliability or authenticity; rather, it underscores the need for careful analysis and interpretation within their historical and cultural contexts.

2. Focus on Differences and Omissions: You express a greater interest in the <1% of texts that differ from the majority consensus and the significant amount of material that has been entirely removed or omitted.

Counterpoint: I agree it's valid to investigate differences and omissions in historical texts, but, as I've mentioned numerous times, it's essential to approach such analysis with critical scrutiny and context. Not all differences or omissions necessarily imply deliberate manipulation or suppression of truth. Historical texts are complex artifacts shaped by various factors, including cultural, linguistic, and editorial influences. Furthermore, focusing solely on discrepancies without considering the broader context can lead to selective interpretation and confirmation bias. It's important to engage with a wide range of evidence and perspectives to develop a comprehensive understanding of historical texts and their significance.

Your third response:

1. Suppression of Alternative Viewpoints and Truth: You assert that the suppression of alternative viewpoints undeniably leads to the creation of a false reality. However, it's important to distinguish between legitimate scholarly debate and deliberate suppression of dissenting voices. While there were certainly debates and disagreements within early Christianity, the process of discerning canonical texts involved criteria aimed at preserving teachings considered to be authoritative and in alignment with apostolic tradition. This was not necessarily about suppressing alternative viewpoints but rather discerning which writings best reflected the core beliefs and teachings of the early Christian community.

Counterpoint: The history of early Christianity is complex, and while it's true that certain voices and texts came to be marginalized or excluded from the canon, it doesn't necessarily mean that their perspectives were entirely suppressed or that their insights were lost. Additionally, the development of orthodoxy within Christianity was a gradual process shaped by diverse theological perspectives and debates. While there were instances of political and ecclesiastical influence in the canonization process, it's overly simplistic to characterize it solely as a suppression of dissenting voices.

2. Consensus and Truth: You raise concerns about equating consensus with truth, suggesting that consensus can be manipulated or controlled by those in power. You argue that false consensus beliefs can be created when entities control information, implying that the process of establishing orthodox Christian beliefs may have been influenced by similar dynamics.

Counterpoint: While it's true that consensus can be influenced by various factors, including power dynamics and access to information, it's also important to recognize that consensus within a community can emerge organically from shared experiences, beliefs, and interpretations. The process of discerning canonical texts involved not only considering the widespread acceptance of certain writings but also their consistency with apostolic tradition and alignment with orthodox beliefs. While political and ecclesiastical factors may have played a role in shaping orthodoxy, it's overly simplistic to dismiss the consensus as inherently false or manipulated.

To your final point...

1. Problems with the Patristic Citations: You argue that the use of Patristic citations to reconstruct the New Testament has significant limitations, as Church Fathers often did not explicitly identify their quotations or cite passages by chapter and verse. Therefore, without a standardized reference system like the modern chapter and verse divisions, it becomes challenging to reconstruct the New Testament accurately solely based on these citations.

Counterpoint: Bart Ehrman's observations regarding the challenges of reconstructing the New Testament from Patristic citations highlight important methodological considerations in textual criticism. It's true that the absence of chapter and verse divisions in ancient manuscripts and the variation in citation practices among Church Fathers pose difficulties for identifying specific passages. However, scholars in the field of textual criticism are aware of these challenges and employ rigorous methods to analyze and compare textual variants, manuscript evidence, and early translations to reconstruct the original text to the best of their ability.

2. Variation in Quotations and Manuscripts: You assert that Church Fathers quoted passages of the New Testament in different ways due to variations in their manuscripts, memory, or adaptation to context, likening the process to reconstructing a novel from scattered scraps of text. Additionally, you suggest that the reconstruction process may overlook quotations from works of the Bible that have been removed or destroyed.

Counterpoint: It's true that variations exist among manuscripts and citations of the New Testament, reflecting the diverse textual traditions and practices of early Christian communities. However, textual critics employ systematic methods, including textual collation and analysis of manuscript families, to discern the most reliable readings and reconstruct the original text. While discrepancies and uncertainties may arise, scholars use a combination of internal and external evidence to evaluate textual variants and establish the most probable readings.

3. Critique of Reconstruction Bias: You argue that the reconstruction process may exhibit bias by prioritizing existing texts and ignoring quotations that disagree with established dogma or texts that have been removed. Therefore, relying on reconstructed texts as solid evidence overlooks these biases and criticisms.

Counterpoint: Textual criticism acknowledges the potential for bias and subjectivity in the reconstruction process and seeks to mitigate these factors through transparent methodology and peer review. Scholars engage in critical analysis of textual variants and consider diverse sources of evidence to reconstruct the text as accurately as possible. While reconstructions may not be perfect, they represent the scholarly consensus based on the available evidence and rigorous analysis. Additionally, ongoing research and dialogue within the field of textual criticism contribute to refining and improving our understanding of the New Testament text over time.

In summary, Bart Ehrman's observations raise valid methodological considerations in textual criticism, but scholars in the field employ rigorous methods to reconstruct the New Testament text, considering diverse sources of evidence and striving to minimize biases and uncertainties. Textual criticism is an ongoing and dynamic discipline that continues to refine our understanding of the biblical text through scholarly inquiry and critical analysis.

Controlled Opposition: Your assertion that Bart Ehrman's assessment may be compromised by the concept of controlled opposition (even though in the next paragraph you say your not calling him controlled opposition - as the master of double speak you are) overlooks the robustness of scholarly inquiry and the integrity of academic discourse. I agree it's valid to remain vigilant against manipulation or biased agendas, but dismissing Ehrman's credibility based on speculative notions of controlled opposition lacks substantive evidence. Ehrman's expertise as a textual scholar and his critical analysis of biblical texts are widely respected within academic circles (something which you throw out all together with your hyper-skepticism of anything called "scholarship"), independent of any perceived alignment with particular narratives.

Historical Revisionism: Your argument about historical revisionism and the selective omission of relevant facts overlooks the complexity of historical inquiry and the rigorous methodologies employed by historians. It's true that historical narratives may be subject to interpretation and revision, but the assertion that all historical truths are deliberately suppressed or manipulated oversimplifies the multifaceted nature of historical scholarship (again, a trigger word for you).

Historians engage in a continuous process of evaluating evidence, reassessing interpretations, and refining narratives to construct more accurate understandings of the past.

Biblical Canon: Regarding the inclusion or exclusion of books in the biblical canon, it's essential to consider the historical context and criteria (something you appear to simply gloss over) used by early Christian communities and church councils. While variations in biblical canons existed in antiquity, the process of canonization involved careful deliberation and theological discernment by religious authorities. While disagreements may exist about certain texts, the canonical books were ultimately selected based on their theological coherence, widespread acceptance, and conformity to doctrinal standards established by the early church.

Church Fathers' Influence: Your critique of the influence of Church Fathers and their potential conflicts of interest fails to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity and the multiplicity of factors shaping doctrinal development. While it's true that certain individuals may have wielded significant influence within the church hierarchy, attributing all doctrinal decisions to their personal agendas overlooks the collective deliberation and theological consensus that characterized early Christian communities.

Additionally, the assertion that Church Fathers systematically destroyed opposing evidence ignores the complex historical realities and diverse sources of early Christian literature that have survived to the present day.

Certainly, let's delve deeper into each point with concrete examples and references to scholarship:

Relevance of Evidence: While it's true that the Church Fathers played a significant role in the process of canonization, their decisions were not made in isolation but were informed by theological criteria and communal consensus. For example, texts such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary were excluded from the canon due to concerns about their theological coherence with mainstream Christian doctrine and their perceived lack of widespread acceptance among early Christian communities. This decision-making process involved theological discernment and critical evaluation of doctrinal consistency, rather than arbitrary exclusion based solely on the authority of the Church Fathers.

Moreover, recent scholarship, such as the work of Bart Ehrman in "Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament," provides valuable insights into the diverse range of early Christian writings and the complex dynamics of canon formation. Ehrman's analysis highlights the multiplicity of perspectives within early Christianity and the challenges involved in establishing a standardized biblical canon.

Destruction of Evidence: While it's true that some texts may have been subject to suppression or censorship in certain contexts, attributing all doctrinal decisions to deliberate destruction, AGAIN, oversimplifies the historical realities. For example, the suppression of Gnostic texts by orthodox Christian authorities in the early centuries of the Christian era is well-documented. However, it's essential to recognize that not all doctrinal decisions were motivated by nefarious intent, and many texts were excluded from the canon based on theological considerations rather than deliberate destruction.

Scholars such as Elaine Pagels in "The Gnostic Gospels" and Karen L. King in "What Is Gnosticism?" have explored the historical context and theological conflicts surrounding the suppression of Gnostic texts. Their research sheds light on the complex interplay of theological, political, and cultural factors shaping the formation of the biblical canon.

Conflicts of Interest: While it's important to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity, attributing doctrinal decisions solely to conflicts of interest overlooks the sincere commitment to faith and scholarship among many Church Fathers. For example, scholars such as Larry W. Hurtado in "The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins" and Richard Bauckham in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony" have highlighted the rigorous intellectual engagement and theological reflection evident in the writings of early Christian leaders.

Additionally, the process of canonization involved extensive debate, dialogue, and theological reflection within the early Christian community, as evidenced by the writings of influential figures such as Origen, Tertullian, and Athanasius. While disagreements and conflicts certainly existed, attributing all doctrinal decisions to personal agendas fails to capture the complexity of theological discourse and the communal nature of early Christian identity.

To wrap this up, by critically engaging with historical evidence and scholarly research, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the formation of the biblical canon and the diversity of perspectives within early Christianity. I think it's essential to approach these questions with nuance and humility, recognizing the multifaceted nature of historical processes and the ongoing dialogue between faith, scholarship, and interpretation.

Kudos for engaging in such a constructive dialogue! Your commitment to maintaining a respectful and intellectually rigorous conversation is truly commendable. It's refreshing to have exchanges where ideas are exchanged without resorting to ad hominem attacks or condescending tones.

Keep up the excellent discourse!

My, fren. I have done extensive study in this arena. I have also studied textual critics (one of which I quoted for you from his book, which you clearly haven't read) who study the transmission of the Biblical manuscripts and copies. It is painfully clear that you really aren't familiar with how Bibliographic manuscript evidence is studied and scrutinized.

Enough of the "wAtCH a yOuTubE vIdEo!"

Since you thought I wasn't being thorough enough in my previous response, I'll take another stab:

1. Ulterior Motives: While I think it's valid to acknowledge the potential influence of various motives among historical actors, it's important not to generalize these motives across all individuals involved in the transmission and canonization of biblical texts. While some may have had ulterior motives, it doesn't negate the sincerity and integrity of others who genuinely sought to preserve and transmit the teachings they believed to be true.

The existence of diverse motives does not invalidate the textual integrity of the Bible, especially when corroborated by extensive manuscript evidence and early citations.

2. Assumption of Absolute Truth: You rightly point out the complexities involved in determining absolute truth, yet this acknowledgment applies to all historical inquiry, not solely to the formation of biblical canon.

However, the process of canonization involved rigorous criteria aimed at preserving texts considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired. The consistency and coherence of the biblical narrative across multiple manuscripts and early citations provide compelling evidence for the reliability of its core teachings.

3. Silencing Dissent: While dissenting voices existed within early Christianity, the canonical process was not solely a matter of suppressing alternative viewpoints. Instead, it involved discerning which writings were most widely accepted, consistent with apostolic tradition, and in harmony with orthodox beliefs.

The inclusion of diverse perspectives within the New Testament, such as the Synoptic Gospels and Pauline Epistles, demonstrates a degree of theological diversity within early Christianity while maintaining essential doctrinal unity.

4. Selective Preservation of Evidence: While it's true that the historical record reflects selective preservation and occasional destruction of texts, it's essential to consider the robustness of manuscript evidence and early citations supporting the biblical texts.

The vast number of extant manuscripts, spanning diverse geographical regions and dating back to antiquity, attests to the widespread transmission and preservation of biblical writings. The consistent textual fidelity across these manuscripts provides strong support for the reliability and authenticity of the biblical text.

In summary, while acknowledging the complexities and challenges of historical inquiry, as you aptly do - including potential biases and motives among historical actors, it's crucial to approach the study of biblical texts with a balanced and critical perspective. The wealth of manuscript evidence, early citations, and textual consistency supports the authenticity and reliability of the biblical texts, affirming their status as authoritative sources for understanding the Christian faith.

I am reading your posts, Slyver. Im responding to the specific point the first commenter is making while responding to you in general.

The example of Bart Ehrman presents an intriguing perspective, particularly given your cautious approach to historical narratives and the history of the Bible.

Ehrman, renowned as both a textual scholar and a critic of Christianity, reaches the conclusion that our modern Biblical text is fundamentally accurate, despite variations and changes over time. His unique position underscores the credibility of his assessment, as he lacks any motivation to deceive or misrepresent the truth regarding the transmission of the Bible.

Ehrman's dual role as a scholar and a critic adds depth to his analysis and underscores the robustness of his conclusions about the reliability of the biblical text.

Consider what Bart Ehrman (an Agnostic American scholar of religious studies, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Textual Critic, and an author of several books on the New Testament and early Christianity - and Critic of Christianity) said regarding the accuracy of our modern biblical text:

1. "Essentially, most of the changes found in the manuscripts discovered in the last century affect words or phrases alone; only about one per cent involve substantial differences in meaning. Many of these are easily recognized and corrected."

2. "In fact, most of the changes found in the manuscripts discovered in the last hundred years affect words or phrases alone. Many of these variants are so minor that they have no impact whatsoever on the meaning of the text."

3. "The essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."

These quotes are from Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why."

Consider what Bart Ehrman (an Agnostic American scholar of religious studies, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Textual Critic, and an author of several books on the New Testament and early Christianity) said regarding the accuracy of our modern biblical text:

1. "Essentially, most of the changes found in the manuscripts discovered in the last century affect words or phrases alone; only about one per cent involve substantial differences in meaning. Many of these are easily recognized and corrected."

2. "In fact, most of the changes found in the manuscripts discovered in the last hundred years affect words or phrases alone. Many of these variants are so minor that they have no impact whatsoever on the meaning of the text."

3. "The essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."

These quotes are from Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why."

Wow. 3 paragraphs are an "essay" now, huh?

While I can appreciate your perspective, it's essential to distinguish between translation revisions and alterations to the biblical text itself. The changes you're referring to in newer editions of the KJV often involve updates to language, grammar, punctuation, and formatting for readability and clarity. However, these revisions do not affect the underlying meaning or content of the biblical message.

When Biblical scholars discuss the preservation of the biblical text, they focus on the accuracy and integrity of the original manuscripts and their faithful transmission over time, rather than changes made in subsequent translations or editions for linguistic or stylistic reasons.

This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, and show that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions shows that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is decidedly false. I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.

While uncovering omitted or suppressed historical facts can certainly challenge prevailing narratives, it does not necessarily mean that all of history has been rewritten. It may indicate selective interpretations or biases within historical accounts, but it does not automatically validate the assertion that all historical narratives are suspect or fundamentally false.

In essence, while your argument correctly underscores the significance of critically analyzing historical narratives and considering omitted evidence, it does not fully resolve the logical paradox of claiming that "all of history has been rewritten" without appealing to a privileged perspective or objective truth.

...the Bible...

The idea of an "evil cabal" manipulating and changing the canonical books of the Bible to deceive is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers. The biblical text is incredibly well-preserved due to the vast number of manuscripts spanning various geographical locations and time periods. Additionally, the early church fathers extensively quoted and referenced biblical passages in their writings.

The sheer volume of manuscripts, along with the geographical spread and diverse sources, makes it virtually impossible for any secretive group to alter the text without detection. Scholars and researchers compare these manuscripts, employing rigorous methods of textual criticism to ensure the accuracy of the biblical text. If any significant alterations had been attempted, the discrepancies would have been readily apparent in the multitude of manuscripts and early citations.

In essence, the collaborative efforts of countless scribes, the geographic distribution of manuscripts, and the vigilance of early church writers make the idea of a covert manipulation of the biblical text implausible and inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.

My research suggests all of history has been rewritten.

Slyver is at it again with his hyper, self defeating skepticism about all of history

The philosophical assumption behind the statement "All of history has been rewritten" suggests a form of skepticism or epistemic uncertainty about the reliability of historical narratives. This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us, as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way.

However, the statement also presents a paradox or self-defeating quality because if all of history has truly been rewritten, then the claim itself could be subject to the same skepticism. If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.

for someone to confidently claim that all of history has been rewritten would require access to some sort of privileged perspective or objective truth about history, which seems contradictory given the assumption of widespread historical manipulation.

Ty, fren.

Hmmm..interesting it was "benign" in that initial report...