Corruption of Bible

I would like to point out that you claimed to be able to show that the bible is corrupted or changed. Being that this is the case, the burden of proof is on you. I did not say one way or the other that Jesus spoke Greek. Jesus along with the apostles MAY have spoken Greek. My original point was that the new testament was written in Greek for a reason. Think about what the new testament is about. The life, death, and resurrection of Christ, yes, but Jesus was born to the earth so that Jew AND Gentile could be saved. Gentiles, or non Jews, did not speak Hebrew. Greek was the predominant language in that area at that time. Yes they spoke other languages as well but I wouldn't doubt that Jesus and the majority of the people in that area were either fluent or quite close to being so, in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Greek was the language of literature and philosophy. And the new testament falls into not just one but both of those categories. Also regardless of the authorship of the new testament books, you must also look at to whom they were written. Was it the Jews? No. Look at Paul's writings. They were written to various churches, and in order to reach the most people with any given message, you would then write the letter in the language of the person to whom you are writing. And the majority of people in that area spoke Greek. Also as you have stated previously in our debate, we don't have the originals. So how then do you know what language the original was in fact written in? We have copies of the new testament in Greek. We also have copies in Hebrew, and every other language imaginable. The new testament was translated from the oldest Greek manuscripts that we have. That in no way shows what language it was originally written in. Furthermore, just because Jesus was a Jew, does not prove that he only spoke one language. In the Christian belief, Jesus IS the Son of God. I'm quite certain that the Son of the Almighty would know a thing or two. Not to mention, that nothing was created without Jesus. Genesis 1:26 http://www.biblestudytools.com... Who is the "US" in that verse. It couldn't have been the angels, because angels were a creation. The creation cannot "Create". By create, I mean "something out of nothing". That leaves us with the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Colossians 1:16 http://www.biblestudytools.com... John 1:1-3 http://www.biblestudytools.com... Notice "WORD" is capitalized. That's because it is referring to deity. Jesus is the "WORD". You are repeating most of the things you said in the first round. But perhaps I was not clear enough in the ways that I put it before. So I will try again. First, I think this is a slight deviation from what this debate is supposed to be about. I fail to see how the authorship of the gospels pertains to the bible changing or being corrupted over time but still, I will try to address your point. The "according to" part is not in all bibles. Nor is it changing anything about what theses books are saying. It is simply a preface to what you are about to read. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are writing down events that THEY saw. That is why it is "according to". Furthermore you had mentioned that 85 percent was copied from the gospel of Mark. Maybe the other apostles were there and witnessed that same event. Writing the same thing as someone else, when you witnessed the same event that they did is not uncommon. As I have stated before the bible contains literary manuscripts. If I wanted to write about something that happened to me in the third person, does that mean that I didn't write it? Or that the events didn't actually take place? No. You go on to say yet again, that there are more than 700 statements that show that neither God nor Moses wrote it. Again writing in the first, second, or third person, has nothing to do with whether they actually wrote it or not. Not to mention that it was quite commonplace for ancient historical books to be written that way. Here are some of the reasons that they might have written the gospels in the third person. http://ingridsnotes.wordpress.com... Also Moses knew he was going to die. So maybe he himself wrote about what was going to happen. Deuteronomy 32:50 KJV http://www.biblegateway.com... You claim that we have over 5000 manuscripts and each one is different from another? Where are you getting your information from? Then at the end of your last round you go on to say and I quote, "its unanimously agreed that the originals are changed. slightly or greatly. we don't have the originals." I fail to understand what you are trying to convey here. You say that it is unanimously agreed that the originals are changed. Again we don't have the originals as I have stated before. So how can all these scholars, and you didn't mention any of them, UNANIMOUSLY agree that they have changed when we don't have the very thing that is supposed to have changed?! Then you go on to say that we don't have the originals. Now I will move on to the reasons I personally believe that the Byzantine manuscripts are more reliable than the Alexandrian manuscripts. Here is a little bit of background information on the two. http://www.ecclesia.org... Alexandria is mentioned in the bible several times. And not for good things. So today we have the Byzantine and the Alexandrian manuscripts. Why would I read a bible that is translated from the Alexandrian manuscripts when the bible itself mentions bad things about the Alexandrians? Also, the Alexandrian text, (the minority text) is based mainly on just two manuscripts, the Vaticanus (also known as "B") and the Sinaiticus (also known as "Aleph"). These manuscripts not only disagree with the Majority Text, (the Byzantine), but they disagree with each other. Modern bible translations are based off of about 5 of the more than 5000 manuscripts in existence. All of the remaining 5000 are Byzantine in nature. And many people, yourself included, have mentioned the amount of time between the originals and the oldest surviving copies that we have, and used that amount of time to try and discredit the information contained within. Older does NOT mean more accurate as I have previously demonstrated. I will give an example of an inconsistency between these two texts. http://www.biblestudytools.com... You can see the other translations here as well. NIV vs. KJV. Who killed Goliath? Most people, Christian or not, probably know the story of David and Goliath. The answer is David. David killed Goliath. " Big difference between the NIV and the KJV right? But it goes on to say in the NIV translation in 1 Chronicles 20:5 http://www.biblestudytools.com... So which one is it? Did Elhanan kill Goliath, or the brother of Goliath? That is the reason that I would rather discuss the Byzantine manuscripts. Also I would like to say that the NIV and probably other translations have since corrected this specific mistake. I have provided a link with the NIV still containing this flaw. But what happens if someone picks up an old NIV bible and reads this mistake still in there? Then they may come to the conclusion that the bible couldn't possibly be preserved because it contains contradictions. But I must point out that this is not a contradiction of the bible, but simply a contradiction within that specific translation. And to judge all translations on the shortcomings of one, is the same thing as saying that because of September 11th, all Muslims must be terrorists, Every religion has members that act in opposite accordance to how they should, but it is important to remember that not ALL act in the way that ONE does. It comes down to hermeneutics. http://dictionary.reference.com...