Corruption of Bible

http://www.patheos.com... Bart Ehrman is mentioned in the link. It is about his book Misquoting Jesus and the reliability of the gospels. As I have stated in one of my previous rounds, The words that the original writers of the bible wrote was the INSPIRED Words of God, all the copies that we have had, to date, are an attempt at PRESERVING the Words of God. Here is a link to a video that talks about some of those variations we had discussed previously. http://www.youtube.com... Now this does NOT mean that I agree with everything that this guy says. But it does pertain to some of the objections that you had. Now I understand what you are saying about us having copies upon copies etc. But you are still saying that the originals have changed. My point is that IF there was an error in the copying process, that still doesn't mean that the originals have changed. IF that is the case then that simply means that the COPIES have changed. The originals, if they even still exist, are buried somewhere or just haven't become public knowledge yet. But those originals still say the same thing that they said when they were originally written, because they are the ORIGINALS. So again it comes down to which manuscripts each bible version was translated from. Alexandrian is flawed. Furthermore, just because there are SOME bibles that have been changed, does NOT mean that ALL bibles have been changed. You go on to say that all the copies say different things without showing any proof whatsoever. The differences are between the Alexandrian and the Byzantine, or simply the Alexandrian and the Alexandrian being that they disagree with eachother. That is where the problem lies. You said... You mentioned the word "US" in Genesis. this is not the debate about but I will reply... you looking at semetic language - Hebrow. in the Hebrow language there are 2 ways to express plurals: 1 - plural of numbers 2 - plural of respact I would respond by acknowledging that Jews believe in only 1 God. So do Christians. But the 1 God that Christians believe in has 3 parts. Or 3 distinct persons within Himself. That being the case, why would they have chosen to express the SINGULAR form of God with a PLURAL word? Why not just use the SINGULAR form? Also the fact that Jews only believe in 1 God, does not mean that that is the truth. Truth is NOT dictated by percentage of the population that believe in it. My point is that TRUTH exists independently of the belief. Just because someone believes in something, does not mean that it is true. In 1491 the majority of people believed that the earth was flat. Until it was discovered in 1492 that it was in fact round. Now did the truth change? No. The knowledge that we had pertaining to the truth changed. Was the earth flat when we believed that it was so, and then magically transformed into a round earth in 1492? Again No. It was round even when we believed that it was flat. So the Jews believing that the plural "US" in that verse was pertaining to a singular, has nothing to do with God possibly being a Trinity. My point is that IF God IS a Trinity, then He was a Trinity when that verse was written as well. Christians believe in 1 God, containing three distinct persons. A physical example of this would be water. Water has three distinct attributes. Steam, Ice, and liquid water. All three are still water just in different forms. The same principle holds true with the Triune God. Which I think better explains the "US" in that verse. You said... "Cause if you don't know who wrote it its a HUGE problem. how do you know if they reliable? that source they used to write it? how can you trust somebody if you don't know them?" I noticed that you sited Bart d. ehrman and Ahmed Deedat as your sources. Do you KNOW THEM? As I'm sure you don't, does that mean that you can't trust them? With that rational, you couldn't be a Muslim because you never Knew Mohammad. And if you never knew him, how could he be trusted? Saying that a source cannot be reliable unless you know them is ridiculous. No one could ever learn ANYTHING that was documented before their own lifetime, because we would have no way of knowing them. Do I have to know the person that invented math for the equations to still hold true? No. Do I have to know them to know that 5+5=10? No. Truth can be known through the testing of the information contained within. The same holds true with the gospels, and the bible as a whole for that matter. First, If the printers didn't believe that they wrote it, then why would they ADD the according to? Why not just leave that part out, to ensure that it could never be attributed to them? And by the way the "Masses" DO believe that they wrote it. But either way, It simply doesn't matter what the "Masses" believe. Belief does NOT reflect truth. As to whether I would say according to, or by is irrelevant. I could write by, or according to, and the work would still be attributed to me. If the general idea behind it was about someone else ie, Jesus, then For a better story I would probably write in the third person. History shows us that it was commonplace in ancient texts for the writer to write in the third person. When I asked where you were getting your information from you said... 5000 in Greek. There are 24.000 in general latins+greek+... everybody telling you that. Christians scholars or non Christians. And what scholars you want? Bruce metzger ? bart d. ehrman? Again I was not asking "WHO" you were getting your information from, but "WHERE", you were getting your information from. As in don't tell me there names, but go the extra mile and copy the link from the url and paste it into the debate so that you could, number 1 back up what you were saying, and number 2 make my and our readers lives easier so all we have to do is click said link to validate the things you were saying. You said..."more closer to the source the information within more accurate simple reasoning." You would say simple reasoning to me, and I would say serious logical flaw to you. A copy of something regardless of the time between the original and itself, does not mean less accurate. If it contains the same information then it is just as accurate. You said...its not simply a translation. There are many VERSIONS AND TRANSLATIONS. protestant bible has 66 books inside. the catholic has 73 books. Ethiopian Orthodox bible has 81 books. now that's not translation its a version. I believe I was talking about the contradictions within the NIV. THAT would be a translation. I don't care what the New Revised Standard Version of the bible says. Again more ancient does NOT mean more accurate. That bible was translated from the Alexandrian manuscripts. I thought we agreed to talk further on the Byzantine. The Alexandrian manuscripts that that translation is based on, all disagree with eachother. I showed you this in the links that I provided before. I wish you would have read them, as they spoke about this very thing. You first said... we clearly able to establish that the Bible we holding today is corrupted, changed and its not the same to what scriptures Moses and Jesus have. looking for interesting debate I do not believe that you were able to demonstrate that the bible was corrupted, or changed, let alone DIFFERENT from what they had, because they didn't have it. Moses didn't have a bible because most of the stuff in it was not written until after his lifetime, and the same applies to the new testament and Jesus. So I thank you for taking the time to debate with me, and discuss this most interesting topic. You made some points that I have never heard before so I thank you for that. Take care and may God Bless you.