WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

119

Not that the Bible is wrong at all, but where does one draw the line between believing in God existing, and believing that the contents of the Bible are never corrupted? What would even stop one from not corrupting the Bible, especially given that everything else in our lives is corrupt? If I remember, some of the content of the Bible was literally added on later when KJV came out by one dude, from England, so who is to say divine inspiration wasn't used in other parts for either population control, personal beliefs or whoever knows what else?

Not that the Bible is wrong at all, but where does one draw the line between believing in God existing, and believing that the contents of the Bible are never corrupted? What would even stop one from not corrupting the Bible, especially given that everything else in our lives is corrupt? If I remember, some of the content of the Bible was literally added on later when KJV came out by one dude, from England, so who is to say divine inspiration wasn't used in other parts for either population control, personal beliefs or whoever knows what else?

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt

You can compare multiple copies in multiple languages for consistency. Much the way you'd look for multiple written records of an ancient battle to see if they aligned. The scriptures are remarkably consistent and any discrepancies are typically either easy to sus out (such as fabricating a section about the trinity), or one off references to a Hebrew word where the translation is murky and easy to handle. E.g. there's a section about not eating certain animals that has a one off reference to an indeterminate bird. Could be an ostrich, or an owl, or some other type of rock-dwelling predatory bird. While no one's entirely certain exactly what that one-off bird is...it's pretty easy to just not eat those birds since you're not going to eat them anyway.