You mean, like the evangelia that were rejected because they didn't fit the officialy accepted version? There were lots of eye witnesses, but not all of them were taken into account.

I had to Google "evangelia" to make sure you meant what I thought you meant, and I'm still not 100% sure what you're refering to. I can only assume you mean different books like the Gospel of Mary, Thomas, etc. which were (and still are) deemed inaccurate for a lot of good reasons; try reading them sometime. Most of the objections people raise to the Gospels being inaccurate or influenced by lengendary elements actually apply to those books.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. Even a lot of hardened athiests don't put the gospels writing as being anywhere past 150AD (with most of it being written before 100AD; how did Paul write his letters after he died?), and we have thousands of ancient copies of these writings to show they haven't changed since their original writings. And I would still say the historical evidence for the Gospels being written at the times they say they are (most before 60AD) is the strongest by a long chalk.

Hey, I'll bash religion and corrupt church officials with you all day; I hate 'em too. But that's not really relevant to what we're discussing, is it?

You do realize that if everything were just perfect, then it'd be normal and boring. Think of how good your feet feel when you pull off a pair of too-tight shoes. You need the contrast to make "good" stuff "good". Also, how many consecutive meals can you eat your favorite food before it becomes repulsive?

I could name quite a few references which put the count at 24,000. I didn't pull it out of thin air; on the contrary, it's the number I keep hearing when I read material about manuscript evidence for the reliability of the NT. We of course have far fewer references for the OT ....

Out of amusement, I did a Google for new testament 24000. Pluck whatever reference you like from the 113,000 results.

I don't come from an oral culture where rabbis became famous for having the entire Old Testament committed to memory, either. Hell, I can barely paraphrase The Book of Ruth. And the things Jesus did had lasting obvious impacts; how much research does it take to confirm Lazarus died and came back? Was he alive or not? Do some reading on those old oral traditions and how communities monitored what was said to preserve the integrity of the messages.

Most of the theories I've heard for later writings seem to stem from the writer's idea that if these things had been written before such and such an event, then it might be true and we can't have that. I can't remember exact dates, but Mark was written well before 60AD, with Matthew and Luke probably written also before then (and must have been well established before Paul started quoting them in one of his letters; keep in mind he died in 65AD), but well after Mark. John was somewhere around 70-80 AD.

I did just that:

That I'll believe. Maybe we were refering to different things, but when you say "thousand of copies showing it did not change since its original writing", I assumed you meant "thousands of copies from the first half of the first century AD", which I still call into doubt - especially if you mean complete copies.
Anyway, on the topic of the manuscripts being unchanged since they were first written, from the same source that quote came from:

Certainly most of those are minor and inconsequential, but there is the occasional paragraph changed or dropped, or the wording slightly changed (which shifts the emphasis or meaning slightly).

Granted.

The things that happened during the second world war had obvious lasting impact and affected a good deal more people at the time. Look at how much confusion there is over that, even in the face of contemporary written, audio and video records.

You tell me! How do you tell if someone had died before and is alife again now? It doesn't take much to belief such a thing from heresay, but I doubt anyone from a few hundred kilometers away went over there after hearing the story to confirm its authenticity.

I actually do know a bit about that, mostly having to do with epic poetry where the rhyme and metre help preserve the structure of the text. Anyway, I didn't say it was hard to preserve the essence of the message, but the text itself is very likely to change over time. That's why it's important to hear stories first hand instead of second (or higher) hand.

That is the worst advice I have ever heard.

Why is religion up on this pedestal? Why does it deserve our respect? What if we extended the same privileges to science?

What if I got up on a podium at a conference and declared that the sun was made of paper and Pluto is closer to the sun than Mars?

I would wager that someone would challenge my ideas. We would engage in rational discourse and, together, find the truth.

But what if, instead, I said "Don't insult my ideas!" Well, that's no big deal. Then I'd just be one crazy person.

But what if I changed this idea to something more... comforting. Like, an invisible man that created all of us and loves us and watches over us, and when we die we will go to a wonderful place to live for all eternity.

Do you think people might want to believe that? Sure, and why not? It can't be disproven, and it's certainly pleasant to believe. Still, there's no problem here.

The problem comes about when there is killing in the name of this idea that was really wishful thinking in the first place. The problem comes when cures to diseases are forbidden, out of respect for an insane belief. The problem comes when access to condoms in certain areas of Africa is restricted, and women are beaten for requesting their partner to wear one.

Do you see now why that is horrible advice? Why would you allow such horrible things to go on, in the name of insanity no less, out of respect?

And yes, I had decided (yet again) to not argue religion anymore. I looked at the figures, found out that atheism is the fastest-growing religious affiliation in the US, and decided that if progress happened without me having to shatter anyone's world view, then I would just let it be. But I had to say something when I saw that.

Hear, hear!

I did not. But call it into doubt all you like.

My Bible notes paragraphs or verses that don't appear in all manuscripts, and while wording can change slightly (inevitable if only during translation) the sheer volume of material can be crossreferenced to show the original meaning. There's not a single essential Christian doctrine in the slightest jeopardy due to confusion over what a verse originally said or meant.

Confusion by who? By the people who were there? I'm rather misinformed, but I make no effort not to be, and you don't see people interviewing me for material on the next documentary on it either.

cough*John 12:9*cough And it's not like it wasn't done in a crowd of witnesses to begin with. Please play the "it was staged" card ....

Oh, granted, granted. I just consider the preservation that did take place more than adequate.

Well, I can't say I've ever heard of that nonsense ...

Never said we didn't. I went off on this subject replying to others.

The point of my pervious post was to explain what religion actually is and to show what people see in their religions. Some people seem to think that it's nothing more than a conspiracy to eradicate science. While many people throughout history have attempted to do so in the name of their religion, often, they were abusing the religion as a means of obtaining or maintaining power.

Also, some people may also take it too personally when their beliefs are contradicted. They percieve this as an attack against themselves, and will become unreasonably upset. They will then end up being closed to alternative ideas. That's not what religions are about - that's just fanboy-ism.

Science is not a religion and the two are like apples and oranges. Faith in science is a religion. Having faith in science is the belief that science will eventually unlock all the mysteries of the universe.

AE.

Um, no. For example, I have faith that electrons, neutrons, and protons exist. Have I seen them or evidence of them? No. Can you show me them? No. But I still believe they exist.

You can get practical evidence of the existence of protons and their effects. Real evidence, not just "this holy books says it!!11". I know, there's no point in arguing this with you, but I just couldn't resist.