The statistics of the Yankees don't claim to be the WORD OF GOD.

You can make all the errors you want with the Yankee statistics. Who gives a bleep.

But you are talking about the WORD OF GOD!

Inerrant, infallible.

Two versions, two different accounts, some scriptures left out of some, included in others.

Word of God? or Word of Man?

That's the trouble. it's not the same. Lie to yourself all you want.

It's not the same as Yankee statistics.

Jesus was neither a liar or nut. But he's not god either. His word was distorted over the 300 years it took to canonize his message.

You had a religious zealot who never met jesus distorting everything he taught to the Jews and twisted most of his message.

The scribes and Christians who codified the scriptures had their own agenda in promoting Paul's version of events over the people who were actually with Jesus.

Paul's version was much more palatable to the Jew hating Romans, including the polytheism of a trinity.

jesus' life ended at his death. His message lived on. But he is dead. Although your mother claims to have conversations with him. She never did tell us what she hears in reply.

The 'liars and nuts' are those living today who have no idea whose message they are following, who have no idea about the inaccuracies in the Holy Bible, have no idea about the life of jesus, and the fundamentalists who brainwash their congregations into following them, like the drug addict/preacher in New York.

So you agree that there are omissions in Bibles?

So you agree that some HOLY BIBLES are different than other HOLY BIBLES? Beyond translation differences?

So you agree that they BOTH can't be the infallible, inerrrant WORD OF GOD?

Is it any wonder that I am 100% behind mbas and his last two posts especially.

You keep mentioning the 300 years it took to cannonize the NT. But we have partial documents prior to those 300 years. We also have quotes by early church fathers, again prior to those years, and both match up.

The changes in Mark and 1John all occured after the first 300 years of Christianity, and even though they change what was previously written, those writings are in agreement with the earlier writings, so they don't change the meaning of those earlier writings.

So there were changes in the Bibles.

Whether they change the meaning is not the question.

PEOPLE made changes to the Word of God, right?

And these changes took place just as Christianity was becoming an officially sanctioned religion and the canon was being formed.

So while the original documents might have matched, the canonizing of the documents was affected by PEOPLE changing God's Word?

Well see your statement is misleading, because the changes took place well after the cannonizing of scripture, and well after Christianity becoming a sanctioned religion in Rome.

The change to 1 John happened during the 16th century, well after 335 AD, so those pesky scibes trying to get in all of their revisions as a result of the evil Constantine, just doesn't flow here.

As for Mark, Irenaeus quotes verse 19 in 177AD, which leads me to believe that either they also managed to rewrite all copies of Irenaeus or the final verses of Mark are missing. I lean towards the final verses having been lost. How many other non-Biblical works have been lost in a similar fashion over the years? How many of those do we accept as Historical, or accurate?

The only reason people don't accept the Bible is because if they can discount it then they don't have to worry about the impending afterlife, and what that means to their souls. Again mbas, call me foolish, but as I've stated, I have the Holy Spirit as my guide, and I'd much rather take His word for things than anyone else's including my pastor.

The same Holy Spirit that Paul and Peter received?

That be the one. Hasn't changed since day one.

The Holy Spirit Jesus promises in John 14:26?

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.