Publicly, Origen claimed scripture was unchanged except by heretics but privately he fumed about all the differences and changes

Theres a reason why this guy only gets about 2 followers ever single year

If LGBT hate had a flag, it be this one a9d7cp.jpg (click to show)

13 stars huh

"The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please." Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 15.14.

So when confronted by a nonbeliever's accusation, Origen denies that Christians ever changed any texts, but when writing to his fellow Christians, he complains about the exact same thing himself! This was a VERY common charge amongst Christians in the first 300 years. And considering that Origen was condemned as a heretic himself, who knows what he considered true or false in regards to his mystery religion?

Recommended reading:
Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus
Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (here he carefully details examples of the "official" Church scribes quietly changing the scriptures to make them less useful to heretical arguments and bring them more in line with their own dogma. Some manuscripts even have notes in the margins about this ...

The BuyBull simply cannot be trusted. No one NO ONE back then thought any of it was holy scripture and felt free to alter any portion to say whatever they wanted. Today, there are more differences between the manuscripts of the BuyBull than there are words in the entire New Testament.

Is that Origen talking to you?

No

erm actaully many of the "contradictions" In the Bible are from different transltion of terms or even cultural traditions- for example women weren't considered as important back then and so in the commonly said "contradiction" in the geniology of Jesus Mary could not be included because she was a women so Mary does not have to fathers but rather it says something different

That's just another fake news story Christians use to bolster their case but it's a lie. A women's testimony was accepted in court and there is at least one case of a woman representing herself in divorce.

You'll want proof (but not any proof of a man copying common magiciat tricks of the era and healing blindness with mud made from dirt and his own spit)... According to Valerius Maximus (in Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium 8.3.1), Amaesia was “accused … and pleaded her own case… and was acquitted at the first hearing.”

Valerius Maximus 8.3.2 notes that Afrania, the wife of Senator Licinius Buccio, “always pleaded for herself before the praetor … not because she lacked advocates, but because she abounded in insolence.”

A papyrus from Egypt: BGU 4.1105 (c. 10 BCE) records a petition by Tryphaine, daughter of Dioskourides, against her husband Asklepiades (in Alexandria) describes her complaint of abuse and mis‐treatment of her dowry.

Digest (22.5.18) states: “The fact that the Lex Julia … forbids a woman found guilty (of adultery) to give evidence shows that women have the right to give evidence at a trial.”

Another source points out that in the famous trial of Gaius Verres (70 BCE) multiple women were called as witnesses by Cicero.

The contradictions are well into the thousands and are NOT due to transitions (you probably meant translations) but due to different authors trying to accomplish different things. READ more than apologists works. Educate yourself beyond what a pastor or priest tells you. Don't be so gullible. Start with Nailed by David Fitzgerald and follow up with his three volume "Jesus: Mything in Action" and just try to refute every single one of his points, But I'll bet $100 right now you won't order or read all these books.

That's a nice essay you've got there, man. Could you explain how these proofs mean that the Bible contradicts itself? The reason I believe in the Bible is because I can't find a single contradiction. Please, enlighten me on how this means the Bible contradicts itself.

Sheesh, man, even the early Church fathers could see them. And YOU can't???

Here you go: I have about 10,000 more but we can start here:
II Samuel 24:1 says that the Lord incited David to take a census of Israel; I Chronicles 21:1 says that Satan incited David to take a census of Israel. Which do you believe? And if your explanation is that it was a "scribe's error," explain to me why the Almighty Omnipotent Creator of the Universe is powerless to prevent copiers' errors. Also, explain to me how any scribe could be so inept that he accidentally wrote "Satan" instead of "God" (or vice versa). These are the men responsible for keeping the “word of God” pure? And for that matter, why is counting your people a sin? Why did lil’ Davy choose to have a couple thousand men slaughtered by God as punishment for his own sin? This is the guy “after god’s own heart?” Yeah, sounds like it. All the credit and none of the blame.

1 Samuel 31:4-6 says that King Saul committed suicide by falling on his own sword.
2 Samuel 1:8-10 says that an Amalekite killed him.
2 Samuel 21:12 says that the Philistines killed him.
THREE different stories? Which one is it? Which story is true?
Oh, and 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 implies that God himself killed Saul using the Philistines.

Genesis 10:5 says that, at that particular point in history, different peoples had different languages; Genesis 11:1, just a few verses down, says that there was only one language in the world. Which do you believe? Apologists try to say it was accents but that’s NOT what their bible says nor does the Hebrew match.

In Genesis 4:26, long before the time of Moses, we are told that men began to call on "the name of the Lord [YHWH]." In fact, at Genesis 22:14 (again, long before the time of Moses), Abraham names a place "The Lord [YHWH ] Will Provide." And yet later on - later in time - in Exodus 6:3, God tells Moses that previously his name [YHWH] had been unknown to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How do you explain this clear contradiction?

Jeremiah 3:12 reads, "For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep my anger forever." Fourteen chapters later (Jeremiah 17:4), God says, "Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever." How can God's anger burn forever if he doesn't keep anger forever?

I've been doing this for a couple of decades. It won't end well for you. You'll either realize you've been fooled, or you'll make up a zillion excuses on god's behalf, or you'll just quietly go away.

So these are the contradictions eh? Alright then let's get started. Thank you for your contributions.

II Samuel 24:1 is easy. It says that God had David to take a consensus of Israel and it says that Satan did that. This also appears with the Egyptians, it says that God hardened the Pharaoh's heart, and if you look at it like that, it makes it more like God allowed Satan to incite David.
As for David's sins, that's also very easy. No one is perfect, especially David. That's made very clear in the Bible. Did you know that David once got a man to die in battle so that he could have his wife? It's not about the sin, but the repentance of David. It's crazy how in sync the writers of so many different books are.

Those three. Good attempt. 1 Samuel says that Saul killed himself, then 2 Samuel 1 says that an Amalekite claimed to kill him. It does not say that an Amalekite killed him. 2 Samuel 21 refers to when Saul died in battle, because these events happened in a battle. The Philistines did strike down Saul, he killed himself, and an Amalekite claimed to kill him. As for 1 Chronicles 10, my answer lies in my response to the first "contradiction."

Genesis 10:5 refers to when people developed different languages. The two verses don't contradict because Genesis 11:1 talks about before the languages split. In fact, it actually talks about how the languages split. This one hardly looks like a contradiction even at first glance. Very obvious. You can't look at single verses without looking at the whole or we'd all be naked and have to not be naked at the same time.

I can see your points here, but try thinking through them a bit more carefully. Firstly, Genesis 22:14 does not involve Abraham saying that specifically YHWH will provide. It just says Lord, you stuck YHWH in there. As for the supposed contradiction, when the Lord tells Moses that people before him didn't know his name, the hebrew for "know" in a different sense. They knew his name, they just didn't KNOW his name, if that makes sense to you. They didn't know what his name meant.

Your Jeremiah contradiction is very insightful–but ultimately flawed. You must look at the hebrew word forever. It's not always a complete version of forever and can mean that God is angry for as long as necessary. The Lord is merciful, that's truth, but he's also just.

We can keep going like this if you like. There are no contradictions, and I'll welcome any criticisms. It increases my knowledge of the Lord, which I know for a fact is not enough. I can reap benefits from these "contradictions"
I know how this will end. It's not gonna end how you think. When two armies with well dug trenches face each other, nothing happens. No one gains, no one loses. You won't hear my reasonings, you'll be too dug in.

Where's my strong (and what I would consider flawed) response that you so faithfully give? Did you not say that this would end in your favor because I would just give up or vanish? I have a strong response to each of your arguments. Where are yours?

Dude, I have a life. You're so committed to your fairy tales you expect me to be at your beck and call?

You're responses are hot garbage and funny. World renown Christian apologists struggle mightily yet you have your pet little responses and you think they're "strong"? LOL. It's absolutely AMAZING the excuses you'll tolerate on behalf of the god in your mind. YOU are your own god. That's why you believe the comebacks you desperately make are strong. Hahaha. You poor child.

I give good, reputable responses and you just dismiss them? You go straight from my argument to my character. Ad hominem. That might work on some other kid, but me? I don't accept a logical fallacy as an argument.

You think I'm desperate, eh? You have no idea what I am.

You are YOUR own god, boy. My god is the Lord of the heavens, who sent down his son to die so we might be forgiven our sins forever, then He rose again on the third day.

LOL, hilarious you think you gave an actual response. When you get out of high school and go to college (if you're able), try that on your astronomy professor.

You're an uneducated fool. And your tiresome pathetic responses, which you believe are world class because you think your buyBull makes you more educated than PhDs and Doctors of Divinity who acknowledge much of what I've said as true. Even one of your most acclaimed apologists, William Lane Craig, admits that it all boils down to faith ... not science. But YOU, you know more! LOLOL!

Go worship your ever decreasing little god. The rest of the world is moving on from the idiocy of religion.

You are your god. Your own ego. You're worshipping yourself.

Bro. It does boil down to faith. You think I don't think that? All our hearts are hardened, so for some people, evidence isn't gonna cut it. It's about faith... the psychological part of science points to that.

You think that my reasons for the Bible's non-contradictions are stupid? That an atheist professor will reject it? And what will he say? How will he reject it, eh? Will he just say that I'm stupid and walk away, like you, or will he actually give a reputable response?

I am not worshipping myself, you're worshipping yourself or science. You adhere to science like it's the most infallible thing ever. We'll let me tell you, it's still fallible. You think science can't fail you? Well, use science to explain gravity. Science is a great method for us to understand God's nature in the universe, and apparently a good method for atheists to make excuses for logical fallacies.

You can't prove that God doesn't exist, either, so by claiming that you're an atheist, you're claiming that you're God, because you're claiming that you know everything, including whether it's for sure that there's a teapot floating around in space. Even Sephen Hawking gets this.

So many opportunities to point out how you're wrong ... sheesh, I just don't have the time.

I worship NOTHING. You and your ILK think humans MUST worship something but you're full of bullshit. You worship the god between your ears. You know it but it will take something more than logic and thinking to get you to understand it. What you FAIL REPEATEDLY to realize is that I used ALL, 100%, of the same arguments you do for 4 decades. LOL. I've been literally around the world preaching your little gospel on multiple continents ... and then one day I woke the f u c k up.

There is NO evidence for god. None. Guess what, there are no leprechauns either. There is no Thor or Odin or Brahma. There is no Zeus, Isis, or Ra. Pegasus doesn't exist. Your BuyBull says:
Bats are birds Deuteronomy 14:11-18
Insects have four legs not six Leviticus 11:21-23
Hares chew their cud Deuteronomy 14:6-7
Unicorns DO exist Job 39-9-12, Psalm 29:6, Isaiah 34:7 (no re-interpreting in light of actual, real "science")
Saytrs also exist Isaiah 13:21
Men can walk on water Matthew 14:22-33
You cure skin diseases with the blood of birds (one left alive), some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop Leviticus 14
A person can survive inside a whale's (or fish's depending on which book in your buybull you read) stomach for three days without oxygen while wallowing in stomach acid-- entire Book of Jonah
Dead seeds can germinate, live seeds cannot 1 Corinthians 15:36

The sheer stupidity you have to employ to believe a holy book written by dumbasses in the Middle East 200-3000 years ago is astounding.

All you have are feelings. All I have is evidence or the lack of it. You're the one who believes a teapot floats around in space and then demands someone prove you wrong.

You're a waste of time and oxygen.

And again read the god ... damn ... book.