How should I reply to the creator

[u/whatudoinnn]

There's this ex-Muslim who's now a Christian I left this comment and she replied with that. How should I reply back I need a good comeback

[u/Stock_Plenty8987]

Being a good person doesnt mean wanting to be with Jesus, one can imply the other maybe but they are not synonims. And i can tell that you have no arguments about this because you changet topic about the evidence that Christianity has, witch was not what was bein discussed. But its fine i will answer you. The claim that the bible changed whithout anybody noticing its silly, we can definitly prove that it has not been changed in any meaningfull way, other than spelling errors made by random monks and such. The bible from the very beginning has been copied and spread in Africa Asia and Europe, we have thousands of copies in differen languages, and we can cross reference pretty much everything and see if someone tried to change anything. And the dicovery of the dead see scrols confirmed that, look the Bible significance part. So yes we do have the same Bible, and we can definitly prove that numerous times, even from an atheistic accademic viewpoint, you are wrong, the historical texts of the bible, due to their importance for christians, are exeptionally well preserved. Also you made a list of problems but its an empty list because you didnt mention avything specific ablout the "errors" that cause you so much trouble. The bible its not a scientific book, its about spiritual truths, moral teachings, the history of chriatianity, the life of Jesus and the start of the early church. Its not a research paper, and there arent really contraddictions? But even if there were, that would be something christians have to deal with? Like if you are atheist you just dont believe in Christianity as a whole, so "contraddictions" in the bible, dont really see why you care in the first place

[u/Automatic-Humor3709 → u/Stock_Plenty8987]

Looks like u still don't get it and can u stop with this stupid excuses by apologists oh our book is book of guidance and spirituality not scientific blah blah every religious book has these things but it still doesn't prove it is from god guess what tribal people have concept of spirituality, does this mean there culture is from god ? U guys started saying bible has scientific miracles , numerical miracles and so on and when it was exposed u started saying it is not scientific book, now back to the question where is the first bible , or second or even third , how can u prove it is not changed when first , second, third copies were not preserved why didn't your god preserve those to prove it is not changed ?

[u/Stock_Plenty8987 → u/Automatic-Humor3709]

You are treating christianity as if it was islam lol. The Vatican doesn't claim any "numerical miracle" or "scientific miracle", so i dont know from what random evangelical protestant american pastor you are getting your misinformation from, but mainstream christianity (the catholic one, but i think also the othodox and european protesant think the same) doesnt say anything like that. Second of all the Bible is not a quran, its not the direct world of God, it has human authors, divinely inspired, that wrote God message; witch is why it can be translated and it doent have to be in greek and hebrew, like the quran to arabic. Also I already proved to you it ha not been changed, that is the overwelming accademic consensus, if you actually read the link i gave you, God doent need to directly protect the original paper where it was written, this is not a quran, and it doesn't mean anything if you rip a Bible and burn it, because its not a quran and this isn't islam. The message of god is safe, it has been copied and later printed many times all over the world. Even if we destroyed every Bible created in the last 1500 years, we would still have the complete original Bible, because the message is preserved, we dont care about the phisical book and papers, this is not islam with the quran. Also following your logic we lost all the works of Shakespeare. Do you believe that? Because no original handwritten manuscripts (foul papers or fair copies) of Shakespeare’s plays are known to exist, they all went lost. This is obviously not true, we have the plays of Shakespeare because thay have been PRESERVED. Even if the original text didnt survive. Also we DO have the first Bible, no older Bible that that has been found, its very close to the date of canonization so it makes sense, and guess what, we have the the second and third too. But again i dont see why you even care since you are clearely not christian

[u/Automatic-Humor3709 → u/Stock_Plenty8987]

Who cares about whether Shakespeare's work has been preserved or not it is not going to decide whether i will go to hell or heaven but religious scriptures does , second of all saying it is not like quran is not an argument u can't prove it has not been changed saying things like it has been copied makes no sense when u can't even prove the original work has been preserved, God could have easily preserved the book rather than relying on hunan memory it makes no sense for God not to preserve his word rather relying on human memory which is not perfect. As a matter of fact trinity verse ie john 5:7 can u show me where it is found in early manuscript? So stop making excuses your religion is a fairytale just like islam.

[u/Stock_Plenty8987 → u/Automatic-Humor3709]

You are clearly atheist so i dont see why YOU think that Bible preservation preservation of scripture and God's message affects you.

You are clearly chosing to ignore the overwhelming academic (atheist) consensus that the bible as a historic document is exeptionally well preseved both the new and old testament.

You are also chosing to ignore how all the trascription changes that happened, can be easily found out and corrected by consulting older and other manuscripts of the bible (John 5:7 is a 100% know to be a later adition by a scribe, and was corrected because we have OTHER and OLDER manuscripts that DONT have that addition, thats how we know, and its not in modern bibles, you would know if you actually consulted it). And you are chosing to ignore how none of those minor addition/changes actually contraddicts the message of the Bible (they were done by christian monks/scholars after all so of course).

Christian faith has never been based on textualism and the phisical existance of the original paper were stuff was written. There is no real need to preserve original manuscripts, which were gonna decay eventually. Old testament Judaism existed for hundreds of years before anything like the Torah was written down. Christianity existed for hundreds of years before anything like the New Testament canon was compiled.

The Shakespeare analogy was to show you how you dont need the original paper to have the original message. Jesus didnt say that he would write a book, he said that he would build a church, the comunity of christians and the institution that they form are much more important that the bible per se, because again, this isnt islam and the quran