That’s because the Gospels were specifically written with an awareness of the prophecies, in order to make them conform to those prophecies. They were put together by human writers who were propagandizing on behalf of the new religion.
The Gospels and the rest of the Bible are specifically intended to influence people, and to do so, they made the story consistent.
Scribes making deliberate changes (not scribal errors, the equivalent of transcribing a small h as a small n) would deliberately make the story consistent. That is why scholars believe that those elements that are the most different are probably close to the originals.
That’s why the books are filled with prophecies from a God who knows the future. Man cant predict, let alone set up the future to match his writings.
Theory from hell, that is.
Then you choose to ignore all the manuscript evidence for the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Before 1947 (the year the dead sea scrolls were found)the oldest Hebrew manuscript dated to about 915AD. When the dead sea scrolls were found, a complete scroll of the book of Isaiah was found. Once they got it unrolled and dated it to about 125BC they compared what the 915AD manuscript said with what the 125BC scroll said. Except for punctuation and the spelling of names/places, the 125BC scroll said exactly what the 915AD manuscript said, that is over a 1000year spread between the two. That is only one of the many books of the OT that they have confirmed that say then what it says now
The New Testament has about 25,000 pieces of manuscript evidence, some dated to 35 to 50AD. Most of the people who saw and heard Jesus when He was alive would have corrected any errors. If every new testament bible were lost today, it could be completely rewritten from the manuscripts we now have. If we were to loose the manuscripts, the entire new testament could be re-written by the quotes from the early church fathers, except for 11 verses.
When Simon Greenleaf applied the law of evidence to the four gospels, (which he did to disprove them) he determined that they were admissible in a court of law as factual, eye witness evidence to the events they describe. Mr Greenleaf also became a believer in Jesus Christ because of his investigation and the overwhelming evidence he encountered.
The claims you make are unfounded, as well as the so called scholars who have been blinded by their much learning.
Try to find another book that was written over 1400 years, by 40 different writers and ensure that the book they write has a unified message from beginning to end. I will save you some time, you won’t find one.
The message of the bible is that God has redeemed man from the fall in the Garden of Eden and that Jesus is that way, THE only way to be saved from condemnation of death.
2 Tim 3:16-17 says that All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Peter 1:21, For no prophesy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
John 3:16-17, For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that who ever believes in Him will not die but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but rather that the world through Him might be saved.
That is what you need to know.
Two posts with assertions and no evidence presented.
Got any EXAMPLES of these 'deliberate' errors?
Yeah; your question has not changed in thousands of years...
Did GOD really say...
Wow. I’m interested in hearing how you came to such a misinformed opinion. It really is quite ignorant. I’ll provide some info that’ll help you gain a more informed opinion once I get to my computer (I’m on my iPad now) ...
That's quite some conspiracy they had going then isn't it. Is your tinfoil hat on tight enough?
So just what would be the point of them *creating* a new religion? What were they to gain? Many of them died horrible deaths.
I take it, then, that you do not believe any of the writings of the Bible. Did you come on this thread then just to cast doubt in the minds of those who do believe it? What is your purpose for your comments?
If your theory were true,
many would have stepped forward and refuted the accounts that were written during the lifetime of eye witnesses to the events recorded.
The Historical Evidence for Jesus'
Resurrection That Even Skeptics Believe
You might be interested in this lecture on the resurrection and early Church using historical documentation and the timing of Paul, Peter and others. It is two hours long, but there is a lot of revealing information throughout, including an excellent Q&A segment at the end. Click on this link for the lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M
Philip