I would not call them minor details. I would call them significant changes over a period of a few decades in which the "gist of the story" actually changes

Quote:

Sure it's possible that this was an agenda to make people believe something that didn't happen

BINGO! NOW YOU ARE ON TO SOMETHING!

NOT ONLY IS IT POSSIBLE, IT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE THAN A DISEMBODIED BRAIN WITH NO BRAIN!

You want to believe something badly enough, not only will you believe it, you will do everything within your power to market it. You can sell shit as ice cream if you get gullible people to buy it.

 

TGBaker wrote:

I would not call them minor details. I would call them significant changes over a period of a few decades in which the "gist of the story" actually changes

Ok, Then what was the gist of the story and what did it change to?

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:

Sure it's possible that this was an agenda to make people believe something that didn't happen

BINGO! NOW YOU ARE ON TO SOMETHING!

NOT ONLY IS IT POSSIBLE, IT MAKES MUCH MORE SENSE THAN A DISEMBODIED BRAIN WITH NO BRAIN!

You want to believe something badly enough, not only will you believe it, you will do everything within your power to market it. You can sell shit as ice cream if you get gullible people to buy it.

 

is the only case you have pulling quotes out of context?  that should tell you something.

caposkia wrote:

right, so plausibility and theory is left... yet a good chunk of the non-believing world accept plausibility as fact.

redneF wrote:

Redundant.

Some people believe in magic. Even when it's well known to be an illusion.

thank you for proving my point.

yet it seems you among other atheists are still expecting a Christian to come up with Audio/Video recordings, survivors, and eye witness accounts of the event in order to retract your belief that it didn't happen.

caposkia wrote:

The question is what's really important, the details, or the fact that it happened?  

redneF wrote:

Both.

The devil is in the details, you know.

right... and your point?  

Think about it, if it didn't actually happen, the details don't matter. 

ah, so you have evidence that is more than just naked assertion that confirms the likelihood that it didn't happen. 

I'll give you a point back at this point pending you sharing your research.

...but the point is through science alone, there is no instrument that is designed to study the metaphysical

...and we have no understanding of how to create one.  

you're whole score method to try and make theists look ignorant..

If you really had a case for your belief, you wouldn't have to resort to such a game...

redneF wrote:

Ummm, I proved that some people believe in things that are not real, and are illusions designed specifically to be novel. That, in no way works in favour of ancient stories being nonfictional.

I simply stated that people accept certain ideas as truth without sufficient evidence to prove such.. you only confirmed that statement by furthering it and stating an assumption that generally those 'accepted truths' are not real.  

redneF wrote:

In fact, many apologists, openly claim that the biblical stories are mostly meant to be taken metaphorically.

...and there's a reason why they're called apologists.  they must apologize for not having a better reasoning for believing.

Cap why are you and God having so much trouble with an atheists saying "Show me the Carfax"?

Seriously, the discussion seems to have gone from "what kind of evidence would you accept?" to "does the atheist have the intellectual chops to understand my evidence?"

Give the evidence and let us see for ourselves whether we can understand it. Or are you afraid we might ask a question the evidence can't handle? 

 

So? Do you accept others claims as true when they don't give you evidence for such?

And wouldn't it be nice if we had some sort of way to test a claim? Oh wait, there is an ap for that.

Maybe if more humans wouldn't accept certian ideas without sufficient evidence we wouldn't have tons of people selling bullshit all over the world, would we?

TGBaker wrote:

Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher who was seen to perform miracles.  He was elevated in one circle of followers to being virgin born.  paul cast him in an ahistorical  Hellenistic Savior myth.  Another segment of the movement continued as Jewish followers who expecte4d his return but did not believe in the virgin birth or that Jesus was god or divine. The Jewish Christian traditions about Jesus become elevated with the Johannine Hellenistic Logos Christology.  The Ebionite movement was wiped out pretty much in the second revolt under ben Kochba. Neo-platonic thought moved another aspect of Jewish thought with the help of the Johannine literature toward Gnosticism.  Logos Christology became predominate in the secondcentury while Paul's writings became old hat. Marcion rejected the jewish background of god and created the first Christian bible. Other groups of churches reacted against marcion and Paul's writings came back into popularity as well as the pseudepigraphical ones attrbuted to Paul and Peter/Jude and John.  Various forms of Christianity competed with each other creating more and more writings attributed to the Apsotles. The gospels were attributed to Matthew , Mark, Luke and John. jesus became more and more divine and everybody got together and created a bunch of trinity theories. The politicians won.

 

Look at Mark 1:2. They are supposed to be from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. The pronouns and what the text has been altered to make the baptist look like the forerunner to Jesus. Malachi, "See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me," (3:1) verses Mark 1:2b See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way".  The scripture has been altered as a proof text and appears with the same change  in Matthew 11:10-15 and Luke 7:27  : “This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way before You.’ Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”So Jesus does not really quote Malachi. The church's tradion is placed in Jesus's mouth.  Looks intentionally fabricated to me.   Malachi speaks of Elijah coming before Yahweh.  The tradition Mark uses has merged it with Isaiah 40:3 to have God talking to Jesus telling Jesus that he will send his messenger Elijah before him.  For Malachi Elijah is the messenger of the covenant. This is seen in Jewish interpretation , the Targums. Elijah is the eschatological High Priest and was to be an actual return and not in the spirit of Elijah ( the forced reinterpretation of the Christian passages) The gospel of John drops the baptism of jesus by the baptist and has the Baptist deny that he is Elijah:

Yet it is just as clear that John denies that he is Elijah: "I am not

 

[Elijah] (e]gw> ou]k ei]mi<, John 1:21, 23) IN Ben Sira Elijah was the one who brought the eschatological age and possibly the resurrection of the dead. In Isaiah 40:3 the preparation is for God not a Messiah thus the pronoun change by the Christian tradition. Thus Jesus's original teacher is subordinated by him. The baptism for remission of sin in that Jeus has is dropped by matthre and Luke. Instead of jesus receiving the spirit at baptism ( note the preposition in the Greek eis meaning into ) the spirit rest upon him ( Matthew and Luke use different prepositions to change this from the meaning of eis).  The church altered many Old Testament texts throughout the New Testament to have them mean what they wanted.

 

poor excuses for disbelief?

I think you keep missing the salient point.

Belief/Disbelief, does not=reality

Your belief, or disbelief is no better than 50/50. And so is mine.

I don't have to provide any counter evidence of a Christian god, and I'm still equally probable of being 'correct', as ANY Christian. Even Jesus Christ himself, if he were real.

You just keep droning on and on, in the same circular argument.

It's ignorant, and obnoxious to do so, and an intellectually dishonest means to try and project that one can supercede the 50/50 odds of being completely incorrect, in any/all their assumptions.

The technical elaboration of this is Boole's Inequality Theorum.

So, it's patently false, and dishonest to claim that a 50/50 chance of being 'correct', is knowing the 'truth'.

You might fool yourself, or your friends, but you cannot escape the 50/50 odds.

I don't even know where you could muster the balls to make such a weak attempt to undermine me. Save your posturing for when you're in a crowd of your ignorant friends.

You're not even close to being in my league, professionally, or personally.

No one needs a justification, for a position, and they will always have exactly the same odds as you, in lieu of anything concrete.

It doesn't matter how you feel about that reality.

If you were to simply say, 'I believe that it's possible that there exists a god', there would be nothing to debate about. The odds are 50/50.

The problem begins, when you (or any one else) extend past that simple claim.

When you begin nakedly 'attributing' things to a god, then you are making an 'extraordinary' leap. Without 'extraordinary' proof, you are just kidding yourself.

That's fine.

The problem is when you attempt to 'lecture' others, about what is 'real'.

They are notes, written by people.

There's no logical reason to not be skeptical of anecdotes.

Ok, you just have lower standards than I do.

Well, you cannot tear my case apart.

It's the most logical to be skeptical, than any other position.

redneF wrote:

... many Christians would say it's a manual for life. 

What does that mean?

They need to find something that resonates with their feelings, and remind themselves of their feelings?

caposkia wrote:

you seem to think you know, so you'd waste your time for the same reason i'd "waste" mine..

No.

You're don't understand my motivations.

Debating you personally, is not significant to me. You are insignificant to me.

To rid themselves of an emotional dependence of 'external validation' for their mere random existence.

I'm not. I don't care about you personally.

I'm just tearing your cases of flawed reasoning, and precarious positioning, from skepticism, apart.

Relax, it's probably not true.

Buy a dictionary.

So, metaphysics can't be scaled, and can't be quantified?

Then why talk about it?

Why 'convert' from the strongest position, of being 'skeptical'?

Right.

Why jump off the ledge from the strongest position of skepticism?

If you think it will benefit you, then that's a 'emotional' decision to 'convert' from the 'logical' position, of remaining 'skeptical'.

caposkia wrote:

 How have we butchered the English language?  

"Atheism is false"

I've elaborated about this many times.

caposkia wrote:

If anything, theists from my experience are the most analytical of the English language and are more careful about grammatical errors than non-believers.  I mean theists here, not joe schmoe church goer in Alabama.  

Then you're ignorant.

The most 'scholarly' theologians, and apologetics actively on the 'crusade', use these equivocations as the foundations of their 'logica' and 'sound reasoning'

I'm a professional, in the field of science and technology. I cannot afford to make stupid mistakes, and 'leap' from the strongest position, of 'skeptical'.

If you are sincere, then you need to set your bar higher. You have not scrutinized everything, thoroughly enough.

Being more scientific, would be a start.

I'd suggest you learn what a 'meta-analysis' is.

TGBaker wrote:

I don't know what you mean by the gist of the story then. It has been created by the interpretation I outlined. Jesus was originally a follower of the the baptist. he was baptised for his sins. He started his own program when the baptist was arrested. The church tried to reinterprete this and make the bapptist a forerunner to jesus.  Actually the Old Testament was scripture for the Jewish Christians. Paul argues in 2 Corinthians 3 that the New Testament is not a written covenant but one of Spirit which replaces the OT. Again you miss the point. Jesus did not speak of a messenger. The church reworked the scripture into a different reading in the attempt to make John the baptist a forerunner for Jesus. None of the that is historical.  Malachi was a prophecy about Elijah coming again. The meaning of the text was tampered with by the church to make John as Elijah bringing the Messiah rather than Elijah as the messenger of the Covenant.  Did I fail to make that understandable in the previous quotes!!!!!! The gist of the story is fictional. Made up by the church. The history behind it is much simpler. 

despite interpretation, the gist of the story will never change.  You accuse the church of changing the stories when in fact they were written not by the church, but by the writers of the scriptures... unless you're suggesting that the quote was added in later, but most Bibles would notate that... there is no notation that I can see of that suggests it was not there in earlier manuscripts.  Granted all are a translation of the original and we don't have access to those originals, but it is also understood that they were carefully translated and history suggests they were translated by non-bias monks that generally were the ones who scribed and translated all texts and not just those of Christianity or other particular religions.  

You see it as a reworking, Christians see it as a correlation.  How is that missed by scholars?  

 

That right there sums up the fault in your entire stance. When dealing with a non-existant thing like metaphysics, there is no poor excuse for not believing.  One doen't need any excuse to not believe in something that cannot be detected.  It is the duty of the one proporting the idea to establish a credible reason to believe. 

As for the reason there is a backlash against faith in a silly old book, it is because there is a large contingent of people that would push its contents into the schools and governments of the world.  I do not need to assert the absurdity of taking "The Hobbit" literally because nobody is trying to teach it as science or codify it as law.  People are very much doing that with the Bible and thus many folks have an strong motivation to publicly laugh and ridicule the stupidity of their position. 

In the end, if there is no valid evidence to support the supernatural claims of the bible (which there is not), it is on par with The Hobbit, though the bible is far less interesting a read.

TGBaker wrote:

I guess you don't understand what I am saying. The gist of the story as you understand it was developed ;long after Jesus was dead. 

So you assume... unless you have documented examples of what it looked like before.  i haven't seen those documents yet.

TGBaker wrote:

You need to look a t the textual critical apparati to determine which verse was later addded and there are many. 

is there a study volume or author that details this?

TGBaker wrote:

There were verses that dropped out but that is not the point of what I keep saying. The whole story is simply a gradual creation.  We have access to 96% of the originals as reconstructed through a comparative analysis of the text.

well, they're still copies, but as original as we can get

TGBaker wrote:

That has nothing much to do with it. It is the originals themselves that are fabricated. Interpolations and changes are abundantly shown in the 3000 major manuscripts and miniscules of the NT.  So what is it that you are saying is the gist that never changes?????  The meaning of the texts are tampered with simply compare the gospels.  Actually there are several changes by scribes that show theological  bias I can think of off the top of my head.  And I've noted them not to be redundant. The reworking is pointed out by most major scholars.  Obviously not by inerrantists or fundies. But as I've qouted before evangelicals do point them out but then they are persecuted and kicked out of their groups.  I mentioned Gundry for one.  There is no correlation apart from apologists that start with the presupposition that the scripture is inspired or inerrant, infallible. That is hardly an unbiased historical approach. It also is not a matter of translation the text remained in Greek and is transcribed not translated. So I would address what I am saying directly about the texts rather than your view of the text... what Mark says, what malachi says etc.

 

it's odd to me that they were changed so dramatically over a short period of time only to be carefully preserved for the rest of the time beyond... what changed as far as concern for preservation?  Was it formation of the church and a need for congruency?

This is important information.  Where can I find a detailed analysis of the study of these reworkings?  

BardlishtheMagnifico wrote:

 

That right there sums up the fault in your entire stance. When dealing with a non-existant thing like metaphysics, there is no poor excuse for not believing.  One doen't need any excuse to not believe in something that cannot be detected.  It is the duty of the one proporting the idea to establish a credible reason to believe. 

exactly what i'm getting at.  You're so sure metaphysics doesn't exist and yet a category for it has been made scientifically.  no means to measure it and something that cannot be detected are 2 different angles.  

Credible reasoning is exactly what i've been asking for.  you have credible reasoning to say factually that "God is not real" therefore I ask for that credible reasoning.  If you say "i have no reason to believe' that's different.

BardlishtheMagnifico wrote:

As for the reason there is a backlash against faith in a silly old book, it is because there is a large contingent of people that would push its contents into the schools and governments of the world.  I do not need to assert the absurdity of taking "The Hobbit" literally because nobody is trying to teach it as science or codify it as law.  People are very much doing that with the Bible and thus many folks have an strong motivation to publicly laugh and ridicule the stupidity of their position. 

it's a he said she said scenario.  Just as much as you have reason not to believe, Christians have reason to believe...  Both sides can claim the same about the position of the other and the well researched individuals can all present a very good case for either side.  It's a level playing field

BardlishtheMagnifico wrote:

In the end, if there is no valid evidence to support the supernatural claims of the bible (which there is not), it is on par with The Hobbit, though the bible is far less interesting a read.

valid evidence as in what?  What would YOU need as far as valid evidence?

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

If anything, theists from my experience are the most analytical of the English language and are more careful about grammatical errors than non-believers.  I mean theists here, not joe schmoe church goer in Alabama.  

Then you're ignorant.

The most 'scholarly' theologians, and apologetics actively on the 'crusade', use these equivocations as the foundations of their 'logica' and 'sound reasoning'

you're categorizing apologists and theologians in the same folder.  That would make you ignorant

TGBaker wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

caposkia wrote:

BardlishtheMagnifico wrote:

 

That right there sums up the fault in your entire stance. When dealing with a non-existant thing like metaphysics, there is no poor excuse for not believing.  One doen't need any excuse to not believe in something that cannot be detected.  It is the duty of the one proporting the idea to establish a credible reason to believe. 

exactly what i'm getting at.  You're so sure metaphysics doesn't exist and yet a category for it has been made scientifically.  no means to measure it and something that cannot be detected are 2 different angles.  

Credible reasoning is exactly what i've been asking for.  you have credible reasoning to say factually that "God is not real" therefore I ask for that credible reasoning.  If you say "i have no reason to believe' that's different.

BardlishtheMagnifico wrote:

As for the reason there is a backlash against faith in a silly old book, it is because there is a large contingent of people that would push its contents into the schools and governments of the world.  I do not need to assert the absurdity of taking "The Hobbit" literally because nobody is trying to teach it as science or codify it as law.  People are very much doing that with the Bible and thus many folks have an strong motivation to publicly laugh and ridicule the stupidity of their position. 

it's a he said she said scenario.  Just as much as you have reason not to believe, Christians have reason to believe...  Both sides can claim the same about the position of the other and the well researched individuals can all present a very good case for either side.  It's a level playing field

BardlishtheMagnifico wrote:

In the end, if there is no valid evidence to support the supernatural claims of the bible (which there is not), it is on par with The Hobbit, though the bible is far less interesting a read.

valid evidence as in what?  What would YOU need as far as valid evidence?

When did metaphysics stop being a philosophical stance and become a scientific category? I mean, if it is a scientific category it means that they have been able to use science to make some evaluations of it. Yet you also say that such evaluation can't be done because science does not have the tools to make those evaluations.

 

To quote wiki:   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

In some cases, subjects of metaphysical scholarship have been found to be entirely physical and natural, thus making them part of science proper (cf. the theory of Relativity).

Quantum physics

Proponents of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics believe that Determinism was proven incorrect with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that certain corresponding physical quantities (such as position and momentum, energy and time, eigenstates of spin in non-parallel directions) cannot be determined simultaneously to an arbitrarily small error. For example, the more precisely a particle's position is measured, the less precisely one can know its momentum from the same measurement. If the momentum is more precisely measured to account for this, the uncertainty in the position will rise. This counter-intuitive result is a consequence of the wave-like behavior of subatomic particles. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is thus a statement providing an inverse correlation between the uncertainties of certain corresponding measurements.

This line of reasoning has led physicists to develop Quantum field theory and use the "wave function" to describe physical systems. While differential equations govern the evolution of the wave function, the wave function itself only specifies the probability of an event to be measured. Thus, while the evolution of the wave function is deterministic, the history of a particle is not. The widely held view amongst physicists regards the apparent determinism of Newtonian dynamics, for example, as the limiting behavior of inherently probabilistic phenomena. Classical physics is then considered a convenient and sufficiently accurate description of nature only at macroscopic scales. A large enough scale is usually thought of as much larger than the Compton wavelength of the object considered.

Alternative interpretations of quantum theory, such as de Broglie–Bohm theory and the many-worlds interpretation, provide a deterministic theoretical framework that is consistent with empirical observation of quantum mechanical phenomena. Notable physicists, such as Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger, never believed that Quantum Mechanics was a fundamental theory. Einstein is famous for believing that while Quantum Mechanics provided good experimental predictions, it should ultimately be replaced with a deterministic theory that could account for the seemingly probabilistic nature of the atomic regime. In a letter to Max Born, Einstein wrote, "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

• Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926); The Born-Einstein Letters (translated by Irene Born) (Walker and Company, New York, 1971) ISBN 0-8027-0326-7. This quote is commonly paraphrased "God does not play dice" or "God does not play dice with the universe", and other slight variants.

Though there remains skepticism, there is a scientific consensus that the laws of Quantum Mechanics correctly describe the universe up to current experimental bounds, and that it is necessary for the very consistency of the subject that it be probabilistic in nature (see Bell's Theorem).

 

There aer many philosophical presuppositions in physics that raise their heads from time to time. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

No, what you are doing is trying to cling to what you think is true. That is not a challenge, to you or us.

why are you determined to put words in my mouth?  is it because I don't agree with you?  i have made my intentions clear.  If from here on out I represent myself as "clinging to what i think is true" when obvious logical opposing evidence is presented, let me know.

Brian37 wrote:

If you had something credible, you could convince us in short order without spending 3 years trying to defend an ancient comic book. And you could convince, not just us, but people of all labels.

I haven't spent 3 years trying to defend anything.  i have spent 3 years messing around with you.  i have spent more of my time and concentration elsewhere on other forums and with other people here that seem to be more serious about what they're talking about.  It also has been more of a discussion, not a defense, if you're seeing it as a defense, then that should tell you something... maybe that your claims aren't as sound as you think.

it's also not as cut and dry as you'd like it to be... Atheists on here have been telling me the same thing thinking I take the same state of mind as you do.  So it's not just me thinking this.

Brian37 wrote:

Claims are like assholes, everyone has one. Fortunately in the modern world humanity has a tool that transcends pet claims. I think once you accept what you have already admitted to, in that you cannot do it our way, you will realize you are wrong.

so... because a test cannot logically and rationally be done through the means you ask for.. .this being getting and capturing metaphysical dna strands and looking at them under a microscope in a physical manner, then it just possibly can't be real... therefore, Gravity is only in your head and if you just let go of that notion, you can fly.

Brian37 wrote:

You cannot come up with anything comparable to a biology class where DNA and evolution is taught universally. You cannot come up with the same mechanical principles FUCKING CARS AND AIRPLANES are built with.

that's because they're all based on physical means.  

As far as comparable means... what to capture a piece of something and look at it using tools that are designed to look at biological things?  of course not...  want a doctor to give you an enema using a Jersey Barrier?  Do you think it would work or do you think there might be some logical problems with that approach?

Brian37 wrote:

You have a pet claim and no fucking way to test it. You ARE in the same boat as Muslims and Jews and Scientologists and Hindus.

well, meta-analysis was brought up... though you're afraid of that angle it seems.

Brian37 wrote:

You could postulate a Pink Unicorn and use the same convoluted arguments you have made here and it adds up to the same amount of evidence for your claim.

NOTHING, NADDA, ZIP, ZILTCH, ZERO!

Don't waste your life defending a myth.

Think about it Brian, using your logic, I can make wind a myth.  What a tornado knocked your house down?  It's all in your head, a seismograph near your house recorded tremors which would cause the same damage to a house like yours if it had a weak foundation... which your house likely had.   What you saw a funnel cloud?  I wasn't there, I didn't see it.. no one has a recording of it... sure your neighbors agree, but you could collaborate such a mythical story.  The evidence still stands that it was a combination of a weak foundation during a moderate tremor.  

well... yea the house is pretty scattered... but due to the time elapsed you could have worked with your neighbors to scatter the rubble in such a way... evidence still stands.

The only difference today is we can look at satelite history of clouds and look for a hook... we can also seek out storm chasers who happened to be in the area, likely they had a video of it somewhere... back then they didn't have such means and today we don't have the same means to record an act of God... It's like taking a childs word on something...  

He flipped me the middle finger!  

No i didn't!  

yes you did!

No I didn't...

Yes you did.

Prove it!

All we can see is the results... the accuser could be just trying to get that kid in trouble, or it actually happened and the results are evident due to the frustration of the accuser... as an outsider who never saw the actual event, either could be the case.    If you're the parent of the accuser, as far as your concerned it happened and that kid needs to be punished... if you're the parent of the accused, he obviously didn't do it and therefore the accuser should be punished.

actually, I'm giving you too much credit... the evidence part should be taken out.. because you don't even use that as a defense.

TGBaker wrote:

I guess you don't understand what I am saying. The gist of the story as you understand it was developed ;long after Jesus was dead. 

So you assume... unless you have documented examples of what it looked like before.  i haven't seen those documents yet.

TGBaker wrote:

You need to look a t the textual critical apparati to determine which verse was later addded and there are many. 

is there a study volume or author that details this?

TGBaker wrote:

There were verses that dropped out but that is not the point of what I keep saying. The whole story is simply a gradual creation.  We have access to 96% of the originals as reconstructed through a comparative analysis of the text.

well, they're still copies, but as original as we can get

TGBaker wrote:

That has nothing much to do with it. It is the originals themselves that are fabricated. Interpolations and changes are abundantly shown in the 3000 major manuscripts and miniscules of the NT.  So what is it that you are saying is the gist that never changes?????  The meaning of the texts are tampered with simply compare the gospels.  Actually there are several changes by scribes that show theological  bias I can think of off the top of my head.  And I've noted them not to be redundant. The reworking is pointed out by most major scholars.  Obviously not by inerrantists or fundies. But as I've qouted before evangelicals do point them out but then they are persecuted and kicked out of their groups.  I mentioned Gundry for one.  There is no correlation apart from apologists that start with the presupposition that the scripture is inspired or inerrant, infallible. That is hardly an unbiased historical approach. It also is not a matter of translation the text remained in Greek and is transcribed not translated. So I would address what I am saying directly about the texts rather than your view of the text... what Mark says, what malachi says etc.

 

it's odd to me that they were changed so dramatically over a short period of time only to be carefully preserved for the rest of the time beyond... what changed as far as concern for preservation?  Was it formation of the church and a need for congruency?

This is important information.  Where can I find a detailed analysis of the study of these reworkings?