Paradoks: He did say however:
“I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
I see you left out the whole moving mountains bit. Wise choice, but unfortunately I'm already aware of it. :P Given that nobody is actually able to do that, does that mean there aren't any actual believers left in the world?
Lou: God gave us his word and said he would preserve it.
The Bible was in the hands of a cult that sold absolution for any possible crime including rape of the virgin Mary for about 1400 years. Covering up for paedophiles is comparatively minor compared to the body of their crimes. They were far closer to Satanists than devout Christians.
So, aside from the fact that we know beyond all doubt that the Bible has been altered, do you really think that God would leave the Bible in such hands for so long?
1. Firstly, we're not talking about stories of God's global activities here. We're talking about aesthetic changes (including the fact that graven images of God depicting him as Zeus were not only permissible but commissioned by the Church) and changes to the story of Jesus' life, including his childhood and resurrection (Mithras) and pagan influences such as the Holy Grail.
These things aren't evidence of truth in other faiths, but rather Catholics mashing bits of other faiths into their own to score them more converts. If you're a pagan, it's easy to convert to another religion if it's been made semi-pagan already.
2. "Aramaic is a language people know how to translate."
That is debatable. A lot of the way it was translated depended largely on how the translation would sound rather than any perceived truth in it. For instance: the word 'day'. Or lack thereof. Yep. No word for day. So the six days the heavens and Earth were created in where actually six 'periods of time'.
So if you were to translate the Bible for the first time today, imagine how much more scientifically accurate it would be already? Already we've thrown out one of the biggest obstacles between fundamentalists and the embrace of science and yet we've barely started.