for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.
but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?
why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?
I wrote about Paul's statement because I am so tired of people saying that Paul was inspired of God because he wrote that All Scripture is inspired of God. It obviously does not include his own writings.
But what you wrote is something you made up with no way to verify it. Kris Kristofferson told us where he got his ideas. No such luck with Bible writers or Paul.
i listen to one of these all time in our hall.
she brings it up constantly about how they would do this or that but he has to work that saturday.
i think she should get a job and then he could find a lower paying 9 to 5 job..
Ok now i want to marry viv again....
No, you really don't. Just be happy with the fantasy :)
for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.
but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?
why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?
Do you have an example of the Bible intentionally lying?
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.
for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.
but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?
why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?
No, I am not. Your own posts embarrass you. Anyway, since you are the judge, you get to arbitrate. Take care MS Mensa. Keep posting your brilliant argumentum ad ignorantiam and the other funny things that you post.
I'm not ignoring anything. I've no idea why would keep talking about a judge. You're the one that decided to start creepily calling me pet names after endorsing a code of morality that promote chronic rape. Curiously, you've tried to make this conversation about everything EXCEPT your endorsement of that horrible moral code.
You're avoiding it, avoiding the very uncomfortable conversation about how you can endorse that moral code of rape, so your trying to demean me as a woman and now just trying to insult me. You're endorsing a society that was patriarchal, viewed women as chattel and property to be traded and bought. Should I be in any way surprised that you tried to demean by viewpoint by using pet names, a tactic to pet me on the head and tell me to run along and fix you a drink because the males are talking? Should I not worry my pretty little head about it?
for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.
but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?
why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?
I have seen judges presiding over rape cases and other cases too have the victim or witness put their hand on the Bible while being sworn in as at witness in a Court of Law- Again, Einstein, tell it to the judge.
As I said, you've abandoned all pretense of making sense. You're off derping the derp in Derpville.
Every President of the USA (Obama included) puts his had on the Bible while taking the Oath of Office.
Do you understand, Savant?
Awww... you're trying to insult me and not make sense at the same time. You're adorable when you're called out on being pro-rape and having a woman not show your penis any respect.
for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.
but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?
why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?
Again genius. You know. Relax. Tell it to the judge.
I see you're not even trying to keep up the pretense of making sense anymore.
By the way, scorer of "above 98 percent" (whatever that means) in the LSAT, you called me sugar bear in another thread, just addressing you with the same sweet darling greeting that you addressed me
I've no idea what you're talking about since I've never taken an LSAT nor talked about the LSAT nor know why they matter or don't matter. Either way, I'm not pro-rape like you, so it's not creepy when I do it, Mr. Pro-Rape Misogynist.
Anyway, tell it to the judge.
I am the judge, Mr. Pro-Rape Misogynist. You've been found to be Creepy & Weird Pro-Rape Misogynist in the 1st Degree.
for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.
but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?
why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?
Oh, no ifs for you. You know. What are you worried about then, sugar bear?
Mainly running into you in a dark alley since you're pro-rape and all. I mean, you already creepily call women by pet names when you don't know them. It's not much of a jump, more of a skip, really, to be worried since you already endorse pro-rape morals.
Also, I never said "if". You did. Quit blaming your mistakes on women. That's a common misogynistic trait.
i listen to one of these all time in our hall.
she brings it up constantly about how they would do this or that but he has to work that saturday.
i think she should get a job and then he could find a lower paying 9 to 5 job..
Men sometimes ride on women's earnings; society is NOT kind to such men.
Yep. I was the main breadwinner in our family due to my work in technology and willingness to step up and take on new technology and projects. That was fine with me, of course. The pioneering was fine (back then, now I would not tolerate that), the wage differential was fine, then, as now, I gave no thought to the other sisters talking about it. I actively avoided talking about work and money (even though everyone else did) because I made far more than even the most well employed brother in the hall (and what I make now puts then to shame).
The part that killed me was his constant complaints about me working, the time I would spend, missing a meeting every now and then, only getting 8 or 9 hours a month in FS and having to hear about how I was putting career first and maybe I should look at getting a different job and just working 8-5 in an office instead of having to travel or work late at home.
Guess what? That shiny new camper with 3 queen beds and a shower you just bought isn't going to pay for itself. The golf clubs aren't going to pay for themselves. All that expensive fly fishing gear and trips to go fly fishing and lessons to go fly fishing aren't going to pay for themselves. That new snowboard isn't going to pay for itself.
Here's a tip. You want me to work less and take a lower paying job? Quit fucking spending money. And do a load of laundry and have dinner ready when I get home once in a while. Don't call me at 6 PM when I am on my way (and left at 6:45 AM) home complaining there's no dinner for you and the kids when you've been "out in service" all day and grass hasn't been cut and dishes need washing.
Sorry, that got away from me a bit.
for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.
but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?
why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?
If the Bible is not inspired then it is a bunch of lies when it records the accounts about God's communication with man.
Yeah, you pretty much it the nail on the head there.
If it is inspired, it means that there is personal accountability with one's conduct to the God of the Bible .
So you're in favor of a rapist being able to buy his rape victim and rape her as often as he likes? You're in favor of the death penalty for eating shrimp and bacon? Hmm... didn't peg you as the pro-rape, anti-bacon kind.
Well, that's Christian logic for you. The Bible is either lies or you're pro-rape and anti-bacon. Of course, however, we know the Bible is a bunch of lies because bacon is goddamn delicious.
for many christians, the bible is viewed as the 100% error-free, perfect book straight from god, where every single word was carefully chosen by god for a reason.
but, usually, when you have a discussion on the topic, these christians will end up saying that only the original copies written directly from the hands of the prophets and apostles were error-free, and all manuscript copies since then are subject to copyist mistakes and other errors.. since zero original copies are in existence, how do we know the originals were error-free?
why should we think the originals should be error-free to begin with?
I like this. First, claim "People don't know what a word means", like this...
Simon, you like many others don't know what inspired means
Then, proceed to tell us what someone, who you've never met, talked to, nor who wrote down what he meant, actually meant, like this...
When Paul wrote that All scripture is inspired, he meant that the preChristian writings got their ideas from events that had to do with God and his people of the past, along with the inspired prophets.
Paul never said that's what he meant and there is no way for you to have any knowledge indicating what you wrote. It seems as if you made that up to fit a narrative. Perhaps you need to re-read your post and apply it to yourself.
