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?
Are you honestly suggesting that the Golden Rule and Good Samaritan and Prodigal Son morality has no place in the 21st Century?It's more interesting why you think 1) those morals are unique to the Bible 2) your wishes trump others (golden rule) or 3) that children should be rewarded with comfort and ease for wasting their life and money.
Or the total equality of Galatians 3:28?
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?
just because two people pop up on this Board with similarly clear thinking, rational views, it surely cannot mean they are one and the same person ?
Everyone knows wimmins be shoppin and don't know how to use logic or maths and stuff.
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 trust that you mean that Viv and you are different posters with no relationship whatsoever. If that is what you are saying, I trust your word, and thank you for your kind clarification.
Unless, of course, we are the same person and just a proxy to post from different continents depending upon which account is being used.
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?
Among other things, Judge and scorer of above 98% in the LSAT, Cofty aka Vivian?, whether anyone at all endorses or believes in the Bible's moral code that you do not like, does not affect the Bible in the least as being inspired by God or not being inspired by God.
I've no idea what madness your on about. LSAT? Me and Cofty? The Biblical moral code? I've no idea how in your head you are stringing these things together or what you mean.
IF you need some help with your mental problems resulting from your fears, go to a doctor. IF you have a problem with the liberty that people enjoy in believing in the Bible's moral code, tough for you, and whether you like it or not, in the USA that liberty is the law of the land.
Look, just because you endorse a pro-rape and pro-rape moral code and can't defend it, that's no reason to go around saying ridiculous things. Also, you clearly don't like what I am saying, so, tough for you. Liberty and all that.
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.
