Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It does not walk like a duck or quack like a duck. Nor does it even look like a duck with one notable exception.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
errors in the New Testament
- Thread starter syo
- Start date
Seems to be about most things. Imo, the only things you seem to excel at are self aggrandisement, ego massaging and making nasty things up about atheists
Edit, and as sarcasm, your spelling sucks
He seems to think they walk like a duck.
Earthling
David Henson
Oh, I don't know about that.
Now, that I will agree with, but I always use spell check so I don't know how you would know.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Perhaps instead of trying to defend the indefensible, the claim that there are no errors in the New Testament, perhaps the Christians should try to claim that there are no substantive errors in the New Testament. I would still disagree with that, but one could at least honestly debate that that was the case.
Earthling
David Henson
You dont? You surprise me, its obvious to everyone else.
I quote "a kcud si gniog ot tca ekil a duck isn't it." . Seems your spell check needs a service.
Problems reading too? Or just everyday comprehension shortfall?
Earthling
David Henson
Well, if you noticed, while our heated exchange regarding the sauntering habits of the Anas platyrhynchos took place, I posted a considerable amount of verbiage addressing the substantive errors in the so called New Testament.
Earthling
David Henson
Just having a little fun.
Earthling
David Henson
Oh, that's just an inside joke. It's backwards. You have to use a mirror to see it. It's fun. Like the back of a cereal box.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I saw you attempt to deal with some minor ones. For example you still failed with the nativity of Luke. Even allowing your attempt to change the death of Herod could not to 1 BCE it still fails since the Census of Quirinius occurred at least six years after that. But the nativity is not a substantial part of the Bible. I was talking more about the bad morals of the New Testament. And even though you do not like the term the vast majority of Christians accept it.
Earthling
David Henson
That's a work in progress. I'm waiting to hear from the poster. I don't think I quite understood his approach.
I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention . . . because?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So you don't understand how you failed. Turn down the snark and I will explain.
Earthling
David Henson
Sorry, the snark is reserved especially for you and those of similar habits. As for your explanation you can offer it and if I find it interesting I may respond, but I can't guarantee that I can overcome the aforementioned snark and would waste my time. Because you . . .
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is too bad. You doom yourself to wallowing in your own self imposed ignorance with this attitude.
Earthling
David Henson
Oh no! What am I going to do without the self imposed wisdom of the god of all Biblical knowledge?!
Doomed! Doomed I am!!
(FWIW - trying to follow a thread when probably 60% of the contributors are an one's ignore-list is more than a little daunting. 
)
)
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not a god, just someone that understands better than you do. You handicap your own ability to understand the Bible.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I only wish that Bible literalists could reason properly. Ironically they break the Commandment on false idols by making one of the Bible. Extreme mental gymnastics are necessary to defend a book that repeatedly contradicts itself. It is much easier to defend it one only works on the underlying principles.(FWIW - trying to follow a thread when probably 60% of the contributors are an one's ignore-list is more than a little daunting.