The Bible is Completely Unreliable

Then can you answer my question? I asked you: "I suppose discrepancies like this can only be attributed to human error. Or have you another explanation?"

To what do you attribute such errors? And I'm sure you know there are many other examples. So to what do you attribute them?

 

I think you're not understanding the "plane" words,... cut a circle out of a piece of paper. Now you have a "circular plane".... i.e. a plane in the shape of a circle. No tricky language was used. No hidden meanings. And no sphere was involved. Now, what is your problem?

I think you're denying the obvious only so you don't have to admit your error. You know better. Such maneuvers are common among the Republicans and right wing talking heads. I'm sure you've noticed.

 

You have the right to be informed. Please learn American history.

An article from the November 29, 1871, New York Times archives = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9906E3DA1639EF34BC4151DFB767838A669FDE

An update from the December 25, 1871 edition = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9805E6D61639EF34BC4D51DFB467838A669FDE

The issue in plain language, December 31, 1871 = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9403E7DF1739EF34BC4950DFB467838A669FDE

It continues, from the June 12, 1872 edition = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E00E6DD1439EF34BC4A52DFB0668389669FDE

The fight continues in New Haven, February 23, 1878 = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9903E7D8113FE63BBC4B51DFB4668383669FDE. This is a two column PDF so you must scroll down to pick up the first column of the article on the left side of the page.

Read actual history and let us know what you think.

 

Note where it says, from the URL you posted, that this measure, stoping prayer in school/reading a bible passage, was NOT called for by the Roman Catholics. In fact they were opposed to stopping it.







http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9903E7D8113FE63BBC4B51DFB4668383669FDE

 

Read http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9403E7DF1739EF34BC4950DFB467838A669FDE

 

The aspect of this that you are referring to is partly a debate between the minority Catholics, and the majority Protestants, English immigrants, and Irish immigrants, further, it's an argument the genesis of which comes from when the King of England abandoned the Catholic Church. This segment of the debate has very little to do with the bible being read in school, or not, and much more to do with who's side is reading it.

Anytime you need some help understanding American history let me know. You have the right to be informed.

 

Actually, I did.

But since you have (evidently) missed it, I will post it again:

"In fact, Dictionary.com--in its second of seven definitions of the word--says it means 'of or relating to a circle: a circular plane.'"

I hope that you will not make the mistake (again) of claiming that I have not posted a definition of the word...

 

I think the real question is, Do you know what a plane is? (And no, not an airplane, either.)

 

To "infiltrate" is not even remotely the same as to influence. Clearly, the Bible is designed to do the latter--but not the former.

 

With something weighty on it like a rock for example, it can make a nice door stop, keeps the rock from scarring the surface of the floor.

 

I have already answered your questions. (The discipline known as "angelology"--a branch of theology--does not interest me, as I am not inclined to believe in these beings. And I see no reason why Judas could not have both hanged himself and fallen headlong.

I am hoping that you will not ask me again to answer these questions.

 

The first part of that definition was: "Of or relating to a circle."

But you have (conveniently) ignored that...

 

You're jumping ahead to the bible. I'm asking how did god influence man into writing the bible? How would god "influence", specifically?

 

Man actually can easily get inspired. It's simply a burst of information inside your head. You will have to make a trade off on either to sort them chronologically or to sort them by their importance in trading off the chronological sequence. I heard a story, when an intelligent interpreter was shown an ancient artifact full of ancient texts he was driven mad since then. The burst of information can be to an extent that it can drive one mad if he's left unguided.

Now you can start to write down things in accordance to the information inspired. You need to try your best, but God won't say that "that's it, it's good". He however will correct you when something deemed as a mistake by Him. You can go on if no sign is going to stop you. After things have been written down, you can ask for a message related sign or miracle as a confirmation that "it's done". This is basically the writing process as far as I know.

 

I'm certain that any god who read the Bible would instantly disclaim it.

 

God inspired certain texts. (The Greek word, theopneustos, essentially means "God-breathed." So, through the Holy Spirit--"breath" and "spirit" are essentially the same word in the Greek--God gave us those texts.

 

That's a pretty slippery slope isn't it? Where does the magic begin, or stop?

 

You merely assert this god of yours "inspired" or "gave" certain texts. The fact that other humans, a long time ago in Greece or elsewhere, believed what you believe is not evidence which can support your assertion. A more simple explanation is that you are simply repeating what earlier humans believed.

Try again.

 

On what do you base that? Oh, the Bible! And what texts do you choose to believe? Oh, Those that suit your beliefs.

Jesus affirmed many of the Bible (Tanakh) scriptures. Problem is, we know today that many of those scriptures simply didn't happen. Jesus believed them because he had been bought up to believe. Just like many Christians believe the doctrine the Church has taught for 2000 years.

 

And I responded to it. There is NO REFERENCE to a ball, a sphere, or a three dimensional object in that. You need to check the definition of a "plane". YOUR definition indicates a flat, round object. As I previously said, draw a circle on a piece of paper and cut it out with scissors. You will then have a "circular plane".

 

So "of or relating to a circle" means a sphere? "Circle" relates to "circle". What part of "circle" do you not understand? It seems you are trying to claim that a circle is "by definition", a sphere.

 

I really do not see anything "slippery" about it.

And I simply do not believe in magic. (You may have noticed that those whose profession was once called "magician" is now--more properly--referred to as "illusionist.")

 

I am simply defining the Greek word, theopneustos.

The matter of belief is entirely divorced from this.

 

No.

I believe that on the basis of the Greek-English lexicons (e.g. Thayer; and Arndt-Gingrich). They supply the definition of theopneustos--just as Webster supplies the definition of English words.

 

You speak only of the part that refers to a plane.

Somehow, you cannot seem to acknowledge that the definition also includes those things that are "of or relating to a circle"...