[Wondergirl]

Far from correct. Not basically, but partially. Certainly when people believe what even then were intended to be moral tales showing a lesson and people today take the stories literally, then today's people are rendering the Bible inaccurately and unreliable.

Exactly! Some of the OT stories are allegories, e.g., the story of Noah and the Flood. (An allegory is a narrative that acts as a metaphor. The characters, setting and other elements of the story work as symbols, typically intended to teach a lesson or make a statement about human behavior, history or society.)

[jlisenbe]

Exactly! Some of the OT stories are allegories, e.g., the story of Noah and the Flood. (An allegory is a narrative that acts as a metaphor. The characters, setting and other elements of the story work as symbols, typically intended to teach a lesson or make a statement about human behavior, history or society.)

First you say the Bible was inaccurately copied due to personal biases, and then you agree that it was "intended to be moral tales". How can you possibly know what it was originally intended to be if what you have is a thoroughly corrupted copy? Why do you try and have it both ways?

[Wondergirl]

How can you possibly know what it was originally intended to be if what you have is a thoroughly corrupted copy? Why do you try and have it both ways?

Did you notice who posted?

[jlisenbe]

You already did comment on it. "A properly administered whipping is a positive not a negative". Remember now?

Read her comment more carefully. You missed it.

No it isn't. Your cherry-picking below can be matched cherry-by-cherry with far more examples than what is shown here. Also, your comment about copyists is simply wrong. For the most part, they were amateurs. The professional copyists came later.

How do you know that? You are saying they were from the "priestly class", but now they are amateurs? You are confused. And remember. No documentation means you are spinning your wheels.

Any answer yet to my challenge???

Did you notice who posted?

Athos posted and your comment was, "Exactly", so you own it now.

[paraclete]

I refute that Noah is an allegory, the story of the flood exists in many civilisations, WG stop watering down the message of the Bible, it is not allegory but truth. Okay the detail may be a little sketchy but the essentials are there. and the message is evil won't be tolerated for long and the way out is Jesus

[Wondergirl]

Athos posted and your comment was, "Exactly", so you own it now.

My "Exactly!" referred to what Athos had said about the "moral tales showing a lesson". That doesn't mean I agree with him on EVERYthing!

I refute that Noah is an allegory, the story of the flood exists in many civilisations, WG stop watering down the message of the Bible, it is not allegory but truth. Okay the detail may be a little sketchy but the essentials are there. and the message is evil won't be tolerated for long and the way out is Jesus

Those flood stories in many civilizations were written because those civilizations, near areas that flooded, suffered from their own floods. Their stories weren't copies of the OT flood.

[jlisenbe]

My "Exactly!" referred to what Athos had said about the "moral tales showing a lesson". That doesn't mean I agree with him on EVERYthing!

OK. What did you disagree about?

Those flood stories in many civilizations were written because those civilizations, near areas that flooded, suffered from their own floods. Their stories weren't copies of the OT flood.

Nice conjecture. Alas, no support.

[Wondergirl]

OK. What did you disagree about?

You tossed me into your larger discussion with Athos. Not nice!

Nice conjecture. Alas, no support.

Oh, yeah, you're right. The scribes from many far-flung countries rode their camels or horses or went by caravan or even just walked to Israel in order to assiduously copy Israel's authentic Flood story that they'd read about on Facebook.

[jlisenbe]

I knew you wouldn’t disagree with your hero.

Support your conjecture with foolishness? Hmm.

[paraclete]

you americans know so little of ancient history, you think the world started in 1492

[Athos]

you americans know so little of ancient history, you think the world started in 1492

Paraclete, you got me laughing. Never hurts to inject a little humor into these discussions where some are so mean-spirited.

You did get one thing wrong however - we Americans don't think the world started in 1492, we KNOW for a fact it started in 1776 !!

[Athos]

You are saying they were from the "priestly class", but now they are amateurs? You are confused. And remember. No documentation means you are spinning your wheels.

You are the one confused, as usual. The copyists were not from the priestly class - they are two separate groups. The earliest copyists copied anything asked for for a price. Only later could the monk copyists be described as more than amateur since they generally had a command of Latin and Greek (depending on where the monastery was located), and sometimes other languages such as Hebrew.

No documentation does NOT indicate wheels spinning. There are many ways to prove a point including using the grey matter God gave to you. Logic, reading between the lines, rationality, understanding history, understanding human psychology, among others.

Bible bingo, btw, is NOT a way to prove things unless you want to show what a specific translation was. Rather than just give a link to a Biblical passage, you should show the entire quotation in question and then put your interpretation onto it.

Any answer yet to my challenge???
Been there, done that. Since you document everything I post, you must have it in your secret cache.

[jlisenbe]

1. You have not shown any question you have asked that I have not answered.
2. You are clearly unable to answer my question. Just to jog your memory, here it is again. I'll keep reposting it until, perhaps, you make some effort to respond to it.

"But since you claim, I suppose, to be familiar with the Gospels, let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming. Don't prattle on with your usual remarks. Step up and show us all where those passages are. Quote them and give references. At least that would be some point of reference for discussion."

That's how it works when you claim someone has not responded to a question. You simply repost it. Fairly easy, actually. Try it! You'll like it!

[Athos]

"But since you claim, I suppose, to be familiar with the Gospels, let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming.

I'm sorry you do not understand what "proving a negative" means. I'm sorry for all the errors in logic and understanding you frequently commit. Others have pointed out these shortcomings of yours, but apparently you don't get it. I firmly believe that if you make a genuine effort, you can overcome these difficulties. Good luck !

To jog your memory:
Since you document everything I post, you must have it in your secret cache.

[jlisenbe]

Blah, blah, blah. It's so funny that you want me to do your remembering for you.

And again. You're going to get to see this a lot until you file away your silly excuses and step up.

1. You have not shown any question you have asked that I have not answered.
2. You are clearly unable to answer my question. Just to jog your memory, here it is again. I'll keep reposting it until, perhaps, you make some effort to respond to it.

"But since you claim, I suppose, to be familiar with the Gospels, let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming. Don't prattle on with your usual remarks. Step up and show us all where those passages are. Quote them and give references. At least that would be some point of reference for discussion."

That's how it works when you claim someone has not responded to a question. You simply repost it. Fairly easy, actually. Try it! You'll like it!

[paraclete]

Time to move on

[jlisenbe]

I'd like an answer first, but if one is not forthcoming, and it almost certainly is not, then yes, let's move on.

But beware. My question is not going away.

[Athos]

Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming.

You still don't get it. Try asking around for the meaning of "proving a negative", instead of threatening.

You still haven't explained why you inject threats and nastiness into your posts. Nor answered if you are a white evangelical. I'll have more to say re white evangelicals when the time is right.

[jlisenbe]

And again. You're going to get to see this a lot until you file away your silly excuses and step up.

1. You have not shown any question you have asked that I have not answered.
2. You are clearly unable to answer my question. Just to jog your memory, here it is again. I'll keep reposting it until, perhaps, you make some effort to respond to it.

"But since you claim, I suppose, to be familiar with the Gospels, let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming. Don't prattle on with your usual remarks. Step up and show us all where those passages are. Quote them and give references. At least that would be some point of reference for discussion."

A good answer would be, "I don't know of any." Especially when we already know that is the case.

Proving a negative in the Bible is a breeze. For instance, if you ask me, "Show me the places where Jesus endorsed using the internet for research," I would reply by saying that there are no such scriptures. It is simply saying that no such scriptures exist. So you are grasping at any convenient excuse. Proving a negative amongst a finite, known set of possibilities is not difficult.

[paraclete]

Proving a negative in the Bible is a breeze. For instance, if you ask me, "Show me the places where Jesus endorsed using the internet for research," I would reply by saying that there are no such scriptures.

It is you who are grasping at straws and incidently proving a negative attitude