Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bible"
(Adding Archive link) |
(→What the serpent said) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT) | Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == la to ta and la-di-da == | ||
| + | Karajou, when are you going to crawl out of your arrogant ignorance and accept that your beloved Merrill Unger (or his typesetter) was wrong: ta is the neuter plural nominative definite article; bilblia is plural of biblion and hence takes ta. You have been given sources, you have been given evidence, but like the disgraced prosecutor in the Duke case you insist on defining evidence in your own incomprehensible manner. To top it off, you then attempt to pass yourself off as an expert in things of which your comprehension is negligible at best. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Your constant inane assertion that the bible was attacked not merely questioned points to your own immaturity, your inability to differentiate between gradation of meaning and the weakness of your faith. If you truly had faith, you would merely respond calmly to the questions rather than acting like a psychotic on hallucinogens. Face it the littlest question bothers you because in the recesses of your sputtering hive-mind you know there may be truth in the questions. Essentially then, you are a coward: rather than face the issues, rather than face the uncertainties welling up like flood waters from the depths of your soul you repeat as a mantra biblical apologetics and bible verses and dogma. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I feel sorry for you. Pax scientiae tecum sit. [[User:Ulysses|Ulysses]] 07:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 11:08, April 14, 2007
| ! | Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop. |
|
What the serpent said
In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.
Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. Karajou 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
la to ta and la-di-da
Karajou, when are you going to crawl out of your arrogant ignorance and accept that your beloved Merrill Unger (or his typesetter) was wrong: ta is the neuter plural nominative definite article; bilblia is plural of biblion and hence takes ta. You have been given sources, you have been given evidence, but like the disgraced prosecutor in the Duke case you insist on defining evidence in your own incomprehensible manner. To top it off, you then attempt to pass yourself off as an expert in things of which your comprehension is negligible at best.
Your constant inane assertion that the bible was attacked not merely questioned points to your own immaturity, your inability to differentiate between gradation of meaning and the weakness of your faith. If you truly had faith, you would merely respond calmly to the questions rather than acting like a psychotic on hallucinogens. Face it the littlest question bothers you because in the recesses of your sputtering hive-mind you know there may be truth in the questions. Essentially then, you are a coward: rather than face the issues, rather than face the uncertainties welling up like flood waters from the depths of your soul you repeat as a mantra biblical apologetics and bible verses and dogma.
I feel sorry for you. Pax scientiae tecum sit. Ulysses 07:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
