nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 94:
Line 94: − +
Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story (view source)
Revision as of 15:55, April 8, 2008
, 15:55, April 8, 2008→A reason to "conserve" the story: clarify and correct.
::Of course, now that you've shattered people's faith on ONE part of the Bible, what possible reason do they have to believe any of the rest of it? Are you going to "debunk" the Sermon On The Mount next, or maybe the [http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html Book of Exodus]? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::Of course, now that you've shattered people's faith on ONE part of the Bible, what possible reason do they have to believe any of the rest of it? Are you going to "debunk" the Sermon On The Mount next, or maybe the [http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html Book of Exodus]? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The argument (despite impressions you might get from Andy's comments about it being loved by liberals) is that the ''manuscript evidence'' is that the passage doesn't belong in the Bible. You cannot make that argument against almost all the rest of the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The actual argument (despite impressions you might get from Andy's comments about it being loved by liberals) is that the ''manuscript evidence'' shows that the passage doesn't belong in the Bible. You cannot make that argument against almost all the rest of the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Gulik5's argument may appeal to the dimwitted, but not to anyone else who values reasoned analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Gulik5's argument may appeal to the dimwitted, but not to anyone else who values reasoned analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)