nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 109:
Line 109: + − + + +
Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story (view source)
Revision as of 09:55, April 9, 2008
, 09:55, April 9, 2008→A reason to "conserve" the story: Reminding sceptics of the criteria
:::::Another thought is that Aschlafly may be on to something here. If the Bible has these fabrications and additions that were added in later, maybe we need to carefully examine the veracity of much of the Bible.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 15:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Another thought is that Aschlafly may be on to something here. If the Bible has these fabrications and additions that were added in later, maybe we need to carefully examine the veracity of much of the Bible.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 15:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: You write as though this is a new idea. This sort of analysis of the Bible has been going on ever since it was written. The authenticity of the particular passage in question here was being debated 1,600 years ago. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If that's your view, then you won't be relying on anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: If that's your view, then you won't be relying on anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Well, I think you are exactly right. Perhaps if we critically examine the Bible, we will find some things that are correct, but much that we cannot verify, and should consider false.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 17:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Well, I think you are exactly right. Perhaps if we critically examine the Bible, we will find some things that are correct, but much that we cannot verify, and should consider false.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 17:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: At issue is not an inability to verify, but hard evidence that early copies of the Bible did not have this passage. Please try sticking to the argument and not going off on tangents. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Let's try this, Andy. You're saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that clearly aren't. Correct? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 18:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Let's try this, Andy. You're saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that clearly aren't. Correct? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 18:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: That depends on what you mean by "clearly aren't". At issue here is a passage that was not in most or all of the early copies of the Bible, but strongly appears to have been added later. If your question is "our current Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that were not in the original Bibles", then the answer is yes. But your question was too ambiguous to answer that way. By the way, I've effectively already pointed this out in earlier posts above, so you don't really have any excuse for misunderstanding that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Mathewson and Devotchka are illustrating point 1 in [[liberal tricks]]. Perhaps they're hoping their fallacious arguments will fool a dimwitted viewer. Just a little thought is required to realize that non-authentic material is not biblical, such as the Gospel of Thomas.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Mathewson and Devotchka are illustrating point 1 in [[liberal tricks]]. Perhaps they're hoping their fallacious arguments will fool a dimwitted viewer. Just a little thought is required to realize that non-authentic material is not biblical, such as the Gospel of Thomas.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)