nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Petrus' and my edits: Weak objections
:Hmm! Uncanny how this [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:Hmm! Uncanny how this [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html] page seems to have anticipated virtually all your arguments! ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
::Not uncanny at all. This sort of debate has been going on for centuries. I have a (facsimile reproduction of a) copy of a book ''answering'' alleged contradictions, that was published in 1874! This was not reprinted as a curiosity, but because the alleged contradictions that it answers are still being wheeled out by bibliosceptics today! So the site didn't ''anticipate'' the answers; it was trying to "poison the well" in advance of those answers. I notice that its dismissals of the answers are are weak as water. For example, its response to "That is to be taken metaphorically" merely ridicules those giving that answer, and totally ignores that Bible-believers accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, but that it can be readily identified, and they don't give this answer where metaphor is not involved. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
== Question on text ==
== Question on text ==