Christians: Does this embarrass you?

[Avoice]

Christians: Do you ever feel like you have been left 'holding the bag' having to defend the Christian Testament? Forced to come up with all sorts of torturous explanations to defend the writings of your religion? Respond to the following:
EXAMPLE:

BELOW IS QUOTE FROM GALATIONS AND THE PASSAGE IN GENESIS THAT GALATIANS REFERS TO.

"But the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed. He does not say, And unto seeds, as of many; but as of one; And thy seed, which is Christ."

"Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father. And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"

THE CLAIM: Galatians claims that it says seed not seeds. Therefore it means one seed meaning Jesus.
THE PROBLEM: In Hebrew, the word seed is written the same in the singular and the plural: ZERA. The same way the word sheep in English is the same for singular and plural.

THE QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS: How do you defend Galations that claims if it meant more than one seed it would have said it. As if the word ZERA would say ZERAS if it meant plural. NO IT WOULDNT.
How does it feel having to conjuring up some explanation to save the ignorant writer of Galatians who didn't know that the word seed in Hebrew is the same in singular and in the plural

CHRISTIANS: YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED. ARE YOU ANGRY WITH ME FOR SHOWING YOU OR ANGRY THAT THE WRITER OF GALATIANS USED DECEPTION TO MAKE YOU BELIEVE?

[RBD]

I realize that to people who don't know Hebrew, Paul's blunder seems irrelevant, I'm fairly fluent in Hebrew and Paul's blunder is just goofy. Off the top of my head it'd be like a German telling other Germans that when the American chick at the end of the bar said that she had lice, it must mean she only has one lice for her potential date to deal with since she didn't say lices. That's an inadequate analogy, but hopefully you see how ridiculous it sounds.

The analogy is wrong because it's the apostle Paul writing in Greek, for which there is seeds, and not Hebrew for which there is only seed. The same for English, which is why it is accurately translatable.

What's even more goofy is that Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews Philippians 3:5, and a student of Gamaliel Acts 22:3, never translates from the Hebrew Bible when he quotes the Old Testament. Check his quotes yourself using any translation, you'll notice his quotes hardly resemble the referenced text.

They're obviously not just quotes alone, but are also expounded. "As it is written..." "According to the Scripture..." in the Bible is obviously not limited to exact quotes alone, but is also freely expounded by the Author of the Bible: Christ.

By definition the NT is not just quotes of the OT, but is the prophetic and doctrinal fulfillment of the OT Scriptures of Christ the Word, that are now written by the NT Jesus Christ risen from the dead.

Pharisees despised the Septuagint.

They also despised Jesus Christ, including His apostle Paul, whom they formerly loved as Saul of Tarsus... Only a Pharisee cares what a Pharisee loves or hates, unless the political and social agenda is the same, as it was when the Herodians, Romans, and Jews all followed them in having Jesus crucified for the false accusation of 'blasphemy'.

The Talmud says the Jews only translated the Torah into Greek at the request of Ptolemy ll, but forbid other Jews to read it.

And no one following the Scriptures of Christ in the old and new testaments, listens to what anti-NT Jews have to say about them, especially when they bowed down to heathen rulers, and then forbid their own people to see the result. Not to mention the kind of sadistic zealotry it takes to corrupt the law of the Sabbath, by condemning healing on the Sabbath. These are authoritative leaders in reading the Scriptures of the Bible?? Only to fellow anti-NT Jews and proselytes.

I'm well aware that Christian apologetics will assume the Talmud is inaccurate at best, deceitful at worst, and will dismiss the Talmud's backdrop altogether

It's just what it is: Readers of a book giving comment on it. Just because it's the Bible they comment on, doesn't make it anything more than running Bible commentaries, whether good or bad, either in part or as a whole.

And like all commentaries, there are some accurate parts, as well as some weirdly interesting parts, that have as much Bible authority to them as Aesop's fables...

They'll suppose Paul knew that seed has no plural in Hebrew, but theologically indicated that it has no plural for sermonic reasons.

Or Greek, and later English reasons, where we do have seeds in our vocabulary. A Hebrew wouldn't need to hear it as a grammatical distinction, but only as the prophetic and doctrinal one, that the natural seed of Abraham, the Jews, is not the spiritual seed of Abraham, the Christ. (Though He was one of their own and son of David after the flesh...)

Romans{1:3} Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Mat 1:1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2Co 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

It's when He dismissed natural birth after the flesh, as a promise of justification with God, that many of the Jews hated and turned from Him. (He just wasn't Jewish enough for them to follow as a proper Jewish Messiah...)

Jhn 5:43I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

The problem is when people read the Bible as only some sort of Jewish book, just because much of it is written in Hebrew. And so, they embarrassingly get perplexed over a Jewish apostle writing to Jews and Gentiles in Greek, which grammatically requires certain verbatim clarifications.

[RBD]

Already responded to this.

Then I'll just point it out again that Jesus didn't write anything down and we cannot know what he may have said.

And I'll just point out again that believing someone is accurately quoted in a book, is the normal manner of reading, unless there is direct evidence otherwise. Whether is Jesus in the Bible, or Socrates in the Republic.

Or, do you believe Plato was a liar too? Just to be consistent...

And your unbelief in the LORD God Almighty does not make it written only by men.

Correct, my current unbelief is irrelevant.

Including whether Jesus is quoted accurately by His disciples, and Socrates by Plato...

Outside of you using it as a way for you to dodge the apparent faith belief that a God of some sorts authored the books that were written by men and assembled as one book by men. The gods are not involved nor needed to explain what happened.

Since I take the authors at their word aside from contrary evidence, I am an objective reader of the Bible and the Republic, and not a blind disbeliever, that has no verifiable reason for accusing the books of being full of fictitious narratives...

All the prophets and apostles used by God were men.

This doesn't justify believing that gods write holy books and it would mean that Muhammed was the last and greatest prophet.

Unlike the men of the Bible, Muhammed as a self-contradictory author, that claimed to write for the God of Abraham and Allah at the same time. Since the God of Abraham claims to beget His Son, and Allah calls that blasphemy, then both can't be true with Muhammed writing for both at the same time.

All the prophets and apostles used by God were men.

But unless we idolize them all as unerring men, unlike all other men, then they were only useful pens in the hands of the unerring perfect Author, calling Himself the LORD God Almighty and Jesus Christ.

Whoopsie! You note that the authors were men, but then seem to idolize them as being pens of some perfect Author.

'Seem' is thin cover for obvious misrepresentation.

If only men wrote the Book, then it would not read as it does.

Please provide an example of something in the Bible that you don't feel humans could be responsible for.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Not until vs 28 would any person know what to write. Which includes Gen 2:1-7.

Unless the Author is a Person who He is who He says He is: God.

Unless someone wants to idolize them as the godlike Authors themselves.

This is silly and doesn't follow. I can note that humans have authored every book ever created without having to pretend that the authors are godlike. Your reasoning therefore fails.

No other Book has so many authors over so much time saying the same things without error between them. Such perfect inerrancy is either inspired by the one Author, God, or they must be idolized as demigods, which some people erringly do...

Anyone is qualified to observe what people do, beginning with ourselves. If we want to be honest about it.

Please notice how you completely failed to answer the actual question posed to you. I bolded left it above and bolded it for you.

I am not the only person qualified to spot errors between the words of a book, and some false accusations made against it. The only qualification is basic grammar, reading comprehension, and honest objectivity. Which is subjectively not possible for those whose sole purpose in reading a book, is to try and find fault with it.

For now, I only note that you would have made a good Muslim for the way you can reject one prophet while ascribing to another (you do the same with holy books as well).

Your 'nonjudgmental' willingness to believing in anything, in order to stand for nothing, is noted.

that begins with all men being created the same in His image by His Spirit.

Can you show that you speak the truth?

Ask any animal what they think of people.

And His true worship and righteousness is not bound by the earth nor the stars, but only by His free faith.

These words are nonsensical ramblings. During my time being a Christian, I would often note such odd claims being made and fellow Christians then others would shout 'amen'.

Not 'fellow' Christians, if their amen is your mockery.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith.

To try to get you to understand this better, I offer you this:
Allah's true worship and righteousness is not bound by the earth nor the stars, but only by His free faith. Now everyone in the mosque shout Allahu Akbar! (Was this meaningful to you in any way?)

Since Allah doesn't write about true worship, righteousness, nor free faith, then your substitution of Allah is no better than Satan, Beelzebub, Ishtar, Zeus...

I believe in judging authors by what is actually written in a book, not by blind disbelief exposed by fraudulent literary analysis.

2 Timothy{6:20} O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #178]

The letter to the Hebrews isn't Jewish scripture.

Neither are the prophecies of Jewish prophets, which are all Christ's Scripture.

1Pe 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Rev 19:10 I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Circular argument.


Even the "prophecy" in verse 9 was written after the supposed fact.

Vs 9 is recorded fulfilled prophecy, not future prophesy.

I wrote:

There's no prophecy of the Jewish Messiah coming a "second" time.

....and you responded with Hebrews 9:28, which is the Christian claim that he was the Messiah, and wasn't written until after he died so it certainly isn't a prophecy (that it was "fulfilled prophecy" is simply another claim).

Giving the name to a tribe does not forbid making a member of the tribe by his seed through a woman. Jesus is the male descendant of David by Mary, who had the seed of David in her flesh, the same as Joseph and any other descendant of David.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, the Jewish Messiah is supposed to be a descendant of David through Solomon (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18). Mary was descended from David through Nathan.


They point out that alma means "young woman", that betulah is the word for "virgin" and that the passage in which Isaiah is sent to calm Ahaz about a feared attack from Israel and Syria is not a messianic prophecy.

1 Tim 6:3… doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Is that supposed to refute my point in some way?


You don't get to change the meaning of Bible text just because it doesn't support what you want to believe.

Many people do. One of their favorite tactics is to play word-definition games...

....and some people try to downplay the correct definitions of words when those definitions are inconvenient.

[Clownboat]

And I'll just point out again that believing someone is accurately quoted in a book, is the normal manner of reading, unless there is direct evidence otherwise.

This is Christianity in a nutshell for many. Make an idol out of a book and worship it.
Just because someone is quoted in a book does not make the quote anymore believable then if you heard instead of read the quote. Your idolization of the Bible is what confuses you here because you think finding a quote in the Bible makes the quote special. Quotes are just quotes in reality and writing a quote down does nothing for the truth of it or the lack there of.

Or, do you believe Plato was a liar too? Just to be consistent...

Yes, I believe this but do not claim to know. See claims about the lost city of Atlantis. I will need more than claims in a book to believe that Atlantis was/is real as told. Since we are talking about consistency, I assume you believe the claims about Atlantis.

And your unbelief in the LORD God Almighty does not make it written only by men.

This is true! My beliefs and unbeliefs matter not. I do note that only men wrote the Bible as only men (and women) (and AI now) write books. Feel free to show that my words are incorrect if you are up to it and I'll amend my thinking.

Since I take the authors at their word aside from contrary evidence, I am an objective reader of the Bible and the Republic,

The Bible is your idol, therefore you are not an objective reader. You're not fooling anyone.

and not a blind disbeliever, that has no verifiable reason for accusing the books of being full of fictitious narratives...

Just some verifiable reasons are that snake and donkeys don't talk.
The decomposing bodies of many saints did not walk Jerusalem.
A man cannot live in the belly of a fish for days.
I could go on, but this is sufficient to show that your claim is wrong. Idolization of a book is what is driving your acceptance of these things that don't happen. I'm ok with your view of the Bible, but for you to expect others to also worship it is too much as in reality it is just religious promotional material.

Unlike the men of the Bible, Muhammed as a self-contradictory author, that claimed to write for the God of Abraham and Allah at the same time. Since the God of Abraham claims to beget His Son, and Allah calls that blasphemy, then both can't be true with Muhammed writing for both at the same time.

No amounts of complaining about competing religious promotional material will make your Bible true. That just isn't how logic works. Show that the dead bodies of the saints got out of their graves and walk Jerusalem if you are up to it, but you must do better than point to your idol as not everyone treats the Bible as an idol.

Please provide an example of something in the Bible that you don't feel humans could be responsible for.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now this is just silly. All religions that I am aware of have a god or gods that created the earth. I believe it is your idolization of the Bible that makes you think this claim, unlike all the others is special when it is mundane.

No other Book has so many authors over so much time saying the same things without error between them.

Even Christians note that there are errors in the Bible. Again, I believe it is the worship of this book that has you thinking it is what it isn't.

Such perfect inerrancy is either inspired by the one Author, God, or they must be idolized as demigods, which some people erringly do...

Since the Bible is not inerrant, your starting premise fails.

Which is subjectively not possible for those whose sole purpose in reading a book, is to try and find fault with it.

Nothing but poisoning of the well.
"Anyone that doesn't worship the Bible as I do is therefore trying to find fault with it".

Your 'nonjudgmental' willingness to believing in anything, in order to stand for nothing, is noted.

Hey readers, ask yourself if this poster is full of it or if you really believe that I have a willingness to believe in anything.

Ask any animal what they think of people.

Should I be able to converse with all animals, or do only snakes and donkeys have the ability to speak?

I prophecy that you will continue to believe that I am only trying to find fault with the Bible and not offering valid criticisms.

[Clownboat]

Anti-NT Jews make up false prophecy of a Messiah by Solomon, and reject true prophets of the virgin birth, in order to reject Jesus the promised Messiah of the LORD God of Israel.

In order for this claim to be true, we must believe in humans predicting the future and that a virgin gave birth to a demigod. We must also believe that all other demigods from other religions are just made up and that the Jews are wrong for rejecting Jesus as being THEIR messiah.

Does anyone else notice a lack of valid reasoning being applied?

[gadfly]

Christians: Do you ever feel like you have been left 'holding the bag' having to defend the Christian Testament? Forced to come up with all sorts of torturous explanations to defend the writings of your religion? Respond to the following:
EXAMPLE:

BELOW IS QUOTE FROM GALATIONS AND THE PASSAGE IN GENESIS THAT GALATIANS REFERS TO.

"But the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed. He does not say, And unto seeds, as of many; but as of one; And thy seed, which is Christ."

"Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father. And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"

THE CLAIM: Galatians claims that it says seed not seeds. Therefore it means one seed meaning Jesus.
THE PROBLEM: In Hebrew, the word seed is written the same in the singular and the plural: ZERA. The same way the word sheep in English is the same for singular and plural.

THE QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS: How do you defend Galations that claims if it meant more than one seed it would have said it. As if the word ZERA would say ZERAS if it meant plural. NO IT WOULDNT.
How does it feel having to conjuring up some explanation to save the ignorant writer of Galatians who didn't know that the word seed in Hebrew is the same in singular and in the plural

CHRISTIANS: YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED. ARE YOU ANGRY WITH ME FOR SHOWING YOU OR ANGRY THAT THE WRITER OF GALATIANS USED DECEPTION TO MAKE YOU BELIEVE?

the only people with whom modern Christians need be upset are fundamentalist bible teachers who have had immense influence not just on their own flock but on those hostile to their faith--they basically set up the "apologetics game" called, "Is the bible inerrant?", and skeptics gleefully signed up to compete.

None of the earliest Christians would have understood the point of the game, bc they did not worship the Bible. Origen, Augustine, Jerome--they all knew that the Bible was written by men. They knew there were parts of it that could not be reconciled with others. It did not bother their core convictions bc, at a time before the printing press, the written word could not have the same value as the communal word, transmitted orally. thus church fathers talk often about the "apostolic teachings", and talk about how certain books (later to be canonized) conformed to them. In other words, today fundamentalists recognize only one religious authority--the bible. But the earliest Christians felt perfectly justified in evaluating books by a higher criterion, "the teachings of the apostles". Some of these teachings are no doubt preserved in the Bible--1 Cor. 15 perhaps contains the earliest Christian creed, regarding the resurrection.

So, nope. I blame fundamentalists for almost everything that is wrong with America, political or religious.

[RBD]

What makes my darkness so much more powerful than your gods light?

Only more powerful in your own life. Neither light nor love forces itself upon anyone.

I never claimed that neither light nor love forces itself upon anyone. I asked why my darkness is so much more powerful then your gods light. Why am I so powerful in this regard?

Oh, you mean the age old question of why there is evil in the world, when God is such a good God?

2 Peter 3:9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Rom 2:3 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

Why does a rebellious child reject the instruction of a good father and mother? Why does someone suicidal refuse to live? Even refuse them that want to help them live?

Col 1:13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

The terrible thing is, that if someone chooses the darkness over the light, then that good God will then consign them to their darkness forever:

Jde 1:12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear:...Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

The problem with those who hope for dark oblivion after this life, rather than judgment of our deeds, is that we remain conscious and know it.

The judgment of the just and true God is that He gives people what they ask for, even if it's darkness and evil.

Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

This also does not address the power of my darkness.

1Co 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Once again, nothing to do with this darkness you have assigned to me, nor why I am so powerful with it. You seem confused, but perhaps you can clarify?

Are you so blind that you can't see, that it's because light does not force itself upon a darkness, that does not want to shine?

Jhn 1:5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

[RBD]

I wrote:

There's no prophecy of the Jewish Messiah coming a "second" time.

....and you responded with Hebrews 9:28, which is the Christian claim that he was the Messiah, and wasn't written until after he died so it certainly isn't a prophecy (that it was "fulfilled prophecy" is simply another claim).

Oh, I see. You don't want to hear from that Jew, and the other Jews with him, who do prophecy of their Messiah's second coming.

You only want to hear from those Jews that reject Jesus as their Messiah, and are still waiting for their own to come the first time:

Jhn 5:43I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

And so you try to act like no Jews in Scripture have ever prophesied of their Messiah's return to earth.

Giving the name to a tribe does not forbid making a member of the tribe by his seed through a woman. Jesus is the male descendant of David by Mary, who had the seed of David in her flesh, the same as Joseph and any other descendant of David.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, the Jewish Messiah is supposed to be a descendant of David through Solomon (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18). Mary was descended from David through Nathan.

And as has been pointed out, your false prophecy of the Messiah by Solomon's seed, is only made up to reject Jesus as the Christ.

2Sa 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

The seed is by David's bowels, not by Solomon's.

David had many sons of His bowels by wives, not just Solomon by Bathsheba. Nathan was a son of David's bowels, and Mary his daughter, and Jesus the son of David's bowels by Mary. A person's seed lineage includes the mother.

Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.


Once again, nothing about Solomon, but only Jesse and David. No Scripture anywhere speaks of Messiah as son of Solomon.

Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Mat 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

Mat 9:27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.

The son of David, Jesse, and Abraham, not the son of Solomon.

FYI, by making up a messiah prophecy for Solomon, in order to reject Jesus Christ the son of David by Nathan, you make yourself a believer in His virgin birth. That's the only way not to believe Jesus was the son of Solomon's bowels by Joseph.

1Co 3:19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Since you now argue Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, why not argue He was Messiah son of David?

[RBD]

And I'll just point out again that believing someone is accurately quoted in a book, is the normal manner of reading, unless there is direct evidence otherwise.

This is Christianity in a nutshell for many. Make an idol out of a book and worship it.
Just because someone is quoted in a book does not make the quote anymore believable then if you heard instead of read the quote. Your idolization of the Bible is what confuses you here because you think finding a quote in the Bible makes the quote special.

It certainly does when talk specially about the Book itself. You can reject anything written in the book about itself, but that doesn't mean what the Author writes is irrelevant to his own book.

You're being unreal here. We're talking about what a physical book says of itself, not about what a reader believes or not. Once again, it's blind disbelief, that unrealistically injects itself into a book analysis. No one cares about the personal disbelief of a reader, when making a book report. Specially if the reader thinks it matters when analyzing it...That's unrealistic.

And your unbelief in the LORD God Almighty does not make it written only by men.

This is true! My beliefs and unbeliefs matter not.

Thank you. The same for whether the words of the book are special to others or not. They're certainly special to the author. And any objective reader, who only reports on what the book says, especially what it says of itself.

Since I take the authors at their word aside from contrary evidence, I am an objective reader of the Bible and the Republic,

The Bible is your idol, therefore you are not an objective reader. You're not fooling anyone.

And the Bible is your nemesis, therefore you're not objective. You're not fooling anyone.

Please provide an example of something in the Bible that you don't feel humans could be responsible for.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now this is just silly.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

All religions that I am aware of have a god or gods that created the earth.

True, but none of them write in the first Person while doing so:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

I believe it is your idolization of the Bible that makes you think this claim, unlike all the others is special when it is mundane.

Once again, it's only your disbelief in the forefront of everything you say, that blinds you to what the Book says, and specially to what makes it's uniquely special among all the books of the world: Inerrancy between many writers over much time. And God speaking Himself, and specially for Himself, in the first person...

I am an objective reader, because I let the Bible argue for itself. But you keep diverting to your own personal angst about it, as though that's a realistic argument. If you can't set aside disbelief, the way I do my belief, in order to only report on what the Bible says, then that's your personal problem, not mine.

That's why I skip over much of what you say, when you only make personal pronouncements about the Bible, without referring to it for proof. Also when you are only repeating yourself, after having been given enough responses to it.

[RBD]

None of the earliest Christians would have understood the point of the game, bc they did not worship the Bible. Origen, Augustine, Jerome--they all knew that the Bible was written by men. They knew there were parts of it that could not be reconciled with others.

Don't see any names of actual writers of the Book. Only unbelieving believers, that also side with unbelieving unbelievers.

Gal 1:10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Rev{3:15} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

The church fathers talk often about the "apostolic teachings", and talk about how certain books (later to be canonized) conformed to them. In other words, today fundamentalists recognize only one religious authority--the bible.

I didn't want to jump to conclusions about Catholicism here.

But the earliest Christians felt perfectly justified in evaluating books by a higher criterion, "the teachings of the apostles". Some of these teachings are no doubt preserved in the Bible--1 Cor. 15 perhaps contains the earliest Christian creed, regarding the resurrection.

Perfect representation of unbelieving belief.

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Mat 24:35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

So, nope. I blame fundamentalists for almost everything that is wrong with America, political or religious.

Nor about liberal Catholicism.

Your Socratic moniker is poor. Socrates never disassociated himself from what he believed, by declaring some of it ought be disbelieved. Nor was he ever unreconciled with himself...