×
Back left
Back right
Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock

"iamaledge" wrote:

"AlphaT" wrote:



"iamaledge" wrote:


There isn't much difference with Christians quoting the bible...except for the bible is baseless



tee hee
Yay! XD I was getting bored. How is it baseless?


umm, as in it has no base

how can you quote a 2000 year old book translated many times over that 2000 years? 
Age has no hold on this. And it's simple lol! The Bible was taken very seriously in translation, and besides words or phrases that we cannot translate equally, the Bible today is 98% consistent with those in original Hebrew. XD not to mention its completely flawless.


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock
Posts: 16

"AlphaT" wrote:



"iamaledge" wrote:




"AlphaT" wrote:






"iamaledge" wrote:




There isn't much difference with Christians quoting the bible...except for the bible is baseless




tee hee
Yay! XD I was getting bored. How is it baseless?


umm, as in it has no base

how can you quote a 2000 year old book translated many times over that 2000 years? 
Age has no hold on this. And it's simple lol! The Bible was taken very seriously in translation, and besides words or phrases that we cannot translate equally, the Bible today is 98% consistent with those in original Hebrew. XD not to mention its completely flawless.


Why does age have no hold on it? Do you have any proof it was taken seriously, because I'm sure many people did it at different times, it would have been impossible to have not made small errors somewhere which eventually grew larger. How is it completely flawless? If you mean flawless as in grammar, of course, scholars in the modern age would have checked for that, I doubt even 1000 years ago monks wouldn't have checked it over for grammar.

- ON EVERYTHING I LOVE


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock
Posts: 3

"AlphaT" wrote:



"iamaledge" wrote:




"AlphaT" wrote:






"iamaledge" wrote:




There isn't much difference with Christians quoting the bible...except for the bible is baseless




tee hee
Yay! XD I was getting bored. How is it baseless?


umm, as in it has no base

how can you quote a 2000 year old book translated many times over that 2000 years? 
Age has no hold on this. And it's simple lol! The Bible was taken very seriously in translation, and besides words or phrases that we cannot translate equally, the Bible today is 98% consistent with those in original Hebrew. XD not to mention its completely flawless.

i would say it wasnt but your just going to find another way to say it is since your alphat so like o/k


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock

"iamaledge" wrote:

"AlphaT" wrote:



"iamaledge" wrote:




"AlphaT" wrote:






"iamaledge" wrote:




There isn't much difference with Christians quoting the bible...except for the bible is baseless




tee hee
Yay! XD I was getting bored. How is it baseless?


umm, as in it has no base

how can you quote a 2000 year old book translated many times over that 2000 years? 
Age has no hold on this. And it's simple lol! The Bible was taken very seriously in translation, and besides words or phrases that we cannot translate equally, the Bible today is 98% consistent with those in original Hebrew. XD not to mention its completely flawless.


Why does age have no hold on it? Do you have any proof it was taken seriously, because I'm sure many people did it at different times, it would have been impossible to have not made small errors somewhere which eventually grew larger. How is it completely flawless? If you mean flawless as in grammar, of course, scholars in the modern age would have checked for that, I doubt even 1000 years ago monks wouldn't have checked it over for grammar.
Age, does not imply invalidity. And yes, I have proof. There were these counsils of highly distinguished people of God, who had a criteria as to what was to be in The Bible. That was just its formation. The auctaul care taken into it was tremendous. It's not as if someone said 'Hey, lets talk about a guy who walked on water' and 100 years later t was accepted by an entire nation. There was much structured and tedious work taken into the Bible. And I mean not one thing it says can be disproven.


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock
Posts: 16

"AlphaT" wrote:



"iamaledge" wrote:




"AlphaT" wrote:






"iamaledge" wrote:







"AlphaT" wrote:









"iamaledge" wrote:






There isn't much difference with Christians quoting the bible...except for the bible is baseless





tee hee
Yay! XD I was getting bored. How is it baseless?


umm, as in it has no base

how can you quote a 2000 year old book translated many times over that 2000 years? 
Age has no hold on this. And it's simple lol! The Bible was taken very seriously in translation, and besides words or phrases that we cannot translate equally, the Bible today is 98% consistent with those in original Hebrew. XD not to mention its completely flawless.


Why does age have no hold on it? Do you have any proof it was taken seriously, because I'm sure many people did it at different times, it would have been impossible to have not made small errors somewhere which eventually grew larger. How is it completely flawless? If you mean flawless as in grammar, of course, scholars in the modern age would have checked for that, I doubt even 1000 years ago monks wouldn't have checked it over for grammar.
Age, does not imply invalidity. And yes, I have proof. There were these counsils of highly distinguished people of God, who had a criteria as to what was to be in The Bible. That was just its formation. The auctaul care taken into it was tremendous. It's not as if someone said 'Hey, lets talk about a guy who walked on water' and 100 years later t was accepted by an entire nation. There was much structured and tedious work taken into the Bible. And I mean not one thing it says can be disproven.


Yes it does, I wouldn't trust a 6 months year olds scrawled handwriting over a 20 year olds speech, but I'd still trust the 6 month olds scrawled babblings over your bibleo. Were they, there were just 'these' councils? Well as a spaghetiolian, there were these highly distinguished people of ravioli who took great care.
I think it can be disproven, because the only proof of a rabid man bear pig walking on water is in the bible. It also was on Dynamos tv show but that was an illusion. Lol liek 2 see u try me m8 

- ON EVERYTHING I LOVE


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock

"iamaledge" wrote:

"AlphaT" wrote:



"iamaledge" wrote:




"AlphaT" wrote:






"iamaledge" wrote:







"AlphaT" wrote:









"iamaledge" wrote:






There isn't much difference with Christians quoting the bible...except for the bible is baseless





tee hee
Yay! XD I was getting bored. How is it baseless?


umm, as in it has no base

how can you quote a 2000 year old book translated many times over that 2000 years? 
Age has no hold on this. And it's simple lol! The Bible was taken very seriously in translation, and besides words or phrases that we cannot translate equally, the Bible today is 98% consistent with those in original Hebrew. XD not to mention its completely flawless.


Why does age have no hold on it? Do you have any proof it was taken seriously, because I'm sure many people did it at different times, it would have been impossible to have not made small errors somewhere which eventually grew larger. How is it completely flawless? If you mean flawless as in grammar, of course, scholars in the modern age would have checked for that, I doubt even 1000 years ago monks wouldn't have checked it over for grammar.
Age, does not imply invalidity. And yes, I have proof. There were these counsils of highly distinguished people of God, who had a criteria as to what was to be in The Bible. That was just its formation. The auctaul care taken into it was tremendous. It's not as if someone said 'Hey, lets talk about a guy who walked on water' and 100 years later t was accepted by an entire nation. There was much structured and tedious work taken into the Bible. And I mean not one thing it says can be disproven.


Yes it does, I wouldn't trust a 6 months year olds scrawled handwriting over a 20 year olds speech, but I'd still trust the 6 month olds scrawled babblings over your bibleo. Were they, there were just 'these' councils? Well as a spaghetiolian, there were these highly distinguished people of ravioli who took great care.
I think it can be disproven, because the only proof of a rabid man bear pig walking on water is in the bible. It also was on Dynamos tv show but that was an illusion. Lol liek 2 see u try me m8 
Well, I could point out that the maturity of a human being as it corresponds to age, and literature as it corresponds to age is too far fetched to be relative as an arguement for the topic. Spagheti Gods, that's nice. And, Jesus wasn't a Lycan.


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock
Posts: 16

"AlphaT" wrote:



"iamaledge" wrote:




"AlphaT" wrote:






"iamaledge" wrote:







"AlphaT" wrote:









"iamaledge" wrote:










"AlphaT" wrote:












"iamaledge" wrote:








There isn't much difference with Christians quoting the bible...except for the bible is baseless






tee hee
Yay! XD I was getting bored. How is it baseless?


umm, as in it has no base

how can you quote a 2000 year old book translated many times over that 2000 years? 
Age has no hold on this. And it's simple lol! The Bible was taken very seriously in translation, and besides words or phrases that we cannot translate equally, the Bible today is 98% consistent with those in original Hebrew. XD not to mention its completely flawless.


Why does age have no hold on it? Do you have any proof it was taken seriously, because I'm sure many people did it at different times, it would have been impossible to have not made small errors somewhere which eventually grew larger. How is it completely flawless? If you mean flawless as in grammar, of course, scholars in the modern age would have checked for that, I doubt even 1000 years ago monks wouldn't have checked it over for grammar.
Age, does not imply invalidity. And yes, I have proof. There were these counsils of highly distinguished people of God, who had a criteria as to what was to be in The Bible. That was just its formation. The auctaul care taken into it was tremendous. It's not as if someone said 'Hey, lets talk about a guy who walked on water' and 100 years later t was accepted by an entire nation. There was much structured and tedious work taken into the Bible. And I mean not one thing it says can be disproven.


Yes it does, I wouldn't trust a 6 months year olds scrawled handwriting over a 20 year olds speech, but I'd still trust the 6 month olds scrawled babblings over your bibleo. Were they, there were just 'these' councils? Well as a spaghetiolian, there were these highly distinguished people of ravioli who took great care.
I think it can be disproven, because the only proof of a rabid man bear pig walking on water is in the bible. It also was on Dynamos tv show but that was an illusion. Lol liek 2 see u try me m8 
Well, I could point out that the maturity of a human being as it corresponds to age, and literature as it corresponds to age is too far fetched to be relative as an arguement for the topic. Spagheti Gods, that's nice. And, Jesus wasn't a Lycan.


It's called making comparisons alphat, maybe you should try and argue back instead of making sensational claims of a high cult of god fearing monkeys who nit pick the bible for errors and swiftly correct them 

- ON EVERYTHING I LOVE


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock
Posts: 7276

Please GET OFF the subject of how long a user has been on KW for debating purposes its irrelevant. 

Number two, surely one of you knows how to cut a quote chain?

Thanks.

Potato

I Support Equal Rights  


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock

"iamaledge" wrote:

It's called making comparisons alphat, maybe you should try and argue back instead of making sensational claims of a high cult of god fearing monkeys who nit pick the bible for errors and swiftly correct them 
It's AlphaT. And yes, you were making a comparison. The problem was that it does not hold up to scrutiny. The maturity of a human being is that as we get older, we become more advanced. In literature, however, the most reverred books in all of History are those which were written in a less-advanced time. And if you are going to use the actions of a few to judge the many when it comes to the next point, please do not.


Posted almost 5 years ago

Posted By:

Thumb
Lock
Posts: 16

"AlphaT" wrote:



"iamaledge" wrote:


It's called making comparisons alphat, maybe you should try and argue back instead of making sensational claims of a high cult of god fearing monkeys who nit pick the bible for errors and swiftly correct them 
It's AlphaT. And yes, you were making a comparison. The problem was that it does not hold up to scrutiny. The maturity of a human being is that as we get older, we become more advanced. In literature, however, the most reverred books in all of History are those which were written in a less-advanced time. And if you are going to use the actions of a few to judge the many when it comes to the next point, please do not.

I prefer alphat.
The bible doesn't hold up to scrutiny though, the most revered books were strangely wrote in a time when no one from today was around to scrutinize them. 

- ON EVERYTHING I LOVE


News Feed

To view your full News Feed please Login using your Username and Password or Register with Kidzworld!

Forum Activity