For the Not So Shining One:
Readers will note that, as usual, you completely ignored almost all of what I wrote.
Leolaia had quoted one Bart Ehrman that:
: "Whether or not any of these ancient authors said anything that was true is another question, one we cannot answer simply by appealing to the number of surviving manuscripts that preserve their writings."
YECsy Rexy wrote in rejoinder:
: The point is this: the manuscripts are so much in agreement that it lends added veracity to their claims,
Nonsense. You completely ignored my disproof via the 100 million or so copies of the JW Truth book. Your intellectual mendacity is palpable.
In simpler terms: The fact that a lot of manuscripts exist, which are nothing more than imperfect copies of each other, proves nothing. It is evidence of nothing more than that a lot of people saw fit to make a lot of copies. Period.
: Not only in agreement but in the supernatural effort that kept the comparative texts so close to what was written originally.
Yet another assumption without proof or merit. All of the Truth books were close copies of each other. What does that prove as to the inspiration of Watchtower leaders?
: You can see that simply by looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls and comparing them to the previous oldest documentation. In some case we are talking a 1200 year gap!
It's impressive that scribes could manage such a feat. It still says nothing about the original autographs.
: Old testament full or partial manuscripts number in the 5000 range or more???
Zowie! Truth books today number in the tens of millions???
: New Testament(not applicable to the above reference) manuscripts number over 25,000!
Zowie! The JW Creation book has been published in nearly 60 million copies!
: Even O.J. could ahve been convicted with that mountain of evidence.
Nope. All the lawyers involved had a measure of intelligence.
: The true nature of what passes for skepticism is that NO amount of evidence, written or otherwise, is ever enough for one who is BIASED with presuppositions!
True, but irrelevant. As I've clearly stated, and you've completely ignored, I personally have done a great deal of research on this matter of Biblical veracity, and have come to some strong conclusions based on a massive amount of documented evidence. So have others on this board, and some who have posted on this thread. We have all done our own independent -- you get that, INDEPENDENT? -- research. You, in your typically braindead Christian hubris, choose to ignore such facts. Why do you ignore such eyewitness testimony? For the same reason that most Jehovah's Witnesses ignore all sorts of facts and eyewitness testimony -- acknowledging it would destroy your faith. It is evident, then, that your faith is built on sand, and what is worse for you is that you know it. That's why you and JWs absolutely refuse to carefully examine the roots of your beliefs by engaging in substantive debate.
In a later post Shining One wrote:
: I asked why you do not take up the debate challenge and I think your comment is appropo, Alan:
: >Because it is so bad. And life is too short to waste time on people like that. Others have already done a far better job than I could in dealing with the basics of his claims.
: The blade cuts both ways!
What a stupid answer! Your performance on this board is a very good indicator of what anyone who chooses to debate your "apologists" is in for: nearly complete ignoring of all that is said.
Now, I'll give you a challenge (not sure I really want to do this, but let's see what happens): you convince your man to come on THIS BOARD and PUBLICLY debate with the community of skeptics about Young-Earth Creationism. I choose this venue and topic because it has a good deal of empirical evidence that can be brought to bear, whereas strictly doctrinal things, and stuff concerning the origins of the Bible, have so little evidence to bring to bear that they're not worth bothering with.
So now, Rex, you have a clear and unambiguous challenge. I have no doubt that your vaunted online apologist will not rise to it, just as you have not risen to the numerous and relatively small challenges put to you, as for example, in this thread.
In yet another post, Shining One wrote:
: Its been years since I examined the Ba'Hai and I will do so in order to see if the analogy lines up. I just can't remember the reasons that I discounted their claims. I do know that they are a cult.
In exactly the way that Fundamentalist Christianity is a cult.
You don't like that? Then when you get through with your revisitation of the Bahai's, by all means list their "cultish" ways. I will then show that the most important of them (of course, I understand that you'll leave out ones that have extremely obvious Christian parallels, but I will make sure to point them out) have exact parallels in the Fundamentalist Christian sphere.
Actually this can be rather amusing for some readers. It reminds me of the fear that the obviously bonzo character "The Colonel" in the 1970s British sitcom "Fawlty Towers" had of psychiatrists. When one showed up, he high-tailed it out of there.
: One of the things you need to remember is that Christians (the ones who do take their religion seriously) are affected by the life that Christ lived (and lives today in my heart).
So are Bahai's. So are Christianized Jews. So are Jehovah's Witnesses. So what?
: If you remember, Mohammed took his 'visions' to Christianity and Judasim first and was rejected, then proceeded to butcher them when he later came to power.
If you remember, Jesus took his 'visions' to Judaism first and was rejected, then his followers proceeded to butcher them when they later came to power.
Do you get the point?
: Islam has always taught and engaged in the terrorism that we still see today. It is wholly justified by the Koran.
Biblical religion has always taught and engaged in the terrorism that we still see today. It is wholly justified by the Bible.
Do you get the point?
AlanF
