Doug Shaver

I'm OK with that, provided only that said proponent does not claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible.

Sven

Sorry, if it looks like bullshit and smells like bullshit, I see no reason not to say so. *shrug*

Either way, I think you are occupied enough in answering the posts directed at you - why do you start answering posts which are directed at others now?

Of course could. If I write something, I usually mean it.
The question isn't which version is true - the question is: We didn't he write the much clearer version?

Which you of course just evade. As always.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Amazing. He says that 15,000 survived, you contradict this with a fantasy that apparently requires the extermination/removal of the population... but you're "not saying he's wrong"?

I have never seen any indication that Quintus Curtius Rufus would fabricate this account, or indeed anything else. He is regarded as an honest historian, the only "errors" attributed to him are minor geographical slip-ups and suchlike. If you wish to discount him on such a flimsy pretext, then you should throw away your Bible too: for instance, according to the Gospel of Mark, Tyre is north of Sidon rather than south of it.

...But of course none of this matters anyhow, as Ezekiel failed to prophesy Alexander, and the "prophecy" has already failed at 26:11 (as I have demonstrated) prior to any event you imagine to be attributable to Alexander.

Sauron

What's more, if bfniii really thinks that QCR is an unreliable historian, he ought to be able to produce 2 or 3 clearly worded opinions of respected classical scholars who agree with him on his claim.

But as we all know, bnfiii never lifts a finger to support his claims; why should it be any different this time?

Johnny Skeptic

I once mentioned historians to bfniii, but he said that some of them are biased, except of course the writer of a Wikipedia article that he quoted regarding Ezekiel. The article in fact did not even come close to reasonably proving bfniii's claim that the prophecy was dated before the facts. Wikipedia suits bfniii pretty well. Christians don't really care anything at all about the credentials of skeptics unless the skeptics agree with their positions.

Sauron

Wikipedia is hardly better than a blog entry. The problems with Wikipedia, however, are well-known. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop fundies and evangelicals from trying to (a) write articles for it and then (b) cite themselves or their co-religionists as legitimate sources.

aa5874

The book of Mark16:15-18 stateS, 'Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on sick and they shall recover'.


Bfniii, the Book of Mark contradicts you in every respect. In fact, no believer has been known to show the signs of being a follower of Jesus. The Gospel according to the Book of Mark , therefore, has never been known to be believed.

Sauron

It also contradicts Paul, who says in Romans 10:

According to bfniii, Paul was in a tizzy over nothing; preachers aren't necessary for belief. Maybe bfniii should stop making up on-the-fly claims.

Johnny Skeptic

I know of no reason to believe that is has not been altered, and I know of no reason to believe that many Bible prophecies have not been altered. My position is not that it has been altered, only that there is not any good evidence that it is much more probable that it has not been altered than that it has been altered. I will be happy to agree that we can't be reasonably certain one way or the other. Will you?

Julian

Could we, PLEASE, not resurrect threads that are much better left dead? This is most annoying... Now, unless some substantive material is going be posted, let this thread go to its overdue grave.

Julian