Johnny Skeptic

I recently started a new thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=282266, and I have asked you to participate in a past thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=270530. You are free to participate in those threads if you wish. Both threads provide reasonable proof that the Bible contains errors. Since the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion, and the Bible is needlessly confusing if a God inspired it, obviously, the God of the Bible does not exist. We can discuss that issue at the Abrahamic Religions forum if you wish, as well as many other issues.

show_no_mercy

In order for your position to be correct, you have to completely redefine the word διά (through). I've never heard of dia being used the way you want it to be used. This seems to be a pretty blatant example of redefining reality to fit preconceived biases.

Johnny Skeptic

That is fine. Do you believe that the Bible teaches that the earth is round or spherical? If so, I will start a new thread on that issue.

I have previously mentioned a thread on Jesus' miracles at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=270530l. The title is "Maybe the historical Jesus really did do miracles." My posts were posts #294, #299, #300, #331, #333, #336, #338, #339, #341, #342, #343, #344, #348, #350, and #351. It is very unlikely that Jesus performed miracles, especially to the extent that the New Testament says that he did.

rhutchin

Neither is interesting to me. Others might find the earth being round idea interesting.

rhutchin

Mark 7 (NRSV)
31 Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went διά Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.

Elsewhere we read:

Mark 2
23 One sabbath [Jesus] was going διά the grainfields;...

Mark 9
30 They went on from there and passed διά Galilee.

Mark 10
25 It is easier for a camel to go διά the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Mark 11
16 and [Jesus] would not allow anyone to carry anything διά the temple.

I can understand how a person who is largely ignorant of the Bible would not have heard of dia being used the way I use it. However, just because you do not know what the Bible says does not mean that I am redefining reality to fit preconceived biases. Based on the above verses, I am being consistent in my use of the term.

However, you can always offer an explanation showing how I am not.

show_no_mercy

All of those instances dia means "through".

Johnny Skeptic

That is fine. I am usually interested in issues where it is relatively easy to reasonably prove that the Bible contains errors. The Bible contains numerous errors. The issues of the flat earth and the miracles that Jesus allegedly performed are two issues where it is relatively easy to prove that the Bible contains errors, and the claim that God would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre.

You are wasting your time as usual since no one is going to change their worldview based on anything that you say in this thread.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Christians have disagreed regarding all kinds of important issues for the last 2,000 years. What makes your interpretions of the Bible more valid than other Christians past and present who disagree with you? There is little doubt that if you had lived centuries ago, many of your opinions would be different than they are now, including your opinions about colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women. Just like everyone else, your opinions are merely the result of various secular factors.

rhutchin

My opinions are consistent which that which we read in the Bible. You can check it out.

Toto

Please stick to the subject matter of the OP, geographical errors in Mark. Thanks for your attention to this.