🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> On Aug 3, 9:11�am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:09:37 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
>> in alt.atheism:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 2, 11:35?pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 23:26:22 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
>>>> in alt.atheism:
>>>>> On Aug 2, 9:56?pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 15:04:19 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
>>>>>> in alt.atheism:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> It means the same in Greek as it does in English.
>>>>>> How familiar are you with ancient Greek. What word was used in Luke?
>>>>>> Feel free to transcribe it using the traditional Latin character
>>>>>> substitutes for the Greek letters, since usenet isn't necessarily
>>>>>> designed to support non-latin characters.
>>>>>> As for your desire to believe that Luke was a physician and that he
>>>>>> wrote the gospel of that name, no evidence supports it. The framing of
>>>>>> the gospel appears to be designed to target a certain audience. Framing
>>>>>> is not unusual. Simon Morgenstern is a fairly famous author of a story
>>>>>> called The Princess Bride. Of course, there is the problem that Simon
>>>>>> Morgenstern never existed except in the imagination, particularly of
>>>>>> William Goldman, but also of everyone who suspends disbelief long enough
>>>>>> to enjoy the story.
>>>>>> The Bible is a story. It can be fun to suspend disbelief for a while as
>>>>>> you read it, but you need to bring your critical facilities to bear
>>>>>> after a while. You do yourself no favor by deluding yourself about what
>>>>>> the Bible is.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> The Bible is two testaments of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament and the
>>>>> New Testament.
>>>> The Bible is a collection of stories. Neither the Old Testament nor the
>>>> New are reliable for any reason at all. When tested against history and
>>>> science, they fail.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> You mean like they failed in the case of Hezekiah's tunnel?
>> You still haven't shown that the story that incorporates the tunnel is
>> true in any way.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> I could take you through the tunnel, and you would say exactly the
> same thing.  You will continue to claim that Hezekiah's tunnel cannot
> exist because it is mentioned in the Bible.

Now you're lying.  Again.

Nowhere did he claim that Hezekiah's tunnel cannot exist.

-- 
****************************************************
*          DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226          *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it?                                    *
****************************************************