🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 3, 4:34�pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
Well, look at what you wrote.  You said that I haven't shown that the
story that incorporates the tunnel is true in any way.  What the Old
Testament says in three different books is that the Assyrians invaded
the kingdom of Judea taking several cities as they moved toward
Jerusalem.  The Jews at Jerusalem decided to dig a tunnel as a conduit
for water to hide the water from Gihon spring so that the Assyrians
could not use it when they besieged Jerusalem.  So they dug a conduit
for water from Gihon spring to the pool of Siloam inside Jerusalem.
In the late 1800's British military personnel in Jerusalem decided to
find out if the Biblical account of the tunnel was true and re-
discovered the tunnel after centuries of Muslim rule of Jerusalem.
The Muslims had no knowledge of the tunnel.  So you claim that none of
this proves that Hezekiah's tunnel or the Biblical account of the
tunnel is true in any way.  As I said, I could take you to Jerusalem
and take you through the tunnel and you would still deny its existence
because it is not a convenient fact for atheists who want to go around
claiming that the Bible is nothing but mythology.
Robert B. Winn