🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> 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.  

Okay.

> You said that I haven't shown that the
> story that incorporates the tunnel is true in any way.

Yes.

> 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.

Sure.

> 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.

Okay.

> So they dug a conduit
> for water from Gihon spring to the pool of Siloam inside Jerusalem.

All good.

> 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.

Fine.

> The Muslims had no knowledge of the tunnel.

I'll let that go because, frankly, I don't feel like researching that. 
I don't really care.

> So you claim that none of
> this proves that Hezekiah's tunnel or the Biblical account of the
> tunnel is true in any way.

No. I did not say that.  Point to where I claimed that.

> 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.

Now you're operating on a false assumption based on something I never said.

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