🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:09:13 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote
in alt.atheism:

>On Aug 1, 4:40?am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:23:58 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
>> in alt.atheism:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >Well, no it does not. ?What you are claiming is that if you can find a
>> >mistake or something debatable in a non-fiction book, then you have
>> >proven it is fiction. ?What makes a book fiction or non-fiction is the
>> >intent of the author or authors. ?A fiction book is an account of
>> >imaginary events. ?A perceived mistake in a non-fiction book can
>> >happen because of a misinterpretation of events by either the author
>> >or reader of the book.
>>
>> Since you insist that the Bible is not just a collection of stories,
>> then you are insisting that the Bible is completely and utterly
>> unreliable. As statements of fact, the Bible fails again and again. Your
>> ignorance of the failures of the Bible does not make the Bible true.
>
>Well, there is no great failure.  Atheists tried for several months to
>say that Hezekiah's tunnel was a failure.  But water kept going
>through it.  You could get every atheist on earth to say that the
>Bible is a failure, and nothing would change.  So what exactly is it
>that you are trying to do?

Why do you keep misrepresenting that discussion? My copy of the 10
Commandments tells me not to lie. Apparently you have a different Bible.