Thank you. You've just undermined much of Ebonmuse's argument as well as much of your own. Your concession is tantamount to saying we have no evidence to prove whether the original dispensation was errant or not. Since we have no evidence, per rationalism, I reject what there is no evidence for. Don't you?

I marvel, cl! Concession? You've got to be kidding! I've just said, and you agreed, that there's no evidence to substantiate the claim that the Masorectics were inspired in the original. Why, then, should I believe they were? Far from undermining our position, this solidifies it. If you're going to pull these kinds of shenanigans, I'm going to lose interest in this discussion in a hurry.

Subjective entirely.

Absolutely! At issue here is whether my subjective opinion or yours stands on the surer foundation. I still don't see you making an attempt to convince me I shouldn't take the exemplary problem of Luke 21:36 as evidence that the Bible is unreliable. Why not? Don't you have an argument?

Conclude away, but such does not undermine the argument for theopneustos, and since we don't have any evidence that the original dispensation was errant, as you yourself admitted, is not my subjective opinion that the original dispensation was inerrant at least equally reasonable?

Of course it's not. You have no evidence! Why, the Muslims say the Koran is "God-breathed." How do you answer that assertion? Do you really think the onus would be on you to prove it's not? On the contrary, you're more than justified in thinking they're all wet until they prove that the Koran is from God.

False dichotomy. I've wondered before if maybe Satan inspired them. Nonetheless, Zeus could've inspired them as well. Many other options exist.

I wasn't trying to list all the possibilities. Indeed, what would you do if someone on a blog such as this insisted the Bible was inspired by Zeus? How would you answer? That you're entitled to your subjective opinion? Well, take it from me: you have a right to your opinion. But, then, so does the guy who thinks he's Napoleon down at the funny farm. There's no evidence that he is Napoleon. Likewise, there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bible was inspired by God. Why should I think it was?

I disagree. First, only erroneous alterations produce errors, so your statement is out of scope. Error is not an intrinsic property of alteration. Second, copyist error does not entail error in the original dispensation. Incidentally, what or where is true north? What are its exact coordinates? In the context of salt, Democritus and the Greeks went nearly batty with the logic you offer here.

Yet again, there's no reason to think the originals were error-free. So why does the discussion even arise?

What or where is True North? Are you, by analogy, suggesting there's no way to tell what a True Dispensation would look like? What an amazing thing! Not only do you have zero evidence for such a dispensation, you seem to be saying you wouldn't know what to look for in the first place. Dang, cl, don't waste my time. Tell me, point for point, how a perfect manuscript might be altered and remain perfect. That's what I want to hear from you. I want the mechanics of how can I take perfection and and change it such that it remains perfect.

Textual evolution is horrible evidence against theopneustos.

Really? Explain.

Subjective, no? And that's typical of anyone who assumes the intellectual highground. I myself have been convinced of many things that weren't true, and it could very well be that the Bible is one of them.

And I suppose it's conceivable that the Bible is just as you believe it is and that I'm all wet. Again, why should I think so?

Except maybe when it comes to skateboarding, my legs are no better than yours.

If you can even stand on one of those dang things, your legs are better than mine. At a doddering 53, I have trouble enough sometimes standing on solid ground.

Although I entered this discussion with that thought running through my head, you haven't demonstrated a reasonable case for the idea that copyist error entails lack of theopneustos, so I'm simply unable to concede that your approach to the matter at hand is legitimate, but I'm open to new ideas if you have any.

One more time, I have no reason to suppose theopneustos in the first place. That tinkering with the texts over the ages such that their meanings are left in doubt is easily good enough to show that they're not reliable now. Clearly, God, if he was the source, hasn't bothered to keep them pristine. Was he only interested in presenting perfection to the first writers and their original readers but not to subsequent generations? Gee, that doesn't make a lot of sense. What makes perfect sense is that God had nothing to do with them in the first place. Provable? No. But in light of the obvious reality that you can't show a scrap of evidence for theopneustos, it's pretty much what I'm left with.

The person who says God is silent actually has less evidence.

How so?

I'm fully aware of the OT, so I'm not cherrypicking.

Being aware of and actually using are 2 different things.

Again, my argument is that people bear responsibility for their actions, not the authors of the books they read. Who can refute that?

Fine, if you aren't going to consider my arguments, then what else can I do? Your government analogy is way off. Tell me this. If person A incites violence and person B, incited by this goes off and murders person X, can person A be held for murder? Yes. End of story.

You legitimately strawmanned me by saying I'm arguing the Bible is not corrupt.

Dude, whatever. You can hide behind verbal semantics all you like, but even I'm tired of it (and you know that's saying a lot).

Nobody has touched that.

Everyone has. You just don't accept anyone's argument but your own.

It seems there's no way I can make you see that you're wrong, so I won't even try anymore. mikespeir said what he said.

This is simply dishonest. Mike also cleared up your misunderstanding of what he said, and you're still arguing for your misunderstanding! That's pretty low to quote mine him continually just so you can complain.

We can't demonstrate whether the Masoretic is right or wrong.

Thank you. You've just undermined much of Ebonmuse's argument as well as much of your own. Your concession is tantamount to saying we have no evidence to prove whether the original dispensation was errant or not. Since we have no evidence, per rationalism, I reject what there is no evidence for. Don't you?

And, as I predicted, we're back at the subjective discussion of whether a perfect God should or shouldn't allow copyist errors. I'm not interested in bantering about subjectivity.

(BTW, I'm not equating the Massoretes' work with the original dispensation, either)

*******************

At any rate, I'll still take these:

There doesn't seem to be any divine attempt to preserve them. That makes it look bad for the notion that they issued from the divine.

Subjective entirely.

Is there anything not subjective?

Of course.

Again, I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that if God wanted us to have a perfect Bible we would have it now. We demonstrably don't.

Conclude away, but such does not undermine the argument for theopneustos, and since we don't have any evidence that the original dispensation was errant, as you yourself admitted, is not my subjective opinion that the original dispensation was inerrant at least equally reasonable?

Perfection is like standing at the North Pole. There's no "norther" to get. Any step at all from there, no matter how small, is south. Likewise, if the Bible was originally perfect, any alteration would be in the direction of something less than perfect. (emph. mine)

I disagree. First, only erroneous alterations produce errors, so your statement is out of scope. Error is not an intrinsic property of alteration. Second, copyist error does not entail error in the original dispensation. Incidentally, what or where is true north? What are its exact coordinates? In the context of salt, Democritus and the Greeks went nearly batty with the logic you offer here.

That would lead the reader to erroneous conclusions. So, yes, alterations--in the case of an originally perfect manuscript--are, in fact, errors

So people's erroneous conclusions entail errors? Something is really wrong there. I say that alterations entail errors when and only when the new material introduced is itself inherently erroneous. Wouldn't you agree?

...because if the texts aren't inspired by God, they were only inspired by men.

False dichotomy. I've wondered before if maybe Satan inspired them. Nonetheless, Zeus could've inspired them as well. Many other options exist.

No, cl, you've got it backward. (Speaking for myself, anyway.) I'm simply explaining one reason I don't find the Bible inspired. I have no hope, nor even a desire, to persuade you against it.

I wasn't talking to you in the statement this comment references, and I don't have it backwards. Textual evolution is horrible evidence against theopneustos.

Show me. I taught the Bible for years and was an ardent student of it for many more. I don't remember any such thing in it.

Revelation 22:18 is a good starting point. God through John of Patmos states the possibility that people will add or take away from the words. Of course, the intended context is the book of Revelation, but if such a possibility exists there, would it not also have to exist with every other part of the Bible?

I'm convinced I have much better than "a leg to stand on" in not believing the way you do.

Subjective, no? And that's typical of anyone who assumes the intellectual highground. I myself have been convinced of many things that weren't true, and it could very well be that the Bible is one of them. Except maybe when it comes to skateboarding, my legs are no better than yours.

At best, I'd like you to exit this discussion with this thought running through your mind: "I don't agree with him, but his is a legitimate way of looking at the thing."

Although I entered this discussion with that thought running through my head, you haven't demonstrated a reasonable case for the idea that copyist error entails lack of theopneustos, so I'm simply unable to concede that your approach to the matter at hand is legitimate, but I'm open to new ideas if you have any.

For the sake of brevity let's grant that the TR is wrong. Does that make the Massoretic text wrong as well?

We can't demonstrate whether the Masoretic is right or wrong. What we can demonstrate is that the texts of the Bible have not always been preserved faithfully. There doesn't seem to be any divine attempt to preserve them. That makes it look bad for the notion that they issued from the divine.

Does that mean God was wrong in the original dispensation of the word? If you tell me a story, and I retell it incorrectly, does that entail that the original story was incorrect? Of course not. So the best you can now argue is that a perfect God wouldn't allow copyist error, and as noted, such is subjective...</blockquote

Subjective? Is that the word you mean? Is there anything not subjective? Yes, I have to make assumptions. Who doesn't? Again, I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that if God wanted us to have a perfect Bible we would have it now. We demonstrably don't. Even if there were some way to show that God exists and that the Bible issued perfectly from him (and, of course, there isn't), we can't depend on what it tells us now, because it has clearly been altered. (Your "1800+" differences are only the ones we know about. It's also reasonable to assume there are many more we don't know about because the alterations were made early enough that all extant manuscripts contain them. I mean, clearly, God didn't work too hard to keep them from working their way into the texts.)

...and precluded by the fact that God told us this is exactly what would happen.

God hasn't told me anything of the kind.

Alterations and contradictions are entirely different than errors.

Perfection is like standing at the North Pole. There's no "norther" to get. Any step at all from there, no matter how small, is south. Likewise, if the Bible was originally perfect, any alteration would be in the direction of something less than perfect. That would lead the reader to erroneous conclusions. So, yes, alterations--in the case of an originally perfect manuscript--are, in fact, errors.

Two or more contradictory testimonies can be 100% true.

I'm sorely tempted to challenge you on that, but I don't want to give you the opportunity to open up yet another front in this war. (The one with me, anyway.) I didn't raise the issue of contradictions.

Third, copyist error does not entail error in the original...

But there's no reason to believe the originals were error-free, either, is there? Even the assertion takes for granted that there is a God and that the Bible issued from him, propositions that I don't accept. It does, because if the texts aren't inspired by God, they were only inspired by men. Now, maybe those texts could then be said to be perfectly representative of what those men were thinking, but the matter is also rendered entirely academic thereby. The claim is that God inspired them. If he didn't, there's no need for this discussion.

...and the Bible warned us that copyists and others would make errors.

Show me. I taught the Bible for years and was an ardent student of it for many more. I don't remember any such thing in it.

In short, if you want to persuade a reasonable believer that the Bible is not inspired because it is errant, don't offer textual evolution and copyist errors as evidence. Such fails badly and is not a logically tenable argument.

No, cl, you've got it backward. (Speaking for myself, anyway.) I'm simply explaining one reason I don't find the Bible inspired. I have no hope, nor even a desire, to persuade you against it. I doubt it would be possible. I remember how many long years I took your position and through what agony I came to the one I hold now. I really don't expect to convince you that your beliefs aren't founded in reality. On the other hand, I'm convinced I have much better than "a leg to stand on" in not believing the way you do. That's what I'm trying to show you. At best, I'd like you to exit this discussion with this thought running through your mind: "I don't agree with him, but his is a legitimate way of looking at the thing."

OMGF,

Was Paul's testimony valid? If not, your argument needs modification. You have not explained how the person who claims to hear God is not credible, while the person who claims to not hear God is. "Because there's no evidence" applies to both people because sans a beckoning call from above, all who speak of God talking to them do so subjectively. The person who says God is silent actually has less evidence. Explain.

And, you ignore the many times that god did tell people to murder. Nice cherry picking and selective reading... Even if god said, "Don't do X," he knew ahead of time he words would be construed in such a way that people would do X.

I'm fully aware of the OT, so I'm not cherrypicking. Again, my argument is that people bear responsibility for their actions, not the authors of the books they read. Who can refute that? Here, in America, the very same government that tells us not to murder also murders (in the context of the death penalty). What makes it possible for prosecutors to punish individuals for murder? Is it not a law that states in clear language that they should not murder? Further, don't the very same people who give this law both retain and exercise the authority to murder, in the context of the death penalty? Since the answer to all those questions is an emphatic Yes, then, is the government responsible when citizen X murders citizen Y or Z? For the ultimate proof that your (and Ebon's) argument fails, go murder someone and try to cite the OT as a defense, and tell me what the jury thinks of it.

Nice try... And, when I try to get you to clarify or ask further questions, I'm accused of strawmanning you and you go into long winded complaints about your treatment.

No, not "nice try." You legitimately strawmanned me by saying I'm arguing the Bible is not corrupt. I've not argued that! I first asked mikespeir to define corrupt, and I agreed that by part of the definition provided, the Bible was corrupt:

"You, yourself admitted the texts have been altered." (mikespeir to cl)

mikespeir represented my argument correctly, and very clearly, you either innocently misunderstood my argument, or were just plain negligent, but either way you are simply incorrect. But I doubt you'll admit error here and I'm pretty much over it.

And I've stated that error is not an intrinsic property of contradiction, to which nobody has responded adequately.

Nobody has touched that. The best attempt was Steve Bowen but he did not refute the argument. He simply just reasserted an obvious premise, that a perfect book should be 100% true. If anyone else has actually refuted the argument, I've missed it. Do you have anything on this point? Why don't you respond instead of just saying, "Um, yeah we have?"

Nice quote mine. This is highly dishonest.

yet,

Now, frankly, I'm not interested at all in your opinions about this or any point of eschatology. (mikespeir)

It seems there's no way I can make you see that you're wrong, so I won't even try anymore. mikespeir said what he said.

ex machina,

cl, I feel like we've come to the point where we can go no further. You are very articulate, and I can only assume that it's a result of high intelligence; an intelligence that's interested in, and can understand, healthy debate. However, at every turn, that's not what I or others seem to get. Mostly it's an evasion that only looks like a rebuttal. This last bit involving mikespeir is a great example: "Well excuse me, apparently your mind is made up mikespeir."

"At every turn?" Please. And please realize that rebutting an argument is different than offering your own, for one. Most of the time here, I'm attacking what I see to be weak arguments, and trying to show how and why I think they fail. I do appreciate your sincerity, but what I don't understand is how you think I've evaded mikespeir. I didn't evade him; he pissed me off and I saw no reason to continue. The reason I said that is this: mikespeir went into this long spiel and then told me he wasn't interested in hearing my opinion. I see no reason in debating with someone who, before I can even respond to the actual argument, says they are not interested in hearing my opinion. Do you?

In order to say this you've got to ignore all the times you've not answered, and you've got to ignore the really strong points that mike had made.

Again, I chose not to answer only one time, the precise time that mikespeir said he wasn't interested in hearing my opinion. I simply took mikespeir at his word. Not trying to be rude, but you've missed the facts - I was never allowed a single chance to respond between the time mikespeir clarified his reasoning and the time he told me he didn't want to hear my opinion. If I ask you to clarify your reasoning for argument X, and you do so, followed by, "Now, frankly, I'm not interested in hearing your opinion," who's doing the evading? He said he didn't want to hear it and I'm not here to preach or pontificate.

Now - since the time he said those things, he seems to indicate that he is somewhat interested in hearing my opinion, and that's where we are. But how can you really fault me here for not responding to someone who says they don't want my opinion? I do not understand. You yourself said such was not intellectually honest.

I would urge you to, perhaps, take a break for a week, and come back and read this thread from top to bottom. In doing so, keep track of how many times others made a pertinent point or asked a question of you that was left unanswered or unchallenged or at least, seemed to be left unanswered or unchallenged.

I just took a two-week break from DA and believe me, I constantly look for ways to improve my methods of debate. Personally, I feel that Yes/No questions are among the best ways to make actual progress, but people seldom seem willing to go there. The only thing I've not responded to is mikespeir's latest spiel. Contrary, who has responded to my counterpoint that error is not an intrinsic property of contradiction? People have just waved it away, but nobody has tackled it. The best attempt was Steve Bowen but he did not refute the argument. He simply just reasserted an obvious premise, that a perfect book should be 100% true.

Here's the deal, again: Even the best biblical manuscripts contain contradictions, and inferior manuscripts have derived from the best manuscripts. Such does not entail error or falsehood in any way. That copyists from Jerome to Smith have seriously botched the Bible is old hat, something I've known and dealt with for years. If you tell me a story and I botch it in my retelling, is your story errant? Of course not. So, the argument becomes, "A perfect God wouldn't let the copyists make mistakes," and that's entirely subjective, not to mention that God told us this is exactly what would happen.

And I think the most important thing here is that as soon as you saw an opportunity to avoid tackling mike's argument, you took it. And several posts later, you still haven't.

I can't help that people will see what they want to see where they want to see it. You act as if I'm somehow afraid of mikespeir's argument, when, as I've said before, I simply saw no point in responding to someone who states they're not interested in my response. Even so...

Here is my reply to mikespeir's argument:

Since it seems important to you, and because you're making me appear like a big chicken when I simply saw no reason to argue with a wall, I will address mikespeir's argument. First let me make sure I'm understanding it correctly, which was why I asked the man to provide his reasoning in the first place. He's saying that the (1,800+) differences between Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort prove that God did not inspire the Bible, and render it imperfect. Specifically, his strongest argument offered was Luke 21:36:

"Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man." (NIV)

For the sake of brevity let's grant that the TR is wrong. Does that make the Massoretic text wrong as well? Does that mean God was wrong in the original dispensation of the word? If you tell me a story, and I retell it incorrectly, does that entail that the original story was incorrect? Of course not. So the best you can now argue is that a perfect God wouldn't allow copyist error, and as noted, such is subjective, and precluded by the fact that God told us this is exactly what would happen.

For the record -

This post was on biblical inerrancy and I've conceded far too many times that alterations and contradictions exist. mikespeir offered this definition of corrupt:

For instance, my WordWeb gives this one: "Containing errors or alterations." This is what I mean by "corrupt." By this definition, we know some Bible texts are corrupt.

Alterations and contradictions are entirely different than errors. I know of one potential biblical error that I really do not have a full answer to yet, and that's the census. To me, Ebon has apprehended his entire argument from the wrong foot. I feel the entire scope of the OP is off, because textual evolution shouldn't be the criteria for judging the errancy of a particular document or inferring about the nature of said document's author. I realize and admit that people disagree in biblical exegesis. So what? People disagree in science all the time and such is a virtue. My main gripe was with Ebonmuse's (IMO) bogus argument that via individuals' differing interpretations, God is responsible for religious bloodshed. That is laughable. Ebonmuse is a smart guy no doubt, but sometimes our desire to show something laughable takes over and we make logically untenable arguments. I feel this is one such case.

My secondary gripe is that you people seem to think that error is an intrinsic property of contradiction and alteration, and nobody has explained how such is correct. Two or more contradictory testimonies can be 100% true. Nobody has refuted that one either. The best attempt was Steve Bowen but he did not refute the argument. He simply just reasserted an obvious premise, that a perfect book should be 100% true.

Third, copyist error does not entail error in the original, and the Bible warned us that copyists and others would make errors.

Is there anything else anyone feels I'm missing?

In short, if you want to persuade a reasonable believer that the Bible is not inspired because it is errant, don't offer textual evolution and copyist errors as evidence. Such fails badly and is not a logically tenable argument.

cl, I feel like we've come to the point where we can go no further. You are very articulate, and I can only assume that it's a result of high intelligence; an intelligence that's interested in, and can understand, healthy debate. However, at every turn, that's not what I or others seem to get. Mostly it's an evasion that only looks like a rebuttal. This last bit involving mikespeir is a great example:

"Well excuse me, apparently your mind is made up mikespeir."

In order to say this you've got to ignore all the times you've not answered, and you've got to ignore the really strong points that mike had made. And I think the most important thing here is that as soon as you saw an opportunity to avoid tackling mike's argument, you took it. And several posts later, you still haven't. Whatever your reasons for doing so, this leaves people with the impression that you have no response, and are simply stalling or attempting to exhaust others.

Indeed, this has little to to with inerrancy directly, but before we can have a debate on that topic, we should address the major disconnect between you and everyone you've come in conflict with at this forum. I would urge you to, perhaps, take a break for a week, and come back and read this thread from top to bottom. In doing so, keep track of how many times others made a pertinent point or asked a question of you that was left unanswered or unchallenged or at least, seemed to be left unanswered or unchallenged. Also, see how often you focused on the individual's tone and made issue of that, in place of a rebuttal to their arguments (again, or at least, seemed to). Perhaps you have felt that the arguments made were so simple or pedestrian that they answered themselves or are self-evident, but upon review, you might find that many of them went unanswered altogether.

When I debate with someone, I do my best to treat it like a game of chess: I might be really aggressive and nasty at times, and so might my opponent be. But (officially anyway) one can never "trick" an opponent into losing chess, not in terms of a checkmate, anyway. If there's a legal move for the king to make to get out of check, they've got to take it, and haven't lost yet. Similarly, If I find that someone makes a pertinent argument, even if they are nasty or seem uneducated, I feel bound to address it, even if it might seem beneath me. In the event that I have shamed, confused, or distracted my opponent so that they no longer make their argument (rather than me dismantling it) I don't consider that a victory, at least not a meaningful one.

It's possible that in your brain lies a comprehensive and crushing case against atheism in general and atheism as it relates to inerrancy in particular, but, due to obfuscated delivery or complete lack of delivery, it does not seem to others like you have shared it. As wrong as you most likely feel I am, I urge, urge, urge you, as charitably and strongly as I can, to consider a review of your debating tactics in these terms. I think the thread, and I, would derive far greater benefit from your commentary if you did.

You said the person who claims God speaks to them is not credible...

Because of a lack of evidence.

People have fought and killed over interpretations of many, many things - are those things at fault?

When the authors of those documents that caused the killings had foreknowledge of the events that would unfold...yes.

I opine that God did do plenty about it. Again, Thou shalt not murder? Love thy neighbor as thyself? Cain and Abel? When Peter went to strike the Roman guard, did Jesus not harshly criticize Peter? God did explicitly tell people not to murder each other in the Bible, Yes or no?

And, you ignore the many times that god did tell people to murder. Nice cherry picking and selective reading. You also don't understand the logical conclusion of this argument. Even if god said, "Don't do X," he knew ahead of time he words would be construed in such a way that people would do X. This is immoral and criminal. You have no answer for this argument. You can continue to act as if we don't try criminal masterminds for murder even though they don't pull the trigger, but we do. Game over. (Feel free to whine now about how I'm not open to your arguments.)

Ha! Either check your stove or quit strawmanning. I've already conceded the exact opposite of what you charge, here and on other threads. Read your opponent!

Nice try.

If so, my argument will be that when true statement X is added to true statement Y, the resulting statement XY is also true.

Got it. So god had a second author come much later to add "True statement Y" to the text. LOL.

And I've stated that error is not an intrinsic property of contradiction, to which nobody has responded adequately.

Um, yeah we have. You just don't accept the responses. I'm sure your perfect god with all his errors is still perfect though.

In his reply, the very same comment that mikespeir provided the requested reasoning in, he concluded with, "Now, frankly, I'm not interested in hearing your opinions on this..."

Nice quote mine. This is highly dishonest.

Ask me anything, anytime.

I have and I do. You evade. And, when I try to get you to clarify or ask further questions, I'm accused of strawmanning you and you go into long winded complaints about your treatment.

I was planning to respond intelligently to the intelligent points you raised.

Believe me, cl, I wouldn't accuse you of being unintelligent.

Tell you what. I'll check back from time to time. If I find you've made an argument that's nailed down enough so that it can be subjected to critical scrutiny (and this thread hasn't grown just too "long in the tooth" by then), I might have more to say. Until then, I'm moving on.

Well, I thought I was being loud and clear. Maybe not. If you want to outline a cogent, overarching rationale that somehow allows you to look at the kind of evidence I've presented and come to the conclusion that, nevertheless, the Bible is reliable, please do. On the other hand, if you're planning to drag me through a thicket of eschatalogical minutiae, or that of any other theology, don't bother. That's a ploy to exhaust me. I'm pretty close to exhausted already.

I was planning to respond intelligently to the intelligent points you raised.

OMGF,

This is why people don't like talking to you, because you can't let things go until another time. It's actually not my position that the person who says that god talks to them is automatically wrong, but opening up that can of worms is going to just go badly, which is why I've been trying to beg off.

Now honestly, why put off until another time what can and should be squarely handled now? Explain how your statement is not special pleading, or admit that it was, and it won't be brought up again. I persist because you persist in dodging the question. You said the person who claims God speaks to them is not credible, yet the person who claims God does not speak to them is. I say this is incorrect because both speak subjectively, and confirmation bias doesn't work as an answer. As noted, Saul of Tarsus had strong confirmation bias against the existence of Jesus as Lord, and his confirmation bias was not met. Is his testimony credible?

And, lastly, my argument does apply, because it is fact that people have fought over the interpretations of this document and killed over them.

People have fought and killed over interpretations of many, many things - are those things at fault? I say he who sheds blood must bear responsibility for the shedding of blood, not the books they read or the music they listen to. You seem to disagree.

It is fact that travesties have been done in the name of this document.

I agree. Far too many to list.

It is fact that if god is omniscient, he would have known all the trouble this would have caused and if he is omnipotent he could have done something about it.

Again, I agree.

Given that, he is at least partly culpable.

Now you enter into subjectivity, and I disagree. I opine that God did do plenty about it. Again, Thou shalt not murder? Love thy neighbor as thyself? Cain and Abel? When Peter went to strike the Roman guard, did Jesus not harshly criticize Peter? God did explicitly tell people not to murder each other in the Bible, Yes or no? The differences between kataxioo and katischuo are the best evidence your side has yet produced. How do those differences incriminate the Bible because the misguided religious shed blood?

Your argument boils down to, "I believe the Bible is not corrupt..."

Ha! Either check your stove or quit strawmanning. I've already conceded the exact opposite of what you charge, here and on other threads. Read your opponent!

This is getting really tedious. If you are going to continue with mike, then I suggest dropping the discussion of Mark, since it's pretty obvious that you don't want to consider it and I only suggested it as something that you could discuss.

I dropped the discussion of Mark where we left off, which was with you apologizing for, guess what...? Misreading me. Would you like to continue the discussion of Mark? If so, my argument will be that when true statement X is added to true statement Y, the resulting statement XY is also true. I've also stated many times that even in the best manuscripts, bona fide contradictions exist, and that from the best manuscripts, inferior manuscripts have derived. And I've stated that error is not an intrinsic property of contradiction, to which nobody has responded adequately. And I've stated that the longer ending entails no more error in the Bible than Gould's work entails error in Darwin's theory, which is an admittedly weak analogy because neither Darwin nor Gould were or claimed to be 'God-breathed' but I think you get the drift. And still, nobody has responded adequately to any of those.

ex machina,

Certainly, it would not be intellectually honest.

Thank you for being honest.

However, the debate between you and mike (and most other debates in which you are involved) was not ostensibly rational. It consisted of one party making coherent arguments, and yourself denying that any argument exists whatsoever.

To paraphrase yourself, you must show me where I denied any argument exists whatsoever. But I'll save you the trouble - you can't, because I never said that. Please reread. I never once minimized mikespeir's argument; rather, I asked mikespeir to explain his reasoning so I could be sure exactly what it was I was arguing against. If you're going to jump into other people's scuffles, please, at least get the facts straight. For further example,

Only after several refusals on your part to make any meaningful counterargument did mike say he wasn't interested in hearing you anymore.

Not at all. In one comment I asked for mikespeir's reasoning supporting his position. In his reply, the very same comment that mikespeir provided the requested reasoning in, he concluded with, "Now, frankly, I'm not interested in hearing your opinions on this..." I was literally allowed zero response between the time mikespeir gave his reasoning and the time mikespeir said he was uninterested in hearing my opinion. Please, will you admit this and apologize?

Most people here don't even know where you stand on most issues because you won't outline what they are or even show where and how the arguments of others don't stand.

"most issues?" Ask me anything, anytime. And I have showed many, many times where the arguments of others don't stand, including your own, and I have also admitted without reserve that some of my own arguments do not stand. Please.

Again, to convince others, you must show their arguments are incorrect and offer sound alternatives. Bit by bit, without arbitrarily changing the subject. Accounting for context while delivering your critique will further ensure your success.

Speaking of accounting for context, this relates to inerrancy how? You've brought up tangential issues unrelated to the thread, and I must respond in context. And note that this is coming from someone who, in response to,

What religion was the FFRF's sign a display of? (cl)

said,

The constitution does not just protect freedom of religion, but freedom from religion as well. Any other interpretation would put the government in the position of deciding what was a legitimate religion and what wasn't. Which would be unconstitutional, on top of being an affront to the idea of free speech and thought, which is obvious if you think about it at all. It's not really a difficult point to understand. Did you think your backhanded argument for suppression of the free speech of atheists would go unnoticed and unanswered? (ex machina)

And you're lecturing me about staying in context? Really? Who was it that said,

To be fair, ex machina, I don't see any evidence that cl was calling for the suppression of atheist speech. (Ebonmuse)

So don't lecture me about context or any other fallacies, and when you jump in other people's quarrels, please, get the facts straight. You've misrepresented me as I've outlined very clearly, bit by bit, above.

Do you have anything to add that actually relates to the arguments made in this thread? If not let's call it tit-for-tat and drop it.

Interesting. So, in the middle of an ostensibly rational debate, is saying, "I'm not interested in hearing your opinion" intellectually honest? Yes or no?

Certainly, it would not be intellectually honest. However, the debate between you and mike (and most other debates in which you are involved) was not ostensibly rational. It consisted of one party making coherent arguments, and yourself denying that any argument exists whatsoever. Only after several refusals on your part to make any meaningful counterargument did mike say he wasn't interested in hearing you anymore.

You are regularly ignoring context as a method of debate, and it's obvious to everyone. Most people here don't even know where you stand on most issues because you won't outline what they are or even show where and how the arguments of others don't stand. As soon as someone makes a pertinent point, you claim you've been offended somehow in order to avoid debate. This will continue to be an unsuccessful method of persuasion.

Again, to convince others, you must show their arguments are incorrect and offer sound alternatives. Bit by bit, without arbitrarily changing the subject. Accounting for context while delivering your critique will further ensure your success.