quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
You choose to circumvent and dismiss the Bible as a valid source of opinion on the subject. I don't.
This you haven't explained: why not?
I've already laid out at length, several times, the basis for the Bible being a valid source:
  • The evidence for the internal consistency of the Bible,
  • the level of archaological and historical evidence for the Bible's accuracy,
  • that there are at least 60,000 handcopied manuscripts that exist within 100 years of the time of Christ,
  • and the tremendous care with which the Bible has been preserved over millenia, and translated into other languages.
  • As well as the fulfillment of prophecy, past and ongoing.

I believe I've made it abundantly clear that I don't wish to continue on this topic. I've made my points abundantly over 20 pages now, and do not wish to continue responding. Please stop baiting me to respond. It is clearly not productive, or worth my time at this stage.

Please respectfully agree to disagree. Or at least leave me out of it.
I wasn't "baiting you" to respond - you could have just ignored a polite question.

Still, your answer is interesting. There are Biblical scholars who have discussed that section of the Bible...how does it go, "For a rich man shall not pass into heaven anymore than a camel shall not pass through the eye of a needle." I have read that this is very likely to be an error in transcription: no one would think of something so absurd as a camel passing through a needle's eye - it was more likely to be a reference to a camel hair.

And wasn't it Paul who was responsible for the New Testement's dissemination?

I have some more comments on what you've said... but I'll leave you be now Dave.