Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I write a true statement, you can still plagiarize what I wrote. And if all your 100 writers used identical text, then they would be copying from one another. And without saying this, it is the subject you are ignorant of, plagiarism.
Which is not the point. It is the changing of the text to make something that looks strange, such as Jesus being in a field while his family are outside.
Again it is you who does not understand plagiarism. If different people use identical text (the truth of that text is irrelevant), then they are copying. Using this proven technique, it is clear Matthew was NOT an eyewitness.
Thank you for your opinion, Kermit, i will file it in the relevant rubbish bin.
OMG!...That first Paragraph that you replied to has me laughing!...He definitely does not understand plagiarism!...Whether the statement be true or false, doesn’t matter, but if one copies another’s works word for word and claims it to be his own words, then that’s plagiarism...
Omega, I just thought this up to say to you:
Thank you for your opinion, Kermit, i will file it in the relevant rubbish bin.
True And therefore it is legitimate for us to do it to ram home a telling point. It is NOT legitimate in apologetics to use it to try to refute a point that you can't by employing sarcasm instead. It just makes you and your religion look cheap.
I usually use sarcasm to show the person is accusing me of doing what they are doing. However you are right. Sarcasm is more cutting that I thought, so I will discontinuing using it.
Quote:
Ah, yes, you were always eager to play the 'wrong translation' card. Even when it didn't make any difference.
I didn't say wrong translation, I said poor translation and there are some out there. When non-
Christians quote eh Bible hey usually use the KJ and it is a poor translation. I never say "poor translation" when it makes no difference.
Quote:
It's why I prefer to use solid contradictions that are the same even you use kjv.Such as the debunk of John that you continue to ignore.
I haven't ignored it, I showed where you are wrong.
Quote:
Let's see whether you ignore the others or...let me guess...'It's in the bible, so it must have happened'? Another favorite Ploy of yours.
It seems your favorite ploy is misquoting me. I NEVER say its in the Bible so it must have happened., and you can't show where I have.
And one could make the very same claim about Santa and his team of flying reindeer... or the Easter bunny. If the unrealistic nature of what is being claimed is not to be considered as "proof" concerning the efficacy of the claim, then all claims must have equal value. And yet we are forced to go through life weeding out the nonsense from the plausible every day.
What qualifies you to determine what is nonsense and what is plausible. Are you omniscient? Unless you are, you thinking something is nonsense, does not make it nonsense.
Quote:
Apparently, since claims "can't be proved or disproved. One can only believe or disbelieve it by faith alone," it all comes down to what belief one was indoctrinated into as a child, and one's personal level of gullibility.
That is not true either. Many people including myself did not become Christians as children. Also, some raised in a Christian home, reject the religion of heir parents. You are also not qualified to determine what is gullible.
You are also challenged on understanding of how to apply textual criticism (as distinct from Faith based dismissal of problems) to the gospels, but that doesn't stop you trying to get away with it.
Not on the say so of someone who doesn't understand the Bible. I addressed one thing you considered a problem but because of you lack of understanding, you rejected it.
Quote:
I didn't say you 'ran away; I said you were slippery and evasive.
Let me educate you a bit. You thinking someone or something is slippery and evasive does not mean they are. You are not the final authority on anything, especially the Bible or Christianity. Your comment is insulting, rude and self serving.
Quote:
Which is what you are being with this talk of good translations. It doesn't prove the Bible true, which is what the argument is about - not Christian doctrine.
You also need to quit misquoting me. That is the characteristic of someone who is slippery and evasive. have never said any translation proves he Bible right and you can't post where I have.
I mentioned a poor translation because he word in the KJ is mistranslated and it makes the verse say something it does no say. Should we not strive for accuracy?
Quote:
The evidence. The evidence points to you being Eusebius. Either than or you were cloned from him and took his correspondence course, as you use his methods AND his arguments. The evidence looks persuasive, that's all.
Who I am is irrelevant.
Quote:
We are not buying this 'equally biiased' ploy. The difference is the evidence. Bias aside, it shows that Christians are forced to be crafty and deceptive -just as you are being - to defend their faith. We don't.
That coming from someone completely ignorant of the Bible and how to interpret it.
Quote:
Faith is the very worst reason for believing anything.
Then quit believing in evolution. You can't prove even one thing ir preaches.
Quote:
You correctly go by evidence, and even dubious evidence is better than faith. Sound evidence (which is what we use, and you don't) is better even than that. Arguing the merits of faith is - well, it's damn' near admitting that you have nothing but denial, and ignoring any arguments you can't refute. As we have already seen. It's as Eusebian a car -crash as you ever did in the Old Days, old chum.
Then present your evidence the Bible is not true. You just hoisted yourself on your own petard.
Lie #12. God will provide ALL your needs. Rubbish! God doesn't provide squat! Just ask the thousands of Christian families living out of their cars or on skid row if God is providing their needs. Again, this is just pure propaganda courtesy of corrupt early church leaders trying to attract pagans to join their new faith with empty promises of riches. Christians crow when a friend prays for transportation and then finds a lost bus pass lying in the road. "See? God provided his need. He needed transportation to work and God sent him a bus pass!" Well, then why didn't God send him a brand new Ford or at least a slightly used one??? I thought God has so many riches in heaven that He's not in the habit of doling out 2nd-class merchandise. Isn't He able to provide something decent instead of a 2-bit solution to a very large problem? What a crock!
God has not promised us a rose garden in this life, He provides all man needs spiritually. Jesus even told us we will always have he poor with us. How do you know those living in cars and on skid row are Christians.
Thanks for posting this. If your unreasoning blanket refusal to actually engage with the arguments was not sufficient to discredit you, then your ignorance of what plagiarism is, even after having it explained to you, shows your utter lack of knowledge or credibility.
I have engaged in it and I will repeat what I said. Maybe you will understand it this time---If something is true, it can't be plagiarized. Anyone who wants to use it can.
It doesn't say He was sorry for he way it turned out. He was sorry that Adam and Eve sinned and now mankind would have to suffer the consequences.
An omniscient Being knew the results of his actions in fine detail before He ever began. And an omnipotent Being gets exactly the results He intends to get without fail! A God who repents (or is sorry) for the way things turned out is a God who FAILS. Is your God omnipotent... or does He sometimes fail?
Of course he knew the results, but it was not the results He intended. It is absurd to think God wanted them to sin. He had created a perfect paradise for them to live in.
God did not fail if you understood what the future includes. It would only be failure if God did not provide a solution for their failure.
Man was not intended to live in Gan Eden forever...
Last edited by mensaguy; 05-15-2019 at 03:59 AM..
Reason: Removed extra quote tag
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I write a true statement, you can still plagiarize what I wrote. And if all your 100 writers used identical text, then they would be copying from one another. And without saying this, it is the subject you are ignorant of, plagiarism.
And therefore it is legitimate for us to do it to ram home a telling point. It is NOT legitimate in apologetics to use it to try to refute a point that you can't by employing sarcasm instead. It just makes you and your religion look cheap.
I thought God has so many riches in heaven that He's not in the habit of doling out 2nd-class merchandise. Isn't He able to provide something decent instead of a 2-bit solution to a very large problem? What a crock! 
