Hello Phatboy,
I think I will never cease wondering why apologists cannot refrain from prefacing their assertions with prompts for the reader. Is it because you think the reader might question the veracity of these assertions unless you tell them before hand what they should think?
For example, in your post you basically say that "serious bible scholars" and "prominent lawyers" agree with everything you're saying, whereas there are only an insignificant few "liberal intellects" (i.e. Not serious bible scholars)who "seemingly believe in the legend of their own minds" (i.e. are arrogant and stupid) who are ignorant enough to disagree with you.
The first problem with this is that it is not true, i.e., it is called lying for God. But even if and when you are presenting evidence which you have reason to think is well supported, why the coloration? Why not just present the actual evidence and let the readers evaluate it for themselves instead of spin doctoring the rhetoric?
Incidentally, your adjectives are tripping you up again here:
quote:
Phatboy:
The Bible has over 20,000 original manuscripts . . .
On the contrary, we have exactly zero original manuscripts of the biblical text.
Namaste'
Amlodhi
™ Version 4.2
