Summations Only

More up to date than what, ringo?And why did you claim the opposite in your last post, ringo? You're just saying whatever comes to your head to continue an argument, aren't you. No the presenter does not have the burden of showing that a will is the most up to date version, because it is usually at least possible that a newer will has been executed that no party knows about. We would be looking for a challenger to do that. The executor must use the most up-to-date authentic will.

Well, this is a debate topic on the Bible inerrancy. I'll note also that there really aren't that many verses, so it is not as though this is ab exhausting task.The chapter and verse evidence is extremely weak and requires an interpretation that cannot be justified, and for that reason, your position would indeed get trashed. Just to preview how that might look... All of the verses that people cite from John and Revelations, save John 21:24 merely mention "the disciple that Jesus loved" in third person. The plain meaning of John 21:24 on the other hand is that John is not the author and that the Gospel according to John is based on John's writings. Obviously the point is that a long tradition is not evidence of correctness and not that there is any value in pagan accounts that we all believe are quite silly. Nice job of missing the point, though.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I've already point that out ringo.

Let's not bother.

Initially there is no evidence of guilt or innocence. Yet we lock up the defendant or otherwise take steps to insure that he is present for trial. The choice of which side to assume for trial purposes is not a matter of Occam's razor but a matter of not wanting to punish an innocent person. In so doing we take on the risk that we are freeing a guilty person. That is not required by Occam's razor either. The assignment of the burden of proof is simply a technique for conducting an investigation.On the other hand, since we are not talking about depriving John of his liberty in this case, we need not make the same assumption we make in a criminal trial, making it more akin to the will situation. The sole criteria is to find which position is most likely correct. So we don't just assume any piece of paper brought in front of us is authentic. And the fall back position is to divide things up using the state's formula and not to give a will of undetermined authenticity any weight at all.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If you are really interested, you can read back a few posts to see where I quoted you and gave my comments.Is there really any point to continuing this?

Curiously enough, this resembles more closely your own arguments about geology than it does any argument anyone has made here. I'll agree that the argument is ridiculous.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

How about a pointer to an attestation from two thousand years ago? That would be from one of John's contemporaries acknowledging his authorship. I'd agree that such an attestation is evidence. So where is it?

This recap is not a summary of any discussion that I participated in. I have no problem with you telling me that it is your current position. But as a recap, it stinks. It borders on dishonest.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't see any point to continuing this discussion. Was I unclear about that?

According to Genesis 2:2-3, God rested on the seventh day after creating everything. Where does it say that God did not work on any subsequent seventh day? There is no contradiction here. Not quite. The lesson in Matt 6:5-6 is about people who find value in being seen praying by their peers. It is possible to pray in public without show boating. That's not at all what the Bible says. Just what did they preach back when you were a Christian?There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible, but your list is not very impressive. At least half of it is BS.

True Christian may well be right.I am not running any middle ground. I'm simply not proselytizing. Your list was composed of stuff that you found to be contradiction and stuff you found to be absurd/ridiculous. I was not willing to take on the latter stuff that requires faith to show where you may be wrong. So I took on the easy stuff, i.e. the contradictions and mistaken impressions. My point was that you did not manage to find a single contradiction. And that should have been the easy part because there are contradictions in the text.And of course there is also the issue that I am not a Bible literalist. Contradictions in a document that isn't to be taken literally may not be an issue for me.It is when you explain what caused you to separate from Christianity that I find you the most interesting. There is no reason to be an atheist or agnostic other than the state of your belief or non-belief in God. But you do have reasons. But most of those reasons seem, to me anyway to be contradictory and vague.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You should not have to try at all. If you are truly bothered by the inconsistencies in John or any other part of the Bible, I would expect you to be able to rattle off the issues from memory with perhaps some refreshing of your memory by glancing at the text. What's your difficult?FWIW, there are some past threads where people cited inconsistencies in the Bible and other people attempted to refute those citations with varying degrees of success including outright failure to refute.

You should not have to try at all. If you are truly bothered by the inconsistencies in John or any other part of the Bible, I would expect you to be able to rattle off the issues from memory with perhaps some refreshing of your memory by glancing at the text. What's the source of your difficulty?FWIW, there are some past threads where people cited inconsistencies in the Bible and other people attempted to refute those citations with varying degrees of success including outright failure to refute.

This is a debate site. I expect and hope to see controversy here. Are you sure you aren't bluffing?