Snake handling is a ridiculous way to validate the text about handling vipers. That one was validated anyway when Paul was bitten by the viper and they thought he was dead, but he only shook it off into the fire. That whole passage at the end of Mark is fulfilled in the acts of the apostles. Whether it was meant to apply beyond that generation is not clear.
As for the passage itself being left out of the earliest manuscripts, otherwise often styled the "oldest and best," that's one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the Church in all of history. Those "oldest" manuscripts were either forgeries or were tampered with by an early gnostic cult, corrupted by errors and rewritings, and this was recognized by the Church until the Revision committee that came out with the Revision of 1881 decided to enshrine them as the oldest and best. Well, the seminaries bought the fraud and today's scholarship is based on the fraudulent manuscripts. Quite a coup for the enemies of the Bible.
I don't think that's Coston's website, that's a site that hosts all kinds of things, and happened to host Coston. It's hardly my "favorite" source, I really know nothing about it. I've run across it before but never checked out who owns it. But thanks for posting that page, it looks like it has some interesting information.
No, it's the fallacy of imputing to me the acceptance of the whole when all I affirmed was the small part actually referred to, having no knowledge of the site of my own. This is very sleazy debate form.
The message you responded to, Message 55, contains no quotes. It had a link to the site.
It had the following statement:
As far as being "Faith's new favorite source" it has a lot of the same ideas that she espouses: the Pope is the Anti-Christ, hatred for the Jesuits, the unreliability of any translations besides AKJV, veneration of King James IV, the lie of evolution, the Pope's support of Hitler... you name it.
Except for some tendentious wording (hatred for...veneration of...) this is what I was agreeing with, and I was reacting against HBD's rejection of these ideas by affirming the nose for truth of the site owner -- concerning these topics and these only. This is polemic or at least banter, so the following insinuations that I affirm anything else at her site is sleazy tactics.
ABE: Yes it would be nice if I anticipated all the ways what I say can be used against me but that would mean I'd never write anything here because you'll all invent something if you can't find something to turn against me..
Look at the title of this series of posts. It started with this lie and you're all just continuing the lie. I am not backing down on this. What I said was said perfectly innocently within a specific context and this is just typical of EvC to invent an excuse to ridicule a creationist rather than EVER give the benefit of the doubt. What a pack of....
You left out the most important part, which is that I was responding to a very specific description by HBD of what is at the site when I said she had a strong grasp of truth, because it was a characterization of my own beliefs (minus, as I said a few posts back, some tendentious wording that made it a matter of emotion rather than truth). Beyond that, I would never say that just because EvC calls creationists loonies that therefore they have a strong grasp of truth, but just as a matter of fact when EvC says that it usually means I think they do, and that's why it's an honor to be called a Loony at EvC.
This IS loony. One thing it gets very wrong is the idea that Israel in the Bible ever succeeded in its war efforts unless God commanded it of them. Whenever they acted on their own or against God's specific word to them, they were defeated. I do think God has been watching over Israel in spite of their not consulting Him, in their defensive wars when attacked by the Arab nations both in 1948 and 1967, but I think they'd be reduced to a cinder themselves if they attempted to wipe out Germany and Iran. I don't think Netanyahu is that ****** though. He knows what he's up against.