[Zionist Conspirator]

Re your post #12: I’m a little confused. You have in the past said that the Bible—and even the “new testament”—is unreliable and full of contradictions. Yet I see that doesn’t prevent you from quoting it. Why quote a book that is unreliable and self-contradictory in order to “prove” something?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Re your post #12: I’m a little confused. You have in the past said that the Bible—and even the “new testament”—is unreliable and full of contradictions. Yet I see that doesn’t prevent you from quoting it. Why quote a book that is unreliable and self-contradictory in order to “prove” something?

I'm still waiting for an answer.

[NYer]

You have in the past said that the Bible—and even the “new testament”—is unreliable and full of contradictions. Yet I see that doesn’t prevent you from quoting it. Why quote a book that is unreliable and self-contradictory in order to “prove” something?

??? Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. When did I ever say that? What I have said, though, is the Bible states that there are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). I have also said that the Bible doesn't state anywhere that it is to be taken literally word for word. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook."