Bait and switch. You take what I say in one context and then propose the response in another context. Such is the nature of propaganda and what propagandists do.
“That's precisely how the Law was transmitted to Moses—word-by-word dictation.”
The Ten Commandments, inscribed in stone, as “dictation”? I was not speaking of ten commandments inscribed in stone. I was speaking of the writing of the many books of Holy Scripture. Again, you take what I say in one context and then propose the response in another context.
“I am certain the anonymous author identified by the Church as "Mark" ("according to tradition") says he went from Tyre to Sidon to get to Galilee because it's written that way.”
”to get to” huh. Where did you get the idea for that tortured interpretation? Errantskeptics.org?
Citation please.
New International Version?
“Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.” To get to?
New Living Translation?
“Jesus left Tyre and went up to Sidon before going back to the Sea of Galilee and the region of the Ten Towns.” To get to?
English Standard Version?
“Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.” To get to?
New American Standard Bible?
“Again He went out from the region of Tyre, and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, within the region of Decapolis.” To get to?
International Standard Version?
“Then Jesus left the territory of Tyre and passed through Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the territory of the Decapolis.” To get to?
GOD'S WORD® Translation?
“Jesus then left the neighborhood of Tyre. He went through Sidon and the territory of the Ten Cities to the Sea of Galilee.” To get to?
King James Bible?
“And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
American King James Version?
“And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came to the sea of Galilee, through the middle of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
American Standard Version?
“And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.” To get to?
Bible in Basic English?
“And again he went out from Tyre, and came through Sidon to the sea of Galilee, through the country of Decapolis.” To get to?
Douay-Rheims Bible?
“And again going out of the coasts of Tyre, he came by Sidon to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
Darby Bible Translation?
“And again having left the borders of Tyre and Sidon, he came to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
English Revised Version?
"And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis." To get to?
Webster's Bible Translation?
“And again, departing from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, he came to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.” To get to?
Weymouth New Testament?
“Returning from the neighbourhood of Tyre, He came by way of Sidon to the Lake of Galilee, passing through the district of the Ten Towns.” To get to?
World English Bible?
“Again he departed from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and came to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the region of Decapolis.” To get to?
Young's Literal Translation?
“And again, having gone forth from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
Pathetic.
When I observe that your declarations simply aren’t credible, you respond, “And yours are???”
You’re not certain? Apparently you doubt the credibility of yours, since you voice no objection to my observation, save to seek to include my declarations with your own.
“There is no doubt that Dawkins thinks that a belief in a deity is a delusion, but he also states that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by any means (scientific or otherwise).”
Dawkins: “I think that it (the existence of a supernatural creator) is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
It seems, then, that Dawkins has a very large contradiction to explain. He cannot simply retreat to the excuse that he thinks, or that it is his belief that the existence of a supernatural creator is a scientific question. His background, his training, and his (deserved) reputation as an eminent evolutionary biologist, precludes the possibility that he would hold with intellectual honesty such beliefs or thoughts.
(Dawkins) “has an ax to grind and is on a crusade of sorts.”
Really? That runs contrary to your above assertion that Dawkins has stated that “one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God . . .” thereby separating his beliefs from his more positive declarations. When you opine, as you have in this thread, that morality comes only from human heads usually according to their narrowly defined interests; that any idea to the contrary is the product of childish adults in need maybe of some serious mental health counseling; when you suggest that talking donkeys (and presumably other OT “fantastic stories”) are proof of the principal that a lie, told often enough, acquires a semblance of truth by virtue of sheer repetition; it can hardly be thought that you are rejecting Dawkins, but rather that you are embracing his own thoughts similarly expressed. Now you wish to put some distance between he and yourself?
I reject your insistence that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction and must be accepted as a common assumption. We share neither common assumptions, nor anything like them. Discussion is not possible.
“It's hypocrisy to accuse someone of the very thing everyone is guilty of.”
Then don’t do it. Look to the beam in your own eye, Pilgrim.
I guess it takes one to know one.
The Ten Commandments, inscribed in stone, as “dictation”? I was not speaking of ten commandments inscribed in stone.
I never mentioned the Ten Commandments. Reading comprehension issues? Someone who is familiar with the Bible would immediately recognize that I spoke of the entire Law (the Torah), which was dictated to Moses word by word. If you don't know that, I suggest further reading. You ought to know what you believe in...
I was speaking of the writing of the many books of Holy Scripture.
The Jews will take issue with you on that, since only the Major Prophets are considered "inspired". Besides, the Jews insist that everything that was written after the Law was dictated to Moses by God, is basically a repetition of what's in the Law.
”to get to” huh. Where did you get the idea for that tortured interpretation? Errantskeptics.org? Citation please.
Never heard of the site, but thanks anyway. Citation? Get through, arrive at, etc. all the same thing. He went form Tyre to Sidon to reach Galilee. That's like going from Savannah to Richmond to reach Orlando.
Pathetic.
Waste of bandwidth.
You’re not certain?
Oh I am certain that you are not credible. I was asking if you knew that too.
Apparently you doubt the credibility of yours, since you voice no objection to my observation
If I voiced objection to everything you write I wild be writing a book...So I pick and choose some of the more glaring "pearls" you commit to writing.
It seems, then, that Dawkins has a very large contradiction to explain.
Only to someone with reading comprehension issues. He neither tries nor claims that God can be provoen a true or a delusion by scientific means; he states God's existence cannot be provren or disproven by any means; he states that the probability is small in his opinion that God (as we define him) exists, and he also shows that God-arguments have huge logical and scientific holes in them.
I reject your insistence that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction and must be accepted as a common assumption. We share neither common assumptions, nor anything like them. Discussion is not possible.
That's why I gave you the opportunity to save face and have the last word, but you tried to turn my generous offer into something else. In other words "You take what I say in one context and then propose the response in another context." In other words, you did the very thing you accused me of. Typical porpangadist.
If we have nothing to discuss, if any discourse is "impossible", then why do you persist? I gave you a chance the end this "discussion" and you threw it away only to admit there is nothing to discuss. That's rather stupid, imo.