Of course it is nonsense to use the bible to refute OEC. The purpose of my remarks was to point out how stupid you are when it comes to biblical history and theology, and that you should recuse yourself from such discussions until you educate yourself.
Of course it is nonsense to use the bible to refute OEC. The purpose of my remarks was to point out how stupid you are when it comes to biblical history and theology, and that you should recuse yourself from such discussions until you educate yourself.
Then you agree with me, pretty explicitly.
Well proving me correct seems a rather poor way to go about that.
Why?
Literally by your own admission, my point and the conclusions I drew from what I know is correct.
I had no problem with that point. I had a problem with these points:
You stating that the bible was originally written in Latin.
You stating that all English bibles come from a single source.
You stating that the existence of four separate gospels indicates that they are not the Word of God.
Various other minor fallacies and misconceptions.
You explicitly agreed that those "minor fallacies and misconceptions" are immaterial to the point I was making and that I was still right.
So great job, You have managed to directly contradict Christ's teaching on judgement.
Yeah, they are the word of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Who If you hadn't noticed, are humans.
Literally the reason for having 4 different tellings of the same story is because human retelling of divine truths is imperfect.