Because it has nothing to do with the errors I mentioned previously, all of which are directly tied to my original comment pointing out that you didn’t even know what language the bible was originally written in.
Because it has nothing to do with the errors I mentioned previously, all of which are directly tied to my original comment pointing out that you didn’t even know what language the bible was originally written in.
Which is immaterial, as the point I was making is "it wasn't english"
You even agreed explicitly.
Moreso, you directly confirmed that the conclusions I was drawing from my wide strokes was totally correct.
It doesn't matter if the original language was Klingon for all the difference it makes to my argument.
Why have you spent so much time studying the bible and religion if you care about facts rather than faith?
It seems like a huge waste of time to spend so much effort learning something like that just to ignore the central teachings of christ.
It doesn’t matter if it is ‘immaterial’. It’s still wrong and demonstrates ignorance. My point is that you are ignorant of hermeneutics and I have made my case. You can take this as a sign to learn something, or you can continue to be ignorant of the subject, but nothing you say can ever change the fact that you said things that were simply wrong.
That's exactly what immaterial means. For someone making such a big stink about ignorance you should know this.
My point is that you are ignorant of hermeneutics
nope, I am trivially incorrect about hermeneutics.
Literally by your own admission my error is meaningless. The only thing if affects is my specific knowledge of hermeneutics, which isn't important in the slightest.
And you willingly admitted that I drew the correct conclusions even with these "errors". So what do they matter?
but nothing you say can ever change the fact that you said things that were simply wrong.
I'm not simply wrong tho. I'm trivially wrong. You have to seize on a detail that is totally irrelevant to the discussion and try to make it the entire discussion or you have nothing. And you know it which is why you are so desperate to make the argument about some pedantic minuscule part of hermanuetics.
Hows this for a startling example of ignorance.
I know a person who has dedicated a substantial amount of time to the study of the methodology and interpretation of biblical texts but somehow missed the part about "love thy neighbor" and "judge not lest ye be judged"
You agreed I was right.
You agreed the conclusions I drew were correct
Why do you think this is immaterial?
Because it has nothing to do with the errors I mentioned previously, all of which are directly tied to my original comment pointing out that you didn’t even know what language the bible was originally written in.
Which is immaterial, as the point I was making is "it wasn't english"
You even agreed explicitly.
Moreso, you directly confirmed that the conclusions I was drawing from my wide strokes was totally correct.
It doesn't matter if the original language was Klingon for all the difference it makes to my argument.
Why have you spent so much time studying the bible and religion if you care about facts rather than faith?
It seems like a huge waste of time to spend so much effort learning something like that just to ignore the central teachings of christ.
It doesn’t matter if it is ‘immaterial’. It’s still wrong and demonstrates ignorance. My point is that you are ignorant of hermeneutics and I have made my case. You can take this as a sign to learn something, or you can continue to be ignorant of the subject, but nothing you say can ever change the fact that you said things that were simply wrong.
That's exactly what immaterial means. For someone making such a big stink about ignorance you should know this.
nope, I am trivially incorrect about hermeneutics.
Literally by your own admission my error is meaningless. The only thing if affects is my specific knowledge of hermeneutics, which isn't important in the slightest.
And you willingly admitted that I drew the correct conclusions even with these "errors". So what do they matter?
I'm not simply wrong tho. I'm trivially wrong. You have to seize on a detail that is totally irrelevant to the discussion and try to make it the entire discussion or you have nothing. And you know it which is why you are so desperate to make the argument about some pedantic minuscule part of hermanuetics.
Hows this for a startling example of ignorance.
I know a person who has dedicated a substantial amount of time to the study of the methodology and interpretation of biblical texts but somehow missed the part about "love thy neighbor" and "judge not lest ye be judged"