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"
Like I said, I’m simply pointing out where you are wrong. Whether something is ‘trivial’ or ‘immaterial’ or ‘irrelevant’ is not something I consider when I correct people.
Like I said, I’m simply pointing out where you are wrong
Like I said, you aren't tho.
What you are doing is pedantry because, let me reiterate, "where I was wrong" isn't material by your own admission.
Whether something is ‘trivial’ or ‘immaterial’ or ‘irrelevant’ is not something I consider when I correct people.
It really should be, its what separates a wise man from a pedant.
You have openly admitted that the detail I'm "wrong" on is trivial. It doesn't matter at all.
Why would I care about it? Why would anyone care about it?
The point is the bible is a flawed human work created by humans. Knowing the specific order of translations and adaptations is about as important as knowing how many languages Dianetics has been released in.
When did I admit that any of your errors were trivial? Do not put words in my mouth.
Your original argument is akin to arguing for the sky being blue because it reflects the color of the ocean. It’s so egregiously naïve that it demonstrates ignorance.
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"
Like I said, I’m simply pointing out where you are wrong. Whether something is ‘trivial’ or ‘immaterial’ or ‘irrelevant’ is not something I consider when I correct people.
Like I said, you aren't tho.
What you are doing is pedantry because, let me reiterate, "where I was wrong" isn't material by your own admission.
It really should be, its what separates a wise man from a pedant.
You have openly admitted that the detail I'm "wrong" on is trivial. It doesn't matter at all.
Why would I care about it? Why would anyone care about it?
The point is the bible is a flawed human work created by humans. Knowing the specific order of translations and adaptations is about as important as knowing how many languages Dianetics has been released in.
When did I admit that any of your errors were trivial? Do not put words in my mouth.
Your original argument is akin to arguing for the sky being blue because it reflects the color of the ocean. It’s so egregiously naïve that it demonstrates ignorance.
When you directly agreed that the point you are contesting doesn't change my argument.
You should remember this, you very explicitly pointed out that the bible was made by the church and cannot be used to disprove OEC.
Not at all, you tried this straw man before.
The bible wasn't originally in english, it doesn't matter if it was originally in klingon for all the difference it makes to my point.