Useful URL's

[Steve]

[John] 6:70 Jesus chose "a devil" for an apostle. Oh well, everyone makes mistakes.
The "devil" Jesus is referring to in this passage is Judas Iscariot. This is just plain an example of failing to read in-context for the sake of nitpicking, since there HAD to be a betrayer (Judas) for the prophesy to be fulfilled.

So he did choose a devil for an apostle. You have failed to point out the mistake, just tried to make it look better.

He was pointing out that it wasn't a mistake in the first place. Jesus was supposed to choose a traitor.

And God could have just changed the "prophecy" so he did not have to choose a devil (Judas). You are committing the common fallacy of limiting your god.

How is it "limiting God"? Why would God change the prophecy? Explain these things, and how it is "limiting" God by saying he didn't change the prophecy when he could have, since an obvious variable is whether he would want to or not.

John wrote his Gospel close to the end of the 1st century, and it would have been useless for him to write down a "chapter and verse" which wouldn't yet exist for three more centuries.

And here I thought the Bible was timeless.

The most common version of the Bible today is the King James version, compiled by order of King James I of England (also King James IV of Scotland, this was in the time before they unified under the banner of the United Kingdom) in the early 17th Century. About, oh, sixteen hundred fucking years after the events that most of the New Testament refers to! Sixteen hundred years for writings to get lost or altered. And, to add more into it, it had been translated from Hebrew to Greek and Latin to other languages and English, and in translation you can lose more meaning in the text as the translators find the proper terms in the output language to relay with the input language material they would be using.

That is, of course, why the fundamentalist idea of "Biblical perfection" is a load of horseshit.

The Onion had a good article that lampooned on that. The Bible was written by desert dwellers, and about all it's good for is tell us what desert dwellers thought was "cool". It's completely valueless scientifically or morally.

Using the Onion to back up your argument shows just how weak and pathetic it is. The Onion is a fucking satire site, not a legitimate source. It'd be like, I dunno, Trekkies using the DITL or Fivers using the B5Tech website in vs. debates. Of course, the Onion doesn't pretend to be legitimate, so it's not as bad as DITL, B5Tech, trueorigins, and other such sites.

Answer my questions.