Theism vs Atheism...IN PICTURES!

[sdifox]

 

[Nik]

Well, i don't really want to win this game of indoctrination in "supposed truth" so ok.

You do realise that the KJV and the NIV are the only two versions used today apart from those who have added more like Mormons, right?

There's no .jpg big enough to facepalm your post with. Those are not the only two used. I like how you speak for everyone in the world, though.

 

[HumblePie]

Well, i don't really want to win this game of indoctrination in "supposed truth" so ok.

You do realise that the KJV and the NIV are the only two versions used today apart from those who have added more like Mormons, right?

Don't even bring that up. I did and he said stupidily, they aren't Christians, that's why they call themselves mormons.

He forgot a bit of history before realizing they called themselves the Later Day Saints of Jesus Christ and it was other people that called them Mormons as a derogatory term based on one of their books. They just embraced the derogatory term instead of rejecting it. I didn't bother to point that out to him in the other thread because he seems to be full of himself in his own mind as the master of authority on all things in the bible, including dubious bits of human anatomy.

 

[sdifox]

 

[Nik]

Don't even bring that up. I did and he said stupidily, they aren't Christians, that's why they call themselves mormons.

Uh, what did I say? When? Quote me, liar. You're just making shit up now.

Besides, We're not talking about the book of mormon, we're talking about the Bible.

He forgot a bit of history before realizing they called themselves the Later Day Saints of Jesus Christ and it was other people that called them Mormons as a derogatory term based on one of their books. They just embraced the derogatory term instead of rejecting it. I didn't bother to point that out to him in the other thread because he seems to be full of himself in his own mind as the master of authority on all things in the bible, including dubious bits of human anatomy.

Wow, you're off the deep end.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The earth was believed to be flat. A common belief was that the earth was a flat and round disk. The bible explicitly says round, so I don't know why anyone would think it's square. It was also a popular belief that the earth had a dome covering it, the sky was blue because outer space was full of water, and rain was when water leaked through the firmament.

I actually like this idea because they at least attempted to explain things that they saw. The sky looks kinda similar to tropical water, so I guess the sky is water. It doesn't fall down because there must be glass or something holding it out. Sometimes water falls from the sky, so maybe the dome is leaking.

It's from the KJV and NIV, the ESV, the NASB, the AKJV, the ASV, the BIBE, the DRV, the DBT, the ERV, the WBT, all other versions do not mention four corners of the world in Isaiah 11:12. All other versions means rewritten versions of any one of the above.

 

[sdifox]

 

[Nik]

It's from the KJV and NIV, the ESV, the NASB, the AKJV, the ASV, the BIBE, the DRV, the DBT, the ERV, the WBT, all other versions do not mention four corners of the world in Isaiah 11:12. All other versions means rewritten versions of any one of the above.

KJV and NIV are not original versions, so what's the difference between those two and any other "rewritten" bible that you mentioned (finally). They're still not the original language and do not carry the same potential meanings and insinuations from the original.

 

[sdifox]

 

[sdifox]

 

[Nik]

This isn't true. Even Christians aren't stupid enough to say that dinos aren't real.

 

[sdifox]

 

[HumblePie]

Ahh, simple mix up, it was from Malak, when you had posted next to him.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

There's no .jpg big enough to facepalm your post with. Those are not the only two used. I like how you speak for everyone in the world, though.

Well the KJV and NIV, the ESV, the NASB, the AKJV, the ASV, the BIBE, the DRV, the DBT, the ERV, the WBT are all based on the KJV or the NIV.

There are others, but they are later additions than those and they are still based on the KJV and NIV they change some wording like "the ends of the world" but it still basically means the same thing.

You shouldn't assume that i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm fairly sure that anyone who has gone through seminars know less about the actual texts than someone who has studied them without the bias of seminars.

 

[sdifox]

 

[Nik]

Ahh, simple mix up, it was from Malak, when you had posted next to him.

Understandable. My apologies for biting your head off (but you can't have it back yet)

 

[sdifox]

 

[Nik]

Well the KJV and NIV, the ESV, the NASB, the AKJV, the ASV, the BIBE, the DRV, the DBT, the ERV, the WBT are all based on the KJV or the NIV.

There are others, but they are later additions than those and they are still based on the KJV and NIV they change some wording like "the ends of the world" but it still basically means the same thing.

You shouldn't assume that i don't know what i'm talking about, i'm fairly sure that anyone who has gone through seminars know less about the actual texts than someone who has studied them without the bias of seminars.

NIV and KJV are all based on the original writings. There are others, but they basically mean the same thing.

See? I can do it for those two as well.

Who said anything about seminars? I went to school for this shit, holmes.

 

[sdifox]

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

KJV and NIV are not original versions, so what's the difference between those two and any other "rewritten" bible that you mentioned (finally). They're still not the original language and do not carry the same potential meanings and insinuations from the original.

You mean to say that the Hebrew texts are different in this text than the original never found Hebrew texts? Or the Arameic text which is a rewritten version? Or the Greek version as interpreted, added, edited, removed from, or the latin version as interpreted, added, edited removed from?

You are very welcome to present the original Hebrew text if you have it, no one else does.

 

[sdifox]

 

[Nik]

You mean to say that the Hebrew texts are different in this text than the original never found Hebrew texts? Or the Arameic text which is a rewritten version? Or the Greek version as interpreted, added, edited, removed from, or the latin version as interpreted, added, edited removed from?

You are very welcome to present the original Hebrew text if you have it, no one else does.

Ah, I get it. I didn't see it until now, but you're just trolling and being stupid on purpose. Okay, I can roll with that.

 

[destrekor]

This isn't true. Even Christians aren't stupid enough to say that dinos aren't real.

Yet many believe man walked with dinos. The dinosaurs also aren't nearly as old as science claims they are, thus carbon dating is a hoax.

 

[sdifox]

 

[Nik]

Yet many believe man walked with dinos. The dinosaurs also aren't nearly as old as science claims they are, thus carbon dating is a hoax.

Yep, heard it all. Kinda funny, isn't it