RS <<It's really not relevant. I apologize for dragging the discussion into
that area when I should have been focusing on the real issue.>>
I would also add that you have not responded to the allegation that you simply
made something up to support your critique of the Bible--e.g., the "political
revisions" that somehow render the extant manuscripts unreliable.
This is not irrelevant. It demonstrates an unwillingness to face the facts,
and to make them up instead when you don't like the way things are going.
In a debate, this is a major blunder. I recall a televised debate a few years
ago during which William F. Buckley challenged New York Congressman Charles
Rangel to substantiate his claim about there being certain "treaties" that
established some trade practice or other (I forget the exact issue). Rangel
immediately named one, and it seemed to all that Buckley's challenge had been
met. Buckley looked a bit confused. It was easy to see why. The next day,
Buckely researched in vain to find this treaty Rangel mentioned. Turned out
there was no such treaty. Rangel had just made it up because he was cornered.
Buckley devoted one of his nationally syndicated columns to this incident. It
was important to point this out, lest any meaningful debate ever take place.
'Nuff said.
Jim