Why Translation and Context Matters
Yesterday I pointed out that at least one of the "errors" in the Bible on Rook's list is only an error if you translate the Hebrew text a certain way, and you take the verse in question out of context. I am not some hick from the Bible Belt. I attended an acredited university where I took Biblical criticism classes, with professors who follow the Documentary Hypothesis. None of them would even dare to use the slipshod methods you use Rook. They would be laughed out of the profession in a heartbeat. You are as moronic as the KJV absolutists, taking a poor translation and not even bothering to learn the Hebrew necessary to critically examine the text. Your defenders are even worse, because I doubt they've ever actually read the Bible, in any translation. Rather than concede the point they change the topic. When Kirk Cameron does this you cry foul, but apparently you are allowed to do this. Why? Because you know the "Truth", and I'm a benighted fool. That's a logical fallacy by the way. So do you have a real answer for me? Or will you continue to dodge?
Twenty Questions for Jewish Atheists: