One question for Christians

[Drich]

Oh, for fuck's...

indeed.

Maelstrom already had it, in that I didn't mention readers, but there's also this: whether the bible is a literal account of history or not, it was still written to be read by someone, whether that someone is a worhsiper or a preacher;

Maelstrom and you are both lost.
The bible did not come around for till about 300 years after Christianity had already been established. The reason it was brough around was because there were too many different version of Christianity. We were making the same mistakes 300 years after the first church had already made them.
But, what you two seem oblivious to is that the church was, before the written story was.

the bible is a tool like any other. It's much easier to speak on something pre-prepared, after all.

So what did they do the 300 or so years before the bible was compiled?

Another fun little consequence of your thinking; your god commissioned his holy word, knowing that the majority of the people in the era in which it would be created, the crucible of its spread as a moral truth throughout the world, that the messengers of this one true word of god would be unable to read it. Right? Because the bible was written in a time of majority illiteracy and, according to you, the only thing that matters are the number of people capable of reading it?

EXACTLY!!! I can almost hear your hamster turning in the wheel.
That is why there was such a strong dependancy on the oral tradition for the first 300 years. You all point to the 300 year gap as some sort of comfirmation that the bible could not be reliable, or has been changed. when in fact the gap points the truth that because the people were illterate the church did not have any need to record events as we do now. That when the oral traditions were in place the written word was considered to be unreliable as anyone could write anything and no one could hold them to account, not to mention readings were also scrutinized as the oritor could be making things up.

And all this, this wonderful exposure of your idiocy,

skips over the part where you missed my point entirely from the beginning; whatever we might think about the things in the bible, you do agree with me that it was written, right?

The bible is made of words, correct? Because that seems to be the thing you're disagreeing with me on; I was critiquing the bible's logical and literary merit, and your response was "pfft, people couldn't read back then!"

What the fuck are you even talking about?

Do you need me to explain further?