Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Athene]

Grow the hell up.

The case has been made, and the answers have been provided to you repeatedly.

You respond to the facts that are presented to you by essentially saying "Nuh-uh!" and rescripting your so-called challenges, so that it appears as if the terms aren't being met. This little ruse of yours is dishonest, immature, and completely unimaginative....which in turn, makes it transparent as hell. 

Pretty disgusting, actually.

Wow. Very emotionally flamboyant. If I were an atheist, I would be immediately convinced by your theatrical rhetoric.

But sadly I'm not.

Do you have a clear conception of what my "challenge" in fact is?

I know that it's 'evolved' throughout your threads. When you're provided with examples or evidence you simply restate your question/challenge with additional caveats.

I first answered your question weeks ago, as it was posed in one of it's earlier stages.

[Ravenshire]

I know that it's 'evolved' throughout your threads. When you're provided with examples or evidence you simply restate your question/challenge with additional caveats.

I first answered your question weeks ago, as it was posed in one of it's earlier stages.

Delicate arguing a point:

[Delicate]

Wow. Very emotionally flamboyant. If I were an atheist, I would be immediately convinced by your theatrical rhetoric.

But sadly I'm not.

Do you have a clear conception of what my "challenge" in fact is?

I know that it's 'evolved' throughout your threads. When you're provided with examples or evidence you simply restate your question/challenge with additional caveats.

I first answered your question weeks ago, as it was posed in one of it's earlier stages.

Granted. Perhaps I did adjust my challenge as I thought about the issue further. 

Which particular adjustment was unjustified?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, you've imagined you've met my three criteria. You've imagined I'm dishonest simply because I don't agree with you.

Are you capable of imagining I'm throwing a tantrum?

Sure, why not. Keep imagining.

When you get back to reality, remind yourself that you tried to tell me that a diverging view that amounts to  0.00009 % of groups counts as widespread. 

That way we can both laugh together.

Widespread indeed.

You have a short memory.  We've discussed three christian schisms, and within those three schisms, two different sub-sects.  For reference...and to help the forgetful...we've discussed catholics, protestants, and a specific type of methodist, individually.  These three groups can't agree on this item - which you've agreed is core..  These three groups, alone,  account for -slightly- more than .00009% of christians......  Just the first two, who disagree with each other on this an of course , other, items.... account for roughly 2 billion people (or so those organizations claim).  Yes...widespread, indeed.

Why is this a problem for you...I don't understand?  You can't defend your faith or your claims against reality...and there's no need to.....since reality is simply telling us that christianity is as diverse as those who follow it.....  If I were your pastor, I'd be disappointed.  You've done nothing in this thread except for disrespecting the faith and the body of the faithful.  The road you're on doesn't lead to grace.  Now, I may not believe in grace, but you do...so it's something to think about.

[Whateverist]

Left...right.....left, Joe.

When you're done throwing a tantrum I'll still be here, still giving you what you claim to require, still exposing the weakness of your personal faith.

Well, you've imagined you've met my three criteria. You've imagined I'm dishonest simply because I don't agree with you.

Are you capable of imagining I'm throwing a tantrum?

Sure, why not. Keep imagining.

Hey, who are you to question Rhythm?  I'll bet you don't even know the true name of God.  Poser.

[Athene]

I know that it's 'evolved' throughout your threads. When you're provided with examples or evidence you simply restate your question/challenge with additional caveats.

I first answered your question weeks ago, as it was posed in one of it's earlier stages.

Granted. Perhaps I did adjust my challenge as I thought about the issue further. 

Which particular adjustment was unjustified?

It's not a matter of a particular adjustment being justified or unjustified. It's a matter of you creating an unfair scenario in which you can never be demonstrated to be incorrect. 

The general tone of your posts suggests that it's being done deliberately.

[Delicate]

Well, you've imagined you've met my three criteria. You've imagined I'm dishonest simply because I don't agree with you.

Are you capable of imagining I'm throwing a tantrum?

Sure, why not. Keep imagining.

When you get back to reality, remind yourself that you tried to tell me that a diverging view that amounts to  0.00009 % of groups counts as widespread. 

That way we can both laugh together.

Widespread indeed.

You have a short memory.  We've discussed three christian schisms, and within those three schisms, two different sub-sects.  For reference...and to help the forgetful...we've discussed catholics, protestants, and a specific type of methodist, individually.  These three groups can't agree on this item - which you've agreed is core..  These three groups, alone,  account for -slightly- more than .00009% of christians......  Just the first two, who disagree with each other on this an of course , other, items.... account for roughly 2 billion people (or so those organizations claim).  Yes...widespread, indeed.

Why is this a problem for you...I don't understand?  You can't defend your faith or your claims against reality...and there's no need to.....since reality is simply telling us that christianity is as diverse as those who follow it.....  If I were your pastor, I'd be disappointed.  You've done nothing in this thread except for disrespecting the faith and the body of the faithful.  The road you're on doesn't lead to grace.  Now, I may not believe in grace, but you do...so it's something to think about.

Are you sure you're remembering things correctly? 

What is the relevant difference between Catholics and Protestants on baptism that is not a matter of preference or practice?

[WinterHold]

The question is "which version is identical" ? I put forth this claim once since it's very logical : at which point, did the bible became "unified" and so "spread" ?

In other words; the parts which are scattered left and right and found identical might not actually be the "real thing". The real book was gone long ago, and all is left, is the madness & forgery of corrupted Roman monks. The book is so full of nonsense, because the real religion got to be suppressed by the government of that time (i.e Rome).

Actually the same takes place with Islam now, but nobody forged the Quran itself; they use the "Hadith" to ruin the faith (another source of ambiguous texts which doesn't make any sense).

History repeats itself, but can you trust dates ? did Jesus really showed up 2000 years ago, or is it before that ?
History is written by the victors, and Rome was the victor. The bible of today is the Roman version..

That's why God sent Mohammed peace be upon him anyways. One who trusts history, is the same person who shed a blind eye on the "dark side" of humanity. Humans love to lie & forge after all, to turn things into their favor.

[GrandizerII]

The Bible is not really a book. It's a collection of books.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you sure you're remembering things correctly? 

What is the relevant difference between Catholics and Protestants on baptism that is not a matter of preference or practice?

Already been covered, I won't be repeating myself.  Are you done?