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

[Athene]

"Seriously Delicate, where are atoms? Why can't I see them?"

Is that supposed to be an answer?

Or just more of the subterfuge tinged with sarcasm that you're so well known for?

[Delicate]

"Seriously Delicate, where are atoms? Why can't I see them?"

Seriously, delicate, we can see them.   Pull the bible out of your cunt, flush it down the toilet, and read a physics text.

If you actually understood physics, you'd know you can't see atoms at all.

[Redbeard The Pink]

"Seriously Delicate, where are atoms? Why can't I see them?"

Because you're not using an electron microscope, dipshit. The electric fields generated by atoms become visible on an electron microscope. Unfortunately for you, there is no such instrument that reveals Gaud's existence. Try again.

[Delicate]

"Seriously Delicate, where are atoms? Why can't I see them?"

Is that supposed to be an answer?

Or just more of the subterfuge tinged with sarcasm that you're so well known for?

It's an acknowledgement that the question is not asked by an intellectually honest person.

Were you looking for a substantive answer?

[Athene]

It's an acknowledgement that the question is not asked by an intellectually honest person.

Delicate....are you shitting me? 
You are the least intellectually honest theist I've ever witnessed here. 
Bar none.

[Aractus]

Aractus

I never get sick from reminding people, that dates hold no true value.

Yes, parts of the bible and talmud are true, according to the Quran.
The forging touched many of it, that's the main reason why the Quran was descended anyways..

Revising the archaeological evidence, will never bring the dead back to testify. The body of Jesus was never found, and unlike Mohammed, even his tomb isn't known.

Until then,Aractus, the archaeological evidence is based on "copies" of the bible and the Torah, and until then that dates can never be trusted when it comes to the original versions.

That claim simply is not true. I've explained this to you repeatedly. You are not entitled to invent your own facts, and ignore solid evidence from modern academics.

I am not making the claim that the Bible is true. I'm simply explaining to you that your claim that the text of the bible is corrupted and not what was originally written down is FALSE.

As for your claim that we don't have the originals - so what? We don't have an original of a single Shakespearian play either. We don't have the original autograph of the Qur'an either.

We lost the body of Ned Kelly for over 100 years, it was only recently re-discovered - and he died less than 150 years ago.

We don't need a body of an ancient person to demonstrate that they existed. Even if you were to find his actual remains, you may not know you've found them - or it may be contested (as with the James Ossuary).

[Thumpalumpacus]

B

Your requirement for evidence here  is a striking example of a double-standard.

I find atheists to be fantastic asserters of claims, but terrible supporters of said claims.

Yours is a classic example. Confident assertion, no support. In other words, no explanation of why an intelligent person would believe you.

My apologies; I had assumed you were insightful enough the garner the inference laid before you.

My point, since you so obviously missed it, is that you natter on about evidence, all the.while believing in a deity in the absence of evidence.

Let me know if you need any more help understanding what I'm saying.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, your ignorance of electron microscopes is not only funny as hell ... it's also par for the course.

You get less and less impressive with every post. And you didn't have a large reserve to begin with.

[Delicate]

B

I find atheists to be fantastic asserters of claims, but terrible supporters of said claims.

Yours is a classic example. Confident assertion, no support. In other words, no explanation of why an intelligent person would believe you.

My apologies; I had assumed you were insightful enough the garner the inference laid before you.

My point, since you so obviously missed it, is that you matter on about evidence, all the.while believing in a deity in the absence of evidence.

Let me know if you need any more help understanding what I'm saying.

I need your help.

How does jumping from one assertion to another help your case?

Your "believing in a deity in the absence of evidence" is itself an unsupported assertion.

Not a single atheist has yet to show me where they have refuted any argument or evidence for God. And yet they believe, in blind faith, that there is no evidence.

This blind faith makes atheism look like a religion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

B

My apologies; I had assumed you were insightful enough the garner the inference laid before you.

My point, since you so obviously missed it, is that you matter on about evidence, all the.while believing in a deity in the absence of evidence.

Let me know if you need any more help understanding what I'm saying.

I need your help.

How does jumping from one assertion to another help your case?

Your "believing in a deity in the absence of evidence" is itself an unsupported assertion.

Not a single atheist has yet to show me where they have refuted any argument or evidence for God. And yet they believe, in blind faith, that there is no evidence.

This blind faith makes atheism look like a religion.

You haven't presented any evidence, remember?