On Apr 1, 7:10 pm, "benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 12:41 am, pearl <lilw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 11:08 am, "benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 1, 10:50 pm, pearl <lilw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 1, 12:51 am, "benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <benli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrot=
e:
> > ..
> > > > > "The Bible" is the canon of presently accepted texts. Other
ancien=
t
> > > > > texts may be considered sacred by various people, but that does
no=
t
> > > > > make them "another Bible". Even if Ouseley's vegetarian gospel
is
> > > > > authentically ancient, it is still not "another Bible".
>
> > > > It is. See definition 'd'..
>
> > > > Bi=B7ble
> > > > n.
> > > > 1. a. The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of
> > > > ancient writings including the books of both the Old
> > > > Testament and the New Testament.
> > > > b. The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.
> > > > c. A particular copy of a Bible: the old family Bible.
> > > > d. A book or collection of writings constituting the
> > > > sacred text of a religion.
> > > > ..
> > > > [Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin biblia,
> > > > from Greek, pl. of biblion, book, from Bublos, Byblos.]
> > > > ..'http://www.answers.com/bible&r=3D67
>
> > > Yes, I thought in the end you would probably resort to this cheap
> > > dodge.
>
> > LOL! Posting the accepted definition of a word under dispute
> > is now "a cheap dodge".
>
> No, appealing to the fourth in a list of four senses -- the one that
> effectively uses "bible" to mean "any book people consider im****tant"
d. A book or collection of writings constituting the
sacred text of a religion.
> -- is a cheap dodge to cover tripurant's ignorance.
It exposes your ignorance. You should have consulted
a dictionary yourself as you condescendingly suggested
to Trip when he politely asked you for your definition.
You have wrongly claimed that no other ancient text may
be considered a "Bible". That aside, seeing the GOTHT
as another version or original of the NT makes referring
to this book as "another Bible" perfectly acceptable, and
far from ignorance, it reveals education and knowledge.
> > > "Bible" =3D "sacred book", ho hum. Like "I'm really into ancient
> > > mysteries -- The DaVinci Code is my bible".
>
> > There's your "cheap dodge".
>
> This is as much an "accepted definition" as yours.
That's nice.
=2E.
> > > he says
> > > "Aha! another bible says...." Turns out all he means is "something
I
> > > read on a web site somewhere says...".
>
> > No. The issue was discussed not that long ago.
> > The passage he's referred to was posted by me.
>
> > I've been researching the whole topic for years.
>
> Whether he got it from you or some web site does not alter the case.
Getting it in the context of rational discussion does.
Besides, Trip has told us why he finds it credible.
> > > And since it is a well known
> > > principle that anything on a web site is likely to be held sacred by
> > > some group of loons somewhere, voila! it's a bible!
>
> > By their fruits ye shall know them. It *is* a "bible".
>
> So what are its fruits??
You'll have to study this for yourself to find that out.
|
