XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: sam@spade.invalid   
      
   None  wrote:   
   > On Sep 13, 2025, Samuel Spade wrote   
   > (Message-ID:<5njcck575u9snon751caietialq248r13j@4ax.com>):   
   >   
   > > None   wrote:   
   > > > On Sep 13, 2025, Samuel Spade wrote   
   > > > (Message-ID:):   
   > > >   
   > > > > None   wrote:   
   > > > > > On Sep 13, 2025, Attila wrote   
   > > > > > (Message-ID:<3bkbckt2n02g98v0ojfg82n636bajq4q1i@4ax.com>):   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > > On Sat, 13 Sep 2025 12:21:10 -0700, None  in   
   > > > > > > alt.atheism with message-id<10a4g76$krjv$3@dont-email.me>   
   > > > > > > wrote:   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 2025, Kenito Benito wrote   
   > > > > > > > (Message-ID:):   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > Can you cite the peer reviewed evidence, or any actual   
   evidence,   
   > > > > > > > > that the Garden of Eden ever existed, and that is where man was   
   > > > > > > > > created? If not, you're just gullible, according to your own   
   > > > > > > > > standards.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > LOL, everything in the Bible is peer reviewed.   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > By who? Where?   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > By its peers wherever they dwelt or currently dwell.   
   > > > > > Its peers are peers, just like peers in psychology fields need to be   
   peers   
   > > > > > of   
   > > > > > the respective fields in order to understand what was written.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > The Bible's peers are established characters like the Quran, the   
   > > > > Bhagavad Gita, and "Dianetics". They blessed the Holy Scripture and   
   > > > > stamped it with their Impramatur.   
   > > >   
   > > > Wrong, spoken from total ignorance. Like a chemist peer reviewing   
   astronomy.   
   > >   
   > > Then you tell me, who are the Bible's peers?   
   >   
   > Every book in the OT was peer reviewed for over 1,000 years initially by the   
   > tribe of Levites as well as all the prophets and has been reviewed since by   
   > the peoples of God.   
      
   The older books of the OT were passed orally for centuries before being   
   written down.  None of the OT was written down before the 10th century   
   BCE at the earliest. Most of it was written during or after the   
   Babylonian exile.  The Torah didn't reach its final form until that   
   time.   
      
   Everything in the OT is anonymous.   
      
   > The NT followed after it being peer reviewed by the Disciples, Apostles, as   
   > well as many others who have been Born Again.   
      
   Yes, the NT was reviewed and revised before the books were widely   
   circulated, by anonymous authors and anonymous editors.  The Gospels   
   were written to conform with earlier prophecies like Isaiah and Daniel.   
   Virgin birth, Bethleham, crucifixion, and many other modifications were   
   made to support the messianic narrative.   
      
   Then everything was rearranged again at the Council of Nicea in the 4th   
   century.   
      
   I'm sure you will recoil at this information.  No matter.  Modern   
   scholars know more about it than you.  You will keep your opinions,   
   while others have their own.   
      
      
   > > And how did they review it?   
   >   
   > By reading, studying, and revelation from God, having also lived the life,   
   > practiced and proved that what it spoke was right and proper, as well as   
   > truthful when applied as God determined in His Word to men.   
   >   
   > Something that many pagans and theologians argue, discount, and oppose, since   
   > they cannot understand it, nor do they practice of live it according to Gods   
   > manual for life.   
   >   
   > Sort of like you who try to determine what is science and what isn’t who   
   > are lacking in the training and understanding of sciences.   
      
   The irony is that you can't follow a discussion of science.   
      
   Science is well defined. Atheists don't have a vested interest in   
   redefining it, as creationists often try to do.   
      
      
   > > > Why not get a least some rudimentary training about these things, the   
   > > > similarities and the differences, and I am not speaking of a shallow   
   > > > understanding either.   
   > >   
   > > What I need is some training in understanding Robertspeak.   
   > >   
   > > > > Who knew the bible was brought to you by pagans?   
   > > >   
   > > > the Holy Bible was brought to man by the Holy Spirit of God, as spoken to   
   > > > man.   
   > >   
   > > No it wasn't.   
   >   
   > There, ;) full out evidence of what I wrote above.   
      
   The Holy Spirit, and divinely inspired scripture, are minority beliefs.   
   No one needs to accept your word on it.   
      
      
   > > > He will interpret it to those who believe in Jesus Christ.   
   > >   
   > > Here's the old "you have to believe before you can believe it" spin.   
   >   
   > You have to have faith/confidence in order to believe.   
      
   No you don't.  Belief comes thru evidence... for balanced minds.   
   Others will believe whatever they prefer.   
      
      
   >  That is why you cannot   
   > comprehend and make up your own understanding to cover your ignorance,   
   > pretending to be wiser, yet you do not know the rudiments.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > That's what I would say too if I were trying to sell a fake religion.   
   >   
   > And so you do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)