> I’m going to respectfully decline this offer because I’m not really in the mood to risk another argument on another topic.
lol!
> Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out.
> I didn’t say the Bible lacked any female accounts.
It looks like I'm doing a better job than yourself of keeping track of what you've said.
> Book editors generally work in conjunction with the author
Generally? That's a "wildly off" assumption
> I take it from that is that you don’t see an issue with reading a reinterpretation that happened without the authors input?
A "reinterpretation"? That's not what a book editor does.
> Putting aside questions about the truth behind Bible specifically, can I assume from your comment that you view non-fiction works as a dramatisation too?
Drama, by definition is a specific type of fiction. So how can non-fiction works be dramatized and remain non-fiction? And just because something is non-fiction does not make it the absolute truth. We all have perception filters and imperfect memories so seeking that kind of intimacy with a books author through their work is a futile exercise. A book is a one-to-many communications medium, not a face to face communication. And everyone derives their own version of the truth from the same book. Even if Mary miraculously appeared and told you her story, if you asked her about it again one year later many of the details will have changed! Long story short: that absolute truth you seek does not exist.
> A "reinterpretation"? That's not what a book editor does.
I know! You’re the one that made the stupid argument about book editors and I told you at the time that wasn’t what a book editor did.
> Drama, by definition is a specific type of fiction. So how can non-fiction works be dramatized and remain non-fiction?
You say that and then go on to say absolute truth doesn’t exist and if you ask people the same question twice you get a different version of the truth. Literally contradicting your opening sentence.
> It looks like I'm doing a better job than yourself of keeping track of what you've said.
You’re either incredibly piss poor at reading comprehension or just trolling. I’m assuming the former given conversing with you has been like trying to hold a debate with someone who’s suffering from severe mental trauma. You repeatedly contradict yourself (sometimes in the same post), build up entire arguments around some subtext you’ve derived and then refuse to move past that even when it’s pointed out that you’re completely in the wrong.
Either way, this could have been an interesting discussion where you presented why you might recommend the Bible but instead it’s been a frustrating affair of you demonstrating how some people are incapable or reading any form of texts.
With that in mind I’m going to terminate our conversation here because we are just going round in circles with yourself repeatedly missing the mark at every opportunity.
> You say that and then go on to say absolute truth doesn’t exist and if you ask people the same question twice you get a different version of the truth.
lol! Different accounts !== different versions of the truth. Once you've calmed down enough to think clearly, go and reflect on the term "absolute truth".
> You’re either incredibly piss poor at reading comprehension
> conversing with you has been like trying to hold a debate with someone who’s suffering from severe mental trauma
> some people are incapable or reading any form of texts
The insults are now flying fast and furious, all over the place, lol! I do agree with you on one thing though: this conversation is now over.
lol!
> Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out.
> I didn’t say the Bible lacked any female accounts.
It looks like I'm doing a better job than yourself of keeping track of what you've said.
> Book editors generally work in conjunction with the author
Generally? That's a "wildly off" assumption
> I take it from that is that you don’t see an issue with reading a reinterpretation that happened without the authors input?
A "reinterpretation"? That's not what a book editor does.
> Putting aside questions about the truth behind Bible specifically, can I assume from your comment that you view non-fiction works as a dramatisation too?
Drama, by definition is a specific type of fiction. So how can non-fiction works be dramatized and remain non-fiction? And just because something is non-fiction does not make it the absolute truth. We all have perception filters and imperfect memories so seeking that kind of intimacy with a books author through their work is a futile exercise. A book is a one-to-many communications medium, not a face to face communication. And everyone derives their own version of the truth from the same book. Even if Mary miraculously appeared and told you her story, if you asked her about it again one year later many of the details will have changed! Long story short: that absolute truth you seek does not exist.