[I ♥ Jehovah Shalom!]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

Really? Well, that's funny...

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christianity). I'll let someone who appears to understand this more explain (xHolyValorx)...






I fail to see how a website, usually with citations to various articles, books or other websites, written anonymously yet recent is unreliable, yet a 2000+ year old book full of contradictions (if you wish, I'll post tons of contradictions to show this is true), written anonymously and with lots of ambiguity is reliable. Do you know what the definition of reliability is? If not, then you'll learn a new term:

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reliability).

Now, knowing what it means, if several people wish to look the same thing up on wikipedia and interpret it, it's fairly good. However, pick random parts of the bible and have various people analyze it, and they get different results. I'm not going to go into all the forms of testing for reliability, however, what I stated is an accepted method in scientific literature. According to the accepted scientific definition of reliability, the bible is among the least reliable things.



I recognize that smell of hypocrisy...

That seems to apply to all theories, not simply the Big Bang Theory, so thank you for being a hypocrite, much appreciated.

Nope, I'm not a hypocrite. You don't understand what I'm thinking and what I write don't really match up so what I write is always what I mean. Idc if you think that. And I know it doesn't have contradictions, but dude think what you think. Does it look like I really care what anyone else thinks about me or what I believe.. Mmm, no not really cuz you guys don't know me. Not a hypocrite, I know what truth is and yes wikipedia is unreliable b/c ppl can edit it.