I reluctantly answered a few of your questions and a couple of his but never even began to debate the other gentleman. Your attempt to promote yet another one of your prejudicial stereotypes about religious followers seems to be failing.
I am not here to convert people or prescribe for others what they should believe. My purpose is to counter inaccuracies people like you level against Christianity, to provide correct information, to show that there is a rational basis to investigate, trust and believe Christianity, and ultimately to pursue the truth wherever it leads. As a new member indicated elsewhere, the choice to accept Christianity ultimately requires a large degree of faith because the evidence is historical and not empirically testable in realtime. According to doctrine, this is intentional so it misses the point to complain about this reality.
So I will continue to elaborate on my viewpoints, I will correct errors and I will keep an open mind in pursuit of truth.
But you don't know the errors or the reality. you only know some apologetics. I find that you are not a Biblical scholar at all, but a part-time apologist for your religion - one that you have chosen for yourself after you found Catholicism in error.
You don't have the original text and it is HISTORICALLY PROVEN that errors have been introduced. All you can say is that the current Bible has been editted, in some churches, to reflect the oldest known manuscripts. Some bibles have NOT changed their text.
However, you gloss over this and say that it was "meant to be this way". Circular reasoning: "the Bible is true, and since its true it all makes sense, since it all makes sense we can trust it, and it says its true...."
