Mysteries of the Bible

"Imperfect" telling "Perfect" what is a contradiction?How can I possibly "Imperfect" if something "Perfect" made me?Of course ain't I perfect by definition?... Well, your logic is not all that perfect... wasn't it given to you perfectly from the bible?Ok... In all creation there are how many "Perfect" things made by this "Perfect" creator?... can _ANYONE_ name _ANYTHING_ perfect _ANYWHERE_...?!?!?
Humans, born with male and female organs, born HOMOSEXUAL, born with tails like apes, born hairy like apes, born with webbed feet, or 6 toes, born near sighted or farsighted or BLIND, born conjoined or usually _NOT BORN AT ALL_!!! (aka dead)... these creatures with belly buttons and spewing BS from not only their front but from their rears were created in _GOD'S_? image and should be where you can start to explain to everyone... what? where? when? or how? anything was ever PERFECT that this PERFECT creator ever created?...Not even Jesus was ever perfect as even he was susceptible to temptation and although never succumbed, he did have the doubt, regardless of how slight it was.Meanwhile, the bible if handed down to _MAN_ was still passed from _MAN_ to _MAN_ for thousands of years before we ever saw the old testaments written down.... and for dozens of years after everybody died before we also say anything to do with Jesus and the new testament also handed off from _MAN_ to _MAN_ before anything was ever written down -- we have countless retelling and biases and emblishments that even _YOU_ can find contradictions in... Even after some stuff was eventually written down it still took another 300 years before everything was "PERFECTLY" complied in to what you think you know as the bible and then after a couple of hundred more years it was translated into a more modern language you may even possibly be familiar with..So find me something perfect anywhere and I'll give you a gold star.

There are NO examples of _anything_ the original diatribe (Ian H...). Where as I found that NG had a sufficient amount of evidence (even if you might continue argue it was biased), whereas I didn't find any evidence in your commentary depicting any example where NG was biased. Meanwhile NG had numerous quotes and examples and probably many other "lies".P.S. if people want to continue to argue about "ALMA", although some many think it means "Virgin" and others could properly argue it may mean "adulterous woman", to which someone could try to argue that Solomon was being "sarcastic" or using artistic license when talking about slutty "Alma"... there is just as much evidence to suggest the third stance, and that Matthew was the one being sarcastic and using "ALMA" with the meaning that Solomon used originally, so that that "ALMA" was a reference to Mary as an "adulterous woman"! To take "ALMA" out of context, then that would be the other extreme and Mary was an "Adulterous Woman" which makes more sense not in a 1/999999999 biblical context, but in a 100.0000% non-biblical normal context explaining how a woman who may be virgin actually got pregnant.If two people want to argue and there is no clear evidence then either proposition could be valid... but the actual evidence sides with "stan starobin", good job there on his part, so my extreme opposite example is unnecessary.