Comments on: Blogging killed God, the Bible and single sources http://www.mulley.net/2007/12/25/blogging-killed-god-the-bible-and-single-sources/ Invisible people have invisible rights Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:16:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: criztu http://www.mulley.net/2007/12/25/blogging-killed-god-the-bible-and-single-sources/comment-page-1/#comment-920816 criztu Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:22:18 +0000 http://www.mulley.net/2007/12/25/blogging-killed-god-the-bible-and-single-sources/#comment-920816 "wikipedia - open knowledge resource" is advertising. "wikipedia - outlet for gangs of no lifers with money to donate in order to reign over a butchery of copy/pasted knowledge from google search results sites resource" is more realistic. “wikipedia – open knowledge resource” is advertising.
“wikipedia – outlet for gangs of no lifers with money to donate in order to reign over a butchery of copy/pasted knowledge from google search results sites resource” is more realistic.

]]> By: Ciaran Lee http://www.mulley.net/2007/12/25/blogging-killed-god-the-bible-and-single-sources/comment-page-1/#comment-514676 Ciaran Lee Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:20:49 +0000 http://www.mulley.net/2007/12/25/blogging-killed-god-the-bible-and-single-sources/#comment-514676 "doesn’t that mean the Bible and God herself are going to be cynically looked at?" I would hope that they would always be looked at cynically, unless there is some conclusive proof - which I'd say is fairly unlikely. “doesn’t that mean the Bible and God herself are going to be cynically looked at?”

I would hope that they would always be looked at cynically, unless there is some conclusive proof – which I’d say is fairly unlikely.

]]> By: Ralph Depping http://www.mulley.net/2007/12/25/blogging-killed-god-the-bible-and-single-sources/comment-page-1/#comment-514583 Ralph Depping Tue, 25 Dec 2007 17:14:27 +0000 http://www.mulley.net/2007/12/25/blogging-killed-god-the-bible-and-single-sources/#comment-514583 Not sure if I picked up your point correctly or not, but it's worth noting that the Bible is composed of 66 books, written over a period of 1600 years by about 40 different authors in 3 different languages and across a number of countries. I'm sure it stacks up well as a collabaritive effor and probably the only one that spans 16 centuries :-) Of course I'd still undsertand it to have a single ultimate source, as it claims to be directly inspired by God himself. Not sure if I picked up your point correctly or not, but it’s worth noting that the Bible is composed of 66 books, written over a period of 1600 years by about 40 different authors in 3 different languages and across a number of countries. I’m sure it stacks up well as a collabaritive effor and probably the only one that spans 16 centuries :-)
Of course I’d still undsertand it to have a single ultimate source, as it claims to be directly inspired by God himself.

]]>