> Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out.

> My point was that the sincerity and authenticity of the Nee Testament is comprised because they withheld accounts.

You spoke only of one withheld account, that of Mary, and you said it was because of her gender.

And when you say it lacks authenticity, is it because it's a mans account? Meaning a mans account cannot be authentic in its own right.. it has to be balanced by someone else's account? Is this a court of law where two people (genders in your case) are fighting for I don't know what and both sides have to present their case to the jury/readers? Is this the test for authenticity.. that a female point of view must be included for it to be real?

> So while you’re free to disagree with me, please at least disagree with the actual argument I’ve made rather than creating these straw man arguments that even I wouldn’t agree with.

You are still saying the same thing: the bible is fake/"not authentic" because it was written by men.