TWD39 wrote:

4.   If the Bible is fiction, they should be finding artifacts which disprove the Bible.  Yet, discoveries are constantly being made which support the Bible. 

 

Why would you expect artifacts that disprove the bible? What artifacts could possibly exist that would disprove the bible? Even with a fiction book one could reasonably expect that many artifacts would be found that fit the storyline such as evidence of the same cities, landmarks, tools etc. Generally fiction authors base their stories on real places, real events and sometimes even real people and I wouldn't say that the bible was written as a purely fictional book. The bible is myth, that means it was written with the intent to convey what the authors believed was actual history. No doubt, most of the stories in the bible have some relation to what actually occurred, but that doesn't mean that it is 100% correct.

Just like the Iliad probably has some basis in reality. We are pretty sure that Troy actually existed and that Homers telling of the geography was for the most part accurate. It isn't far fetched that there was a war between the Greeks and the Trojans and Homers poem was based on a real war. Perhaps the war even started over a woman named Helen who was kidnapped. Does that mean Helen was the daughter of Zeus? That gods were present on the battlefield? That Achilles was invincible except for his heel? Of course not. 

6. In other words, it kicked you in the teeth. Face it, heaven and hell are sensationalism. Playing on that fear and promise works for Christianity.

5. The evidence stands against you.

4. Not my fauklt you have a low standard of evidence that accepts "Jerusalem exists so the Bible is all true" while skipping over Nazareth not existing during the time of Christ, Egyptians building pyramids duting the worldwide flood and the Babylonaians making beer while God created the universe.

3.  Jesus was a Pharasaic Jew and would never have said that he, a human, was God.  That was all Paul and his converts. 

2. All I have are his words and actions where he claimed to be doing God's work (Bible backs him up). I'm not privileged to have the magic God vision you have. Again, the evidence is against you. A relationship with Jesus makes you do worse things than Hitler could have dreamed (telling people in Africa condoms cayuse AIDS comes immediately to mind)

1. My point is that it depends on who you talk to. The guy who put up that site would disagree that the modern translations are close to the DSS (he's KJV only). Do you have a source for your claim or do you believe it for the same reason you believe your preacher buddy? 

jcgadfly wrote:

6. In other words, it kicked you in the teeth. Face it, heaven and hell are sensationalism. Playing on that fear and promise works for Christianity.

5. The evidence stands against you.

4. Not my fauklt you have a low standard of evidence that accepts "Jerusalem exists so the Bible is all true" while skipping over Nazareth not existing during the time of Christ, Egyptians building pyramids duting the worldwide flood and the Babylonaians making beer while God created the universe.

3.  Jesus was a Pharasaic Jew and would never have said that he, a human, was God.  That was all Paul and his converts. 

2. All I have are his words and actions where he claimed to be doing God's work (Bible backs him up). I'm not privileged to have the magic God vision you have. Again, the evidence is against you. A relationship with Jesus makes you do worse things than Hitler could have dreamed (telling people in Africa condoms cayuse AIDS comes immediately to mind)

1. My point is that it depends on who you talk to. The guy who put up that site would disagree that the modern translations are close to the DSS (he's KJV only). Do you have a source for your claim or do you believe it for the same reason you believe your preacher buddy? 

 

6.  You are pretty ignorant about Christianity if you think it's only about going to heaven or avoiding hell.  Hey if I wanted to invent a religion, I certainly wouldn't have made it non-action based.  Dying to self is a lot harder than kneeling on the floor and chanting a phrase.

 

5.  What evidence?  And for the record, Tyre was never rebuilt.  You can go visit the ancient ruins.  Now it a great city was rebuilt on the exact same spot then you might have a case.  Your assertion is the equivalent to going to your backyard, planting a flag and saying you founded the city of Tyre, I have disproved the great prophecy!!

 

4.  I'm not the one making bold statements with ZERO evidence.  Where's your proof that Nazareth never existed?  Archaeology says otherwise.

 

3.  I see you are falling back on your "Jesus never Existed" or "the NT was written centuries later in some dude's attic" fallacy.  I guess it gives you a response when I nailed you to the wall, but you offer NOTHING to back up your claims.

 

2.  So what?  There are preachers out there today who claim to be the 2nd coming of Christ.  Doesn't mean they are real Christians.  The measure of a true Christian comes from the fruits of the spirt, and murder, fear, torture are not the fruits.  You have to delude yourself into believing that Christians are evil and there is nothing pure and good in our faith.  This is one big reason why I could never take the word of an atheist seriously and only serves to strengthen my faith in Christ. 

 

1.  Is he a scholar?  What are his credentials?  I'm not going to accept some dude's opinion with no backing evidence.  There are plenty of other websites that say otherwise.

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

6. In other words, it kicked you in the teeth. Face it, heaven and hell are sensationalism. Playing on that fear and promise works for Christianity.

5. The evidence stands against you.

4. Not my fauklt you have a low standard of evidence that accepts "Jerusalem exists so the Bible is all true" while skipping over Nazareth not existing during the time of Christ, Egyptians building pyramids duting the worldwide flood and the Babylonaians making beer while God created the universe.

3.  Jesus was a Pharasaic Jew and would never have said that he, a human, was God.  That was all Paul and his converts. 

2. All I have are his words and actions where he claimed to be doing God's work (Bible backs him up). I'm not privileged to have the magic God vision you have. Again, the evidence is against you. A relationship with Jesus makes you do worse things than Hitler could have dreamed (telling people in Africa condoms cayuse AIDS comes immediately to mind)

1. My point is that it depends on who you talk to. The guy who put up that site would disagree that the modern translations are close to the DSS (he's KJV only). Do you have a source for your claim or do you believe it for the same reason you believe your preacher buddy? 

 

6.  You are pretty ignorant about Christianity if you think it's only about going to heaven or avoiding hell.  Hey if I wanted to invent a religion, I certainly wouldn't have made it non-action based.  Dying to self is a lot harder than kneeling on the floor and chanting a phrase.

 

5.  What evidence?  And for the record, Tyre was never rebuilt.  You can go visit the ancient ruins.  Now it a great city was rebuilt on the exact same spot then you might have a case.  Your assertion is the equivalent to going to your backyard, planting a flag and saying you founded the city of Tyre, I have disproved the great prophecy!!

 

4.  I'm not the one making bold statements with ZERO evidence.  Where's your proof that Nazareth never existed?  Archaeology says otherwise.

 

3.  I see you are falling back on your "Jesus never Existed" or "the NT was written centuries later in some dude's attic" fallacy.  I guess it gives you a response when I nailed you to the wall, but you offer NOTHING to back up your claims.

 

2.  So what?  There are preachers out there today who claim to be the 2nd coming of Christ.  Doesn't mean they are real Christians.  The measure of a true Christian comes from the fruits of the spirt, and murder, fear, torture are not the fruits.  You have to delude yourself into believing that Christians are evil and there is nothing pure and good in our faith.  This is one big reason why I could never take the word of an atheist seriously and only serves to strengthen my faith in Christ. 

 

1.  Is he a scholar?  What are his credentials?  I'm not going to accept some dude's opinion with no backing evidence.  There are plenty of other websites that say otherwise.

6. If you guys died to self you'd have a point. Though it is amusing to hear and read how you think Jesus taking a weekend off was such a grand sacrifice. Not sure how being able to sin your way through life as long as you get one more asking for forgiveness in is much of a sacrifice either. Then again, I actually read the Bible.

5.  The city of Tyre exists today - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon. If anything it's grown from that spot. Sorry they disappointed you.

4.  http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

3. There you go with your straw man and your denial of history - where did you nail me to the wall? Ah, yes in the corners of your mind.

2. Does Scripture back them as it does Hitler?

1. But you expect me to accept your claims without you backing them up - double standard much? Bring those websites - you've got nothing better to do than be online all day.

Boy you atheists just love to drag out that Homer example.  So tell me, how do you conclusively prove that an ancient event took place since apparently archaelogy proves NOTHING?

TWD39 wrote:

Boy you atheists just love to drag out that Homer example.  So tell me, how do you conclusively prove that an ancient event took place since apparently archaelogy proves NOTHING?

 

There are two kinds of historical (archaeological) proof.  For example, how do we know the British lost the American Revolution?  None of us were alive at the time.  So how do we know?

1. Primary evidence.  We have documents from the 18th century.  Pamphlets, letters, newspapers, books, drawings.  All written by the people.  We have pieces of flag, muskets, bayonets.  And so on.  We have documents from other countries of that time - English, French, Canadian, and so on.  People talked about it, they wrote about it, they had Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson over for dinner.

2. Secondary evidence.  We have football games, not cricket matches.  We sing "The Star Spangled Banner" at those games, not "God Save the Queen."  And so on.

For historical evidence such as the bible, we have archaeological evidence such as ruins of buildings, wells, irrigation systems, clothing, jewelry, bones (animal and human), and so on.  We have additional primary evidence from other countries.  What do the Greeks and Romans say?  Assyrians?  Egyptians?

There is no record in Egypt of a plague, of an economic downturn like one would expect if there was a plague, no mention of a foster brother to Ramses II (the agreed upon most likely pharaoh) of any name let alone called Moses, no evidence of thousands of people roaming the desert for 40 years.  Evidence that the people who built the pyramids were NOT slaves.  Evidence that the peoples of the area around Jerusalem were poor compared to Egypt and Assyria.  Evidence that the builders were Egyptians and Assyrians, NOT Canaanites or those who lived in the areas now called Israel and Judah.  No evidence of a "Tower of Babel" that was dedicated to a Jewish god.  In fact, monotheism did not consistently exist in the region until well after the 6th century BCE.

Evidence of religious beliefs is agreed to be in the figurines and mosaics that people made for their temples and places of worship.  They often named these deities by painting or engraving.  Where the engraving still exists, archaeolinguists have translated the names by comparing various places and icons.  Most places in the middle east were polytheistic with a common family based on astronomy - father sun, mother moon, children stars. 

All of this information is available to you if you bothered to go look it up.  Archaeology is not a hidden mystery.  There are tons of articles and dozens of learned people arguing with each other over it.

 

TWD39 wrote:

cj wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Boy you atheists just love to drag out that Homer example.  So tell me, how do you conclusively prove that an ancient event took place since apparently archaelogy proves NOTHING?

 

There are two kinds of historical (archaeological) proof.  For example, how do we know the British lost the American Revolution?  None of us were alive at the time.  So how do we know?

1. Primary evidence.  We have documents from the 18th century.  Pamphlets, letters, newspapers, books, drawings.  All written by the people.  We have pieces of flag, muskets, bayonets.  And so on.  We have documents from other countries of that time - English, French, Canadian, and so on.  People talked about it, they wrote about it, they had Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson over for dinner.

2. Secondary evidence.  We have football games, not cricket matches.  We sing "The Star Spangled Banner" at those games, not "God Save the Queen."  And so on.

For historical evidence such as the bible, we have archaeological evidence such as ruins of buildings, wells, irrigation systems, clothing, jewelry, bones (animal and human), and so on.  We have additional primary evidence from other countries.  What do the Greeks and Romans say?  Assyrians?  Egyptians?

There is no record in Egypt of a plague, of an economic downturn like one would expect if there was a plague, no mention of a foster brother to Ramses II (the agreed upon most likely pharaoh) of any name let alone called Moses, no evidence of thousands of people roaming the desert for 40 years.  Evidence that the people who built the pyramids were NOT slaves.  Evidence that the peoples of the area around Jerusalem were poor compared to Egypt and Assyria.  Evidence that the builders were Egyptians and Assyrians, NOT Canaanites or those who lived in the areas now called Israel and Judah.  No evidence of a "Tower of Babel" that was dedicated to a Jewish god.  In fact, monotheism did not consistently exist in the region until well after the 6th century BCE.

Evidence of religious beliefs is agreed to be in the figurines and mosaics that people made for their temples and places of worship.  They often named these deities by painting or engraving.  Where the engraving still exists, archaeolinguists have translated the names by comparing various places and icons.  Most places in the middle east were polytheistic with a common family based on astronomy - father sun, mother moon, children stars. 

All of this information is available to you if you bothered to go look it up.  Archaeology is not a hidden mystery.  There are tons of articles and dozens of learned people arguing with each other over it.

 

 

Were the Egyptians known to record embarrassing defeats is this time period?  My initial research says NO.   And the whole encounter with Moses would have been quite an embarrassment for a leader who was regarded as a god.  It's perfectly reasonable that pharoh would put to death anyone who dared keep a record of the effects.   Then you have the flip side.  The Bible offers a window into the Egyptian culture with a good bit of detail certainly with the Joseph story.  Now how could a poor band of sheep herders know so much about the inner workings of Egyptian culture?  Also,  what archaeological evidence would you expect to find if the Jews did live in Egypt as slaves?  They would be forced to obey the social and political laws.  Also, a slave would most likely have few possessions.  Their lifestyle would be pretty much the same as a regular Egyptian citizen. 

 

Here's why I don't take atheist's charge on the matter seriously.  You throw the baby out with the bath water.  Since there is no rock solid evidence regarding Exodus then the entire Bible is false.  You use Exodus as a crutch to throw out anytime a Christian tries to prove the Bible.   The lack of evidence for  Exodus is not the smoking gun which unravels the Christian faith.  There are explanations out there.

 

I also don't agree that there is ZERO evidence for the towel of Babel.  We have the remains of ziggaurats which are consistently with the building method described in the account.   Archaelogists have found what may be the foundation of the tower.  We have accounts of Nebuchadnezzar II trying to rebuild the tower.  It was called Etemenanki.   Herodotus also described a great tower in the region.

Then again, your "initial research" says that Egyptians were under water (due to the global flood) when they were building their civilization.  The archaeological evidence of the Jews in Egypt would be similar to the average Egyptian except that, according to Scripture, the Hebrews had an entirely different culture. different cultures should leave different evidence. What we actually have is evidence of Egyptian culture and ZERO evidence (to borrow your phrase) of the Hebrews. It's the same with the evidence of the Hebrew wanderings - none.

Indeed there are explanations out there. Your God explanation is at least as valid as the "ancient astronauts" explanation.

As for the tower of Babel , it's likely a myth based on a Babylonian (remember them? They were making beer while God was supposedly creating the universe?) structure. Ezra (the editor/compiler of the OT) was around then and probably added the story in.

Thinking may not agree with your conclusions but it's almost always better than "God and my pastor have to be right".

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

4.   If the Bible is fiction, they should be finding artifacts which disprove the Bible.  Yet, discoveries are constantly being made which support the Bible. 

 

Why would you expect artifacts that disprove the bible? What artifacts could possibly exist that would disprove the bible? Even with a fiction book one could reasonably expect that many artifacts would be found that fit the storyline such as evidence of the same cities, landmarks, tools etc. Generally fiction authors base their stories on real places, real events and sometimes even real people and I wouldn't say that the bible was written as a purely fictional book. The bible is myth, that means it was written with the intent to convey what the authors believed was actual history. No doubt, most of the stories in the bible have some relation to what actually occurred, but that doesn't mean that it is 100% correct.

Just like the Iliad probably has some basis in reality. We are pretty sure that Troy actually existed and that Homers telling of the geography was for the most part accurate. It isn't far fetched that there was a war between the Greeks and the Trojans and Homers poem was based on a real war. Perhaps the war even started over a woman named Helen who was kidnapped. Does that mean Helen was the daughter of Zeus? That gods were present on the battlefield? That Achilles was invincible except for his heel? Of course not. 

 

Boy you atheists just love to drag out that Homer example.  So tell me, how do you conclusively prove that an ancient event took place since apparently archaelogy proves NOTHING?

Who said archaeology proves nothing? Your standard of archaeology, i.e. "Israel exists so the Bible is true" doesn't prove anything. I got it - maybe if you actually brought articles supporting your claim instead of just claiming it would help. Or hasn't your preacher buddy gotten to that yet?

 

I don't apply that broad standard.  My standard is that it is a point of evidence, one of many that gives credibility to the Bible, and takes away from your baseless claim that the Bible is fiction.  You can no longer claim that there is not a single shred evidence to support the Bible.    I'm certain you don't trot out the Homer example when non-biblical archaeology finds are discovered.  So what, if I found the name of a Greek town that matches the name in this history book,  Homer did the same thing!!  You can't have it both ways.

Supports the bible in what sense? I am perfectly willing to believe that some of the data in the bible could be accurate, or at least based on true events. For example the level of genealogical records and the like kept imply that it also served as a kind of record book for the bloodlines of their great heroes, and there are historical events that are true. But if you want to try something different than the Homer example, what about the Norse pantheon? Some of the stories can be fairly accurate in terms of geography, and there was also the tree that was allegedly struck by Thors lightning but still stood and was a holy tree. Do these things prove the existence of the Norse pantheon? Did Loki, Thor and Odin walk the earth? Did they wield magic weapons forged by the dwarves of Midgard and battle the giants? I think we'd agree that those things didn't happen. We might point to the lack of evidence for giants, or point out that even if there are say, geneological records that might show Thor or Odin in a familial line it's more likely that we have real people that did something mildly impressive and the story got blown out of proportion in constant retellings, accidentally or on purpose.

Let's look at a few other points here, much of what you would refer as the old testament was passed on orally due to a lack of written language by what would eventually become the tribes of Israel. Even assuming that they picked people with great memories evolution of language as well as simple misrememberings or personal interpretations could greatly taint the history of the works. Not to mention the sheer amount of apocrypha that exists from various rabbis and scholars of that period mean that they were unsure or at least curious about much of their own holy texts. I'd also remind you that we do have journals from the medieval period where missionaries that converted others tended to use existing religions principles, compare them to christianity and functionally get them to think they were worshipping the same deity or were worshipping a dangerous demon. The saints and archangels might have also been used as possible stand ins for many of these deities, it's been a few years since I studied this stuff so I admit I might be wrong.

There are other problems too, remember that the early church fathers at the council of Nicea couldn't even agree on the divinity of Jesus, I won't even go into the issues about him existing or not, or in the many people around that period claiming to be the messiah (which in turn could cause problems with stories and rumors flying all over the place), let's just look at the fact that many of the early Christians couldn't even determine if he was divine. IE was he the same essence as God, was he merely the great prophet? This is what led to one of the first splits, both sides declaring the other heretics. Not to mention that they made the decisions of what books would go into their bible based more or less on popular vote. Even if you want to claim divine inspiration for the writings, are you also going to assume divine guidance for each vote? Especially when in some cases the votes were very close. It can be argued that some of the books that ended up getting cut were actually far more useful for teaching morality and some of what was kept might not have been worthwhile. Add this to translation problems and at the very least your book has...problems.

But now let's look at the idea of archaeology supporting or disproving it. Egypt existed in history, we have information about the various Pharaohs, and many of their myths are accurate to the area, once again we don't assume that this would make such myths true. To look at an example of fiction, Sherlock Holmes, he never existed but London does. It wouldn't be absurd to imagine someone stumbling on the books and reading them, perhaps being told that they were journal entries of a real individual (Dr. Watson in this case) and they might believe that this Holmes individual truly existed. The problem is this, many of the things that would 'prove' the bible or at least show it to be accurate is not found, or in fact is shown to be false by other evidence. As mentioned, the pyramids were not built by slaves, there is also no evidence of a global flood.

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

cj wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Boy you atheists just love to drag out that Homer example.  So tell me, how do you conclusively prove that an ancient event took place since apparently archaelogy proves NOTHING?

 

There are two kinds of historical (archaeological) proof.  For example, how do we know the British lost the American Revolution?  None of us were alive at the time.  So how do we know?

1. Primary evidence.  We have documents from the 18th century.  Pamphlets, letters, newspapers, books, drawings.  All written by the people.  We have pieces of flag, muskets, bayonets.  And so on.  We have documents from other countries of that time - English, French, Canadian, and so on.  People talked about it, they wrote about it, they had Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson over for dinner.

2. Secondary evidence.  We have football games, not cricket matches.  We sing "The Star Spangled Banner" at those games, not "God Save the Queen."  And so on.

For historical evidence such as the bible, we have archaeological evidence such as ruins of buildings, wells, irrigation systems, clothing, jewelry, bones (animal and human), and so on.  We have additional primary evidence from other countries.  What do the Greeks and Romans say?  Assyrians?  Egyptians?

There is no record in Egypt of a plague, of an economic downturn like one would expect if there was a plague, no mention of a foster brother to Ramses II (the agreed upon most likely pharaoh) of any name let alone called Moses, no evidence of thousands of people roaming the desert for 40 years.  Evidence that the people who built the pyramids were NOT slaves.  Evidence that the peoples of the area around Jerusalem were poor compared to Egypt and Assyria.  Evidence that the builders were Egyptians and Assyrians, NOT Canaanites or those who lived in the areas now called Israel and Judah.  No evidence of a "Tower of Babel" that was dedicated to a Jewish god.  In fact, monotheism did not consistently exist in the region until well after the 6th century BCE.

Evidence of religious beliefs is agreed to be in the figurines and mosaics that people made for their temples and places of worship.  They often named these deities by painting or engraving.  Where the engraving still exists, archaeolinguists have translated the names by comparing various places and icons.  Most places in the middle east were polytheistic with a common family based on astronomy - father sun, mother moon, children stars. 

All of this information is available to you if you bothered to go look it up.  Archaeology is not a hidden mystery.  There are tons of articles and dozens of learned people arguing with each other over it.

 

 

Were the Egyptians known to record embarrassing defeats is this time period?  My initial research says NO.   And the whole encounter with Moses would have been quite an embarrassment for a leader who was regarded as a god.  It's perfectly reasonable that pharoh would put to death anyone who dared keep a record of the effects.   Then you have the flip side.  The Bible offers a window into the Egyptian culture with a good bit of detail certainly with the Joseph story.  Now how could a poor band of sheep herders know so much about the inner workings of Egyptian culture?  Also,  what archaeological evidence would you expect to find if the Jews did live in Egypt as slaves?  They would be forced to obey the social and political laws.  Also, a slave would most likely have few possessions.  Their lifestyle would be pretty much the same as a regular Egyptian citizen. 

 

Here's why I don't take atheist's charge on the matter seriously.  You throw the baby out with the bath water.  Since there is no rock solid evidence regarding Exodus then the entire Bible is false.  You use Exodus as a crutch to throw out anytime a Christian tries to prove the Bible.   The lack of evidence for  Exodus is not the smoking gun which unravels the Christian faith.  There are explanations out there.

 

I also don't agree that there is ZERO evidence for the towel of Babel.  We have the remains of ziggaurats which are consistently with the building method described in the account.   Archaelogists have found what may be the foundation of the tower.  We have accounts of Nebuchadnezzar II trying to rebuild the tower.  It was called Etemenanki.   Herodotus also described a great tower in the region.

Then again, your "initial research" says that Egyptians were under water (due to the global flood) when they were building their civilization.  The archaeological evidence of the Jews in Egypt would be similar to the average Egyptian except that, according to Scripture, the Hebrews had an entirely different culture. different cultures should leave different evidence. What we actually have is evidence of Egyptian culture and ZERO evidence (to borrow your phrase) of the Hebrews. It's the same with the evidence of the Hebrew wanderings - none.

Indeed there are explanations out there. Your God explanation is at least as valid as the "ancient astronauts" explanation.

As for the tower of Babel , it's likely a myth based on a Babylonian (remember them? They were making beer while God was supposedly creating the universe?) structure. Ezra (the editor/compiler of the OT) was around then and probably added the story in.

Thinking may not agree with your conclusions but it's almost always better than "God and my pastor have to be right".

 

 

It's easy to simply write it all off as myth.  Not as easy to prove some backing proof.  You offer none as usual.  How about providing a scripture passage that shows the Hebrews performing a distinct cultural ritual in Egypt which could leave archaeological evidence?  Can you do that? Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

I don't have to provide proof - I din't make a claim. You made the claim - I disputed it. Don't give me your burden of proof. You really don't get this argument stuff do you? You have to give me something to work with other than your assertions.

Also, why bring the scripture into this? You were talking about archaeological evidence - supposedly you have it.

 

Dude, if you're going to dispute something, you need to demonstrate valid reasons for your dispute.  Otherwise, you're just demonstrating that you disagree with me because you just can't admit for once that a Christian is right.  At least posters like CJ put some backbone in their  replies.  If your response is to thumb your nose and say "I don't have to prove jack" then I'm done with you.  It's like debating with a brick wall.

 

And yes, I can provide plenty of examples of archaeological evidence.  Here's a good staring point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

 

 And... Remind me how the tower of babel could have been built again, seeing as there would have only a few hundred people alive descended from noah after the flood a hundred years before?

 This one still puzzles me... 

 

There are no contradictions or inaccuracies.  Any such ones you present are a result of bad interpretation or taking things out of context.  The Bible is 100% true. 

 

If I told you I was thrown from a boat, swallowed by a whale, lived in it for three days and vomited up- would you believe me? Would me proving that the boat existed and that whales do exist in the area I claimed it happened be enough to prove my story to you?

 

TWD39 wrote:

 

And yes, I can provide plenty of examples of archaeological evidence.  Here's a good staring point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

 

Exactly which of those artifacts is supposed to convince me that the bible is an accurate recording of historical reality? Proving that cities, temples and even some of the people existed does nothing to provide evidence for the supernatural claims. It isn't a surprise that parts of the bible are based on real cities, real events and real people. 

If I told you I was thrown from a boat, swallowed by a whale, lived in it for three days and vomited up- would you believe me? Would me proving that the boat existed and that whales do exist in the area I claimed it happened be enough to prove my story to you?

 

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 And... Remind me how the tower of babel could have been built again, seeing as there would have only a few hundred people alive descended from noah after the flood a hundred years before?

 This one still puzzles me... 

 

 

The scripture doesn't give any indication of their progress.  It could have been a multi-generational project that God stopped mid-way.

Poor, paranoid God. Humans dared to do something together other than kiss his tushie. Made God really nervous. I wonder what he thinks of all the things that have been done without his help or in spite of his interference.

 

Translation - I have no real substance to my arguments so I'll just mock God.

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 And... Remind me how the tower of babel could have been built again, seeing as there would have only a few hundred people alive descended from noah after the flood a hundred years before?

 This one still puzzles me... 

 

 

The scripture doesn't give any indication of their progress.  It could have been a multi-generational project that God stopped mid-way.

Poor, paranoid God. Humans dared to do something together other than kiss his tushie. Made God really nervous. I wonder what he thinks of all the things that have been done without his help or in spite of his interference.

 

Translation - I have no real substance to my arguments so I'll just mock God.

In other words, you don't know the truth of the Bible because you've never read it. Look up the story - it's all there. You can even have your preacher buddy help.

No slave in recorded history has been owned more than you. Go away.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I love this site! I stay away from this thread for a day and some, and I don't even have to refute arguments, because others have absolutely destroyed this guy already. But I'll add a bit here. 

TWD39 wrote:

There are no contradictions or inaccuracies.  Any such ones you present are a result of bad interpretation or taking things out of context.  The Bible is 100% true. 

It seems I accidentally fell victim to multiple tabs open where I posted something in the wrong place. This was originally intended for you, so let's put it where it belongs:

 

I somewhat understand how Christians can believe (hey, I once did!). However, it baffles me how anybody in the world that is not insane can believe that the bible is the entire literal truth. 

1. Contradictions: Without even examining anything outside of the book itself, it has so many internal contradictions that you must absolutely assert that only one of the conflicting verses are true. That makes the book impossible to be taken literally from start to finish. 

2. Science: There are many claims of a scientific nature in the bible that are very incredible, and likely false. There are others that we know are absolutely wrong.

3. History: There are many claims in the narrative that we know historically to not be true.

It really takes very little time to identify problems in all 3 categories. Let's do one each for now. 

1. Was Joseph Jesus' father? 2 Timothy 2:8: Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David

So yes, but Luke 1:34: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Bonus: While we're on genealogy, who was Joseph's father? Heli, or Jacob?

2. The entire Genesis narrative on the creation of the earth is obviously wrong. The moon is not a light. "He made the stars also"....all hundreds of trillions (perhaps quadrillions of stars) just at the end of one day?? But spent most of the 6 days on the earth and surrounding area? Nowhere does it indicate that the sun has more in common with "the stars" than it does with the moon, and that the moon has more in common with the Earth than it does with the sun.

3. In several gospels, it tells of all sorts of phenomena that occurred during the crucifixion. Earthquakes, unscheduled 3 hour periods of darkness (by unscheduled, I mean the daytime). Nowhere outside of the gospels are these things documented.

Bonus: History was being documented in other parts of the world at the estimated time of the alleged world-wide flood. No such catastrophe was record. Care to say why?

 

To add, about your assertion on the translations and how perfect they are (and your baseless assertion that this amazing cohesion was given to us by god), can you even verify them? Do you speak any other languages to be able to say that these translations are so perfect? Funny enough, I myself am bilingual. In fact, while I was born and have lived my whole life in Canada, my parents being rather recent immigrants decided to not teach me English, as they felt fixing bad habits (and learning through translation) was going to be detrimental in the long run vs. picking it up at school. English in terms of when I learned it is my second language. My Polish is still about as good as it gets for somebody who's never lived in the country and only visited it for a total of 2 and a half months over my entire lifetime. While I haven't examined the bible in detail across the languages I speak, I do plan to. I'll let you know how it goes. Notice myself admitting I haven't checked something yet, thus I don't know. Notice that it's the complete opposite of a baseless assertion. Try this sometime. 

 

 

I'm aware of the contradictions.  You  haven't presented anything here that I've have heard before.  You just easily ripped some pages from the sketpics annotated bible, and dumped this big steaming pile on my thread, and demand that I answer all your questions for your amusement.   Tell me, why should I bother?

 

I'll address one though so you can't do your little dance that I'm running away from your questions.  Joseph was Jesus adopted father.  Jesus came from the seed of David via Mary which can be through the geneology back to Nathan.  Of course, you ignore the fullfilled prophecy given to David.

 

“My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven”. Psalm 89:34-37

Only Jesus fits the description.  Now I'm off to enjoy my weekend.  I've wallowed in this sewer pit of dishonesty enough this week.

 

BTW,  no one has destroyed my arguments. 

 

 

There are no contradictions or inaccuracies.  Any such ones you present are a result of bad interpretation or taking things out of context.  The Bible is 100% true.

I'm aware of the contradictions. 

You  haven't presented anything here that I've have heard before.  You just easily ripped some pages from the sketpics annotated bible, and dumped this big steaming pile on my thread, and demand that I answer all your questions for your amusement.   Tell me, why should I bother?

I'll address one though so you can't do your little dance that I'm running away from your questions.  Joseph was Jesus adopted father.  Jesus came from the seed of David via Mary which can be through the geneology back to Nathan. 

Of course, you ignore the fullfilled prophecy given to David.

 

 

“My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven”. Psalm 89:34-37

 

Only Jesus fits the description. 

Now I'm off to enjoy my weekend.  I've wallowed in this sewer pit of dishonesty enough this week.

 

BTW,  no one has destroyed my arguments. 

  

 

Other fairy tales and folklore are also a lot more entertaining like Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur, Paul Bunyan, Beowulf etc. are all far more entertaining than the bible. So don't insult them by comparing them to that rag. I will happily sit and read any of these or a new version of them again, there is nothing that could force me to read the bible again, I would rather tear out my eyes.   

 

 

BTW,  no one has destroyed my arguments. 

 

TWD39 continues to get schooled.

Vastet wrote:

TWD39 continues to get schooled.

Why yes, I've learned that atheists are arrogant, rude, biased, and generally not likeable people.   Thank you for teaching me this valuable lesson. 

 

Ok, you can return back to your fantasy land where atheists are always right, and Christians are evil and stupid.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

TWD39 wrote:

 

BTW,  no one has destroyed my arguments. 

 

 

The only people who believe in the literal truth of the bible are christians. Name me one unbiased commentator who accepts that everything in the bible is absolutely correct.

Your position in unsupportable using the scientific method, your concept of rationality flawed. And you mistake the atheist position. Generally, we accept empirical evidence but we never entirely embrace it. Always we remain open to new evidence that might re-write everything we think we know. Do you get it? We like hypotheses supported by data, supported by interlocking hypotheses supported by data and even then we might find new evidence that unstitches the entire structure. 

But you on the other hand, have a system of knowing that you claim is absolute. Your insistence that all the bible, all it's minutiae and mythology, is absolutely correct can only be based on a prior acceptance by you, that the bible was inspired by god. Your so-called undestroyed arguments primarily consist of your rejecting every explanation or argument offered you and saying "is too, is too, is too."

It's obvious you believe in god and you see everything through the prism of that belief. That's fine. But you should admit that this position constitutes a bias in your mind. In truth, it is not possible to know many of the things you insist you know. First cause, the existence of spirituality, the holy spirit. Let's not even get to Noah's Ark and the multiple creation stories. Where is the material proof of these things that is not pure faith? Again, I think you are entitled to your faith but why not call it what it actually is?

 

 

 

 

I'm perfectly willing to admit there is pretty much a permanent stalemate here.   You also examine Christian evidence through the prism of your rock solid skepticism and hostility towards the Christian faith.  Nothing I say on this forum will change that, and vice versa.  You also reject immeidately any argument I have, and go so far to say I never even presented an argument.

 

You choose to gamble your eternal destination on complete faith in the scientific method.  But a man designed that method.  Man is fallible.   Can a fallible man create something that is perfect and infallible?  Even our great machines eventually wear out.  An infallible machine would run perfectly forever.   But then I look at nature, and it is perfect and infallible, and never breaks down (although it appears man can screw it up assuming global warming is real)   Everything runs like clock work.  I can put complete faith that in October, the days will grow shorter, and eventually it will be dark in the afternoon.

 

The scientific method is great for examining truths in the physical world, but God is not a physical being.

TWD39 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

TWD39 wrote:

 

BTW,  no one has destroyed my arguments. 

 

 

The only people who believe in the literal truth of the bible are christians. Name me one unbiased commentator who accepts that everything in the bible is absolutely correct.

Your position in unsupportable using the scientific method, your concept of rationality flawed. And you mistake the atheist position. Generally, we accept empirical evidence but we never entirely embrace it. Always we remain open to new evidence that might re-write everything we think we know. Do you get it? We like hypotheses supported by data, supported by interlocking hypotheses supported by data and even then we might find new evidence that unstitches the entire structure. 

But you on the other hand, have a system of knowing that you claim is absolute. Your insistence that all the bible, all it's minutiae and mythology, is absolutely correct can only be based on a prior acceptance by you, that the bible was inspired by god. Your so-called undestroyed arguments primarily consist of your rejecting every explanation or argument offered you and saying "is too, is too, is too."

It's obvious you believe in god and you see everything through the prism of that belief. That's fine. But you should admit that this position constitutes a bias in your mind. In truth, it is not possible to know many of the things you insist you know. First cause, the existence of spirituality, the holy spirit. Let's not even get to Noah's Ark and the multiple creation stories. Where is the material proof of these things that is not pure faith? Again, I think you are entitled to your faith but why not call it what it actually is?

 

 

 

 

I'm perfectly willing to admit there is pretty much a permanent stalemate here.   You also examine Christian evidence through the prism of your rock solid skepticism and hostility towards the Christian faith.  Nothing I say on this forum will change that, and vice versa.  You also reject immeidately any argument I have, and go so far to say I never even presented an argument.

 

You choose to gamble your eternal destination on complete faith in the scientific method.  But a man designed that method.  Man is fallible.   Can a fallible man create something that is perfect and infallible?  Even our great machines eventually wear out.  An infallible machine would run perfectly forever.   But then I look at nature, and it is perfect and infallible, and never breaks down (although it appears man can screw it up assuming global warming is real)   Everything runs like clock work.  I can put complete faith that in October, the days will grow shorter, and eventually it will be dark in the afternoon.

 

The scientific method is great for examining truths in the physical world, but God is not a physical being.

The "Christian evidence " you presented isn't evidence for the same reason you would claim that "Muslim evidence" isn't evidence. See the connection?

Blaise Pascal, please pick up the white courtesy phone. Someone stole your Wager again.

Can a fallible man create something perfect and infallible? As humans created the God of the book you worship and you believe that God to be perfect and infallible (as they did), that's an easy yes.

And why can you " put complete faith that in October, the days will grow shorter, and eventually it will be dark in the afternoon"? Because you've observed it happening before. That's a standard that you claim can't apply to God, remember?

Congratulations! Since you can't tell me what a non-physical being is and you claim God is one, you've just equated him with nothing! 

 

  just like a preacher doesn't give a sermon out of his own mind and thoughts.  God gives him the message to preach.   Got another example?