Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Pyramids in egypt says that the biblical accounts of the creation was a lie.

Before posting any questions please check out the pyramids first and then we'll discuss this.

Originally posted by HULKSTER04
The Pyramids in egypt says that the biblical accounts of the creation was a lie.

Before posting any questions please check out the pyramids first and then we'll discuss this.

What you said about the Bible is untrue.

Creation is a lie, you don't need the pyramids to show you that.. hahaha.

I know about the pyramids, now what is your question.

Originally posted by HULKSTER04
The Pyramids in egypt says that the biblical accounts of the creation was a lie.

Before posting any questions please check out the pyramids first and then we'll discuss this.

he is actually correct, most of christianity is taken from the old egyption religions in an attempt to make their new religion, they succeeded mostly since few people could ever make out their falseness since not many actually look deep into these things

for example, things christianity has stolen from religions far older than itself, Buddha sat beneath the Bo tree for enlightenment, Christianity stole this tree and put it in the bible. the moses story was stolen from Sargon (both were born in secrecy, left in a reed basket to float down the river and adopted by royalty)

Originally posted by Burning thought
he is actually correct, most of christianity is taken from the old egyption religions in an attempt to make their new religion, they succeeded mostly since few people could ever make out their falseness since not many actually look deep into these things

for example, things christianity has stolen from religions far older than itself, Buddha sat beneath the Bo tree for enlightenment, Christianity stole this tree and put it in the bible. the moses story was stolen from Sargon (both were born in secrecy, left in a reed basket to float down the river and adopted by royalty)



(1) False. Christianity comes from Jewish religion. Nothing to do with egypt's religion.

(2) The tree of Eden was in the Jewish scriptures long before Christianism.

(3) You are just talking about sensational pseudo-theories, which has not been proved at all. In fact, their only based are some resemblances. That's all. You see, some anti-catholic fundamentalist christian actually started this to bash the Catholic Church, in books such as the Babylon connection (whose author later recognized that he took only some assumptions but didn't have any real proof), later the anti-Christian took the same tactics to bash Christianity.

(4) Christianity is the most and better documented religion from the beginning up to date. With the exception of Fundamentalist christians, who think that Biblie fell from the sky, with an Index, chapters and that was written by God himself and think they should take it literally, Most of Christians: Catholics, Orthodox and Historical protestant groups know the documents starting from 1st century besides the Biblie itself, that enlighten about the way Bible should be interpreted, and the teachings first christians received orally from the apostles and his close disciples. We know Bible is God's revelation, and Inspired by the Holy Spirit, but written by men, according to the oral tradition they received from the apostles, and that certainly a book of collection of books is not sufficient for Christians, but they need the living testimony of the church founded by Christ, since Bible itself mentions it. Don't judge Christianity for the Fundamentalists.

Just resemblances. Of course different cultures and religions around the globe can use similar symbols, ideas, values, but it doesn't mean necessarily that one comes from the other.

Christian/Egyptian mythology is so confusing.

Originally posted by darkfan76
(1) False. Christianity comes from Jewish religion. Nothing to do with egypt's religion.

(2) The tree of Eden was in the Jewish scriptures long before Christianism.

(3) You are just talking about sensational pseudo-theories, which has not been proved at all. In fact, their only based are some resemblances. That's all. You see, some anti-catholic fundamentalist christian actually started this to bash the Catholic Church, in books such as the Babylon connection (whose author later recognized that he took only some assumptions but didn't have any real proof), later the anti-Christian took the same tactics to bash Christianity.

(4) Christianity is the most and better documented religion from the beginning up to date. With the exception of Fundamentalist christians, who think that Biblie fell from the sky, with an Index, chapters and that was written by God himself and think they should take it literally, Most of Christians: Catholics, Orthodox and Historical protestant groups know the documents starting from 1st century besides the Biblie itself, that enlighten about the way Bible should be interpreted, and the teachings first christians received orally from the apostles and his close disciples. We know Bible is God's revelation, and Inspired by the Holy Spirit, but written by men, according to the oral tradition they received from the apostles, and that certainly a book of collection of books is not sufficient for Christians, but they need the living testimony of the church founded by Christ, since Bible itself mentions it. Don't judge Christianity for the Fundamentalists.

The Islamic answer to this is so much better than the Christian one

All religions have been started to give glory to Allah, but only Muhammed (pbuh) is the true prophet who's word is akin to that of God.

That way, any similarities, due to the fact that all Abrahamic religions are just a mish mash of other preceding religons and regional superstisions, are proof positive of Allah.

Wouldn't kill you to work on your grammar.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What you said about the Bible is untrue.

Is that all you can say, bible-basher? Can't take the truth?

He is right, the Bible has stolen from Egyptian stories, Jewish stories, Buddhist stories, Norse stories etc., since it was written by a bunch of racist chauvenistic unimaginative morons. Do you like THE TRUTH?

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Is that all you can say, bible-basher? Can't take the truth?

He is right, the Bible has stolen from Egyptian stories, Jewish stories, Buddhist stories, Norse stories etc., since it was written by a bunch of racist chauvenistic unimaginative morons. Do you like THE TRUTH?


Me likes de troof droolio

Originally posted by HULKSTER04
The Pyramids in egypt says that the biblical accounts of the creation was a lie.

Before posting any questions please check out the pyramids first and then we'll discuss this.

Pyramids TALK?!?!

Originally posted by HULKSTER04
The Pyramids in egypt says that the biblical accounts of the creation was a lie.

Before posting any questions please check out the pyramids first and then we'll discuss this.

Ok, so don't be a Christian. What would you like? Our approval? Congratulations?

The History Channel did a decent show on this, called "Egypt: Land of the Gods", where they showed links of ancient Egyptian religion being the routes of more modern religions, ie Judaism, Christianity, Islam...

so many things stolen from other religions, strange to see Christianity as a true religion, its just bits of diffrent older religions

First of all,i've been a christian all my life and we were told to never question the bible because it is the TRUTH. What i found out later just completely destroyed the foundation that was carved in my heart and soul. Realizing what was taught to you was all a lie and you've just found real hard evidence that even the best reasons that the bible has to offer cannot dismiss it as false.

I'm no traitor. What's to betray if you wnt the real truth to come out?

According to experts the pyramids are 4000 years older than when God supposedly created the universe and the earh as some christians insists that the earth is no more than 6000 years old. Facts says that the radio carbon dating of the pyramids suggests that they were built during 10500 BC and the quasi stone age people could not have built it wih their stone age tools. In fact some experts say that the technology usedin constructing these magnificent structures are far more advanced than our own. Yet the bible says that Adam and Eve were the first humans moreoverTHEY WERE STUPID and would not have/could not have known any advanced knowledge such as the knowledge used in building the pyramids.

I'll save the rest of the arguments later...now i dare ny christian out there to prove me wrong.

Originally posted by darkfan76
(1) False. Christianity comes from Jewish religion. Nothing to do with egypt's religion.

(2) The tree of Eden was in the Jewish scriptures long before Christianism.

(3) You are just talking about sensational pseudo-theories, which has not been proved at all. In fact, their only based are some resemblances. That's all. You see, some anti-catholic fundamentalist christian actually started this to bash the Catholic Church, in books such as the Babylon connection (whose author later recognized that he took only some assumptions but didn't have any real proof), later the anti-Christian took the same tactics to bash Christianity.

(4) Christianity is the most and better documented religion from the beginning up to date. With the exception of Fundamentalist christians, who think that Biblie fell from the sky, with an Index, chapters and that was written by God himself and think they should take it literally, Most of Christians: Catholics, Orthodox and Historical protestant groups know the documents starting from 1st century besides the Biblie itself, that enlighten about the way Bible should be interpreted, and the teachings first christians received orally from the apostles and his close disciples. We know Bible is God's revelation, and Inspired by the Holy Spirit, but written by men, according to the oral tradition they received from the apostles, and that certainly a book of collection of books is not sufficient for Christians, but they need the living testimony of the church founded by Christ, since Bible itself mentions it. Don't judge Christianity for the Fundamentalists.

1) Which was would mean by default that Jewish tradition is based off Egyptian tradition. Look, the Torah is used by both Christianity and Judaism so I fail to see your refutation.

For this to be correct, you have to argue that Judaism was in place before Egyptian ideals. Yea...

2) Look @ 1.

3) Just because something is supported does not make it true. This is not science or math and the conquerors and telling all the stories.

4) Look @ #3 and #1.

It is a well known fact that Arabs took over Africa before Christians and did as they pleased which would include destroying nice tidbits of information. There is a lot about Africa that is known but not discussed in Academia openly.

You provided no proof either so I really don't see your point, at all.

Jesus/Dionysus, Jesus/Horus, Jesus/Mithras, etc...

Originally posted by darkfan76
(1) False. Christianity comes from Jewish religion. Nothing to do with egypt's religion.

(2) The tree of Eden was in the Jewish scriptures long before Christianism.

(3) You are just talking about sensational pseudo-theories, which has not been proved at all. In fact, their only based are some resemblances. That's all. You see, some anti-catholic fundamentalist christian actually started this to bash the Catholic Church, in books such as the Babylon connection (whose author later recognized that he took only some assumptions but didn't have any real proof), later the anti-Christian took the same tactics to bash Christianity.

(4) Christianity is the most and better documented religion from the beginning up to date. With the exception of Fundamentalist christians, who think that Biblie fell from the sky, with an Index, chapters and that was written by God himself and think they should take it literally, Most of Christians: Catholics, Orthodox and Historical protestant groups know the documents starting from 1st century besides the Biblie itself, that enlighten about the way Bible should be interpreted, and the teachings first christians received orally from the apostles and his close disciples. We know Bible is God's revelation, and Inspired by the Holy Spirit, but written by men, according to the oral tradition they received from the apostles, and that certainly a book of collection of books is not sufficient for Christians, but they need the living testimony of the church founded by Christ, since Bible itself mentions it. Don't judge Christianity for the Fundamentalists.

I agree. Judaism and Christianity are probably two of the most well documented religions. I recently read somewhere that there are around 10 to 16 historical documents to confirm the existence and activities of the famous Julius Caesar. Most of these documents describe the Gaelic wars (without checking, I think these are in 55 and 54 BC, someone please shout at me if I am wrong.) As for the new testament, there are 25,366 copies from around the 1st century, most historians date the earliest at somewhere between 40/45 to 60 AD and the latest book to be written in 96 AD during times of Christian persecution.

As for references to religions which predate Christianity with similar iconography and symbolism, mainly Emperor Constantine is to thank for that. When the Roman Emperor became the first Christian Emperor, it was a simple matter to replace pagan symbols with Christian ones as Christianity suddenly changed from being heavily persecuted to the main religion of the country.

If you have issues with earlier old testament references then you issue is mainly with Judaism, not Christianity (Where the very recycled arguments arise eg Christianity came from Mithrasism )However in defence of the issue some posters had with the lack of Egyptian records pertaining to the plague and exodus of slaves from Egypt is is in fact a fairly logical and simple reason. The Egyptians, very much like the Romans, didn't usually record their defeats, but their victories. If you wanted to look like you had a funky empire, it's best not to mention that the God your slaves worshipped sent plagues until you freed all your slaves. (Although I think that the death of the first born is referred to in Egyptian records.) This is one of the many reasons why many historians, regardless of their beliefs, argue that the Bible has a large degree of historical accuracy for recording many of the defeats of God's people suffered, as well as victories

I gotta go, I had more points but Austin Powers is on

So, which pyramids in Egypt are we talking about? Because there are hundreds of them.

If you're talking about the pyramids at Giza, they certainly aren't 4000 years older than the biblical creation myths of a global age of 6000 years. That would make them 10,000 years old. And while there are some fringe elements of the academic community that hold to the idea that the pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx are remenants of a far older Nile delta civilization, the vast majority of the "evidence" to support such a claim is baseless conjecture.

As far as the main thrust of the thread topic, the Christian religion IS an amalgamation of many middle-eastern religions. Anyone who believes that christianity fell from the sky as a fully formed religion, uninfluenced by the older religions that surrounded it, would be foolish.

And whoever it was that said there are traces of Christianity taken from "Norse" religions, needs to do a little more study on the themes in mythology. Human involvment in the creation of religions are the reason for many of the similarities between one religion and the next. The same stories we (humans) were telling ourselves 4000 years ago to explain our shared questions are the same stories we tell ourselves today.

Oh, and I think getting caught up in the pyramids is putting the horse before the cart. You don't need pyramids to disprove the judaeo-christian notion of the planet being 6000 years old. I mean, you have the planet itself. It kind of refutes that biblical garbage simply by existing. Or humans, even. The existence of the human animal disproves that the planet is only six thousand years old.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, which pyramids in Egypt are we talking about? Because there are hundreds of them.

If you're talking about the pyramids at Giza, they certainly aren't 4000 years older than the biblical creation myths of a global age of 6000 years. That would make them 10,000 years old. And while there are some fringe elements of the academic community that hold to the idea that the pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx are remenants of a far older Nile delta civilization, the vast majority of the "evidence" to support such a claim is baseless conjecture.

Agreed

Originally posted by Devil King
As far as the main thrust of the thread topic, the Christian religion IS an amalgamation of many middle-eastern religions. Anyone who believes that christianity fell from the sky as a fully formed religion, uninfluenced by the older religions that surrounded it, would be foolish.

Ok now you've gone from one extreme to the other. Whilst its silly to say Christianity fell from the sky, it's just as silly to say it is merely an amalgamation of many middle eastern religions. Whilst similarities occur through symbolism and specific terms used throughout the time (eg "Son of God" is phrase used in numerous religions at the time.) you can't just say that the Christian faith derives from that. In core beliefs and practises, there are numerous differences. I personally feel that the similarities are due to the fact that these sayings merely existed a that time. Like if I were to say "Where there's smoke there's fire." I would be using the phrase but I wouldn't claim ownership of it. Just like this when early Christians were writing scripture, they would use similar phrases to other religions (like "son of God.", not because they were merely copying them and so it's therefore all a sham, but they copied them because that was the saying to get the emphasis across at the time. This obviously wouldn't make it any less of a truth because they borrowed a phrase

Originally posted by Devil King
And whoever it was that said there are traces of Christianity taken from "Norse" religions, needs to do a little more study on the themes in mythology. Human involvment in the creation of religions are the reason for many of the similarities between one religion and the next. The same stories we (humans) were telling ourselves 4000 years ago to explain our shared questions are the same stories we tell ourselves today.

Or possibly to merely describe something. I might call a building big, you might call it large, does that make one of us wrong and the other right?

Originally posted by Devil King
Oh, and I think getting caught up in the pyramids is putting the horse before the cart. You don't need pyramids to disprove the judaeo-christian notion of the planet being 6000 years old. I mean, you have the planet itself. It kind of refutes that biblical garbage simply by existing. Or humans, even. The existence of the human animal disproves that the planet is only six thousand years old.

Ah I sense casual stereotyping. I am Christian so I clearly think the world is that specific age right? Perhaps because I'm a Christian you think I get down on my knees and clasp my hands when I pray? Or maybe I go to my archaic Church where we sit on dusty old pews????

Originally Posted by Devil King



Did you just say that the "evidence" is BASELESS? Dear God! You must really be blind to overlook them. Well let me point them out to you as clear as i can, first, the pyramids in Giza to be exact are perfectly aligned to the world's cardinal points(North, East, West, & South). Remember that they are in line with the TRUE NORTH of the world as we know it today, and believe it or not they missed by only 3 arc minutes! Now that's an incredibly small amount for a quasi stone age people to pinpoint with the technology they had don't you think so? There are 60 minutes in 1 degree of latitude or longitude and the earth is divided into 360 degrees of latitude or longitude. Since this is a fact, are you saying then that those stupid egyptians knew how to circumnavigate the world and that they may have already did during their time? Funny they never wrote it down in their history niether did they mention anything about how or why they built those pyramids, just that some years later some people studied a few years on these structures and concluded that they were tombs.

There literally hundreds of facts that can be found by observing these structures carefully. I am basing my argument based on those facts and not just hear says.

Yah, there's a 600-page book on the mathematical and astronomical significance of great pyramids. You should read it if you are interested. The Egyptians, or whoever built the pyramids were highly intelligent.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yah, there's a 600-page book on the mathematical and astronomical significance of great pyramids. You should read it if you are interested. The Egyptians, or whoever built the pyramids were highly intelligent.



There is an interesting hypothesis about the construction of the pyramids being directed by the Nephilim.

Christians don't like you either

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
Christians don't like you either


Why not ?


If Christians are good people, they should like everybody

Not like, love. There is a difference.Originally posted by Goddess Kali
There is an interesting hypothesis about the construction of the pyramids being directed by the Nephilim. One that I find very plausible.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not like, love. There is a difference. One that I find very plausible.


Like the Bible, but still interesting.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Why not ?


If Christians are good people, they should like everybody

It was a joke. We, Or at least I, (because I actually follow what the bible says ) do love everybody, in the sense that I accept everybody for who they are. For example, despite your being a flaming homosexual I don't hold it against you.

lol. 2 pages.

Also, this could go in the "Pagan Influences..." thread...or just be deleted.

Originally posted by HULKSTER04
The Pyramids in egypt says that the biblical accounts of the creation was a lie.

Before posting any questions please check out the pyramids first and then we'll discuss this.

The Bible never claimed to be historically accurate. So, why give it up the good book simply because said tales did not happen?

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
Christians don't like you either

I don't have anything against Goddess kali. I may disagree with a lot of his views, but I respect him as a person

Originally posted by willRules
Ok now you've gone from one extreme to the other. Whilst its silly to say Christianity fell from the sky, it's just as silly to say it is merely an amalgamation of many middle eastern religions. Whilst similarities occur through symbolism and specific terms used throughout the time (eg "Son of God" is phrase used in numerous religions at the time.) you can't just say that the Christian faith derives from that. In core beliefs and practises, there are numerous differences. I personally feel that the similarities are due to the fact that these sayings merely existed a that time. Like if I were to say "Where there's smoke there's fire." I would be using the phrase but I wouldn't claim ownership of it. Just like this when early Christians were writing scripture, they would use similar phrases to other religions (like "son of God.", not because they were merely copying them and so it's therefore all a sham, but they copied them because that was the saying to get the emphasis across at the time. This obviously wouldn't make it any less of a truth because they borrowed a phrase

we aren't talking about words. We're talking about intent. And the intent of christianity is nothing revolutionary.



Originally posted by willRules
Or possibly to merely describe something. I might call a building big, you might call it large, does that make one of us wrong and the other right?

what?



Originally posted by willRules
Ah I sense casual stereotyping. I am Christian so I clearly think the world is that specific age right? Perhaps because I'm a Christian you think I get down on my knees and clasp my hands when I pray? Or maybe I go to my archaic Church where we sit on dusty old pews????

I assure you, there is nothing casual about my stereotyping. And there is none of my stereotyping in your attempt at self-defense.

Originally posted by HULKSTER04
Did you just say that the "evidence" is BASELESS? Dear God! You must really be blind to overlook them. Well let me point them out to you as clear as i can, first, the pyramids in Giza to be exact are perfectly aligned to the world's cardinal points(North, East, West, & South). Remember that they are in line with the TRUE NORTH of the world as we know it today, and believe it or not they missed by only 3 arc minutes! Now that's an incredibly small amount for a quasi stone age people to pinpoint with the technology they had don't you think so? There are 60 minutes in 1 degree of latitude or longitude and the earth is divided into 360 degrees of latitude or longitude. Since this is a fact, are you saying then that those stupid egyptians knew how to circumnavigate the world and that they may have already did during their time? Funny they never wrote it down in their history niether did they mention anything about how or why they built those pyramids, just that some years later some people studied a few years on these structures and concluded that they were tombs.

There literally hundreds of facts that can be found by observing these structures carefully. I am basing my argument based on those facts and not just hear says.

You'll never hear me call the Egyptians stupid. Yourself? That is another matter.

Originally posted by Devil King
we aren't talking about words. We're talking about intent. And the intent of christianity is nothing revolutionary.

I couldn't disagree more but this discussion will always come down to, you believe this, I believe that....

Originally posted by Devil King
I assure you, there is nothing casual about my stereotyping. And there is none of my stereotyping in your attempt at self-defense.


I'm not sure how to respond to that so I'm gonna go with......ok

Originally posted by Devil King
You'll never hear me call the Egyptians stupid. Yourself? That is another matter.

Totally agree, the tools and equipment the Egyptians utilised is nothing short of remarkable Although personally I find the Ancient Roman society much more interesting

It goes way beyond tools. It's their science, medicine, religion, morals, culture, etc. It was "advanced for it's time" -which is a statement I've never quite understood.

I have different view.
In Kabbalah, Adam is considered the Root Phase of human spirituality.
This is why he is called Adam ha Rishon, The First Man.
Adam was the first person to write a Kabbalah book, "The Angel of God's Secret" (Hamalaach Raziel) more than 5767 years ago, a small book that included a few drawings and tables. (Search for "Raziel" on Amazon.com).
It's important to remember,that Kabbalah doesn't stem from ancient texts or rituals: it comes from humankind's natural curiosity and desire to know more about this world and the world beyond.
The language of this book is difficult for us to understand. Adam presented it allegorically, using metaphors. He tells us about entire Upper Existence, but hr could not describe it in a manner we can relate to today. He attained it in his feelings and thus pictured it the best way he could. Adam, who was also the first soul, tells about the evolution and descent of all souls.
If you read this book, it is evident that the author is not uncivilized, uneducated mammoth hunter. He was a Kabbalist of very high degree who discovered the fundamental secrets of creation in his spiritual journey. He studied the Upper World, where our soul roams prior to its descent to Earth when we are born and where the soul returns after ones death.
Adam tels us how these souls will regroup into one soul, in a much higher degree than our own, and build what we call "man", of which we are but fragments.
More years after were coming up all kind of religion.

Originally posted by HULKSTER04
The Pyramids in egypt says that the biblical accounts of the creation was a lie.

Before posting any questions please check out the pyramids first and then we'll discuss this.

*checks out the pyramids*

Check.

Alright then....

....sup?

Don't trust the Pyramids, they lie......

fear

Originally posted by Spearofdestiny



I doubt that they ever existed....or if even the so called "Angels" or God's messengers did intermarry with human females and had children by them.
There was nothing plausible about that book. It was just load of crap and bullshits.

Think about this then: If Lucifer/Satan was indeed a cosmic superpower as the Bible says, he would be destroying planets and galaxies as retalliation against God, and even if God's army was that powerful they wouldn't not be able to stop him just as easily. The effects of their battle would be felt and be evidently destructive throughout the universe...but the universe goes on as it has been from the beginnig with its natural course. Jesus! More of this Nephilim crap...

How do you know Lucifer isn't destroying planets and galaxies? The universe is an unfathomably large place. Maybe he just hasn't gotten to us.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
How do you know Lucifer isn't destroying planets and galaxies? The universe is an unfathomably large place. Maybe he just hasn't gotten to us.


Lucifer is based on the Bible, Torah, and Quran. It clearly states he hates human beings. Earth would have been his first target.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Lucifer is based on the Bible, Torah, and Quran. It clearly states he hates human beings. Earth would have been his first target.

...Bible, Torah, Quran, and many others besides (can't insult the pagan mythologies that lent him to those religions).

Meh, I'd like to think he's just waiting for the second coming, so as to crash the party and ruin us all at God's finest moment. The Bible is nothing without it's epic sense of drama, and since Kelly Clarkson already won Idol (the 2nd most dramatic event in human history) I'm guessing he's waiting.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
...Bible, Torah, Quran, and many others besides (can't insult the pagan mythologies that lent him to those religions).

Meh, I'd like to think he's just waiting for the second coming, so as to crash the party and ruin us all at God's finest moment. The Bible is nothing without it's epic sense of drama, and since Kelly Clarkson already won Idol (the 2nd most dramatic event in human history) I'm guessing he's waiting.


Why would Earth be last ? What's so special about this world that he would savor it last ? We are only on the far edge of the milky way galaxy.


Why isn't Jupiter, Saturn, Venus and the like already destroyed then ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Why would Earth be last ? What's so special about this world that he would savor it last ? We are only on the far edge of the milky way galaxy.


Why isn't Jupiter, Saturn, Venus and the like already destroyed then ?

Are we seriously still having this conversation? It was a joke. You just went and killed it.

*

***There is NO Allah. There is ONLY one God...the God of Israel. Allah is only one of many STONE idols...IT doesn't SEE...IT doesn't HEAR and IT doesn't SPEAK .

Marchello

Originally posted by Marchello
*

***There is NO Allah. There is ONLY one God...the God of Israel. Allah is only one of many STONE idols...IT doesn't SEE...IT doesn't HEAR and IT doesn't SPEAK .

Marchello
The god of Israel is just as much fiction as any other man made god.

Page 1:

*

***Allegations are NOT proof. WITHOUT proof allegations FALL because they are just that...allegations.

There are three different types of evidence that are to be used in evaluating the NT text. These are the Greek manuscripts, the various versions in which the NT is translated, and the writings of the church fathers.

The NT was originally composed in the Greek language. Before the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century all books were copied by hand. A handwritten manuscript is known as a manuscript. There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the NT. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist from a very early date.

The NT was written from about 50 A.D. to 90 A.D. The earliest fragment dates about 120 A.D., with about fifty other fragments dating within 150-200 years from the time of composition.

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus , a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This is a MINIMAL time span compared to most ancient works.

The earliest copy of Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the "Odyssey" by Homer 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the NT and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the NT proves to be MUCH closer to the time of the original.

The 5,500 copies are far and away the most we have of any ancient work. Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of manuscripts .

Not only do the NT documents have more manuscript evidence and CLOSE time interval between WRITING and EARLIEST copy...but they were also TRANSLATED into several other languages at an early date. Translation of a document into another language was RARE in the ancient world...so this is an added PLUS for the NT.

(Continued)

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 1:

*

***Allegations are NOT proof. WITHOUT proof allegations FALL because they are just that...allegations.

There are three different types of evidence that are to be used in evaluating the NT text. These are the Greek manuscripts, the various versions in which the NT is translated, and the writings of the church fathers.

The NT was originally composed in the Greek language. Before the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century all books were copied by hand. A handwritten manuscript is known as a manuscript. There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the NT. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist from a very early date.

The NT was written from about 50 A.D. to 90 A.D. The earliest fragment dates about 120 A.D., with about fifty other fragments dating within 150-200 years from the time of composition.

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus , a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This is a MINIMAL time span compared to most ancient works.

The earliest copy of Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the "Odyssey" by Homer 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the NT and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the NT proves to be MUCH closer to the time of the original.

The 5,500 copies are far and away the most we have of any ancient work. Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of manuscripts .

Not only do the NT documents have more manuscript evidence and CLOSE time interval between WRITING and EARLIEST copy...but they were also TRANSLATED into several other languages at an early date. Translation of a document into another language was RARE in the ancient world...so this is an added PLUS for the NT.

(Continued)

Please don't continued with your cut and paste. Anyone can get onto the Christian propaganda web sites. At least show the link instead of making people think you wrote this.

Page 2:


*

***Allegations are NOT proof. WITHOUT proof allegations FALL because they are just that...allegations.

There are three different types of evidence that are to be used in evaluating the NT text. These are the Greek manuscripts, the various versions in which the NT is translated, and the writings of the church fathers.

The NT was originally composed in the Greek language. Before the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century all books were copied by hand. A handwritten manuscript is known as a manuscript. There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the NT. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist from a very early date.

The NT was written from about 50 A.D. to 90 A.D. The earliest fragment dates about 120 A.D., with about fifty other fragments dating within 150-200 years from the time of composition.

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus , a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This is a MINIMAL time span compared to most ancient works.

The earliest copy of Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the "Odyssey" by Homer 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the NT and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the NT proves to be MUCH closer to the time of the original.

The 5,500 copies are far and away the most we have of any ancient work. Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of manuscripts .

Not only do the NT documents have more manuscript evidence and CLOSE time interval between WRITING and EARLIEST copy...but they were also TRANSLATED into several other languages at an early date. Translation of a document into another language was RARE in the ancient world...so this is an added PLUS for the NT.

(Continued)

***The number of copies of the versions is in EXCESS of 18,000, with possibly as many as 25,000. This is further evidence that helps us establish the NT text.

Even if we did NOT possess the 5,500 Greek manuscripts or the 18,000 copies of the versions...the text of the NT could STILL be reproduced within 250 from the composition. How? By the writings of the early Christians. In commentaries, letters, etc., these ancient writers quote the biblical text...thus giving us another WITNESS to the text of the NT.

John Burgon has catalogued more than 86,000 citations of the NT in the writings of the early church fathers who lived before 325 A.D. Thus we observe that there is so much more evidence for the RELIABILITY of the NT text than any other comparable writings in the ancient world.

The evidence points out that (1) the documents were NOT written LONG after the events...but WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY to them, and (2) they were written by people DURING the PERIOD when many WHO were acquainted with the FACTS or were EYEWITNESSES to THEM were STILL LIVING. The inescapable conclusion is that the NT picture of Christ can be TRUSTED.

Marchello

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 2:


*

***Allegations are NOT proof. WITHOUT proof allegations FALL because they are just that...allegations.

There are three different types of evidence that are to be used in evaluating the NT text. These are the Greek manuscripts, the various versions in which the NT is translated, and the writings of the church fathers.

The NT was originally composed in the Greek language. Before the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century all books were copied by hand. A handwritten manuscript is known as a manuscript. There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the NT. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist from a very early date.

The NT was written from about 50 A.D. to 90 A.D. The earliest fragment dates about 120 A.D., with about fifty other fragments dating within 150-200 years from the time of composition.

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus , a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This is a MINIMAL time span compared to most ancient works.

The earliest copy of Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the "Odyssey" by Homer 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the NT and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the NT proves to be MUCH closer to the time of the original.

The 5,500 copies are far and away the most we have of any ancient work. Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of manuscripts .

Not only do the NT documents have more manuscript evidence and CLOSE time interval between WRITING and EARLIEST copy...but they were also TRANSLATED into several other languages at an early date. Translation of a document into another language was RARE in the ancient world...so this is an added PLUS for the NT.

(Continued)

***The number of copies of the versions is in EXCESS of 18,000, with possibly as many as 25,000. This is further evidence that helps us establish the NT text.

Even if we did NOT possess the 5,500 Greek manuscripts or the 18,000 copies of the versions...the text of the NT could STILL be reproduced within 250 from the composition. How? By the writings of the early Christians. In commentaries, letters, etc., these ancient writers quote the biblical text...thus giving us another WITNESS to the text of the NT.

John Burgon has catalogued more than 86,000 citations of the NT in the writings of the early church fathers who lived before 325 A.D. Thus we observe that there is so much more evidence for the RELIABILITY of the NT text than any other comparable writings in the ancient world.

The evidence points out that (1) the documents were NOT written LONG after the events...but WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY to them, and (2) they were written by people DURING the PERIOD when many WHO were acquainted with the FACTS or were EYEWITNESSES to THEM were STILL LIVING. The inescapable conclusion is that the NT picture of Christ can be TRUSTED.

Marchello

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please don't continued with your cut and paste. Anyone can get onto the Christian propaganda web sites. At least show the link instead of making people think you wrote this.

Marchello is a plagiarist.
http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=368

I don't like anyone who's a hypocrite. It doesn't matter what belief they are.

It's not just about Christ, it has to do with everything and the Bible is basically is loaded with extreme discrepancies that Christians refuse to accept nor will they even investigate it. History is in disagreement with what the Bible says. Some of Christ's teachings may have been corrupted.

Originally posted by HULKSTER04
It's not just about Christ, it has to do with everything and the Bible is basically is loaded with extreme discrepancies that Christians refuse to accept nor will they even investigate it. History is in disagreement with what the Bible says. Some of Christ's teachings may have been corrupted.
Baseless accu-whatnows?

You'll find that many Christians will acknowledge discrepancies in the Bible, and they can often trace from where they came. For instance, a lot of them have to do with numbers: parts of the Bible will give an exact value while another will give a "round" number.

"Oi, there's 25,361 men against our 500!"
"Jenkins, you dolt! We don't have time for such nonsense; give me an approximation!"
"Oi, there's 25,000 men against our 500!"
"That's better."

Originally posted by FeceMan
Baseless accu-whatnows?

You'll find that many Christians will acknowledge discrepancies in the Bible, and they can often trace from where they came. For instance, a lot of them have to do with numbers: parts of the Bible will give an exact value while another will give a "round" number.

"Oi, there's 25,361 men against our 500!"
"Jenkins, you dolt! We don't have time for such nonsense; give me an approximation!"
"Oi, there's 25,000 men against our 500!"
"That's better."

2 Samuel 23:8
These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

1 Chronicles 11:11
And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

Rounding error? Mmmmmmmm

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
2 Samuel 23:8
These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

1 Chronicles 11:11
And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

Rounding error? Mmmmmmmm Na, the other 500 were cardboard cutouts

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Na, the other 500 were cardboard cutouts


I don't think they had cardboard back then.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think they had cardboard back then.


surprise I thought God created everything at once

Originally posted by darkfan76
(1) False. Christianity comes from Jewish religion. Nothing to do with egypt's religion.

(2) The tree of Eden was in the Jewish scriptures long before Christianism.

(3) You are just talking about sensational pseudo-theories, which has not been proved at all. In fact, their only based are some resemblances. That's all. You see, some anti-catholic fundamentalist christian actually started this to bash the Catholic Church, in books such as the Babylon connection (whose author later recognized that he took only some assumptions but didn't have any real proof), later the anti-Christian took the same tactics to bash Christianity.

(4) Christianity is the most and better documented religion from the beginning up to date. With the exception of Fundamentalist christians, who think that Biblie fell from the sky, with an Index, chapters and that was written by God himself and think they should take it literally, Most of Christians: Catholics, Orthodox and Historical protestant groups know the documents starting from 1st century besides the Biblie itself, that enlighten about the way Bible should be interpreted, and the teachings first christians received orally from the apostles and his close disciples. We know Bible is God's revelation, and Inspired by the Holy Spirit, but written by men, according to the oral tradition they received from the apostles, and that certainly a book of collection of books is not sufficient for Christians, but they need the living testimony of the church founded by Christ, since Bible itself mentions it. Don't judge Christianity for the Fundamentalists. And the Quran is even better write than the Bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
2 Samuel 23:8
These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

1 Chronicles 11:11
And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

Rounding error? Mmmmmmmm
You're joking, right?

2 Samuel 23:8 talks about "the Tachmonite" (Jashobeam, as mentioned in 1 Chronicles 11:11; "Hachmonite" is a homonym) as well as "Adino the Eznite," who killed 800 with a spear.

1 Chronicles 11:11 talks about Jashobeam--which reiterates "chief among the captains"--who killed 300 with his spear.

Originally posted by FeceMan
You're joking, right?

2 Samuel 23:8 talks about "the Tachmonite" (Jashobeam, as mentioned in 1 Chronicles 11:11; "Hachmonite" is a homonym) as well as "Adino the Eznite," who killed 800 with a spear.

1 Chronicles 11:11 talks about Jashobeam--which reiterates "chief among the captains"--who killed 300 with his spear.

Personally, I don't care. The bible is just as flawed as any other book from it's time.

Please see:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

That is where I got my information.

Brilliant strategy, Shakya.

Shakya: "LOOK THE BIBLE IS FLAWED LOL PWNED"

FeceMan: "Are you kidding me? Those are talking about two different things."

Shakya: "Well, I don't even care that you just disproved my argument with such ease--look at this awesome site that disproves Christianity!"

FeceMan: *Rubs his temples.*

Originally posted by FeceMan
Brilliant strategy, Shakya.

Shakya: "LOOK THE BIBLE IS FLAWED LOL PWNED"

FeceMan: "Are you kidding me? Those are talking about two different things."

Shakya: "Well, I don't even care that you just disproved my argument with such ease--look at this awesome site that disproves Christianity!"

FeceMan: *Rubs his temples.*

No, incorrect. Did you look at the site? It does not disproves anything. It simply shows the bible from a realistic point of view. When it makes a case, it even gives the other side. It is a fair and balanced site. But you would not know that, if you didn't go there.

You're quite right that I didn't go there, as I made the assumption that it was one of the relatively frequently-linked websites made by a bunch of atheists who don't know Leviticus from Deuteronomy.

Originally posted by FeceMan
You're quite right that I didn't go there, as I made the assumption that it was one of the relatively frequently-linked websites made by a bunch of atheists who don't know Leviticus from Deuteronomy.

I don't know who made it; and you will probably not like it, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong.

Yeah Christians do accept discrepancies and may even probably conduct investigations to any accusations made by atheists like me, but if i know the christians better, they will eventually come up with moving speeches to convince the world that in the end the bible and their beliefs will always be right. I know how they brain-wash us, I was sitting in the middle of a sermon everyfay of my life and frankly I'm sick of it.

They cannot even decide between themselves which things are meant to be taken literally and which things are not.

Originally posted by HULKSTER04
Yeah Christians do accept discrepancies and may even probably conduct investigations to any accusations made by atheists like me, but if i know the christians better, they will eventually come up with moving speeches to convince the world that in the end the bible and their beliefs will always be right. I know how they brain-wash us, I was sitting in the middle of a sermon everyfay of my life and frankly I'm sick of it.
YEAH DAMN THEM XTIANS

Well if they would STOP telling people they are going to hell then maybe they wouldn't be called "X" tians. People would have more respect for them.

By the way, Xmas is coming soon...