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

Old Testament

(1) Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered 1947-56, Qumran, Israel). Provided our oldest copies of almost all books of the Old Testament and confirmed reliability of the transmission process.

(2) Taylor Prism (discovered 1830, Nineveh, Iraq). Corroborates the compaigns of Sennacherib found in 2 Kg 18:13-19:37; 2 Ch 32:1-12; Is 36:1-37:38.

(3) House of David Inscriptions (discovered 1993-94, Tel Dan, Israel). Earliest mention outside the Bible of King David, who some scholars habe held to be a fictional character.

(4) Cylinder of Nabonidus (discovered 1854, Ur, Iraq). Corroborates Belshazzar as last king of Babylon as recorded in Daniel 5:1-30; 7:1; 8:1.

(5) Sargon Inscriptions (discovered 1843, Khorsabad, Iraq). Confirms the existence of Sargon, King of Assyria, Isaiah 20:1, as well as his conquering of Samaria (2 Kings 17:23-24).

(6) Tiglath-Pileser III Inscriptions (discovered 1845-49, Nimrud, Iraq). Corroborates 2 Kings 15:29).

(7) Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser (discovered 1846, Nimrud, Iraq). Depicts Jehu, son of Omri, oldest known picture of an ancient Israelite.

(8) Moabite Stone (discovered 1868, Palestine). Corroborates 2 King 3.

(9) Ketef Hinnom Amulets (discovered 1779, Jerusalem). Contains the Hebrew text of Numbers 6:24-26 and Deuteronomy 9:7. This is the oldest instance to date of of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, 7th-6th century BC.

(10) Seal of Baruch (discovered early-mid 1970's, Jerusalem). Contains the phrase "belonging to Beruch son of Neriah," Jeremiah's scribe, 6th century BC.

(11) Epic of Gilgamesh (discovered 1853, Nineveh, Iraq). First extra-biblical find that appears to reference the great flood of Genesis 7-8.

(12) Weld-Blundell Prism (discovered 1922, Babylon, Iraq). Contains a list of Sumerian Kings that ruled before and after the great flood; the kings that pre-dated the flood are attributed enormous life spans reminiscent of, though greater than, the lifespans of pre-flood inhabitants of the Bible.

(13) Siloam Inscription (discovered 1880, Jerusalem). One of the few extinct Hebrew writings from the 8th century BC or earlier.

(14) Gedaliah Seal (discovered 1935, Lanchish, Israel). Corroborates 2 Kings 25:22

New Testament

(1) The Pilate Stone Inscription (discovered 1961, Caesarea Maritima). Confirmed the existence and office of Pilate.

(2) The Delphi, or Gallio, Inscription (discovered 1905). Fixed the date of Gallio's proconsulship at AD 51-52, providing a way of daiting Acts 18:12-17, and as a result, much of Paul's ministry.

(3) Caiaphas Ossuary (discovered 1990, near Jerusalem). Confirmed the existence of Caiaphas.

(4) Sergius Paulus Inscription (discovered 1877, Paphos, Cyprus). Confirms the existence of Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus encountered by Paul and Barnabus in Acts 13:7.

(5) Pool of Siloam (discovered 2004, Jerusalem). Site of Jesus' miracle recorded in John 9:1-11.

(6) Skeleton of Yohanan (discovered 1968, Jerusalem). Only known remains of crucifixion victim; corroborates the Bible's description of crucifixion.

(7) Rylands Papyrus P52 (discovered 1920). Oldest universally accepted manuscript of the New Testament, a small fragment of John's Gospel dated by papyrologists to AD 125.

(8) Bodmer Papyrus II (discovered 1952, Pabau, Egypt). Contains most of John's Gospel and dates from AD 150-200.

(9) Magdalene Papyrus (discovered 1901, Luxor, Egypt). Contains fragments of Matthew and has been dated as being earlier than 70 AD, though there is debate concerning the date.

(10) Chester Beatty Papyri (discovered 1931-35, Cairo, Egypt). Three papyri dating from AD 200 that contain most of the New Testament.

(11) Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Vatican Library's earliest inventory ). Dated AD 325-50 and contains nearly complete Bible.

(12) Codex Sinaiticus (discovered 1859, Mt Sinai, Egypt). Codex contains nearly complete New Testament and over half of the Old Testament (the books at the beginning of the Bible appear to have been lost to damage), dated AD 350.

(13) 7Q5 (discovered 1955, Qumran, Israel). Possible fragment of Mark that can be dated no later than AD 68 which would mamke the oldest extant New Testament fragment confirmed.

(14) Galilee Boat (discovered 1986, near Tiberias, Israel). The boat, 30' x 8', held approximately 15 passengers and would be like the boats Jesus' disciples used in crossing the Sea of Galilee. Carbon 14 dating places the boat between 120 BC and AD 40.

JIA without the colors.

Is it me, or is half this forum becoming ushome's copy/pasted threads and/or posts vs. everyone else's actual opinions and words?

Quit breaking up the forum Yoko.

*waits for others to come in and argue*

Gone With the Wind talks about real places and real events, but it is still a fictional story.

Oh cool it! Please. I didn't "copy and past" the information in this thread. I typed all from the "Apologetics Study Bible," which I purchased weeks ago. Regardless, why all the fuss?

The Bible--Old and New Testaments--make statments about "history." And Archaelogy helps establish the validity of the Bible. For example, read: "The First Temple Seal Found in Jerusalem." How you resort to stories like "Gone with the Wind," in comparison to the Bible is ridiculous, and it shows you bias towards the Bible. You don't even respect a 3,500 year old book, if only for its time and impact on the world.

General propaganda for one or another of the local solutions (philosophies and religions) is superfluous – or much rather, a menace. The way to become human is to learn to recognize the lineaments of God in all of the wonderful modulations of the face of man.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Oh cool it! Please. I didn't "copy and past" the information in this thread. I typed all from the "Apologetics Study Bible," which I purchased weeks ago. Regardless, why all the fuss?

nw that u can quote, maybe, just maybe u could work on lowering the font size of most of your posts to say.....normal levels

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Is it me, or is half this forum becoming ushome's copy/pasted threads and/or posts vs. everyone else's actual opinions and words?


There's nothing wrong with that. A lot of opening posts begin with a news article or a Youtube clip. It's a way to get a discussion started.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
There's nothing wrong with that. A lot of opening posts begin with a news article or a Youtube clip. It's a way to get a discussion started.

when you do it every thread you start for the last 10-15 threads it is a problem

I appreciate the fair comment; thank you very much.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The Bible--Old and New Testaments--make statments about "history." And Archaelogy helps establish the validity of the Bible. For example, read: "The First Temple Seal Found in Jerusalem." How you resort to stories like "Gone with the Wind," in comparison to the Bible is ridiculous, and it shows you bias towards the Bible. You don't even respect a 3,500 year old book, if only for its time and impact on the world.

Before I show respect for the bible, I need to put it into perspective. It is a far more serious set of books then Gone With the Wind, but it is just a book written by humans. It is no better or worse than any holy book.

The bible is an extraordinary book. It has shaped the world in profound ways. But we humans are really good as finding patterns in randomness. We can see faces in a stucco wall. We evolved with this trait to survive. The person who can see the predator in the bushes first, lives, and has children that can see patterns.

That is all you are doing is seeing patterns in the words of the bible, but what you are seeing is only in your head.

What you are doing is post-diction, but we have been down this road.

Shakyamunison-

You need to lay off the peyote... grandpa. stupid

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
There's nothing wrong with that. A lot of opening posts begin with a news article or a Youtube clip. It's a way to get a discussion started.

No no, we've been through this. It's fine if it supplements discussion....but sucks when it is their end of the discussion. Which is what ushome's and JIA's posts usually are.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

You need to lay off the peyote... grandpa. stupid

Peyote? So, you have nothing to say?

Fair enough; but putting the Bible into perspective isn't going to happen all by itself. Apathy is not the answer.



You are free to make that assumption, but the Bible asks all its readers to "test" it objectively. This requires effort and sincerity of the reader.



People rising from the dead happens all the time; definitely a pattern.



Right... Jesus' tomb really was occupied. The Jewish and Roman authorities didn't reveal Jesus' body because--well, deep down inside--they thought He was a cool guy.



And applying "postdiction" to the Bible--prophecy specifically--is incredibly shortsighted. I made reasonable efforts to substantiate this claim, but all you ever did was claim (over and over again), "It's postdiction ushome; it's postdiction."

Originally posted by ushomefree
Fair enough; but putting the Bible into perspective isn't going to happen all by itself. Apathy is not the answer.

What does apathy have to do with anything?

Originally posted by ushomefree
You are free to make that assumption, but the Bible asks all its readers to "test" it objectively. This requires effort and sincerity of the reader.

I know the bible. It has been many years, but I used to study it a lot.

Originally posted by ushomefree
People rising from the dead happens all the time; definitely a pattern.

I don’t know what you are talking about. No one has ever come back from the dead.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Right... Jesus' tomb really was occupied. The Jewish and Roman authorities didn't reveal Jesus' body because--well, deep down inside--they thought He was a cool guy.

I’m sorry if what I’m telling you puts everything you believe into jeopardy, but…

Originally posted by ushomefree
And applying "postdiction" to the Bible--prophecy specifically--is incredibly shortsighted. I made reasonable efforts to substantiate this claim, but all you ever did was claim (over and over again), "It's postdiction ushome; it's postdiction."

How is it short sided? I remember me asking you a question, and you not answering the question.

Why does post-diction not apply to the bible?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

You need to lay off the peyote... grandpa. stupid

o dear i believe he just made a funny

Tyre still exists.....

LOooooooooooooooooooooooooooLLLLLLLLlllllll

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Before I show respect for the bible, I need to put it into perspective. It is a far more serious set of books then Gone With the Wind, but it is just a book written by humans. It is no better or worse than any holy book.

The bible is an extraordinary book. It has shaped the world in profound ways. But we humans are really good as finding patterns in randomness. We can see faces in a stucco wall. We evolved with this trait to survive. The person who can see the predator in the bushes first, lives, and has children that can see patterns.

That is all you are doing is seeing patterns in the words of the bible, but what you are seeing is only in your head.

What you are doing is post-diction, but we have been down this road.


That's a good point but how does having this evolutionary trait make anything the Bible say any more or less true?

The statement you made doesn't account for the validity of the Bible. Maybe we are very good at finding patterns as part of our very nature, but couldn't it just as easily be argued that the patterns found in the Bible only confirm it's reliability.

The same thing could be used in an argument to support God's existence. I could really want to believe in God on a deep psychological level. I could drive myself insane with indoctrination and chants about God and even create my own version of God. I could be told that it is merely an evolutionary trait that helps me believe these things. But this doesn't tell us if God really exists or not, one way or another.

Back on point, there are more ancient historical records to confirm the reliability of the Bible more than any other ancient historical record. The real question comes down to whether you agree with it's spiritual points, which is a matter of faith and experience.

Originally posted by willRules
That's a good point but how does having this evolutionary trait make anything the Bible say any more or less true?

The patterns are not in the bible, they are in the minds of the reader. There are as many interpretations of the bible as there are people. Why is one interpretation better then another?

Originally posted by willRules
The statement you made doesn't account for the validity of the Bible. Maybe we are very good at finding patterns as part of our very nature, but couldn't it just as easily be argued that the patterns found in the Bible only confirm it's reliability.

Why the bible? Why not the Koran, or some other book? I have seen how people have taken the bible and make it say anything they want. If what you are saying is true, there would only be one pattern in the bible, but that is not the case. Just look at how many types of Christianity there is:

Armenian Catholic Church
Belarusian Catholic Church
Bulgarian Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Croatian Greek Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Georgian Catholic Church
Greek Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
Macedonian Catholic Church
Maronite Catholic Church
Melkite Catholic Church
Romanian Catholic Church
Russian Catholic Church
Ruthenian Catholic Church (usually called the "Byzantine Catholic Church" in the United States)
Slovak Greek Catholic Church
Syrian Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia
Anglican Church in Thailand
Anglican Church of Australia
Anglican Church of Canada
Anglican Church of Kenya
Anglican Church of Korea
Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea
Anglican Church of Southern Africa
Church in Wales
Church of England
Church of Ireland
Church of Nigeria
Church of Uganda
Church of the Province of Burundi
Church of the Province of Central Africa
Church of the Province of Melanesia
Church of the Province of Myanmar
Church of the Province of Rwanda
Church of the Province of South East Asia
Church of the Province of Tanzania
Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean
Church of the Province of the West Indies (History)
Church of the Province of West Africa
Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East
Episcopal Church in the United States of America
Episcopal Church of Cuba
Episcopal Church of the Sudan
Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui
Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central America
Iglesia Anglicana de México
Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de las Americas
Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil
Lusitanian Church of Portugal
Nippon Sei Ko Kai (Japan)
Philippine Episcopal Church
Scottish Episcopal Church
Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church
Orthodox Church of Constantinople: the Ecumenical Patriarchate
Orthodox Church of Finland
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada
Orthodox Church of Estonia
Eastern Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Antiochian Orthodox Church
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Western Rite Vicariate of the North American Archdiocese
Orthodox Church of Jerusalem
Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai
Russian Orthodox Church
Chinese Orthodox Church
Japanese Orthodox Church
Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Metropolia of Western Europe
Belorussian Orthodox Church
Moldovan Orthodox Church Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church
Serbian Orthodox Church
Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric
Romanian Orthodox Church
Metropolis of Bessarabia
Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Cypriot Orthodox Church
Church of Greece
Polish Orthodox Church
Albanian Orthodox Church
Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church
Orthodox Church in America

Each of these denominations have a slightly different interpretation of the bible. Which one is right?

Originally posted by willRules
The same thing could be used in an argument to support God's existence. I could really want to believe in God on a deep psychological level. I could drive myself insane with indoctrination and chants about God and even create my own version of God. I could be told that it is merely an evolutionary trait that helps me believe these things. But this doesn't tell us if God really exists or not, one way or another.

It sounds like you are agreeing with me.

Originally posted by willRules
Back on point, there are more ancient historical records to confirm the reliability of the Bible more than any other ancient historical record. The real question comes down to whether you agree with it's spiritual points, which is a matter of faith and experience.

I don’t believe this statement. I think it is just propaganda. Can you give examples?

Christianity does have various denominations. Asking, "Which one is right," is unwarranted; no disrepect, but asking such a question reveals your lack of knowledge concerning the Christian faith and Bible. It is a "fair" question, nonetheless! All Christian denominations are in complete agreement regarding the fundamentals of Christianity, i.e., the Trinity, deity and resurrection of Jesus. Disagreement among the Christian Church entails peripheral matters, i.e., baptism, the validity of purgotary, and the age of the universe.

Analogy: take baseball, for example, each team has different players and management; and each team has different views on how the game should be won. Regardess, all teams must play by the rules! And all teams agree with the rules. Such is identical to Christian denominations.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Christianity does have various denominations. Asking, "Which one is right," is unwarranted; no disrepect, but asking such a question reveals your lack of knowledge concerning the Christian faith and Bible. It is a "fair" question, nonetheless! All Christian denominations are in complete agreement regarding the fundamentals of Christianity, i.e., the Trinity, deity and resurrection of Jesus. Disagreement among the Christian Church entails peripheral matters, i.e., baptism, the validity of purgotary, and the age of the universe.

Analogy: take baseball, for example, each team has different players and management; and each team has different views on how the game should be won. Regardess, all teams must play by the rules! And all teams agree with the rules. Such is identical to Christian denominations.

Please stop it with the condescending approach. To ask which is right, leads to my point that none of them are fully right. Why is it not warranted? You say things like this, but never say way or supply support to your claim.

Not true... There are some, on the list above, that do not believe in the trinity. Also, religions like Mormons are so different that some Christians do not view them as Christian.

Your Analogy can be applied to all religions in the world.

The rise of denominations within the Christian faith can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation, the movement to "reform" the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th century, out of which four major divisions or traditions of Protestantism would emerge: Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. From these four, other denominations grew over the centuries. The Lutheran denomination was named after Martin Luther and was based on his teachings. The Methodists got their name because their founder, John Wesley, was famous for coming up with "methods" for spiritual growth. Presbyterians are named for their view on church leadership—the Greek word for elder is presbyteros. Baptists got their name because they have always emphasized the importance of baptism. Each denomination has a slightly different doctrine or emphasis from the others, such as the method of baptism; the availability of Lord's supper to all or just to those whose testimonies can be verified by church leaders; the sovereignty of God vs. free will in the matter of salvation; the future of Israel and the church; the role works play in salvation; pre-tribulation vs. post-tribulation rapture; the existence of the "sign" gifts in the modern era, and the list could go on and on. The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word.

Denominations today are many and varied. The original "mainline" denominations mentioned above have spawned numerous offshoots such as Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Nazarenes, Evangelical Free, independent Bible churches, and others. Some denominations emphasize slight doctrinal differences, but more often they simply offer different styles of worship to fit the differing tastes and preferences of Christians. But make no mistake: we, as believers, must be of one mind on the essentials of the faith, but beyond that there is a great deal of latitude in how a Christian should worship in a corporate setting. This latitude is what causes so many different "flavors" of Christianity. The Presbyterian Church of Mbale, Uganda, has a style of worship much different from the Presbyterian Church of Denver, but their doctrinal stand is the same. Diversity is a good thing, but disunity is not. If two churches disagree doctrinally, debate and dialogue over the Word may be called for. This type of "iron sharpening iron" (Proverbs 27:17) is beneficial to all. If they disagree on style and form, however, it is fine for them to remain separate. This separation, though, does not lift the responsibility Christians have to love one another (1 John 4:11-12) and ultimately be united as one in Christ (John 17:21-22).

When looking for a church, the believer should start with its Statement of Faith. What that church believes and practices should be in line with the doctrines of faith as outlined by the Bible. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, the authority of the Bible is the governing truth, the sufficiency of Scripture is affirmed, where we can grow in our relationships with the Lord, where we can minister to the body with our spiritual gifts, spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually.

The Downside of Christian Denominations:

There seems to be at least two major problems with denominationalism. First, nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate for denominationalism; to the contrary the mandate is for union and connectivity. Thus, the second problem is that history tells us that denominationalism is the result of, or caused by, conflict and confrontation which leads to division and separation. Jesus told us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This general principle can and should be applied to the church. We find an example of this in the Corinthian church which was struggling with issues of division and separation. There were those who thought that they should follow Paul and those who thought they should follow the teaching of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 1:12, "What I am saying is this: each of you says, "I'm with Paul," or "I'm with Apollos," or "I'm with Cephas," or "I'm with Christ." This alone should tell you what Paul thought of denominations or anything else that separates and divides the body. But let’s look further; in verse 13, Paul asks very pointed questions, "Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name?" This makes clear how Paul feels, he (Paul) is not the Christ, he is not the one crucified and his message has never been one that divides the church or would lead someone to worship Paul instead of Christ. Obviously, according to Paul, there is only one church and one body of believers and anything that is different weakens and destroys the church (see verse 17). He makes this point stronger in 3:4 by saying that anyone who says they are of Paul or of Apollos is carnal.

Some of the problems we are faced with today as we look at denominationalism and its more recent history:

1. Denominations are based on disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture. An example would be the meaning and purpose of baptism. Is baptism a requirement for salvation or is it symbolic of the salvation process? There are denominations on both sides of this issue and have used the issue to separate and form denominations.

2. Disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture are taken personally and become points of contention. This leads to arguments which can and have done much to destroy the witness of church.

3. The church should be able to resolves it differences inside the body, but once again history tells us that this doesn't happen. Today the media uses our differences against us to demonstrate that we are not unified in thought or purpose.

4. Denominations are used by man out of self-interest. There are denominations today that are in a state of self-destruction as they are being led into apostasy by those who are promoting their personal agendas.

5. The value of unity is found in the ability to pool our gifts and resources to promote the Kingdom to a lost world. This runs contrary to divisions caused by denominationalism.

What is a believer/skeptic to do? Should we ignore denominations, should we just not go to church and worship on our own at home?

The answer to both questions is no. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, where you as an individual can have a personal relationship with the Lord, where you can join in Biblical ministries that are spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually. Pick a church on the basis of its relationship to Christ, how well it is serving the community. Pick a church where the pastor is preaching the Gospel without fear and is encouraged to do so. Christ and His church is all about your relationship to Him and to each other. As believers, there are certain basic doctrines that we must believe, but beyond that there is latitude on how we can serve and worship; it is this latitude that is the only good reason for denominations. This is diversity and not disunity. The first allows us to be individuals in Christ, the latter divides and destroys.



This is true; of course! But not all religions can be correct. And for the record, Mormons are not Christian.

Originally posted by ushomefree
This is true; of course! But not all religions can be correct.

How skeptical of you

do you follow it to its true end though?

"There is no reason to assume that any religion can be correct"

Originally posted by ushomefree
The rise of denominations within the Christian faith can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation, the movement to "reform" the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th century, out of which four major divisions or traditions of Protestantism would emerge: Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. From these four, other denominations grew over the centuries. The Lutheran denomination was named after Martin Luther and was based on his teachings. The Methodists got their name because their founder, John Wesley, was famous for coming up with "methods" for spiritual growth. Presbyterians are named for their view on church leadership—the Greek word for elder is presbyteros. Baptists got their name because they have always emphasized the importance of baptism. Each denomination has a slightly different doctrine or emphasis from the others, such as the method of baptism; the availability of Lord's supper to all or just to those whose testimonies can be verified by church leaders; the sovereignty of God vs. free will in the matter of salvation; the future of Israel and the church; the role works play in salvation; pre-tribulation vs. post-tribulation rapture; the existence of the "sign" gifts in the modern era, and the list could go on and on. The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word.

Denominations today are many and varied. The original "mainline" denominations mentioned above have spawned numerous offshoots such as Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Nazarenes, Evangelical Free, independent Bible churches, and others. Some denominations emphasize slight doctrinal differences, but more often they simply offer different styles of worship to fit the differing tastes and preferences of Christians. But make no mistake: we, as believers, must be of one mind on the essentials of the faith, but beyond that there is a great deal of latitude in how a Christian should worship in a corporate setting. This latitude is what causes so many different "flavors" of Christianity. The Presbyterian Church of Mbale, Uganda, has a style of worship much different from the Presbyterian Church of Denver, but their doctrinal stand is the same. Diversity is a good thing, but disunity is not. If two churches disagree doctrinally, debate and dialogue over the Word may be called for. This type of "iron sharpening iron" (Proverbs 27:17) is beneficial to all. If they disagree on style and form, however, it is fine for them to remain separate. This separation, though, does not lift the responsibility Christians have to love one another (1 John 4:11-12) and ultimately be united as one in Christ (John 17:21-22).

When looking for a church, the believer should start with its Statement of Faith. What that church believes and practices should be in line with the doctrines of faith as outlined by the Bible. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, the authority of the Bible is the governing truth, the sufficiency of Scripture is affirmed, where we can grow in our relationships with the Lord, where we can minister to the body with our spiritual gifts, spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually.

The Downside of Christian Denominations:

There seems to be at least two major problems with denominationalism. First, nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate for denominationalism; to the contrary the mandate is for union and connectivity. Thus, the second problem is that history tells us that denominationalism is the result of, or caused by, conflict and confrontation which leads to division and separation. Jesus told us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This general principle can and should be applied to the church. We find an example of this in the Corinthian church which was struggling with issues of division and separation. There were those who thought that they should follow Paul and those who thought they should follow the teaching of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 1:12, "What I am saying is this: each of you says, "I'm with Paul," or "I'm with Apollos," or "I'm with Cephas," or "I'm with Christ." This alone should tell you what Paul thought of denominations or anything else that separates and divides the body. But let’s look further; in verse 13, Paul asks very pointed questions, "Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name?" This makes clear how Paul feels, he (Paul) is not the Christ, he is not the one crucified and his message has never been one that divides the church or would lead someone to worship Paul instead of Christ. Obviously, according to Paul, there is only one church and one body of believers and anything that is different weakens and destroys the church (see verse 17). He makes this point stronger in 3:4 by saying that anyone who says they are of Paul or of Apollos is carnal.

Some of the problems we are faced with today as we look at denominationalism and its more recent history:

1. Denominations are based on disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture. An example would be the meaning and purpose of baptism. Is baptism a requirement for salvation or is it symbolic of the salvation process? There are denominations on both sides of this issue and have used the issue to separate and form denominations.

2. Disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture are taken personally and become points of contention. This leads to arguments which can and have done much to destroy the witness of church.

3. The church should be able to resolves it differences inside the body, but once again history tells us that this doesn't happen. Today the media uses our differences against us to demonstrate that we are not unified in thought or purpose.

4. Denominations are used by man out of self-interest. There are denominations today that are in a state of self-destruction as they are being led into apostasy by those who are promoting their personal agendas.

5. The value of unity is found in the ability to pool our gifts and resources to promote the Kingdom to a lost world. This runs contrary to divisions caused by denominationalism.

What is a believer/skeptic to do? Should we ignore denominations, should we just not go to church and worship on our own at home?

The answer to both questions is no. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, where you as an individual can have a personal relationship with the Lord, where you can join in Biblical ministries that are spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually. Pick a church on the basis of its relationship to Christ, how well it is serving the community. Pick a church where the pastor is preaching the Gospel without fear and is encouraged to do so. Christ and His church is all about your relationship to Him and to each other. As believers, there are certain basic doctrines that we must believe, but beyond that there is latitude on how we can serve and worship; it is this latitude that is the only good reason for denominations. This is diversity and not disunity. The first allows us to be individuals in Christ, the latter divides and destroys.

This can be boiled down to one word: “because”. This is not a good answer to my question.

Originally posted by ushomefree
This is true; of course! But not all religions can be correct. And for the record, Mormons are not Christian.

From my point of view, Mormons are Christians.

Why?

Quite off topic this.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Why?

They follow the teachings of Jesus.

Originally posted by queeq
Quite off topic this.

Ya, but what can I do?

Not respond anymore.

In what way?

Originally posted by ushomefree
In what way?

Originally posted by queeq
Not respond anymore.

We should move to the correct thread for this discussion.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=375165&from=thread&pagenumber=99#post10143183

How's that on topic?

Originally posted by queeq


How's that on topic?

I just moved it to the Mormon thread.

Ah.... clever. More threads off topic.

Originally posted by ushomefree
All Christian denominations are in complete agreement regarding the fundamentals of Christianity, i.e., the Trinity, deity and resurrection of Jesus.

And they are all in agreement that if someone asks you about the Christians before third century AD, he's a lunatic.

Pardon?

an easy no.............just like the norse king saga, are they true, many passages of it yes but even when written in the 1200 they romanticised each event so you have to take it out of context and just dribble over it

Originally posted by ushomefree
Old Testament

(1) Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered 1947-56, Qumran, Israel). Provided our oldest copies of almost all books of the Old Testament and confirmed reliability of the transmission process.

(2) Taylor Prism (discovered 1830, Nineveh, Iraq). Corroborates the compaigns of Sennacherib found in 2 Kg 18:13-19:37; 2 Ch 32:1-12; Is 36:1-37:38.

(3) House of David Inscriptions (discovered 1993-94, Tel Dan, Israel). Earliest mention outside the Bible of King David, who some scholars habe held to be a fictional character.

(4) Cylinder of Nabonidus (discovered 1854, Ur, Iraq). Corroborates Belshazzar as last king of Babylon as recorded in Daniel 5:1-30; 7:1; 8:1.

(5) Sargon Inscriptions (discovered 1843, Khorsabad, Iraq). Confirms the existence of Sargon, King of Assyria, Isaiah 20:1, as well as his conquering of Samaria (2 Kings 17:23-24).

(6) Tiglath-Pileser III Inscriptions (discovered 1845-49, Nimrud, Iraq). Corroborates 2 Kings 15:29).

(7) Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser (discovered 1846, Nimrud, Iraq). Depicts Jehu, son of Omri, oldest known picture of an ancient Israelite.

(8) Moabite Stone (discovered 1868, Palestine). Corroborates 2 King 3.

(9) Ketef Hinnom Amulets (discovered 1779, Jerusalem). Contains the Hebrew text of Numbers 6:24-26 and Deuteronomy 9:7. This is the oldest instance to date of of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, 7th-6th century BC.

(10) Seal of Baruch (discovered early-mid 1970's, Jerusalem). Contains the phrase "belonging to Beruch son of Neriah," Jeremiah's scribe, 6th century BC.

(11) Epic of Gilgamesh (discovered 1853, Nineveh, Iraq). First extra-biblical find that appears to reference the great flood of Genesis 7-8.

(12) Weld-Blundell Prism (discovered 1922, Babylon, Iraq). Contains a list of Sumerian Kings that ruled before and after the great flood; the kings that pre-dated the flood are attributed enormous life spans reminiscent of, though greater than, the lifespans of pre-flood inhabitants of the Bible.

(13) Siloam Inscription (discovered 1880, Jerusalem). One of the few extinct Hebrew writings from the 8th century BC or earlier.

(14) Gedaliah Seal (discovered 1935, Lanchish, Israel). Corroborates 2 Kings 25:22

New Testament

(1) The Pilate Stone Inscription (discovered 1961, Caesarea Maritima). Confirmed the existence and office of Pilate.

(2) The Delphi, or Gallio, Inscription (discovered 1905). Fixed the date of Gallio's proconsulship at AD 51-52, providing a way of daiting Acts 18:12-17, and as a result, much of Paul's ministry.

(3) Caiaphas Ossuary (discovered 1990, near Jerusalem). Confirmed the existence of Caiaphas.

(4) Sergius Paulus Inscription (discovered 1877, Paphos, Cyprus). Confirms the existence of Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus encountered by Paul and Barnabus in Acts 13:7.

(5) Pool of Siloam (discovered 2004, Jerusalem). Site of Jesus' miracle recorded in John 9:1-11.

(6) Skeleton of Yohanan (discovered 1968, Jerusalem). Only known remains of crucifixion victim; corroborates the Bible's description of crucifixion.

(7) Rylands Papyrus P52 (discovered 1920). Oldest universally accepted manuscript of the New Testament, a small fragment of John's Gospel dated by papyrologists to AD 125.

(8) Bodmer Papyrus II (discovered 1952, Pabau, Egypt). Contains most of John's Gospel and dates from AD 150-200.

(9) Magdalene Papyrus (discovered 1901, Luxor, Egypt). Contains fragments of Matthew and has been dated as being earlier than 70 AD, though there is debate concerning the date.

(10) Chester Beatty Papyri (discovered 1931-35, Cairo, Egypt). Three papyri dating from AD 200 that contain most of the New Testament.

(11) Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Vatican Library's earliest inventory ). Dated AD 325-50 and contains nearly complete Bible.

(12) Codex Sinaiticus (discovered 1859, Mt Sinai, Egypt). Codex contains nearly complete New Testament and over half of the Old Testament (the books at the beginning of the Bible appear to have been lost to damage), dated AD 350.

(13) 7Q5 (discovered 1955, Qumran, Israel). Possible fragment of Mark that can be dated no later than AD 68 which would mamke the oldest extant New Testament fragment confirmed.

(14) Galilee Boat (discovered 1986, near Tiberias, Israel). The boat, 30' x 8', held approximately 15 passengers and would be like the boats Jesus' disciples used in crossing the Sea of Galilee. Carbon 14 dating places the boat between 120 BC and AD 40.

The evidence validating all of these examples is no more or less substantial that that used to validate the Tomb of Jesus. Should we also consider that as plausible?

or the fact that they found remains in the so called archeological tomb of jesus

Originally posted by Devil King
The evidence validating all of these examples is no more or less substantial that that used to validate the Tomb of Jesus. Should we also consider that as plausible?

That's a bit harsh. These things do show a pattern which points to a certain reliability of the events described in the Bible.

Originally posted by queeq
That's a bit harsh. These things do show a pattern which points to a certain reliability of the events described in the Bible.

It is called "historical fiction."

Huh? What is? The Bible? I think you have it wrong. the term usually applied here is fictionalised history.

Originally posted by queeq
Huh? What is? The Bible? I think you have it wrong. the term usually applied here is fictionalised history.

The DaVinci Code contains historical figures and describes real places and events, but it is still fiction.

That is fiction, admittedly so by Brown himself. Plus he got his facts quite wrong as well, most of his 'facts' were fiction. Who said the Bible was written as fiction?

Originally posted by queeq
That is fiction, admittedly so by Brown himself. Plus he got his facts quite wrong as well, most of his 'facts' were fiction. Who said the Bible was written as fiction?

Come on, most of the stories in the OT are just that stories. They have meaning, but I would never take them literally.

Well, if these people really existed, why would you doubt the stories. Why if places and larger events took place, should you start picking and choosing what is true and what is not? And if you do, what standards are you gonna apply what line is true and what line is not?

Originally posted by queeq
Well, if these people really existed, why would you doubt the stories. Why if places and larger events took place, should you start picking and choosing what is true and what is not? And if you do, what standards are you gonna apply what line is true and what line is not?

Most good stories have real places but the people and what they did are fictional. The human face could not have started with two people.

no cause that would really really ruin the "great" <---- what??? song by Air Supply "Two Less Lonely People In The World"

Originally posted by anaconda
no cause that would really really ruin the "great" <---- what??? song by Air Supply "Two Less Lonely People In The World"

I'm not awake yet.

Race is the word...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Come on, most of the stories in the OT are just that stories. They have meaning, but I would never take them literally.

agreed, a perso who can split a sea by raising him arms is......unlikely

Originally posted by chickenlover98
agreed, a perso who can split a sea by raising him arms is......unlikely

You wouldn't doubt him if he were Chuck Norris' ancestor would you?

Originally posted by queeq
Huh? What is? The Bible? I think you have it wrong. the term usually applied here is fictionalised history.

So god embellishes?

Originally posted by queeq
Well, if these people really existed, why would you doubt the stories. Why if places and larger events took place, should you start picking and choosing what is true and what is not? And if you do, what standards are you gonna apply what line is true and what line is not?

I have a question, do you take everything in the Bible literally, or just the parts you happen to agree with/coincide with your agenda? If the latter, where do you draw the line and say "that's fiction; that's factual", when deciding between two or more unlikely scenarios?

Was there really a great flood and we're all descendants of just one man and his family? Did Moses factually part the sea? Was there a gigantic sea monster (Leviathan) that God personally slew? Did God really take human form?

Originally posted by queeq
That is fiction, admittedly so by Brown himself. Plus he got his facts quite wrong as well, most of his 'facts' were fiction. Who said the Bible was written as fiction?

Mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars generally hold that The Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a metaphorical character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which The Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.




Originally posted by queeq
Well, if these people really existed, why would you doubt the stories. Why if places and larger events took place, should you start picking and choosing what is true and what is not? And if you do, what standards are you gonna apply what line is true and what line is not?

By your reasoning, The Tudors is non-fiction, because the series features historical events, figures, and locations.

Originally posted by Robtard
I have a question, do you take everything in the Bible literally, or just the parts you happen to agree with/coincide with your agenda? If the latter, where do you draw the line and say "that's fiction; that's factual", when deciding between two or more unlikely scenarios?

Was there really a great flood and we're all descendants of just one man and his family? Did Moses factually part the sea? Was there a gigantic sea monster (Leviathan) that God personally slew? Did God really take human form?

Well, I think the Bible contains history but it's told with a magnifying glass. And there is good reason why many scholars believe that the Bible is fictional. But I will not be getting into the whole complex chronological debate here. But that's what all this has to do with.

In any case, you have to look into these stories bit by bit. There's a lot you can't prove, but as I said before, if there is data that EVENTS took place, why would you doubt the rest of the story. No one can prove that waters were parted, or that lightning strick at particular times. In other words, you can't prove the miracles but you can investigate if the EVENTS took place.

Like a flood... there is plenty of evidence (not only from other sources, but geological and archaeological evidence s well) that major floods took place in Mesoptamia around 5000 BC or something like that. THere weren't global but major local floods. Now, here's the trick. The original Biblical text does not exclude a local flood, it could very wel have been that way. And since most of civilisation lived in Mesopotamia in those days (again: archaeological evidence) it prolly would have been a major catastrophy.

So if someone survived such a flood, it's not likely he told his story. That's about as far as proving or disproving goes. But the event of a flood is quite provable.

The same goes for Asiatic settlements in Egypt, conquest of Jericho and basically from king Rehaboam on we're on very solid ground of these characters being actual historical figures.

But to get all this into perspective I'd have to go into an chronological debate that spans over 2000 years and all Mediterranean civilisations in that period. There is a solid story there, IMHO.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By your reasoning, The Tudors is non-fiction, because the series features historical events, figures, and locations.

What's The Tudors? Never heard of it.

But don't play smart. If it's fiction, it's fiction. If they use factual evidence, they use it. If you can show stuff is wrong, it's wrong. If it's invented, it's invented. There's plenty of opportunity to check that.

In case of the Bible, give us a reason why it's fiction.

Originally posted by queeq
Well, I think the Bible contains history but it's told with a magnifying glass. And there is good reason why many scholars believe that the Bible is fictional. But I will not be getting into the whole complex chronological debate here. But that's what all this has to do with.

In any case, you have to look into these stories bit by bit. There's a lot you can't prove, but as I said before, if there is data that EVENTS took place, why would you doubt the rest of the story. No one can prove that waters were parted, or that lightning strick at particular times. In other words, you can't prove the miracles but you can investigate if the EVENTS took place.

Like a flood... there is plenty of evidence (not only from other sources, but geological and archaeological evidence s well) that major floods took place in Mesoptamia around 5000 BC or something like that. THere weren't global but major local floods. Now, here's the trick. The original Biblical text does not exclude a local flood, it could very wel have been that way. And since most of civilisation lived in Mesopotamia in those days (again: archaeological evidence) it prolly would have been a major catastrophy.

So if someone survived such a flood, it's not likely he told his story. That's about as far as proving or disproving goes. But the event of a flood is quite provable.

The same goes for Asiatic settlements in Egypt, conquest of Jericho and basically from king Rehaboam on we're on very solid ground of these characters being actual historical figures.

But to get all this into perspective I'd have to go into an chronological debate that spans over 2000 years and all Mediterranean civilisations in that period. There is a solid story there, IMHO.

Pretty sure the Bible states that God flooded the Earth, as a means to kill everyone, with the exception of Noah, his family and the animals he took aboard the Arc.

To the point though, why not take this story literally, as it is written and not try to make it more possible by adding likely probabilities, eg it was only a local flood etc. While other stories like a virgin becoming pregnant and giving birth to a man-God, are taken literally without probable exceptions added?

Originally posted by queeq
What's The Tudors? Never heard of it.

But don't play smart. If it's fiction, it's fiction. If they use factual evidence, they use it. If you can show stuff is wrong, it's wrong. If it's invented, it's invented. There's plenty of opportunity to check that.

In case of the Bible, give us a reason why it's fiction.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars generally hold that The Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a metaphorical character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which The Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.

Originally posted by Quark_666
You wouldn't doubt him if he were Chuck Norris' ancestor would you?

he cant be his ancestor seeing as the Almighty Norris is eternal. so if anyone split the sea is was Chuck himself

Who are your mainstream archaeologists, AdamPoe? And what is their take on a possible faulty chronology on which the assesment of these people never existing all hinges on?

There is at leats one piece of hard evidence that suggest David di exist by the way:the famous Tel Dan Stele. It's from a later date than the supposed king David but it does mention the HOUSE OF DAVID. That at least hint at a possible existence.

Originally posted by queeq
In case of the Bible, give us a reason why it's fiction.

Because people made it up.

I guess people made Julius Caesar up, and Ramesses II, and Napoleon, and the Middle Ages. And the Battle of Hastings, or the War of Independence of the US... All manipulative fiction to deceive people.

Originally posted by queeq
Who are your mainstream archaeologists, AdamPoe? And what is their take on a possible faulty chronology on which the assesment of these people never existing all hinges on?

The belief that the lack of archaeological attestation of biblical figures is due to errors in the traditional chronology or the dating of archaeological strata have been rejected outright by the scientific community and refuted in detail.




Originally posted by queeq
There is at leats one piece of hard evidence that suggest David di exist by the way:the famous Tel Dan Stele. It's from a later date than the supposed king David but it does mention the HOUSE OF DAVID. That at least hint at a possible existence.

Apologetics frequently refer to two inscriptions on the Tel Dan Stele as supporting evidence for The Bible. Missing from both inscriptions however, are typographical symbols that would allow for this favorable translation. Not to mention that other proposed translations are more consistent with cultures in the geographical area during the time of the inscriptions.

Originally posted by queeq
I guess people made Julius Caesar up, and Ramesses II, and Napoleon, and the Middle Ages. And the Battle of Hastings, or the War of Independence of the US... All manipulative fiction to deceive people.

Not at all. But, what you dismiss are claims of divine intervention made by several of the personalities you've mentioned. You dismiss their claims of godly patronage simply based on your personal choices about this mythology or that one.

Would you now like to look back through history and see how many times events mentioned in Egyptian or Roman history coincide with a claim of divine intervention and actual events; how many places described in other culture's religious texts and mythology actually exist? Because those claims are made in every culture's history; it's what kings and queens used to legitimize their divine authority over their people. However, you seem to dismiss the possiblities that the Jews did the same, that they were somehow right or special for doing exactly the same thing done by every other culture that got up and crawled out of the desert and decided not to live in caves anyore. Just becaue the Jews were relatively late to the party in respect to their use of common mythology and archetypes, doesn't mean they were the first or last ones to do it; neither were they, in my opinion, the most creative or logical ones to do so.

I won't get caught up in the symantics of the inclusion or exclusion of the word of in this situation, but I will point out the fact that the Tel Dan stele does more to dismiss the divine influence in the victory mentioned, than it does to bolster the biblical claims of an all-powerful, infinite being actually deeming human events interesting enough to come down and play politics with the ants.

But, by all means Queeq, explain to me which parts of it prove the bible correct? Pull out your bible and go through Kings and Judges. I'm talking dates, alliances, armies and revolts. Let's hear them. Because as mentioned before, language is an important part of the debate surrounding this particular relic, as you want it to be, but it's not the only one.

To be frank, everything from Solomon back towards the beginning of the Bible, there is with the currently accepted chronological model little or no evidence for these events. With the possible exception of an major flood around 5000 BC. (the Black Sea finds and geological explorations at archaeological digsites of places like Uruk).

From Rehaboam (son of Solomon) there's quite a bit of evidence for these kings to exist. Lamalek jar handles, Assyrian texts mentioning kings from the Bible and archaeological evidence for the building works of Omri (you can read all about that in the books of Israel Finkelstein).

Before that, the current chronological model in dating strata (and therefore the archaeological layers where to look for evidence of these characters) show no correlation. However, this chronological model is gaining a growing criticism. Maybe its most explicit problem known to everyone is the strange and archaeologically apparent totally unnecessary dark age in Greek history of about 300 years. If that Dark Age would be eliminated (since this gap is only created by Egyptian chronology) then we'd have to go looking for United Monarchy King and the judges periods in earlier strata. And that surprisingly surrenders excellent correlations with the Biblical events.

I asked about the stele in question. We can take these one at a time if you like, but stay on the topic at hand. I wasn't talking about the whole of those books, only those parts relevant to the Tel Dan Stele. Don't muddy the waters with broad, ambigious statements that aren't pertinent to the discussion at hand.

No you didn't. Check it out, you never mentioned it.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not at all. But, what you dismiss are claims of divine intervention made by several of the personalities you've mentioned. You dismiss their claims of godly patronage simply based on your personal choices about this mythology or that one.

Would you now like to look back through history and see how many times events mentioned in Egyptian or Roman history coincide with a claim of divine intervention and actual events; how many places described in other culture's religious texts and mythology actually exist? Because those claims are made in every culture's history; it's what kings and queens used to legitimize their divine authority over their people. However, you seem to dismiss the possiblities that the Jews did the same, that they were somehow right or special for doing exactly the same thing done by every other culture that got up and crawled out of the desert and decided not to live in caves anyore. Just becaue the Jews were relatively late to the party in respect to their use of common mythology and archetypes, doesn't mean they were the first or last ones to do it; neither were they, in my opinion, the most creative or logical ones to do so.

I won't get caught up in the symantics of the inclusion or exclusion of the word of in this situation, but I will point out the fact that the Tel Dan stele does more to dismiss the divine influence in the victory mentioned, than it does to bolster the biblical claims of an all-powerful, infinite being actually deeming human events interesting enough to come down and play politics with the ants.

But, by all means Queeq, explain to me which parts of it prove the bible correct? Pull out your bible and go through Kings and Judges. I'm talking dates, alliances, armies and revolts. Let's hear them. Because as mentioned before, language is an important part of the debate surrounding this particular relic, as you want it to be, but it's not the only one.

What do you want? You ask a question, I answer it. Getting too complex for ya?

Originally posted by queeq
No you didn't. Check it out, you never mentioned it.

Beyond that being the subject of our interaction, you must not really know what the stele is addressing or which particular books of the bible it is apparently substantiating, in it's broken and mostly ambigious statements, which you claim proves the existence of god. But I'll point it out for you if you need me to:

Originally posted by Devil King
But, by all means Queeq, explain to me -------->>>>>>which parts of it prove the bible correct?<<<<------- Pull out your bible and go through Kings and Judges. I'm talking dates, alliances, armies and revolts. Let's hear them. Because as mentioned before, language is an important part of the debate surrounding-------->>>>> this particular relic<<<<<--------------, as you want it to be, but it's not the only one.

I'm sorry, who is confused? Only someone who is unclear would assume I asked you to pull out your bible to prove your bible correct; that's creationist logic for you.

In regards to the topic. Something was there...the evidence doesn't lie. How we interpret the evidence is more like detective work. Archeology helps and I'm all for it. Let's see what else can be found.


Originally posted by Devil King
Because people made it up.

But do we really know this or simply made the assumption? Because if we play the game of "prove that it did existed" you will win now, but eventually lose. Simply because, we are aware of your existance so you win the game now.

However, centuries from now when our world have change and generations have passed. How would you prove your existance? (I do acknowledge you are mortal and there is no way for you to prove your existance in the future) you lose here. Heck! There are millions of people in the world at this time that don't even know that I exist. Unless I become famous they'll know I exist.

Sucks to be me and not been known...but damn it, I exist!

I'm not one to just randomly post links but I found these youtube videos that I think quite succinctly argue the case for the historical reliability of the Bible much better than I could.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SekR-QHCXVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBfYKh21qdA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS_1IqqxmMU&feature=related


That's the first three parts but it's easy to find the rest by clicking on the links on the left of the video playing

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
In regards to the topic. Something was there...the evidence doesn't lie. How we interpret the evidence is more like detective work. Archeology helps and I'm all for it. Let's see what else can be found.




But do we really know this or simply made the assumption? Because if we play the game of "prove that it did existed" you will win now, but eventually lose. Simply because, we are aware of your existance so you win the game now.

However, centuries from now when our world have change and generations have passed. How would you prove your existance? (I do acknowledge you are mortal and there is no way for you to prove your existance in the future) you lose here. Heck! There are millions of people in the world at this time that don't even know that I exist. Unless I become famous they'll know I exist.

Sucks to be me and not been known...but damn it, I exist!

Given enough time, even if you are famous now, in the future, no one will know you existed. All things fade and change.

The stories of the bible have been told and retold over generations before they were written down. Take the story of Noah for example. this story was most likely adapted from the sorry of Gilgamesh.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Given enough time, even if you are famous now, in the future, no one will know you existed. All things fade and change.



Thank you!

My thougths in a different way but with the same essence. Even evidence that is not found is bound to be consume by time. Leaving us to ponder "did it really happen?" Better hurry! Once it's gone it's gone.

Well, I take that back...those damn fossils sure last long.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Thank you!

My thougths in a different way but with the same essence. Even evidence that is not found is bound to be consume by time. Leaving us to ponder "did it really happen?" Better hurry! Once it's gone it's gone.

Well, I take that back...those damn fossils sure last long.



But when looking into the vastness of time, even fossils are short lived.

Originally posted by Devil King
Beyond that being the subject of our interaction, you must not really know what the stele is addressing or which particular books of the bible it is apparently substantiating, in it's broken and mostly ambigious statements, which you claim proves the existence of god.

I didn't claim anything. You have troubles reading properly. All I said the Tell Dan stele MENTIONS THE HOUSE OF DAVID, which may point to the existence of King David as a real person. RBYP

Originally posted by Devil King
Beyond that being the subject of our interaction, you must not really know what the stele is addressing or which particular books of the bible it is apparently substantiating, in it's broken and mostly ambigious statements, which you claim proves the existence of god. But I'll point it out for you if you need me to:



I'm sorry, who is confused? Only someone who is unclear would assume I asked you to pull out your bible to prove your bible correct; that's creationist logic for you.


Since you start calling names, ask for one thing forst then another and act all insulted, I can only conclude you don't want to go into this seriously.

If you think it's all BS, think it. You're entitled to. But there are some people that may actually want to discuss this issue. If you don;t like it, go to a thread you DO like.

Besides I never said any evidence proves the existence of God. All I'm saying that it is too easy to dismiss all the characters and events in the Bible as fiction.

Ramesses II claimed Amon guided him when he rode out into battle at Kadesh against the Hittites. Now that doesn't prove Amon exists, but the mention of a god also doesn't mean Kadesh never existed or the batte never took place.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
But do we really know this or simply made the assumption? Because if we play the game of "prove that it did existed" you will win now, but eventually lose. Simply because, we are aware of your existance so you win the game now.

Look at the last few posts by Queeq. He totally dismisses the validity of similar claims made by other cultures. Should we totally dismiss the claims made by, his own example, Ramses the Great, who claimed to be the living embodiment of Horus on Earth; who thanked the gods for victories? And the same with Caesar? But, we get so tied up in the idea that religion (and christianity in particular) is more deserving of our respect and consideration that we end up feeling something akin to guilt over dismissing it. Well, there's 0, none, nadda, less than any, conclusive proof that the fantastical claims made by the jews were any more or less real than any other divine claim made by any other ancient people.

And we do it for all religions. Islam and Hinduism and Christianity all have archaeological correspondance to their claims of places and events that apparently were divine in nature. So, if the thread starter and those who feel the way he does, want us to consider their evidence any more substial than similar evidence that bolsters the religion of Islam, they're going to have to come up with something that removes all doubt and settles the claim, outright. But they won't. And this is because the whole notion of a god that is interested enough in us to come down here or whisper in someone's ear, is a man-made delusion. I don't, with any measure of certainty, dismiss the idea of a greater power, in fact, I believe it. But what I do dismiss is the idea that such a higher power is concerned with keeping a list and checking it twice to find out who's naughty and nice. It's absolutely crazy to apply human limitations to god, or ascribe god-like characteristics to a man. 400 years from now, we may very well believe that Ghandi was assassinated for our sins. It's human arrogance to dismiss the virtues of other religions. Every single major religion on this planet is preceded by far older religions that lasted a lot longer than the ones we bandy around today.

Originally posted by Devil King
Look at the last few posts by Queeq. He totally dismisses the validity of similar claims made by other cultures. Should we totally dismiss the claims made by, his own example, Ramses the Great, who claimed to be the living embodiment of Horus on Earth; who thanked the gods for victories? And the same with Caesar? But, we get so tied up in the idea that religion (and christianity in particular) is more deserving of our respect and consideration that we end up feeling something akin to guilt over dismissing it. Well, there's 0, none, nadda, less than any, conclusive proof that the fantastical claims made by the jews were any more or less real than any other divine claim made by any other ancient people.

And we do it for all religions. Islam and Hinduism and Christianity all have archaeological correspondance to their claims of places and events that apparently were divine in nature. So, if the thread starter and those who feel the way he does, want us to consider their evidence any more substial than similar evidence that bolsters the religion of Islam, they're going to have to come up with something that removes all doubt and settles the claim, outright. But they won't. And this is because the whole notion of a god that is interested enough in us to come down here or whisper in someone's ear, is a man-made delusion. I don't with any measure of certainty dismiss the idea of a greater power, in fact, I believe it. But what I do dismiss is the idea that that higher power is concerned with keeping a list and checking it twice to find out who's naughty and nice. It's absolutely crazy to apply human limitations to god, or as scribe god-like characteristics to a man. 400 years from now, we may very well believe that Ghandi was assassinated for our sins. It's human arrogance to dismiss the virtues of other religions. Every single major religion on this planet is proeded by far older religionsthat lasted a lot longer than the ones we bandy around today.

Cosigned.

Originally posted by queeq
Since you start calling names, ask for one thing forst then another and act all insulted, I can only conclude you don't want to go into this seriously.

If you think it's all BS, think it. You're entitled to. But there are some people that may actually want to discuss this issue. If you don;t like it, go to a thread you DO like.

Besides I never said any evidence proves the existence of God. All I'm saying that it is too easy to dismiss all the characters and events in the Bible as fiction.

I called you no names. Unless you're considering 'creationist" name calling; in which case you have no business defending the validity of the bible.

And if you are arguing the validity of the bible, then you are arguing the validity of the christian god. Don't accuse me of dismissive behavior when you have repeatedly, along with the guy who started the thread, dismissed the religious claims made by every other religion that has preceded or followed the establishment of your own.

"You have your opinion of reality, and I'll have mine!". Well, that logic hasn't worked out too well for the last 2000 years, has it?

Or is this
Originally posted by queeq
Getting too complex for ya?

Well, you do seem to be dodging every thing I present here. And I find you fairly aggressive.

If we're talking about evidence for the Bible, we would be looking for things described in the Bible confirmed in archaeology or contemporary eprigraphical material right? I mean, that's not an unfair assumption?

Creationism, proof of God... come on.. that's not what this thread is about. You drag all kinds of things in here that have nothing to do with it. One cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, that's a given and we can't do anything with that. It's matter of faith.

But to dismiss the Bible as an historical document because it also talks about God is a very strange starting point. All ancient historical sources refer to the influence of gods. Yet, we do not dismiss their campaignslist or boasting victories over nations as nonsense. I think we should look at the Bible from the same POV: Is tehre evidence the biblical characters existed and that events describe in the Bible actually took place? One can do that just fine without an exact proof of every little details described.

For instance, we cannot prove that God parted the waters of the Red Sea (or more accurately the Reed Sea). But we can investigate whether Asiatics lived in the Nile Delta at that time, what kind of water it was and if by some natural phenomenon it's known that these waters can dry up instantly. If that research would show a positive result, one can at least conclude that such an event may have taken place. Does that prove it? No. But it does say there is no reason to assume it DIDN'T take place. Especially since the Bible in the early text clearly shows influences in customs, mention of certain cities and language, that there were at least some original sources involved. Either in writing it as an original text that got slightly updated later on, or that older texts lay at the basis of its final compilation.

And all this is perfectly debatable without going into it so aggressively as you certainly do.

Originally posted by Devil King
Look at the last few posts by Queeq. He totally dismisses the validity of similar claims made by other cultures. Should we totally dismiss the claims made by, his own example, Ramses the Great, who claimed to be the living embodiment of Horus on Earth; who thanked the gods for victories? And the same with Caesar? But, we get so tied up in the idea that religion (and christianity in particular) is more deserving of our respect and consideration that we end up feeling something akin to guilt over dismissing it. Well, there's 0, none, nadda, less than any, conclusive proof that the fantastical claims made by the jews were any more or less real than any other divine claim made by any other ancient people.

I do not dismiss anything, I was making a point. You don't seem to be able to read very well.

We may dismiss Ramesses as the living embodiment of Horus on Earth, but it's completely irresponsible to dismiss him as an historical character. And that is what you do.

Plus you make many assumptions that you make up yourself. The Bible is a comprehensive book that may or may not span a history of Palestine for nearly 2000 years. If reliable it would be a very important source for ancietn historical reserach. The same as all the Egyptian king lists, the Assyrian king lists and Babylonian. All the epigraphical material from te Hittites etc etc... All of them together would allow us to understand the old world.

And if you say there is no proof that ANYONE in the Bible (from Adam to Jesus) EVER EVER existed, than you are deluded and totally devoid of any knowledge about ancient history. And yet, you dare make such vile claims against anyone giving some insight in the matter.

Originally posted by Devil King
But what I do dismiss is the idea that such a higher power is concerned with keeping a list and checking it twice to find out who's naughty and nice. It's absolutely crazy to apply human limitations to god, or ascribe god-like characteristics to a man.

See? The only one linking divine intervention with historical research is you. I don't know what your problem is, but you seem to have some bad experiences in your life on religious matters.

I will yet stress again, I NEVER EVER made any claims that the Bible is reliable because it's called the Word of God, or that'the stories in the Bible are true because they talk about God. This label, my friend, is what you try to stick on me.

Originally posted by queeq
I NEVER EVER made any claims that the Bible is reliable

Fine, I'm willing to accept that your religious beliefs are based on a flawed and incomplete understanding of humanity and its history. God doesn't exist and Jesus was just a regular guy. Sorry for misunderstanding your point. I don't think the bible is valid either, sorry we didn't both realize we were saying that.

cheers

if it is neither reliable nor true, then why do you follow it?

Who said it wasn't reliable other than DK? And he never gave any other argument than saying:""Because people made it up." That's it. Very deep insights this guys has... NOT.

Originally posted by Devil King
Fine, I'm willing to accept that your religious beliefs are based on a flawed and incomplete understanding of humanity and its history. God doesn't exist and Jesus was just a regular guy. Sorry for misunderstanding your point. I don't think the bible is valid either, sorry we didn't both realize we were saying that.

cheers

DK is a master at misquoting and manipulation. His aim is never to have a decent debate, just to be right. That's why he stoops to aggressive wordplay, sarcasm and patronisation. Quite sad really.

Originally posted by queeq
DK is a master at misquoting and manipulation. His aim is never to have a decent debate, just to be right. That's why he stoops to aggressive wordplay, sarcasm and patronisation. Quite sad really.

I wouldn't know. But queeq, I think everybody is a master at misunderstand you. ...sorry, no offense...but It's hard to tell what you think sometimes

For example, until recently, I used to think you were an ID supporter.

I try to keep an open mind, that helps me develop insights. I don't stick to one way of explaining things. I have my ideas and beliefs, but they're not always suited in every debate.

In this case it is quite striking that words are put in my mouth and assumptions are made about me without my posts giving any reason for it.

But this is the way it goes around here I guess. A thread is about facts and people onyl look at or assume your background and conclude taht everything you say is BS or not, just based on that (alleged or not) background. Arguments don't count, only where you come from. For me that's not open minded, but dogmatic.

Originally posted by queeq
Who said it wasn't reliable other than DK? And he never gave any other argument than saying:""Because people made it up." That's it. Very deep insights this guys has... NOT.



DK is a master at misquoting and manipulation. His aim is never to have a decent debate, just to be right. That's why he stoops to aggressive wordplay, sarcasm and patronisation. Quite sad really.

Yeah, I'm a deciever and a manipulator. What's next, going to call me evil and corrupt? Are you going to blame me for tempting humanity with things like facts and understanding?

But, you're right. I was too affraid to have a real debate, so we can start over.

Why are you defending the legitimacy of the bible? Is it because you don't subscribe to the idea of god as set forth in the christian bible?

I was not defending the legitimatcy of the Bible, I was saying that as an historical document we shouldn't so easily dismiss it. It's not just a book filled with religious sayings.

Again, you try to label me without reason. Unlike me. I'd never say you're evil. Corrupt I cannot prove, but I can show you intentionally misquote me to place me in a certain light so you can diss me. That is, in short, not fair and not very nice. Do with it as you will.

Originally posted by queeq
I will yet stress again, I NEVER EVER made any claims that the Bible is reliable because it's called the Word of God, or that'the stories in the Bible are true because they talk about God. This label, my friend, is what you try to stick on me.

So, you're not a christian?

Am I wrong to assume that if I say yes, everything I say will be dismissed by you beforehand? If so, any debate with someone who is not like-minded is useless for you.

You kinda seem to steer into a direction where you want people to condemn you. Why is that? Had some bad experiences?

Originally posted by queeq
Am I wrong to assume that if I say yes, everything I say will be dismissed by you beforehand? If so, any debate with someone who is not like-minded is useless for you.

You kinda seem to steer into a direction where you want people to condemn you. Why is that? Had some bad experiences?

I haven't dismissed anything other than what you profess to be facts, but are not; just vague speculation and surface understanding about the subject. Anyone can look this stuff up on Wiki, but that doesn't tell you everything. I know more about this subject, apparently, and have no issues debating you but you seem to be scared to do so. Obviousy you want to draw me into a childish argument about everything BUT the subject of the thread.

I didn't wake up one day and suddenly decide that my roman catholic upbringing was a farce. It took me a while to drill out the shit that was drilled in; which was done over the course of a 12 year catholic school education.

You believe in desert superstitions and ancient explainations for bad things happening; I'll tell you why it's silly.

While there is evidence of some of the people and places presented in the Bible, it does not necessitate evidence for the claims to miracles or supernatural intervention. While I believe in the Bible, and miracles stated therein, there is no scientific evidence of the miracles claimed therein actually having occurred.

Originally posted by Regret
While there is evidence of some of the people and places presented in the Bible, it does not necessitate evidence for the claims to miracles or supernatural intervention. While I believe in the Bible, and miracles stated therein, there is no scientific evidence of the miracles claimed therein actually having occurred.

That's a fun way of saying that faith requires no proof.

Originally posted by queeq
Who said it wasn't reliable other than DK?

I did as well.




One of these things is not like the others:

Originally posted by queeq
I was not defending the legitimatcy of the Bible . . .

Originally posted by queeq
. . . as an historical document we shouldn't so easily dismiss it.




Originally posted by queeq
It's not just a book filled with religious sayings.

That is precisely what it is.

Then you never read it.

Originally posted by Devil King
II didn't wake up one day and suddenly decide that my roman catholic upbringing was a farce. It took me a while to drill out the shit that was drilled in; which was done over the course of a 12 year catholic school education.


I knew there was some youth trauma involved.

And I can discuss it with you, you just never respond to any of my posts. I too, know quite a lot about the matter. For over seven years I did a lot of research in this field, and talked to many esteemed archaeologists and historians from all over the world (from Manfred Bietak to Geoffrey Martin (egyptologists), from Aren Maeir to Othmar Keel, and many in between). I made several documentaries on the matter and even though I do not believe we should hold on to a children's book view of the Bible (as often taught in some schools!) it's complete nonsense to dismiss everything written in there as BS.

Originally posted by queeq
Then you never read it.



I knew there was some youth trauma involved.

And I can discuss it with you, you just never respond to any of my posts. I too, know quite a lot about the matter. For over seven years I did a lot of research in this field, and talked to many esteemed archaeologists and historians from all over the world (from Manfred Bietak to Geoffrey Martin (egyptologists), from Aren Maeir to Othmar Keel, and many in between). I made several documentaries on the matter and even though I do not believe we should hold on to a children's book view of the Bible (as often taught in some schools!) it's complete nonsense to dismiss everything written in there as BS. no its not. it is easy to dismss the bible. very easy, and i assure you, no one loses anything. he said that he learned other than his upbringing through experiences in the real world, not the catholic one.

Originally posted by queeq
Then you never read it.



I knew there was some youth trauma involved.

And I can discuss it with you, you just never respond to any of my posts. I too, know quite a lot about the matter. For over seven years I did a lot of research in this field, and talked to many esteemed archaeologists and historians from all over the world (from Manfred Bietak to Geoffrey Martin (egyptologists), from Aren Maeir to Othmar Keel, and many in between). I made several documentaries on the matter and even though I do not believe we should hold on to a children's book view of the Bible (as often taught in some schools!) it's complete nonsense to dismiss everything written in there as BS.

If you're so esteemed, then why are you so scared? You're the coward here, not me. I will discuss this subject with you until you're blue in the face. And while we're at it, I don't have to pretend my aim buddy list is teeming with bankable personalities.

As I have said before, KMC is dripping with assumed experts taking on the lowly mantle of annonymous intellects, but they never seem to validate their claims with anything substantial. If you want to test me, then toss out the challenge. I don't rely on wikipedia, but I do have a lot of years of study and a library's worth of books behind me.

Oh, and by the way, I just read an email from god; he says he wants his false ego back.

Originally posted by queeq
Then you never read it.



I knew there was some youth trauma involved.

And I can discuss it with you, you just never respond to any of my posts. I too, know quite a lot about the matter. For over seven years I did a lot of research in this field, and talked to many esteemed archaeologists and historians from all over the world (from Manfred Bietak to Geoffrey Martin (egyptologists), from Aren Maeir to Othmar Keel, and many in between). I made several documentaries on the matter and even though I do not believe we should hold on to a children's book view of the Bible (as often taught in some schools!) it's complete nonsense to dismiss everything written in there as BS.

Which documentaries?

Originally posted by Devil King
If you're so esteemed, then why are you so scared? You're the coward here, not me. I will discuss this subject with you until you're blue in the face. And while we're at it, I don't have to pretend my aim buddy list is teeming with bankable personalities.

So far all you have contributed to the debate is: The Bible is fiction, because people made it up. And I know so, because I had a traumatic childhood at Catholic school... I dunno... doesn't sound much like a debate.

And I never said I was esteemed. Thank you for misquoting me again.

Originally posted by queeq
So far all you have contributed to the debate is: The Bible is fiction, because people made it up. And I know so, because I had a traumatic childhood at Catholic school... I dunno... doesn't sound much like a debate.

And I never said I was esteemed. Thank you for misquoting me again.

Yeah, I had a really traumatic childhood. I was addressing the religion, not the education.

I've asked you no less than three times what aspects of the bible you want to talk about, and you've dodged it every time.

I'm also not the one lying about my credentials and name dropping some people you looked up on the net. No, you didn't say you were esteemed, you just lied about personal correspondance with scientists and being a documentary film maker....sorry for misunderstanding your boasting.

So, do you plan on answering Robtard's question, or will you just go on pretending no one else in this thread is holding you to your bullshit lies, other than me?

I've raised many points for debate by now. You either have trouble reading or you enjoy your anti-religious rants too much.

Originally posted by Robtard
Which documentaries?

One: Footsteps of Goliath (aired among others by the European broadcaster ARTE)
Adaptation of Pharaohs and Kings (5 50 minute documentaries)
Unlocking the Secrets of the Shroud

Originally posted by queeq
I've raised many points for debate by now. You either have trouble reading or you enjoy your religious rants too much.



One: Footsteps of Goliath (aired among others by the European broadcaster ARTE)
Adaptation of Pharaohs and Kings (5 50 minute documentaries)
Unlocking the Secrets of the Shroud

Yeah, I must. There's a great quote function on this site, maybe you can point them out.

Do these documentaires have imdb links? Maybe a site where we can see your name listed in the credits?

You're also lazy. Never heard of Google?

Originally posted by queeq
You're also lazy. Never heard of Google?

what good is google goiong to do when I don't know the name of the documentary film maker that graces us with his presence?

You ARE lazy. Makes me doubt you ever read any books, despite your unsubstantiated claims you did.

Originally posted by queeq
You ARE lazy. Makes me doubt you ever read any books, despite your unsubstantiated claims you did.

So, what's your name?

Originally posted by queeq
I've raised many points for debate by now. You either have trouble reading or you enjoy your anti-religious rants too much.



One: Footsteps of Goliath (aired among others by the European broadcaster ARTE)
Adaptation of Pharaohs and Kings (5 50 minute documentaries)
Unlocking the Secrets of the Shroud

I watched a History Channel documentary (I enjoy documentaries) on the Shroud of Turin, it was based at least in part off Lavoie's book. Is this your work?

Dunno... mine was entirely basedon lavio's work. So I doubt, it was for th US video sales market some 10 years ago.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, what's your name?

Told you you wouldn't believe me. Sow hat's the point?

Originally posted by queeq
Dunno... mine was entirely basedon lavio's work. So I doubt, it was for th US video sales market some 10 years ago.



Told you you wouldn't believe me. Sow hat's the point?


Well, prove me wrong.

Originally posted by queeq
Dunno... mine was entirely basedon lavio's work. So I doubt, it was for th US video sales market some 10 years ago.


I'm also fairly certain I've seen the Goliath one too, as I can't imagine there'd be two similar Docs on Goliath and the possibility that he suffered from gigantism (which I've thought as a cause of the story for years). What is your name, if you don't mind?

Never on the boards.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, prove me wrong.

I don't think I ever can. Because you are always right.

Originally posted by queeq
Because you are always right.

Not always, but I am in this case.

You don't have to post it. Send it to Robtard via PM and he'll check it out and let everyone know what's what.

Why would I? You don't believe me anyway. I don't feel like having to prove my existence. Maybe I am just the creation of your god-like mind.

You're just a liar, that's all. Baby Jesus doesn't like liars.

I'm not saying you don't exist, what kind of a stupid accusation is that?

Originally posted by Devil King
You're just a liar, that's all.

Good thing you don't call names. But you are right, Dk, you are right. Of course.

Originally posted by queeq
Good thing you don't call names. But you are right, Dk, you are right. Of course.

Thank you for admitting that you have been lying. I hope the lesson you take away from it is that it's easier not to do it in the first place.

You are right , DK, you are always right.

Originally posted by queeq
You are right , DK, you are always right.

And you lie a lot.

You have proof of course for all the truth you speak.

Originally posted by queeq
You have proof of course for all the truth you speak.

I haven't made any claims, other than stating I've spent a lot of time studying history.

Prove it.

Originally posted by queeq
Prove it.

I tried to engage you in a discussion, but you wanted to talk about everything except the topic. You wanted to cry about me not respecting your religious beliefs, rather than countering the points made by myself and others. I asked you to list the things you wanted to discuss, maybe even the topics listed in the first post of this thread, but you refused and tried to shut down the conversation by saying you knew it all because you made documentaries. When I asked for some substatiation on that, you started telling me I woudn't believe you anyway.

Originally posted by Devil King
I tried to engage you in a discussion, but you wanted to talk about everything except the topic. You wanted to cry about me not respecting your religious beliefs.

You are, unfortunately, sadly mistaken. You must have confused me with someone else. I never ever talked about my religious beliefs in this thread. You are the one who brought it up, and some others, but not me.

The only point I ever made was saying that one shouldn't so easily dismiss the Bible as a potentially historical document. The religious rants came from you.

All you gibbered on about was the meaning of the Tel Dan stele. All I said about that is that it mentioned the House of David (Per Dud). As far as I know I never heard anyone object to that reading.

Just to refresh the undoubtedly great memory of you, My Lord, the posts themselves:

Originally posted by queeq

There is at leats one piece of hard evidence that suggest David di exist by the way:the famous Tel Dan Stele. It's from a later date than the supposed king David but it does mention the HOUSE OF DAVID. That at least hint at a possible existence.

And then came the answer of the oracle:

Originally posted by Devil King
I will point out the fact that the Tel Dan stele does more to dismiss the divine influence in the victory mentioned, than it does to bolster the biblical claims of an all-powerful, infinite being actually deeming human events interesting enough to come down and play politics with the ants.

Now, of course, I'm not as enlightened as you are, but for some reason the reply doesn't particularly match my post, nor your claims of me crying about my religious beliefs.

Does that count as proof, my Lord?

And you never proved your claim about studying the matter.

Originally posted by queeq
You are, unfortunately, sadly mistaken. You must have confused me with someone else. I never ever talked about my religious beliefs in this thread. You are the one who brought it up, and some others, but not me.

The only point I ever made was saying that one shouldn't so easily dismiss the Bible as a potentially historical document. The religious rants came from you.

All you gibbered on about was the meaning of the Tel Dan stele. All I said about that is that it mentioned the House of David (Per Dud). As far as I know I never heard anyone object to taht reading.

So, you're not a christian? I'm wrong about that? You've never said that the archaeological "evidence" you spoke of is proof that the bible states the truth? You don't believe that the archaeological evidence validates what we read in the bible? You think the defeat of the Jews by the Assyrians was not, as is believed by those who wrote those books of the bible, a punishment by god, who sided with the enemies of hs chosen people?







Did I miss a point you were making? Perhaps the fact that all your supposed documentaries are biblical and religious in nature. Or did you not make these films now?

Well, you did say I was a liar and since you are truth, I guess not.

Originally posted by Devil King
You've never said that the archaeological "evidence" you spoke of is proof that the bible states the truth?

Nope.

Originally posted by Devil King
You don't believe that the archaeological evidence validates what we read in the bible?

Well, all it could do maybe it validate the historical validity of the events (like cities sacked, kings maybe checkable stuff).

Originally posted by Devil King
You think the defeat of the Jews by the Assyrians was not, as is believed by those who wrote those books of the bible, a punishment by god.

How would one prove that?

And what I said about the stele is that it does more to dismiss the intervention of some all-powerful being having a hand in the events, than it does to bolster it.

It illustrated back room dealings that took place between members of the Hebrews and the King of the Assyrians. But because it mentions the House David, you want to say it substantiates the bible. And in your own words, you say that if it substantiates the House of David, then it proves the biblical claims of god. The bible also talks about Moses parting the red sea, do youtruly believe this happened? You must, since you'v made documentaries that further the concepts set forth by the bible.

You make six jumps when I make one.

Again... (MAJOR REHASH)

1. People on this forum said EXPLICITLY (and you supported that claim) that EVERYTHING in the Bible is fiction, didn't happen, all made up.
2. I said that that's a bit quick. There is definately some evidence (more as it gets younger) that point to the existence of characters and events mentioned in the Bible. The Tel Dan Stele points to the possibility of an historical David.
3. There's more like that, which could bring out the Bible as an historical document to complement the writing from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Hatti, Greece and what have ya...

All this stuff about biblical claims of God came from you. And you just get some major rash when someone even comes into a 300 mile radius of the G-word.

Originally posted by queeq
How would one prove that?

How would one disprove it? That is your logic. Just because people mentioned in the bible actually existed doesn't prove the bible isn't fiction.

That was why Adam made the comparison to the DaVinci Code.

Originally posted by Devil King
How would one disprove it? That is your logic.

Your logic is calling someone a liar if he cannot prove his claims. So judge thyself, great and all powerfull Devil King.

Originally posted by queeq
You make six jumps when I make one.

Again... (MAJOR REHASH)

1. People on this forum said EXPLICITLY (and you supported that claim) that EVERYTHING in the Bible is fiction, didn't happen, all made up.
2. I said that that's a bit quick. There is definately some evidence (more as it gets younger) that point to the existence of characters and events mentioned in the Bible. The Tel Dan Stele points to the possibility of an historical David.
3. There's more like that, which could bring out the Bible as an historical document to complement the writing from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Hatti, Greece and what have ya...

All this stuff about biblical claims of God came from you. And you just get some major rash when someone even comes into a 300 mile radius of the G-word.

I said people made up god, and that it was the same practice used by kings and queens to validate their authority over their people, forever! I also pointed out how christians accuse others of being closed minded when they dismiss their "evidence", but that christians do exactly that when they look back at other cultures through out history and dismiss their religious beliefs; beliefs that sustained them far longer than has christianity. I have never said that all the people in the bible were fictional. You began the conversaion by telling me that my statement about the Tomb of Jesus was a bit "harsh". But, that's because it kind of punches a hole in the logic used by the thread starter to validate the bible and it's claims of god.

Originally posted by queeq
Your logic is calling someone a liar if he cannot prove his claims. So judge thyself, great and all powerfull Devil King.

Don't make claims you won't back up and no one will call you a liar. Especially claims that would be so easy to prove.

Sorry for being honest, my master. I didn't quite expect the Spanish Inquisition. I didn't know I had to hand in my credentials at the entrance.

Originally posted by Devil King
I said people made up god, and that it was the same practice used by kings and queens to validate their authority over their people, forever! I also pointed out how christians accuse others of being closed minded when they dismiss their "evidence", but that christians do exactly that when they look back at other cultures through out history and dismiss their religious beliefs; beliefs that sustained them far longer than has christianity. I have never said that all the people in the bible were fictional. You began the conversaion by telling me that my statement about the Tomb of Jesus was a bit "harsh". But, that's because it kind of punches a hole in the logic used by the thread starter to validate the bible and it's claims of god.

As I said, that has nothing to do with what I said. You just start stockpiling all your frustrations. Personally I felt that was uncalled for.

And again, you are mistaken about the Tomb of Jesus statement. This is what you said:

Originally posted by Devil King
The evidence validating all of these examples is no more or less substantial that that used to validate the Tomb of Jesus. Should we also consider that as plausible?

And then I responded:

Originally posted by Devil King
That's a bit harsh. These things do show a pattern which points to a certain reliability of the events described in the Bible.

You did not make a statemtne about the Tomb of Jesus, you outright dismissed all potential evidence as NON-PLAUSIBLE. I felt that was a bit harsh.