The Bible: Archaelogical Finds

Originally posted by Devil King
There is no evidence of me being a liar. There's no claim made by myself that hasn't been supported by your own words.

You say you don't misquote, I proof you misquote. That makes you a liar.
You say you never put words in my mouth: I never said the Bible is proof of divine intervention, you claim I did. That's putting words in my mouth.

On both counts: what you say is contrary to the facts of your behaviour in this very thread. Ergo, you're a liar.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind if you're a liar. But don't come demanding me to present you any personal data, like I have to answer to you. You act quite weird, but I didn't take you for some fascist police officer. A long time ago when you'd have asked me in a normal way, I'd have given you all the answers. But that's out of the question now.

Originally posted by queeq
But when DK does that, you support your master.

You are not a Christian, remember?

I do?

Originally posted by queeq
I do?

The question is rhetorical, and you are a troll.

And that's an unnecessary insult.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

No, they only antagonizing Christians.

Since when are you opposed to that?

My point exactly.

Originally posted by queeq
And that's an unnecessary insult.

No, it is a fairly accurate description of your posting habits.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Since when are you opposed to that?

I am opposed to the hypocrisy of one criticizing another for behavior that he is guilty of as well; his antagonizing Christians is incidental.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

I am opposed to the hypocrisy of one criticizing another for behavior that he is guilty of as well; his antagonizing Christians is incidental.

Damn near all of your posts in this forum paint Christianity in a negative light, so if anything you should be high-fiving him.

Good call.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, it is a fairly accurate description of your posting habits.

No, it's just your POV on the matter. And since you don't really contribute to anything except being a yes-man to DK, maybe you should refrain from insulting fellow board members.

Originally posted by Devil King
What's obvious is that you still refuse to abandon the idea that queeq has been totally upfront about his claims.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that and even a paraphrase wouldn't bring you to that conclusion. Try a quote then?

Originally posted by Devil King
On top of the fact that you spent several posts addressing grammar, rather than points made?

That is a lie. I don't know how deliberate it is because it looks like you have a memory problem. I spent several posts addressing your posts and slight incidental information in my posts were about the shittiness of your posts. Nice try. Don't lie.

Originally posted by Devil King
This only furthers my claim that you support his argument because you realize he's a creationist, which is exactly what you are. Excuse me, a "revised" creationist.

We have been over this already. Not only are you wrong on so many levels, you FAIL.

Also, I prefer to be called a neo-evolutionist. 😉

Originally posted by Devil King
Those big words that I misspelled seem to impress you when queeq uses them.

Really? So when did I say that? Do you have a quote?

Exactly. 😐

Originally posted by Devil King
Making an issue of a single post isn't what I've been doing; you have.

Why blame? You really don't where you have contributed to that remaining an issue? FAIL. (Yes, I can do it too.)

Originally posted by Devil King
If I'm the master of those who agree with me, does that make you the "man" in the relationship between you and Dadudemon?

Agreeing with him? How? That you lie and put words in people's mouths? Sure! 😄

DK lies??? NOOOOOOOOOOOO.... where'd you get that idea? 😉

It is really quite interesting:

As much as Bible critics would like to use middle-eastern archeology to disprove the Word of God, new discoveries consistently serve to verify the Bible's historicity. To the great shame and chagrin of scoffers, the totality of genuine historical evidence leaves them little room to reject the Scriptures out of hand.

While archeological findings alone are insufficient to affirm the matter beyond all doubt, no thinking person can logically argue that one is an ignorant fool for believing the Bible. Those who make such assertions demonstrate their own callous disregard for the facts.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
It is really quite interesting:

As much as Bible critics would like to use middle-eastern archeology to disprove the Word of God, new discoveries consistently serve to verify the Bible's historicity. To the great shame and chagrin of scoffers, the totality of genuine historical evidence leaves them little room to reject the Scriptures out of hand.

While archeological findings alone are insufficient to affirm the matter beyond all doubt, no thinking person can logically argue that one is an ignorant fool for believing the Bible. Those who make such assertions demonstrate their own callous disregard for the facts.

Do you believe all of the bible literally?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
It is really quite interesting:

As much as Bible critics would like to use middle-eastern archeology to disprove the Word of God, new discoveries consistently serve to verify the Bible's historicity. To the great shame and chagrin of scoffers, the totality of genuine historical evidence leaves them little room to reject the Scriptures out of hand.

While archeological findings alone are insufficient to affirm the matter beyond all doubt, no thinking person can logically argue that one is an ignorant fool for believing the Bible. Those who make such assertions demonstrate their own callous disregard for the facts.

I tried raising that point, I agree with you. But then I was accused of seeing the Bible as proof for divine intervention.

And, Shak, it's not a matter of believing it literally. There's also the matter to what extent the Bible can be seen as a historical document. It's not a historical document by 21th century standards. Odd as it may seem, they didn't have those standards then. But also as a religious book, it's quite different from all the surrounding countries, where deities usually glorify or support the achievement of kings and heroes. IN the Bible, the heroes and kings are often portrayed as very fallible people. Now why would one describe the exploits of a king and show that he makes mistakes, if there was no historical realia behind it?

But I guess this is considered proving divine intervention again....

Originally posted by queeq
I tried raising that point, I agree with you. But then I was accused of seeing the Bible as proof for divine intervention.

And, Shak, it's not a matter of believing it literally. There's also the matter to what extent the Bible can be seen as a historical document. It's not a historical document by 21th century standards. Odd as it may seem, they didn't have those standards then. But also as a religious book, it's quite different from all the surrounding countries, where deities usually glorify or support the achievement of kings and heroes. IN the Bible, the heroes and kings are often portrayed as very fallible people. Now why would one describe the exploits of a king and show that he makes mistakes, if there was no historical realia behind it?

But I guess this is considered proving divine intervention again....

"It's not a historical document by 21th century standards"

That is the point I was getting too. I honestly believe that the bible was never purely a history book. I think it has always been a religious book with stories that use history as a back drop.

I don't believe that the bible is very accurate as history book.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
21th

😕

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
😕

😆 That shows you how my day has been going.

Wait! I didn't say that...

Lots of antennae failures?

Funny that you should doubt the historicity of the Bible.

Did you know that the New Testament is the single most attested work of ancient literature in existence?

There were no photocopy machines in ancient times – no printing presses. Every copy of the Bible had to be written out by hand. One would think that after thousands of years and hundreds of generations of hand written manuscripts, that the content of the Bible would surely have become skewed. After all, it's hard enough to pass a simple sentence around a room of friends and have it return to the originator unaltered.

Yet the evidence shows that this is precisely what happened with the New Testament. The Apostle John finished off the book of Revelation around 95AD, closing the biblical canon. We have more than 24,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, some 5000 of them written in the original Greek and dating from 125AD to no later than 1520AD. What do you think happens when we compare the very oldest manuscripts to the very latest?

We find no change in substantive content...PERIOD! Sure, the odd word here or there got smudged, or the odd line was accidentally repeated, or the odd margin note improperly included, etc. But through the science of textual criticism, we are able to figure out how the original should have looked. Incidentally, none of these transmission boo boos does anything to alter the meaning of the text. Thus the evidence clearly supports the historicity of the New Testament. And the New Testament clearly affirms the authenticity of the Old Testament. Yes, the Bible is primarily a religious book. But additionally...YES, it most certainly DOES report accurate history. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the vast body of supporting evidence.