Holy Bible

[jaxvid]

Something tells me that nobody ain't gonna convince anyone else to change their views on this subject.

 

[Carolina Speed]

Something tells me that nobody ain't gonna convince anyone else to change their views on this subject.

Probably the most accurate post yet, jaxvid!

There's no way we as Christians will convince an atheist/agnostic or anyone of anything. Only God and the Holy Spirit can do that, however, we can defend our faith. We can tell others what Jesus has done in our lives as well as the miracles we've seen here on earth!

I could write a book on the lives I've seen changed and the things my faith has done for me as well as others! You'd be amazed.

As a Christian I want to tell others of the good news about Jesus. I would probably go insane if I had to live in this world without him!

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and MANY enter through it. BUT SMALL is the gate and NARROW is the road that leads to LIFE, and only a FEW find it. Matthew, 7:13-14.

 

[FootballDad]

Likewise, you need to stop reading the Christian websites that make up their own facts as well because none of that is true. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

Big deal. He's one "expert", and he doesn't really say anything that disproves anything. Most of his answers were basically a "shrug". Even your great ONE expert doesn't offer anything definitive. That's the nature of archeology. It's all interpretive. I note that at the article beginning they discuss how biblical archeology was allegedly all about simply verification, not about discovery. The same EXACT thing could be said about evolutionary archeology where bones in the dirt are given bizarre stories to try to prove an utterly ridiculous theory.

 

[FootballDad]

Something tells me that nobody ain't gonna convince anyone else to change their views on this subject.

Of course not. We've been through these kinds of threads on many, many occasions. They almost always become flame wars where the thread gets locked down. I normally don't bother posting in these types of threads, but Anak is always fun to play with.:grin:

 

[Old Scratch]

Big deal. He's one "expert", and he doesn't really say anything that disproves anything. Most of his answers were basically a "shrug". Even your great ONE expert doesn't offer anything definitive. That's the nature of archeology. It's all interpretive. I note that at the article beginning they discuss how biblical archeology was allegedly all about simply verification, not about discovery. The same EXACT thing could be said about evolutionary archeology where bones in the dirt are given bizarre stories to try to prove an utterly ridiculous theory.

It's just PBS, man. Basically just proving that the Bible doesn't have archaeological proof like you claimed. Any find that corroborates with a Bible claim is nebulous at best, and most of the findings prove that the Bible is just BS if you want to take it literally.

 

[FootballDad]

It's just PBS, man. Basically just proving that the Bible doesn't have archaeological proof like you claimed. Any find that corroborates with a Bible claim is nebulous at best, and most of the findings prove that the Bible is just BS if you want to take it literally.

I could give you a dozen or more archeological and Jewish antiquities websites that have their proof and dozens more experts, but what difference would that make to you? You're mind is already made up based primarily on your personal inclination.
I have no beef with the "expert" that you linked. It's his hedging opinion throughout the piece. Some of it is quite good. But what does PBS have to do with it being authoritative? I guess if I listen to public radio, then only the truth will filter in and I will become enlightened.......

 

[Carolina Speed]

Likewise, you need to stop reading the Christian websites that make up their own facts as well because none of that is true. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

Old Scratch, you keep telling us everything we post is untrue or false according to "YOU."

Why will you not tell us what the "TRUTH," is according to "YOU?"

What is the "TRUTH?" I would like to know!

 

[Old Scratch]

I could give you a dozen or more archeological and Jewish antiquities websites that have their proof and dozens more experts

Please do. Now what kind of "experts" are they, Sitchin and the guy from ancient aliens quality experts or the bona fide experts? Here's an example, Zahi Hawass is a veritable expert on Egyptology, a guy that looked at pictures and read news stories and then made a website or youtube video about how the ancient Egyptians were all black Negroes is not an expert.

 

[Carolina Speed]

Old Scratch, you keep telling us everything we post is untrue or false according to "YOU."

Why will you not tell us what the "TRUTH," is according to "YOU?"

What is the "TRUTH?" I would like to know!

This question keeps getting ignored for some reason.

Someone here tell me why.

 

[FootballDad]

This question keeps getting ignored for some reason.

Someone here tell me why.

The Truth, according to Anak, is that great, great, great (keep going for a few million/billion greats) grandpa was a ROCK. And not the same Rock that you and I believe in.

 

[Carolina Speed]

Here is the testimony of Philip Vander Elst, an Oxford graduate, who after examining the evidence was formerly an atheist and became a Christian. This is not to try an convince anyone to become a Christian, as I've said no human can convince anyone, only God can change one's heart and mind, however, Mr. Vander Elst cites philosophical, scientific, and historical evidence for the existence of Christ and the Bible.

To be fair, I have also examined some former Christians who say they are now atheists, testimonies and why they left their faith.

I have asked the question what is truth to which, so far, no one has their answer. Mr. Vander Elst describes what I believe is to be the "Truth," Jesus Christ!

http://www.bethinking.org/stories-i...theism-to-christianity-a-personal-journey.htm

Please read. Whether you are a believer or not, there is obviously evidence for the existence of God and Biblical history.

 

[Old Scratch]

The Truth, according to Anak, is that great, great, great (keep going for a few million/billion greats) grandpa was a ROCK. And not the same Rock that you and I believe in.

Rocks aren't alive and don't pass on DNA, so no.

 

[Old Scratch]

This question keeps getting ignored for some reason.

Someone here tell me why.

I don't know, I didn't profess to know, I just think that the Bible is BS. It's on you to prove the word of the Bible, not on me to disprove it.

 

[Old Scratch]

Please read. Whether you are a believer or not, there is obviously evidence for the existence of God and Biblical history.

Some. About as much as the Iliad. Just because they found Troy doesn't mean the Iliad is an accurate account of the events that happened, or that there was a huge 10 year battle between the Greeks and the Trojans fought by demigods with the help of gods.

 

[Old Scratch]

Here is the testimony of Philip Vander Elst, an Oxford graduate, who after examining the evidence was formerly an atheist and became a Christian. This is not to try an convince anyone to become a Christian, as I've said no human can convince anyone, only God can change one's heart and mind, however, Mr. Vander Elst cites philosophical, scientific, and historical evidence for the existence of Christ and the Bible.

To be fair, I have also examined some former Christians who say they are now atheists, testimonies and why they left their faith.

I have asked the question what is truth to which, so far, no one has their answer. Mr. Vander Elst describes what I believe is to be the "Truth," Jesus Christ!

http://www.bethinking.org/stories-i...theism-to-christianity-a-personal-journey.htm

Please read. Whether you are a believer or not, there is obviously evidence for the existence of God and Biblical history.

This assumes the historicity of the gospel accounts, not that he provides any proof himself. It's a bunch of nothing, really.

 

[Carolina Speed]

I don't know, I didn't profess to know, I just think that the Bible is BS. It's on you to prove the word of the Bible, not on me to disprove it.

Thank you.

So if you don't know, you can't honestly say without a doubt, there's no truth to Christ and the Bible.

For the second or third time, I can't prove anything to you! It's up to you to sincerely ask God to show you the "Truth." That's your decision. God gave us free will to choose. I've made my choice!

You asked for non-Christian sources for evidence. Mr. Vander Elst provided both Christian and non-Christian sources in his testimony. You can choose to read them or not to read them and or believe them or not to believe them. If I provide a dozen more, it still won't convince you. As I said there's nothing "I" or anyone else can do, but you asked, and it was provided.

 

[FootballDad]

Rocks aren't alive and don't pass on DNA, so no.

LOL! Where did your "primordial soup" come from?

 

[FootballDad]

I don't know, I didn't profess to know, I just think that the Bible is BS. It's on you to prove the word of the Bible, not on me to disprove it.

What's to prove? There is no way to prove, besides fulfilled prophecy (in which other excuses would pop up), that the Bible is the Word of God to someone who has no belief in God! So, for someone who does not believe, it simply becomes a book about ancients. Interestingly, and even confirmed by your unassailable PBS expert, is that no archaeological find has ever contradicted the Bible. Archaeology has only confirmed what the Bible says. As has been the case with so many other things in the Bible, as archaeology progresses, they will most certainly uncover evidence in the future. The Bible has yet to be proven wrong by archaeology. For instance, there are descriptions and locations in the Bible for a large number of ancient cities, a great many that have been located and excavated, just as the Bible said. But what difference does that make for you? Where are the Iliad's metropolises?

 

[FootballDad]

This assumes the historicity of the gospel accounts, not that he provides any proof himself. It's a bunch of nothing, really.

Nothing to someone to whom no evidence short of a time machine would prove anything. The gospels and New Testament also have no proof against them. All people and places (as much as can be unearthed) have all simply verified, never contradicted. The unbeliever simply states that the central characters, such as Jesus, are all "mythological". It's very convenient.

Of course, Anak needs to be commended for HIS faith. It takes MUCH more faith to believe in evolution than Christianity. Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10[SUP]300,000. [/SUP]Now that's faith!

 

[Carolina Speed]

Nothing to someone to whom no evidence short of a time machine would prove anything. The gospels and New Testament also have no proof against them. All people and places (as much as can be unearthed) have all simply verified, never contradicted. The unbeliever simply states that the central characters, such as Jesus, are all "mythological". It's very convenient.

Of course, Anak needs to be commended for HIS faith. It takes MUCH more faith to believe in evolution than Christianity. Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10[SUP]300,000. [/SUP]Now that's faith!

There's also a book called,"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist," by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. It goes into great detail about the philosophical and scientific evidence for the existence of God. Also, it gives archaeological and historical evidence for the truthfulness of the New Testament.

 

[Old Scratch]

LOL! Where did your "primordial soup" come from?

It's posited that that allowed for the formation of protobionts which led eventually to the formation of the first cells, not that life began from rocks.

 

[FootballDad]

It's posited that that allowed for the formation of protobionts which led eventually to the formation of the first cells, not that life began from rocks.

Semantics. Either way it's improbable.

 

[Old Scratch]

What's to prove? There is no way to prove, besides fulfilled prophecy (in which other excuses would pop up), that the Bible is the Word of God to someone who has no belief in God! So, for someone who does not believe, it simply becomes a book about ancients. Interestingly, and even confirmed by your unassailable PBS expert, is that no archaeological find has ever contradicted the Bible. Archaeology has only confirmed what the Bible says. As has been the case with so many other things in the Bible, as archaeology progresses, they will most certainly uncover evidence in the future. The Bible has yet to be proven wrong by archaeology. For instance, there are descriptions and locations in the Bible for a large number of ancient cities, a great many that have been located and excavated, just as the Bible said. But what difference does that make for you? Where are the Iliad's metropolises?

This is a load of crap, you didn't provide the expert sources you claimed to have either. There might be factual details to the Old Testament but they were all embellished just like the ancient city of Troy, which did exist just not like it was according to the Iliad. There was no great Empire of David and Solomon for instance or at least it was nothing very special:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text

So yeah there are some elements of truth, but mostly it's embellished, fabricated and legendary, not really historically accurate and there is no proof of the supernatural. That's mythology.

Your "archaeological proof" of the Bible is akin to seeing the ancient Sumerian ziggurats and proclaiming that the story of the tower of Babel must be an historical fact. Okay so they found an ancient cow town with a ring of fortification where the Kingdom of David was supposed to be so that must mean that the Bible is completely historically factual and every story in the Bible is the truth and there was a big ancient flood that covered the whole Earth and these people lived hundreds of years all about 6,000 years ago and the cro-magnon, neanderthal etc were just put on Earth to test our faith etc etc etc

 

[Old Scratch]

Semantics. Either way it's improbable.

No it's not semantics, it's a totally different concept.

 

[Average American]

..archaeological and historical evidence.

Netflix uploaded a documentary Patterns of Evidence: Exodus.
The film maker puts forth a theory that the traditional interpretation of Biblical Exodus was real, but lacks historical evidence because it has been misplaced in the timeline of Egyptian history. I think he makes a good, thorough case, and a fair case (he also includes archaeologists with counter/skeptical perceptions of the Exodus). Think it's interesting for both believers & impassive students of Biblical archaeology.