|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2006 : 23:57:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Compassion
The Bible is 100% scientifically and historically accurate.
According to who? Comp, there no evedence of a world wide flood, no evedence that the Red Sea parted, and there is very little evedence for the plagues of Egypt. How does that make it 100% scientifically and historically accurate? |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
 |
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2006 : 05:06:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Compassion
Archaeologists have discovered all necessary proofs and evidences that the cities, towns, and places in the Bible have existed, at the time the Bible describes it at.
I once came across a passing reference to archeological evidence that Nazereth was not inhabited until after the first century AD. Does anyone here know anything about this?
Sorry, no references, but I saw a History Channel program that discussed this issue. Apparently the archaeological evidence is that Nazereth was in Jesus's time a cemetery. Jews were not supposed to live too close to such areas, so it is unlikely that Nazereth was a town when Jesus was alive. Also, the geography of the area does not fit the Biblical descriptions. It says that Nazereth was built on a hill, but it is in a valley. Also, first century writers like Josephus who mention the towns in that area (he was stationed nearby at one time) never mention Nazereth. Also, very close to Nazereth is a major city (forget the name) which is never mentioned in the Bible.
The town of Nazereth is apparently, like the rest of the Jesus narrative, fiction. The gospel writers didn't have any authentic historical stories of Jesus to draw from, so they made it up. They didn't know the geography of the area and so they got it wrong.
This reminds me of the Jerico story in the Old Testament. Archeological evidence indicates that it was not occupied during the possible times that the Israelites supposedly knocked its walls down. It was certainly a city later on when the story was created.
This all reflects rather poorly on the historical accuracy of the Bible, both OT and NT.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2006 : 05:26:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Bible is 100% scientifically and historically accurate. The Bible is a trusted source of information that has been proven by science. Different countries also have historical logs. These historical logs match up exactly to the dates on the Bible, and everything fits in place like a key in the matching keyhole. Archaeologists have discovered all necessary proofs and evidences that the cities, towns, and places in the Bible have existed, at the time the Bible describes it at.
Isn't lying forbidden? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2006 : 07:11:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Compassion
The Bible is very clear and has no contradicting points towards itself.
 |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2006 : 07:35:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Compassion
The Bible is very clear and has no contradicting points towards itself. If you had read further on, you would see that Mary is a virgin, thus never had commited the sin of adultery.
The word 'gods' is imcomparible to 'God'. There is a difference. God refers to THE Creator, whereas gods, with a lowercase letter at the front, would represent the false idols, icons, or images that people may be worshipping.
God's name is interpreted as Jealous, God, Lord, Jehovah, and several others. But when you swear, which you shouldn't be doing from the start, you should not include God in ANYTHING. That commandment is often translated as 'Do not use the name of the LORD your God in vain.' Clearly, this states not to swear by any of God's many names.
The Bible is 100% scientifically and historically accurate. The Bible is a trusted source of information that has been proven by science. Different countries also have historical logs. These historical logs match up exactly to the dates on the Bible, and everything fits in place like a key in the matching keyhole. Archaeologists have discovered all necessary proofs and evidences that the cities, towns, and places in the Bible have existed, at the time the Bible describes it at.
True unless you count the three seperate ways that Judas Iscariot died, who paid for the potters field, the differences between the first and second creation stories, etc. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2006 : 07:57:39 [Permalink]
|
| Meh, christian apologists love to twist words and "interpret" any contradictions out of the way. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2006 : 08:00:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Compassion
The Bible is very clear and has no contradicting points towards itself. If you had read further on, you would see that Mary is a virgin, thus never had commited the sin of adultery.
The word 'gods' is imcomparible to 'God'. There is a difference. God refers to THE Creator, whereas gods, with a lowercase letter at the front, would represent the false idols, icons, or images that people may be worshipping.
God's name is interpreted as Jealous, God, Lord, Jehovah, and several others. But when you swear, which you shouldn't be doing from the start, you should not include God in ANYTHING. That commandment is often translated as 'Do not use the name of the LORD your God in vain.' Clearly, this states not to swear by any of God's many names.
The Bible is 100% scientifically and historically accurate. The Bible is a trusted source of information that has been proven by science. Different countries also have historical logs. These historical logs match up exactly to the dates on the Bible, and everything fits in place like a key in the matching keyhole. Archaeologists have discovered all necessary proofs and evidences that the cities, towns, and places in the Bible have existed, at the time the Bible describes it at.
True unless you count the three seperate ways that Judas Iscariot died, who paid for the potters field, the differences between the first and second creation stories, etc.
My favorite is where Matthew quotes the OT to support Mary being the virgin mother of Jesus. (Dont have the reference...its the one with "and he shall be called Immanuel"). Not only is he tripped up by a translation error (was 'young woman' not 'virgin') but the passage was a prophesy that, according to the bible, was already fulfilled ages ago. (And Jesus was never called Immanuel). You'd think maybe God or an angel could have helped him get it right since its supposed to be inspired and inerrant. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2006 : 09:04:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Compassion
The Bible is 100% scientifically and historically accurate. The Bible is a trusted source of information that has been proven by science. Different countries also have historical logs. These historical logs match up exactly to the dates on the Bible, and everything fits in place like a key in the matching keyhole. Archaeologists have discovered all necessary proofs and evidences that the cities, towns, and places in the Bible have existed, at the time the Bible describes it at.
Okay, I'll bite. Just to be fair, please post the sources for your information. Cite. To the best of my knowledge, even biblical literalists have conceded that the earth is not flat and is not the center of the universe, galaxy, or even our solar system, as the bible seems to imply. That makes your claim extraordinary beyond any amount of reason.
There are many more problems than the above, both historically and scientifically with a literally accurate bible. “Fits like a key” is hyperbolic language not really consistent with the facts as we know them.
So, your job is to point us in the direction of these alleged proofs of biblical accuracy. Short of that, your post is meaningless in any historical or scientific context and just a statement of faith by you, which is fine, but says nothing about biblical accuracy.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2006 : 13:45:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Compassion
Archaeologists have discovered all necessary proofs and evidences that the cities, towns, and places in the Bible have existed, at the time the Bible describes it at.
I once came across a passing reference to archeological evidence that Nazereth was not inhabited until after the first century AD. Does anyone here know anything about this?
Sorry, no references, but I saw a History Channel program that discussed this issue. Apparently the archaeological evidence is that Nazereth was in Jesus's time a cemetery. Jews were not supposed to live too close to such areas, so it is unlikely that Nazereth was a town when Jesus was alive. Also, the geography of the area does not fit the Biblical descriptions. It says that Nazereth was built on a hill, but it is in a valley. Also, first century writers like Josephus who mention the towns in that area (he was stationed nearby at one time) never mention Nazereth. Also, very close to Nazereth is a major city (forget the name) which is never mentioned in the Bible.
The town of Nazereth is apparently, like the rest of the Jesus narrative, fiction. The gospel writers didn't have any authentic historical stories of Jesus to draw from, so they made it up. They didn't know the geography of the area and so they got it wrong.
This reminds me of the Jerico story in the Old Testament. Archeological evidence indicates that it was not occupied during the possible times that the Israelites supposedly knocked its walls down. It was certainly a city later on when the story was created.
This all reflects rather poorly on the historical accuracy of the Bible, both OT and NT.
OK. Got a reference - http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
Its a bit one-sided (could you guess?) but its pretty much what the History Channel presented (if thats any better). It has some additional references. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2006 : 13:53:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by leoofno
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
quote:
Originally posted by Compassion
Archaeologists have discovered all necessary proofs and evidences that the cities, towns, and places in the Bible have existed, at the time the Bible describes it at.
I once came across a passing reference to archeological evidence that Nazereth was not inhabited until after the first century AD. Does anyone here know anything about this?
Sorry, no references, but I saw a History Channel program that discussed this issue. Apparently the archaeological evidence is that Nazereth was in Jesus's time a cemetery. Jews were not supposed to live too close to such areas, so it is unlikely that Nazereth was a town when Jesus was alive. Also, the geography of the area does not fit the Biblical descriptions. It says that Nazereth was built on a hill, but it is in a valley. Also, first century writers like Josephus who mention the towns in that area (he was stationed nearby at one time) never mention Nazereth. Also, very close to Nazereth is a major city (forget the name) which is never mentioned in the Bible.
The town of Nazereth is apparently, like the rest of the Jesus narrative, fiction. The gospel writers didn't have any authentic historical stories of Jesus to draw from, so they made it up. They didn't know the geography of the area and so they got it wrong.
This reminds me of the Jerico story in the Old Testament. Archeological evidence indicates that it was not occupied during the possible times that the Israelites supposedly knocked its walls down. It was certainly a city later on when the story was created.
This all reflects rather poorly on the historical accuracy of the Bible, both OT and NT.
OK. Got a reference - http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
Its a bit one-sided (could you guess?) but its pretty much what the History Channel presented (if thats any better). It has some additional references.
One more, by Frank Zindler at American Atheist: http://www.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
| Edited by - leoofno on 05/10/2006 13:54:27 |
|
|
|
MUGGZ
New Member
New Zealand
3 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2006 : 02:54:58 [Permalink]
|
Yall have sum interesting answers some that kinda answer the q's some that do but also don't. I question - It says Mary was a virgin but is there any clarification that her hymen was intact? There are a number of females that say they are virgins and aren't?
Every1 has valid points and every1's intitled to there beliefs, ideas, interpretation of things etc.
I had had someone bring up the questions once when we were talking about shit (as you do sometimes) and it had me pondering about it.cher 4 the answers I will not discredit them or accept them as my own. I leave it up 2 discussion if any 1 feels the need |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2006 : 17:44:48 [Permalink]
|
A babe mite get knocked up, just'n hes rubbin against her and cum on her bush. Get sum education, m8.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2006 : 16:01:10 [Permalink]
|
Compassion, you are speaking like a brain washed puppet. But welcome to the forum anyway.  |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2006 : 16:41:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by MUGGZ
Yall have sum interesting answers some that kinda answer the q's some that do but also don't. I question - It says Mary was a virgin but is there any clarification that her hymen was intact? There are a number of females that say they are virgins and aren't?
Every1 has valid points and every1's intitled to there beliefs, ideas, interpretation of things etc.
I had had someone bring up the questions once when we were talking about shit (as you do sometimes) and it had me pondering about it.cher 4 the answers I will not discredit them or accept them as my own. I leave it up 2 discussion if any 1 feels the need
Regrettably (?), I'm not 14, and as such, can't quite decipher everything you've written. In any case, your main point (as near as I can tell) is about Mary's virginity. The answer was actually referenced in an above post, but I'll mention it here as you might have missed it. In short, the notion that Mary was a virgin came about due to some bad scholarship. One of the main features of the book of Matthew is a constant reference to the events of Jesus' life as fulfilling Hebrew prophecy. Unfortunately, the author of Matthew was either a) lazy, or b) really bad at reading Hebrew, because most of his attempts to squeeze biographical bits about Jesus into random bits of prophecy fail horribly.
A great example of such failures is that of Mary's virginity. Was she a virgin? We have no idea, of course, but given what we know about human procreation, it seems entirely unlikely. Moreover, the bit of prophecy fulfilled by this "fact" of Mary's virginity actually has nothing to do with virginity. Isaiah 7:14 simply says that a young woman will give birth to a child and name the child "Immanuel." But the author of Matthew obviously had some trouble with the passage and misread "young woman" for "virgin." (More on that here.)
More interesting is why anyone would even want to bring up the virgin part anyway. A likely answer is that the later Gospel writers had to deal with some rather uncomfortable rumors floating around about Jesus. If a rumor is pervasive enough (and perhaps based on some fact), then a later writer simply cannot ignore it or call it a lie. So suppose that Jesus were born out of wedlock? That's a pretty damning rumor, given the time and place. So how does one deal with it? One way is to find a less embarassing way to explain it. Given that these people lived in a magical world where various heroes sprang from virgin mothers, it makes sense to say that the god Yahweh impregnated her via magic, and Joseph only came along later.
At least, that's one way to think about it... |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
