Every time I get into a debate with a Christian about the Christian beliefs, the bible is the only source they ever use to back up what they say. I do not know many books that give facts for my arguments for each specific argument; but I do know that to say that the Bible is so factual you can make it the only source for your information is just wrong! Give hard evidence that the men who wrote the Bible did not just write what they believed or thought. We cannot prove that! Religion is made up to explain the unexplainable and to give hope that we do not just live to die. If you contradict that statement then tell me why is there so many different religions? Why is it that the thought of just dying and being no more bothers so many? I know I got off the subject of proving the Bible to be factual, but I have so many questions and I would like someone who knows real answers besides "Thats called Faith" to answer me.

Look up books and websites on science and the Bible

Science and the Bible (http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml)

Every time I get into a debate with a Christian about the Christian beliefs, the bible is the only source they ever use to back up what they say.

Some Christians believe in a doctrine called the "Bible alone". They base all their beliefs on the Bible and do not consider any other source as valid.

Some Christians, Catholics, Orthodox, Coptics and some reformed Christians, accept authentic historical documents and all sources of proven evidence to confirm their beliefs.


I do not know many books that give facts for my arguments for each specific argument; but I do know that to say that the Bible is so factual you can make it the only source for your information is just wrong!

1. Actually, since the Bible is the Word of God, then rightly understood, it can be used to support any true argument.

2. But since many people do not believe in God, then in order to convince them that the Bible is true we must confirm its contents with facts gathered in another discipline.


Give hard evidence that the men who wrote the Bible did not just write what they believed or thought.

They did write what they believed and thought. Who said they didn't?


We cannot prove that!

No. But since most of them died for their beliefs, that is pretty convincing evidence that they did believe it was true.


Religion is made up to explain the unexplainable and to give hope that we do not just live to die.

Perhaps some religions are thus. But the Judeo Christian religions are based on the Revelation of God to our forefathers. This Revelation has been passed on by Tradition and Scripture through the Teaching of the Church throughout the generations.

You may not consider eyewitness testimony as credible, but it is routinely accepted in Courts of Law throughout the world.


If you contradict that statement then tell me why is there so many different religions?

There are many reasons. Haven't you ever met people who simply refuse to believe the truth no matter how plain it is? And there are simply people who haven't heard the truth. There are others who have heard it but haven't understood it. There are those who mislead people for personal gain. And there are many other reasons.


Why is it that the thought of just dying and being no more bothers so many?

It never bothered me. I was an atheist for approximately 15 years. But I no longer believe that to be true.

Why does it bother so many that we believe in life after death?


I know I got off the subject of proving the Bible to be factual, but I have so many questions and I would like someone who knows real answers besides "Thats called Faith" to answer me.

I hope that helps. Feel free to ask as many questions as you like. I'm sure there are many Christians here who are ready and willing to answer.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Every time I get into a debate with a Christian about the Christian beliefs, the bible is the only source they ever use to back up what they say. I do not know many books that give facts for my arguments for each specific argument; but I do know that to say that the Bible is so factual you can make it the only source for your information is just wrong! Give hard evidence that the men who wrote the Bible did not just write what they believed or thought. We cannot prove that! Religion is made up to explain the unexplainable and to give hope that we do not just live to die. If you contradict that statement then tell me why is there so many different religions? Why is it that the thought of just dieing and being no more bothers so many? I know I got off the subject of proving the Bible to be factual, but I have so many questions and I would like someone who knows real answers besides "Thats called Faith" to answer me.
It's not just based on faith to believe the bible as authentic, it is also fact. For example:

It is filled with prophesies, many of which have already been fulfilled. Isaiah 13:20 foretold of the great city Babylon being desolatede permanently. Today it is still just a pile of rubble remaining uninhabited, yet other cities of old are thriving.

It is scientifically accurate. For many centuries man thought the earth was flat and yet Isaiah 40:22 states "There is one who is dwelling above the circle of the earth."

True it was mere man who penned the bible, but the Author was God himself, making it possible for some 40 very different men over a time span of 16 centuries to make up the bible in a completely harmonious, united way.

And if you are thinking that such a book could not possibly be kept 'original' down to our day - then you are basically saying that God is not perfect because he isn't capable of preserving his Word.

BTW the reason many are so bothered about dying is because they have not been taught the truth of Gods wonderful purpose for us, which is certainly not to live and die.

Gen 1:28 "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and sudue it" In other words we were meant to be caretakers of this planet. No mention of death here, only when Adam and Eve were given boundaries and the consequences of breaking them was death ever mentioned.

But getting back to proving the bible as authentic... to date, no one has ever successfully challenged the historical accuracy of it. You are most welcome to try. But really the proof is right there in front of you. Unfortunately many don't take enough time to study it deeply enough to find its true benefits.

So Oxman, give me hard evidence that the heat of the sun at its core is 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

To answer you, it does not matter one penny what you believe or think, no amount of evidence would convince you, I doubt if God himself spoke to you from a donkey you would believe.

So why bother with trying to tell you about Gods love, about his power and about his forgiveness.

The bible is a book, written over many 1000's of years, protected, forgotten, despised and found and rejoiced over and over many times.
You can reject it, that is your right, You an accept it, from the history of the Church and its teachings, and the 1000's of things of evidence from the data on the flood which shows a great regional flood in the general area believed to be the known world at the time of Noah, to other evidence showing ruins in Egypt that show brick with no straw following the teachings of the bible. The evidence is there but those who wish to refuse to believe will always find reasons to.

I guess my issue or question is what is your motive in challenging it,
If you don't believe, why not leave it and go about your way without any worry,

Is you your heart longs to believe and you want some sign to allow you to accept Christ?

Hi there Ox -

I am Catholic and thought I was Christian ( I accept Jesus as my savior - and Love our Lord so much, as well as Jesus Christ)

We did not have bible study at all in school (11 years Catholic - 1 year public). However, our masses, the readings our from the bible and then, what is called a homily follows, which to be is one of the favorite parts of mass.

This is the point that normally, the priest, will tie in reading 1 ( usually Old Testament ) and reading 2 ( New testament ), explain what they meant, and connect it to something of today.

It's very simple the way they do it. Overall, the preach LOVE. Honest. I never was at a mass, where the damned anyone, I would have walked out. Trust me. And ask to see the Priest later.

With that said, I have heard sermons that did warn us that we need to mend our ways.

I have said this so many times and people are probably sick of me saying it, but I believe strongly, that those religions that practice and believe, and preach the love of God, are just roads that lead to Our Heavenly Father.

It's kind of like one diet works for one, doesn't for another. And the third won't even try because he or she knows they never will loose weight.

God Bless.

There is nothing to prove, God's love speaks for itself :). But if you mean is the bible real.

Oh I think so, I truly do.

But as I tell everyone, trust your heart. Knock (probably better if you called) on a rectory door, or a synagogue, or any church you feel comfortable in, and ask your questions.
God want's us to help each other through this, and recognizes how difficult it is. How do I know all of this? Oh, I have His number :). Just kiddin.

He's in my heart and has carried me through good and difficult times. Mostly, He blesses me everyday.

But if you remember when Jesus would sit and teach, it was done in a loving way.

[QUOTE=Fr_Chuck]To answer you, it does not matter one penny what you believe or think, no amount of evidence would convince you, I doubt if God himself spoke to you from a donkey you would believe.
[QUOTE]

I think you have this wrong though. If there was a way to prove god. I would believe. Just like if they catch the Lockness monster or bigfoot, I'd believe in them too. On the otherhand though I don't think you will ever not believe even if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that god had no effect on this universe you would still claim that god is there and answers your prayers and that is was a matter of faith that can't be disproven.

As for an eyewitness being a good source of information, that's completely wrong. How many time do people report sightings of aliens, big foot and the lochness monster? Even when used in a court of law they are not regarded as highly accurate. Very rarely is someone convicted on eyewitness testimony alone.

Dear oxman,
You have alots of question. If you want real answer visit HOME « Eliseo Soriano (http://www.esoriano.wordpress.com), ask bro eli soriano.

Dear oxman,
You have alots of question. if you want real answer visit HOME « Eliseo Soriano (http://www.esoriano.wordpress.com), ask bro eli soriano.

Honestly, he does not have a lot of questions, at least any where he wants an answer, He already believes he knows that the bible is "not true" and wishes to disprove it to those he can. He wants the bible proved, and for course first the bible is a collection of separate writings not one book, it was formed into a book by christians to keep sacred writtings together.

One can prove many things, from flood layers but one that does not WANT to believe never will, not until they decide to have faith, which will allow them to see.

Honestly, he does not have alot of questions, at least any where he wants an answer, He already beleives he knows that the bible is "not true" and wishes to disprove it to those he can. He wants the bible proved, and fo course first the bible is a collection of seperate writings not one book, it was formed into a book by christians to keep sacred writtings together.

One can prove many things, from flood layers but one that does not WANT to beleive never will, not untill they decide to have faith, which will allow them to see.

He saith, He have a lots of question. In it takes a lot of time to prove the bible is true.

TO PROVE HOW AUTHENTIC THE BIBLE IS, I WILL GIVE ONE EXAMPLE. Once upon time people believed that the earth is flat. In 1969 when apollo 11 CAME TO THE OUTER space. It is the first time that man saw that the is not flat. Did you not many years before Jesus Christ Came to the in flesh, it is written in the bible that the eareth is not flat. "It is He that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth," Isa.40:22. Gallileo galili was excumunicate by his church because he bilieve that the earth is round but his church believe it is flat.

Umm the greeks measured the circumference of the earth long before the bible was even written and almost all sea faring cultures knew that the earth was round because they would see the masts of ships before they saw the hull of the ship. It was only the church that for some reason got the idea that the world was flat and made everyone believe it.

Earth Circumference Measurement by Posidonius (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Distances.htm)

TO PROVE HOW AUTHENTIC THE BIBLE IS, I WILL GIVE ONE EXAMPLE. once upon time people believed that the earth is flat. in 1969 when apollo 11 CAME TO THE OUTER space. it is the first time that man saw that the is not flat. did you not many years before Jesus Christ Came to the in flesh, it is written in the bible that the eareth is not flat. "It is He that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth," Isa.40:22. Gallileo galili was excumunicate by his church because he bilieve that the earth is round but his church believe it is flat.
Besides that Christianity did everything in it´s power to prevent the scientific evidence of a spherical earth to be communicated freely, the fact that the earth was a sphere was wellknown long before it was introduced in anyone of the bible stories.
Nobody required apollo 11 or any other rocketry to see that the earth was a sphere. All that was required to see that was an open mind.
:rolleyes:

Read A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle and maybe life itself will make more sense to you. It really answers a lot of questions of life and may help you understand a few things from the Bible even though its not the based on one religion or even the Bible itself. It just makes sense.

... and maybe life itself will make more sense to you.
What makes you think that anyone here has a problem with life not making any sense?
The question is if you can objectively prove that the sense life makes to you has more value than the sense someone else experiences? What is right, what is wrong? What is true, what is untrue? And WHY is that so?
:rolleyes:

What makes you think that anyone here has a problem with life not making any sense?
The question is if you can objectively prove that the sense life makes to you has more value than the sense someone else experiences? What is right, what is wrong? What is true, what is untrue? And WHY is that so?
:rolleyes:

Sorry just trying to help.

Sorry just trying to help.
Please understand that I am not attacking you at all.
.
For your information : I am a freethinking Secular Humanist.
I do not hate anyone.
I do not hate religion or religious people.
I never killed or physically hurt anyone.
I do not misuse children, women, or any other human being.
I do not harm animals.
I do not drink alcohol, I don't smoke, I do not do drugs.
I pay my taxes and my bills.
I love my Christian wife, my children, and my grandchildren.
I am a honest, open, non-aggressive, rather intelligent guy.
I have a 30 years experience in teaching children in the third world.
I am member of an international emergency assistance team.
I am an unpaid volunteer with mentally handicapped children, and volunteer in a hospice for terminal patients
There is nothing wrong with me.
So with what and why would you try to help me?
.
All I tried to do is show that Oxman's topic "How can we prove the Bible is factual" makes no sense, as there is no way anyone can prove the Bible is factual, simply because the entire Bible and the religion based on the Bible is based on BELIEF and nothing else.
:rolleyes:

Bravo, the first perfect human being ever! Pardon me for trying to answer and not being of any help, when obviously you don't need it, good for you. Good luck to you.

Grammy,
I believe he may have taken your "maybe life itself will make more sense to you" somewhat personally (apologies to Credendovidis if I got that wrong). Many who don't read the bible as a life guide have absolutely no problem living our lives or finding meaning in what we do. If you require the bible to have life make sense to you then that's OK but it's best not to assume that others are like that.

Thanks for the advice. I guess I should have thought it through more. I just thought the reading itself would help rather than asking others the way he did. He came across as a bully to me, and that may not have been the intention. It just seemed as though there wasn't an answer that anyone could give him that would help and that he was just challenging Christians to prove what we believe with our hearts without having to have scientific proof. You either believe or you don't. I think I'll stick to asking questions instead of answering them! Thanks for caring and may God Bless you!

umm the greeks measured the circumference of the earth long before the bible was even written and almost all sea faring cultures knew that the earth was round because they would see the masts of ships before they saw the hull of the ship. It was only the church that for some reason got the idea that the world was flat and made everyone believe it.

Earth Circumference Measurement by Posidonius (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Distances.htm)
Thousands years before greeks measured the earth it is written in the bible. I agreed to marvin. I read the bible if it comes to me that the bible is advanced. There's a science in the bible, medical, history, and even engineering.

Bravo, the first perfect human being ever! Pardon me for trying to answer and not being of any help, when obviously you don't need it, good for you. Good luck to you.
Why so negative? I never suggested to be perfect. You do that! I just tried to convey to you that also non-believers can be "good" people, and do not need any help because of their world view.
I fear you must wear size 68 shoes to allow for your long toes...
;)

grammy,
I believe he may have taken your "maybe life itself will make more sense to you" somewhat personally (apologies to Credendovidis if I got that wrong).
No, you got that spot on !
:)

... and that he was just challenging Christians to prove what we believe with our hearts without having to have scientific proof. You either believe or you don't...
Now you're talking! ;)
No I am NOT challenging Christians to PROVE what they BELIEVE.
All I state is that you may BELIEVE whatever you BELIEVE, but than do not CLAIM that what you BELIEVE is the ONE AND ONLY TRUTH, because that CLAIM is something that you have to PROVE to be true!!
;)

Now how can we honestly give any other reply to the topic question "How can we prove the Bible is factual? " than "No, you can not prove that. You can only BELIEVE that! "?
;)

Besides that Christianity did everything in it´s power to prevent the scientific evidence of a spherical earth to be communicated freely, the fact that the earth was a sphere was wellknown long before it was introduced in anyone of the bible stories.
Nobody required apollo 11 or any other rocketry to see that the earth was a sphere. All that was required to see that was an open mind.
:rolleyes:

Many people way back thuosands of years believes that the earth was flat,but is alreadywritten in the bible. To prove the Bible is factual. In history of asyria, they don't believe that they have a king named king sargon. But king sargon was mentioned in the bible. In our time archeologist found a stone tablet where king sargon pictured in that stone. Even archeology the bible is write. The bible is complete in history than the asyrian history.

Many people way back thuosands of years believes that the earth was flat,but is alreadywritten in the bible. To prove the Bible is factual. In history of asyria, they dont believe that they have a king named king sargon. But king sargon was mentioned in the bible. in our time archeologist found a stone tablet where king sargon pictured in that stone. even archeology the bible is write. The bible is complete in history than the asyrian history.
All you can prove at best are individual claims in the Bible to be correct.
But for the Bible as Bible to be factual you have to prove that God exists, that God is the Almighty, that the Bible is God's word, that Genesis is factual, etc. etc. etc.
And nobody can objectively prove that. So the honest answer is NO : you can not prove the Bible to be factual! All you can do is BELIEVE the Bible to be factual.
:rolleyes:

All you can prove at best are individual claims in the Bible to be correct.
But for the Bible as Bible to be factual you have to prove that God exists, that God is the Almighty, that the Bible is God's word, that Genesis is factual, etc. etc. etc.
And nobody can objectively prove that. So the honest answer is NO : you can not prove the Bible to be factual! All you can do is BELIEVE the Bible to be factual.
:rolleyes:
In Genesis, God created heavens and earth, now you can see heaven and earth. God said, let there be light, and there was light. You can see light. Who among people that can claimed that they created heaven its only God.

Please understand that I am not attacking you at all.
.
For your information : I am a freethinking Secular Humanist.
I do not hate anyone.
I do not hate religion or religious people.
I never killed or physically hurt anyone.
I do not misuse children, women, or any other human being.
I do not harm animals.
I do not drink alcohol, I don't smoke, I do not do drugs.
I pay my taxes and my bills.
I love my Christian wife, my children, and my grandchildren.
I am a honest, open, non-aggressive, rather intelligent guy.
I have a 30 years experience in teaching children in the third world.
I am member of an international emergency assistance team.
I am an unpaid volunteer with mentally handicapped children, and volunteer in a hospice for terminal patients
There is nothing wrong with me.
So with what and why would you try to help me?
.
All I tried to do is show that Oxman's topic "How can we prove the Bible is factual" makes no sense, as there is no way anyone can prove the Bible is factual, simply because the entire Bible and the religion based on the Bible is based on BELIEF and nothing else.
:rolleyes: If you don't believe in God its up to you. It is not a sin to believe in God.anyway There will be a judgment day. "People will believe in God if they are in the time of dying, They will call God"

Thousands years before greeks measured the earth it is writen in the bible. I agreed to marvin. I read the the bible if it comes to me that the bible is advanced. theres a science in the bible, medical, history, and even engineering.

Really so the new testament was written thousands of years before the greeks, who were before the Romans who were the ones that killed Jesus which the new testament about.

There is science in the bible but it's science that is almost 2000 years old. The science in the bible was common knowledge to the people of that time. It would be like you writing a book about things that are common knowledge now and after 2000 years and a dark ages cause by religious oppression(where the church burned all the real science books of the time by the way). People going, look if you change the words around and you do things like assume that when he said circle he really meant globe, this guy was right. He must have been inspired by god.

If you dont believe in God its up to you. It is not a sin to believe in God.anyway There will be a judgment day. "People will believe in God if they are in the time of dying, They will call God"

Ahh the classic death threat from Christians. If I had a nickel for every time a Christian wished me ill I'd be a very rich man.

The Bible (Old Testament) contridicts itself in the first two chapters of Genesis. God supposedly created man in his likeness on the 6th day. In Genesis 2, he created man in his likeness to take care of the animals on Earth, So which was it,, on the 6th day or sometime after the 6th day.
It goes on and on like that. Where did all of the women come from that Cain's sons married?

I am a bit of a skeptic. It sounds like a story book and nothing has been scientifically proven.

The Bible like all "sacred scriptures" of the world's religions is about the *SUPERNATURAL*.

There is no proof of a supernatural... that is gods, demons, devils, satan, imps, and all other characters associated with what primitive people thought about how the natural world worked because they had *no knowledge* about how the Universe functioned.

That does not mean that many people don't derive much pleasure from their beliefs in a supernatural in the face of a real world full of unhappiness and death as well as joy and love.

To further illustrate, probably the three greatest American archaeologists of the twentieth century each had their liberal training modified by their archaeological work (http://www.tektonics.org/testimony/archmony.htm)


Lost Worlds (http://www.historyinternational.com/global/listings/series_showcase.jsp?EGrpType=Series&Id=17430416&NetwCode=HCI)

Some interesting viewing / reading

Ahh the classic death threat from Christians. If I had a nickle for everytime a Christian wished me ill I'd be a very rich man.
Its not a death threat it is reality some of us will die maybe now, tomorrow or next next year. It is a christian faith some of us will die. And christian are not afraid in death.

In Genesis, God created heavens and earth, now you can see heaven and earth. God said, let there be light, and there was light. you can see light. Who among people that can claimed that they created heaven its only God.
What kind of "proof" is that? It was obvious to even our most primitive ancestors when they just fell out of the trees, that there was a kind of "blue dome" over the world (with lights at night) that was called heaven in many different words by different religions for thousands of years prior to the first letter of the Bible ever having been written.
That that "heaven" and earth existed was nothing special, and was for everyone to see. The only real difference was the new meaning of that "dome", the meaning of "heaven", and the lacking support for linking these two by Judaism, and later by Christianity.
.
The claim that God created heaven is a Christian claim, and I have never seen any objective support for that claim, OTHER THAN BELIEF!
.
I suggest that you look up the meaning of "objective".
.
:rolleyes:

Its not a death threat it is reality some of us will die maybe now, tommorow or next next year. It is a christian faith some of us will die., And christian are not afraid in death.
I do not know any non-believer who is afraid of death. What is there to be afraid off?
You sleep in, never to awake again.
The only reason I do not look forward to that moment is that I like to be there for my wife, my children, and my grandchildren, and enjoy their presence.
I do not fear death. Many Christians do. They fear the wrath of god. They fear "Final Judgment". They fear for what they BELIEVE to be true. But there is no objective proof supporting these claims really to exist.
:rolleyes:

Back to my earlier basic point made about the question in this topic :
.
All you can prove at best are individual claims in the Bible to be correct.
But for the Bible as Bible to be factual you have to prove that God exists, that God is the Almighty, that the Bible is God's word, that Genesis is factual, etc. etc. etc.
And nobody can objectively prove that. So the honest answer to the topic question is NO : you can not prove the Bible to be factual! All you can do is BELIEVE the Bible to be factual.
:rolleyes:

Credendovidis, You must believe in the bible, Even you is in the bible. Psalms14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God;They are corrupt, theyhave done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" People Believing there is no God They the doers of abominable works. The bible stated there is non believer in God. The bible is very factual because even you is in the bible. All your question on Faith the bible can answer.

There you have it, another 'good' christian calling another person a fool simply for having a different viewpoint than his.

Credendovidis, You must believe in the bible, Even you is in the bible. Psalms14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God;They are corrupt, theyhave done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" People Believing there is no God They the doers of abominable works. The bible stated there is non believer in God. The bible is very factual becuase even you is in the bible. All your question on Faith the bible can answer.
I "must" nothing! Nor am I in your bible.
At least I respect your views, although I disagree with them. The same can not be said from you.
You call me a fool. Without being able to support that in any objective way. Because I am not a fool at all.
At least I know WHO the real fool is here!
;)

There you have it, another 'good' christian calling another person a fool simply for having a different viewpoint than his.
Well, that is the problem with this board. Christians may paint us as fools and total idiots.
Our posts are sensored if the moderator disagree with our views.
I just keep polite, but keep to my point : You may BELIEVE what ever you want to BELIEVE. No problem!
But if you tell me that what you BELIEVE is the one and only truth, you make a CLAIM, and I am allowed to ask for objective supporting evidence for that.
So far the first valid reply has still to reach me...
;)

Back to my earlier basic point made about the question in this topic :
.
All you can prove at best are individual claims in the Bible to be correct.
But for the Bible as Bible to be factual you have to prove that God exists, that God is the Almighty, that the Bible is God's word, that Genesis is factual, etc. etc. etc.
And nobody can objectively prove that. So the honest answer to the topic question is NO : you can not prove the Bible to be factual! All you can do is BELIEVE the Bible to be factual.
:rolleyes:

But there is no objective proof supporting these claims really to exist.

You're right, of course, but why would you even expect "objective proof" to be attainable in matters of religion and philosophy? "Proof" is attainable only in the field of mathematics. It's just silly to expect or demand it of believers. I don't understand why it offends you so that they can't provide it. Evidence and proof, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. They see it, we don't, oh well...

You're right, of course, but why would you even expect "objective proof" to be attainable in matters of religion and philosophy? "Proof" is attainable only in the field of mathematics. It's just silly to expect or demand it of believers. I don't understand why it offends you so that they can't provide it. Evidence and proof, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. They see it, we don't, oh well....
I don't expect anyone to do that... as long as they do not claim that what they BELIEVE is FACTUAL and/or the one and only truth!
But when they do that it is fair for me to ask for objective proof to support that claim.
Note that Oxman is the one who started this topic with his request for help to prove the Bible to be factual!
My position is in reaction to that line of thinking.
;)

Oxman,

This is a debate that has raged for years. It can't be proven either way to the satisfaction of all parties. Much historic hatred would have been avoided if it had.

I recommend you do some careful study and determine what you believe. If you are going into this with an open mind, you potentially have a great deal of work ahead of you if you are going to weigh the different belief systems equally.

Many people have written on the subject. Sample a few and see if anyone speaks to you.

Great answer, Rodandy. You think like a founding father:

"Men ought (after they have examined with unbiased judgments every system of religion, and chosen one system, on their own authority, for themselves), to avow their opinions and defend them with boldness,”--John Adams

ordinaryguy,

Because religionists(Christians and Muslims) do horrible things and are doing TERRIBLE THINGS AS I WRITE because of what they *believe*, and what they believe is most certainly *not fact*... there is no proof of their personal god, none whatsoever! There is no GodAlmighty or Allah as depicted in their sacred writings.

That does not mean that there *may be* a "god" as explained by Albert Einstein... involved in the creation of the Universe but with no other qualities like primitive people effused about such as judger or all the rest of the anthromorphic qualities barbaric men imagined.

Some people enjoy having their personal godalmighty, expanded to a trinity. Mythology is comforting, but there will never be proof of the existence of godalmighty... people *believe* in godalmighty... they have FAITH.

Choux - Ordinaryguy - Rodandy12

All three of you have good points/arguments!
What in this specific thread is relevant is IF the Bible can be proved to be factual, instead of the topic question HOW the Bible can be proved to be factual, because if the answer to IF is "no", the question to HOW makes no longer any sense.
With all respect to Christianity and Christians, there is no way to prove the Bible to be factual, as the basics of that religion (existence of God, qualities of God, and the Bible being the word of God) are based on BELIEF and FAITH, and NOT on OBJECTIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
.
What seems so strange to me is that those who suggest to possess the highest levels of BELIEF and FAITH, spend a lot of their energy on trying to find proof for that BELIEF, as if BELIEF and FAITH only is not enough for them.
I wonder what that means for the level and quality of their BELIEF and FAITH...
:rolleyes:

I see you have not even considered post #34

Archaeology backs up a lot of what is told in the Bible.

Nk - You only need to look at your posts and the posts of choux to see where the "fool" playbook comes in.


Choux do some recent historical research as to the death toll caused by atheistic regimes.
USSR, Red China, Polpot.


The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity? (http://www.inplainsite.org/html/atheism_or_christianity.html)




Hitler's idea of a "master race" - where did that come from? Eugenics, survival of the fittest, natural selection.

The Muslims and the Christians(US) are in a fight to the death of each civilization as I speak, boxed-in guy. Try to comprehend what is going on around you!

inthebox,

Sure, the bible is history. The old testament is the ancient history of the jews. They exist. We don't need archeology to convince us of that. I don't think anyone seriously disputes their general history. But, archeology can't tell us anything about burning bushes, parting seas, blowing down walls with trumpets, etc. Those are issues of faith and they cannot be proven.

As for the new testament, I don't think anyone disputes that Jesus lived around the time of Augustus Caesar and is reported to have done many wonderful things. He also introduced a concept for living life that I don't think can be surpassed. But, his basic concepts are not his alone. Other religions suggest very similar philosophies.

Someone seeking a place to hang the hat of one's soul upon needs to work through the different options and educate themselves on the various possibilities.

But, they should know that the final answer will be an issue of faith. There is no way to prove it. They must find it in their heart.

There are really bad things done in the name of many if not most religions over the years, this does not make the religion evil or wrong , it does not even make their beliefs evil or wrong. What it does mean and show is that there are evil people who use religion as a tool to get their goals.

I have often believed that there are a few religions that were created, as a method and form to control people. And we see this within several churches who may not have created their religion, as I do feel God created them, but man has used this faith in God as a tool to control masses of people.

We see that in most extremeist groups if it be christian, muslim or any.

Rodandy:


You are right.

You have to be willing to see and willing to hear.

I find that science points us to the glory of God's creation.

Chuck,

Right. Most fanatics aren't anywhere close to the basis of the religion. If one shifts through those bases, it is about unconditional love and forgiveness. Not much of that in fanaticism.

I'm not sure God would recognize what passes for religion today. I'm pretty sure he/she wouldn't endorse it.

[QUOTE=NeedKarma]There you have it, another 'good' christian calling another person a fool simply for having a different viewpoint than his.[/QUOTE

I just prove the bible is factual. In the bible there's is a non believer that there is God. I just read it in the bible, according to the bible those are not believe that there is God is a fool person and not me who said that. It is a reality there's is non believer so the bible is right. Needkarma, if you believe in the bible READ IT! So you will not live in hyprocrisy.

Really so the new testament was written thousands of years before the greeks, who were before the Romans who were the ones that killed Jesus which the new testament about.

There is science in the bible but it's science that is almost 2000 years old. The science in the bible was common knowledge to the people of that time. It would be like you writing a book about things that are common knowledge now and after 2000 years and a dark ages cause by religious oppression(where the church burned all the real science books of the time by the way). People going, look if you change the words around and you do things like assume that when he said circle he really meant globe, this guy was right. He must have been inspired by god.

The earth is not flat is in the old testament thousands of years before Jesus Christ Came in flesh it is written in the Bible. The bible is advanced science. If you believe in the bible I will show how authentic the bible is.

If you believe in the bible i will show how authentic the bible is.
That's the problem right there. I don't believe in the bible. Not because I have something against your god it's because if the stories in the bible didn't have church behind them everyone would see them as fairy tales.

Thats the problem right there. I don't belive in the bible. Not because I have something against your god it's because if the stories in the bible didn't have church behind them everyone would see them as fairy tales.

What part of the bible you don't believe.

What part of the bible you dont believe.

The parts that deal with super natural events and places that didn't exist during the time of it's writing. So most of it.

The parts that deal with super natural events and places that didn't exist during the time of it's writing. So most of it.

For example?

For example??

Nazareth is a city no one else mentions until the 4th century.

Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua 19:10,16 – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

Josephus mentions Nazareth not one time and he even lived by the location for awhile.

In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.

The city of Nazareth was a fictional place at first brought on by (you guessed it) mistranslation by the gosple writers(mainly matt.).

Every time I get into a debate with a Christian about the Christian beliefs, the bible is the only source they ever use to back up what they say. I do not know many books that give facts for my arguments for each specific argument; but I do know that to say that the Bible is so factual you can make it the only source for your information is just wrong! Give hard evidence that the men who wrote the Bible did not just write what they believed or thought. We cannot prove that! Religion is made up to explain the unexplainable and to give hope that we do not just live to die. If you contradict that statement then tell me why is there so many different religions? Why is it that the thought of just dieing and being no more bothers so many? I know I got off the subject of proving the Bible to be factual, but I have so many questions and I would like someone who knows real answers besides "Thats called Faith" to answer me.
Hi oxman
It would seem that your head is full of all kinds of questions and arguments wanting answers which are obviously based around the Bible so lets take the Bible out of it for a moment, imagine it doesn't exists, never written.

So here we all are on this beautiful earth still wandering what we're doing here, how we came to be here so on and so forth. We look around, everything is provided for us- food,shelter, medicines in plant form for every illness that may occur throughout our lives, for it is said that on this earth we have the cure for everything we just have to discover it,the sun for light by day and the moon our light by night in fact every basic neccessitie for our survival.( and it doesn't cost a single penny )

So would you not be thinking who put me here and what for and how did I get here? YES of course you would like all of us which is why we progressed and learnt things in an effort to find out, so could it be maybe that we are all here on a sort of learning curve in order to progress even further. Throughout this process and progression in our lives obviously there would have been people who rebelled like today so a list of do's and don'ts could have been written out for day to day living.

I am making a bit of a fist of this because know matter how I try to put this the world is a brilliant place despite the bad(most of which is caused by man) the sheer fact that it is so fantastic and beautiful-the flowers trees etc.- it just says quite clearly to me that a great being had to have been at the beginning of it all, it just did not suddenly appear, you cannot get something from nothing. It doesn't matter what you call him or if there was a book called the bible at the end of the day the fact remains we are here

The good guy upstairs is responsible.

the sheer fact that it is so fantastic and beautiful-the flowers trees etc.- it just says quite clearly to me that a great being had to have been at the beginning of it all
I agree that the earth is a beautiful place, and I'm thankful for that, even awed by it sometimes. But I just don't see it as evidence that "a great being had to have been at the beginning of it". I'm not necessarily saying that a great being wasn't involved in it, but what would prevent the earth from being beautiful even without that involvement?

it just did not suddenly appear
You're right, it wasn't sudden at all. It has taken the earth about 4.5 billion years to become what it is today.

Obviouslly you are looking for some reason to think the bible is wrong, but sadly the city did exist, just because it was too small to really be worth mention does not mean it did not exist, digs and other proofs date it back far before Christ

Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth)

InSite Israel Nazareth History (http://www.inisrael.com/tour/nazareth/history.htm)

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nazareth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10725a.htm)

wow, amazing how empty people live not knowing the wonders of God....sad to read ...

wow, amazing how empty people live not knowing the wonders of God....sad to read ...

Wow, amazing how empty people live looking for an afterlife not knowing the wonders of their life now... sad to read...

It goes both ways.

Nazareth is a city no one else mentions until the 4th century.

Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua 19:10,16 – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

Josephus mentions Nazareth not one time and he even lived by the location for awhile.

In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.

The city of Nazareth was a fictional place at first brought on by (you guessed it) mistranslation by the gosple writers(mainly matt.).

This in no way proves that the town never existed. By reading comments made by ones such as Nathanael in John 1:46 "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" one would assume that it was quite an insignificant village even looked down on by others.

Of interest Josephus names Japhia, the largest fortified village in Galilee which was near Nazareth but did not name Nazareth itself, telling me that the smaller village was simply overshadowed by its neighbor, 'ignored' so to speak, but gives no proof that it never existed.

Originally Posted by laFemme : wow, amazing how empty people live not knowing the wonders of God... sad to read...

wow, amazing how empty people live looking for an afterlife not knowing the wonders of their life now.... sad to read...
It goes both ways.
Indeed !
;)

Obviouslly you are looking for some reason to think the bible is wrong, but sadly the city did exist, just because it was too small to really be worth mention does not mean it did not exist, digs and other proofs date it back far before Christ

Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth)

InSite Israel Nazareth History (http://www.inisrael.com/tour/nazareth/history.htm)

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nazareth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10725a.htm)

Those are good sites, I actually get a lot of my information from wikipedia and the catholic encyclopedia. I believe The Wik pretty much said exactly what I just said.


Of interest Josephus names Japhia, the largest fortified village in Galilee which was near Nazareth but did not name Nazareth itself, telling me that the smaller village was simply overshadowed by its neighbor, 'ignored' so to speak, but gives no proof that it never existed.

Until the 4th century though? I would think if Such a special person as JC is supposed to have been there would have been some kind of fuss about Nazareth before then.


This in no way proves that the town never existed. By reading comments made by ones such as Nathanael in John 1:46 "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" one would assume that it was quite an insignificant village even looked down on by others.


I actually have an answer for this too but it will have to wait. I just got home from work and have to get the kids fed. I will address it though.

Nathanael in John 1:46 "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" one would assume that it was quite an insignificant village even looked down on by others.


One could assume, but a Jew could have said the same thing about Rome at the time and Rome was not small. Christians only started saying it was an insignificant village when archeology started showing there was no proof of a city. The Bible does however say different.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
(Luke1.26,27)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:
(Luke 2.3,4)

But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
(Matthew 2.22,23)

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own CITY Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
(Luke 2.39,40)

Matthew and Luke apparently were not aware it was only a small village. I'll get back to Matthew in a bit.

This small village at least had a synagogue right? Didn't Jesus "blaspheme" in a synagogue where he was rejected in his homeland?

How come Helena was only able to find a well? If you don't know who Helena is Google her, I don't have time to tell her story. The point is, where is the synagogue?

If the chosen virgin really had had a annunciation of messiah birthing from an angel the whole clan would have known about it within ten minutes. Shurly they should have also known of the Jerusalem incident where he supposedly proclaimed his messiahship?

A small village would have known something but yet they were outraged by what Jesus had to say. Did they forget they had a God growing up in the village?

If Nazareth really had been a small village, lost in the hills of Galilee, would not the appellation 'Jesus of Nazareth' have invoked the response 'Jesus of WHERE?'

There are plenty of sites you can read about the archeology aspect of this, I don't have time to get into that right now either, I have to get back to Matthew.

The person who wrote Matthew quoted a lot from the OT. He used anything he could to proclaim prophesy fulfilment.

The expression 'Jesus of Nazareth' is actually a bad translation of the original Greek 'Jesous o Nazoraios'= 'Jesus the Nazarene'. Nazarene has a meaning totally unrelated to a place name.

'The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ... "Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarene' is "The One of the Truth"... '

– Gospel of Philip, 47.

We do know that 'Nazarene' was originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect – a faction, or off-shoot, of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have been the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or 'flower.' The plural of 'Netzor' becomes 'Netzoreem.' There is no mention of the Nazarenes in any of Paul's writings. The Nazorim emerged towards the end of the 1st century, after a curse had been placed on heretics in Jewish daily prayer.

Three times a day they say: May God curse the Nazarenes'.

– Epiphanius (Panarion 29.9.2).

The Nazarenes may have seen themselves as a 'branch from the stem of Jesse (the legendary King David's father)'. Certainly, they had their own early version of 'Matthew'. This lost text – the Gospel of the Nazarenes – can hardly be regarded as a 'Gospel of the inhabitants of Nazareth'!

It was the later Gospel of Matthew which started the deceit that the title 'Jesus the Nazorene' should in some manner relate to Nazareth, by quoting 'prophecy':

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

– Matthew 2.23.

With this, Matthew closes his fable of Jesus's early years. Yet Matthew is misquoting – he would surely know that nowhere in Jewish prophetic literature is there any reference to a Nazarene. What is 'foretold' (or at least mentioned several times) in Old Testament scripture is the appearance of a Nazarite. For example:

"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines."

– Judges 13.5.

Matthew substitutes one word for another. By replacing Nazarite ('he who vows to grow long hair and serve god') with a term which appears to imply 'resident of' he is able to fabricate a hometown link for his hero.

Small village, big city, mistranslation, lies, None of it really matters because when it's all said and done Archeology shows that during the first century the place Nazareth became to be was nothing more than a burial ground. In fact no sign of Jewish or Roman use during the time JC was growing up.

This is not the only example of this in the Bible though, There is also the story of Herod having all those kids killed. This is also a story made up.

Onan, I think you just made Oxman's point.

I am sorry you can not just accept the truth of the bible, you don't have to, but the proofs are there, you are merely to blind with some dislike of Christianity to look and see it.

What is it you have against Christinity, why do you wish to attack it ?

Chuck,

All religions up to and including the cult of the flying spaghetti monster could make the same request... just accept my version of truth and the world will be goodness and light. This works fine if one is 3 years old and continues to get the indoctrination for the next 20 or so years. One would know no other truth... have no other truth within the context of one's life... have no other reference.

If an adult (without the indoctrination) decides something is needed in his/her life and begins to search the various notions of God, it is not unreasonable to ask for some justification for choosing one over another. Seeking this is not an indictment of a religion. It is going to come down to "This I decide to believe"... better known as faith.

What you argue is illogical... accept my belief structure and you will understand. It is not unreasonable to ask why or to ask for a basis on which to believe this. Your answer would be "The Bible". His response is "How do I know it is true?" Your response is "Because it says it is." Logical fallacy.

You are really saying, "have faith." He is saying "in what?"

I don't know why Christians are so paranoid about this. Why is it an attack on Christianity to ask why one should believe or to ask a Christian to justify what they believe?

No, but why do you wish to come to a religious board, if you are not religious and hate religion to such a level, why not stay over in the electric or dating or atheist boards and enjoy.

But there has to be some either evil or some longing to know the real truth of God, I just don't know which it is.

And the truth of the bible is proven by digs, by history and by facts all the time, it is merely those that want not to believe it, that refuse to see the facts. You have provided no proof at all that this is not true,

And they can justify it by knowing Jesus as their personal lLord and Savior by knowing the feeling of him in their heart, by seeing miricles he does in peoples life. It is only if you are blind to or just don't want to accept that you can't see God's works

No, but why do you wish to come to a religious board, if you are not religious and hate religion to such a level, why not stay over in the electric or dating or atheist boards and enjoy.

But there has to be some either evil or some longing to know the real truth of God, I just don't know which it is.

And the truth of the bible is proven by digs, by history and by facts all the time, it is merely those that want not to believe it, that refuse to see the facts. You have provided no proof at all that this is not true,

And they can justify it by knowing Jesus as their personal lLord and Savior by knowing the feeling of him in their heart, by seeing miricles he does in peoples life. It is only if you are blind to or just don't want to accept that you can't see God's works

And not paranoid, but I would wonder why you will not merely state your motive, why do you have a need to come to religious areas and challenge people if you don't care. You obviously have some reason to do this,

I would say you have an empty place in your heart, you know the real truth but can't bring yourself to believe, and want some science answer to help you believe

I have one for you. Genetics. Genetics prove that the bible is fact. Go read about the national genographics program and you will see that we all came from two people. Our genes say so!

Wow.

Chuck,

You ought to get some counseling.

1. How do you get from an attempt to focus on the questioner's question to an assumption that someone hates religion?

2. I thought these boards were open to all comers. I didn't know this one belonged only to individuals who were "true believers" in christianity. You probably ought to list it that way.

3. Questioning you is either evil or longing to know the real truth? I would have thought everyone wanted to know the real truth. That's why we study and debate. Your issue is that everyone doesn't accept YOUR view.

4. I don't know of a Dig that turned up a holy ghost or a burning bush or any dry land under the red sea. By the way, there is a very large amount of Egyptian history and there is no mention in it of jews. It ought to have been mentioned somewhere since around 1 million of them walked out on the pharaoh. That would have been around 2/3rds of the population of Egypt at that time.

5. Isn't everyone's motive to get good answers to the questions posed? Isn't the best way to do that getting opinions from all sides? The best minister I ever knew taught that a believer needed to be able to debate anyone over issues of faith without sounding whacked out. He felt it was the best thing that could be done to coax non-believers into the fold.

I think your reply made my point on being paranoid.

Sorry Onan, you still haven't managed to convince me that the bible is nothing more than a drawn-out novel. I had a chuckle at the vision of your fingers smokin after that post lol!

Eccl 12:12 "As regards anything besides these, my son, take warning: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion [to them] is wearisome to the flesh."

Don't wear yourself out mate! :D

How can we prove the Bible is factual
You can't. Because although the Bible may contain items that can be factual, the Bible as book is NOT FACTUAL ! It is based on BELIEF !
:rolleyes:

I am sorry you can not just accept the truth of the bible, you don't have to, but the proofs are there, you are merely to blind with some dislike of Christianity to look and see it.

What is it you have against Christinity, why do you wish to attack it ?

Nothing against christianity at all. The OT isn't without it's faults so Judaism isn't so accurate either. The creation and flood stories in the OT were borrowed from older Babylonian and Sumerian stories. I think what's hard for people to understand is where these stories came from in the first place. People back then didn't know why there was storms, why volcanos erupted, why earthquakes happened, why there were famines etc etc. The best they could come up with was it was the work of angry Gods. We as humans know better than this now. We as humans know that dancing around a fire will not make it rain.


Sorry Onan, you still haven't managed to convince me that the bible is nothing more than a drawn-out novel.

Oh there is more, a lot more. My fingers want a break though. My Christian mother knows all of this and accepts most of it, but doesn't care.

My Christian mother knows all of this and accepts most of it, but doesn't care.

Then I guess she's not a true christian then, because faith and trust in our creator helps us to decipher the obvious truth from that which many TRY to prove as fiction with "philosophies and empty deceptions." (Col 2:8)
I know you scoff at the idea but God originally intended us to follow his guidelines for life because we are simply not designed to "direct our own step" (Jer 10:23). No! I don't mean we were meant to be robots and not use our own minds, but by going beyond the boundaries He has given us (and pretty decent boundaries really) we do damage to ourselves and our relationship with Him. Do you not give your children rules and boundaries to keep them safe? Some today prefer to have no limits though as did Adam and Eve... oh hang on, they never existed right?
I am curious, how did you think we all got here if you don't take the evolution way either? :confused:

3. Questioning you is either evil or longing to know the real truth?
I know, this dropped my jaw too. The man never ceases to amaze. My all time favorite is this one: (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/earth-only-6-000-years-old-102975.html#post471033)

I don't believe dinosaurs really existed, but the evidence of them is merley a trick of satan to cause people to fall away from the real truth.

The Bible proves and explains itself. Some folks are just too intellectually dishonest or lazy to try to find out what it is all about.

The Bible proves and explains itself. Some folks are just too intellectually dishonest or lazy to try to find out what it is all about.
And some folks are sincere and diligent, find out what it is all about and decide it isn't for them.

Then I guess she's not a true christian then,

She is a true Christian because she follows blindly even knowing without doubt there is reason to believe not everything in the Bible is true. Blind faith is exactly what you need to believe in religion. Faith is the #1 requriement for christianity(any religion). To know the truth about something and still believe something else makes her the perfect Christian.


because faith and trust in our creator helps us to decipher the obvious truth from that which many TRY to prove as fiction with "philosophies and empty deceptions."

Obvious truth?? I believe I just showed if someone was being diceitful, it was Matthew. I have no need to make things up, I'm not starting a new religion. I read everything available to me and make up my own mind if it should be believed or not. There was many other gosples written that did not make the cut into the Christian Bible. Have you ever asked yourself why this was? Have you ever read or read about the other gosples? Have you ever wondered why every religion claim they are the right religion and their God is the only God? Christianity does not stand alone. You ask a Jew and he will tell you and even show you that his religion is the one and only true religion and Muslims can do the very same thing. Does that make them right? Out of hundreds and even thousands of Gods throughout history, I believe in one less than you and that makes me a deciever? Me saying there was no Jesus is no different than a christian saying there was no Mithra, or any other God or God men.


I am curious, how did you think we all got here if you don't take the evolution way either?

I do believe in evolution. I don't quite believe everything that's understood about it right now but evolution is 100% fact. Anyone who says differently is living in denial. I don't believe that is reason to discount a creator though, which is why you will never see me argue whether there is a God. Just because I debate whether Jesus was a God does not mean I am debating whether there is a God at all. I have said before I am not a scientist, and science bores the hell out of me.


Some folks are just too intellectually dishonest or lazy to try to find out what it is all about.

I agree, people should read and find out what it's all about. It takes a lot of reading and research to find out the truth. Sometimes it's not easy if you was taught something else your whole life. Do you think I know the things I know without studying?

People believe what they believe, and that's OK. I just think the truth is much more interesting.

The Bible proves and explains itself. Some folks are just too intellectually dishonest or lazy to try to find out what it is all about.
As I stated before : SOME points in the Bible may be correct. But if one (or more people together) writes a book full of wild claims, some of these claims will also turn out to be correct. Forecasting is based on that! And always only those claims that came true are remembered.

The question is - specially within this topic : can the Bible as a book in it's entirety be proved factual. The answer to that is clearly NO.

The Evolution Theory can not be proved to be 100% correct based on objective supported evidence. But with the overall majority of the Theory being supported that way, it is at least scientifically accepted as a reality.

The Bible can not be proved to be 100% correct neither based on objective supportive evidence. Hardly a couple of percent of it's stories can be supported from factual historical data and findings.
.
So the Bible can not be proved to be factual. And that has nothing to do with intellectually dishonesty or laziness.
Period.
:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Onan] she follows blindly even knowing without doubt there is reason to believe not everything in the Bible is true.[Quote]

My point exactly. If anyone thinks there is a reason to doubt God's Word then the faith and accurate knowledge of that one, attainable through the bible, is obviously weak.
A true christian would study the Word deeper to prove to THEMSELVES that it is the truth, to keep testing to "make sure of all things" (1 Thess 5:21) and not just take anothers word for it.
Yes, yes, you keep saying that EVIDENCE proves otherwise, but you have NEVER in the whole time of posting comments even slightly swayed my faith, due to my studying deeply Gods thoughts on everything and putting complete trust in Him, not so called evidence which steers well away from the whole theme of the bible which is to promote God's kingdom as the only hope for mankind.
You may call it blindness or stupidity, but I simply call it integrity.

[Quote]
Out of hundreds and even thousands of Gods throughout history, I believe in one less than you and that makes me a deciever? Me saying there was no Jesus is no different than a christian saying there was no Mithra, or any other God or God men.[Quote]

The most important God to remember here is the one who created us because only HE has the means to reverse all the mistakes that imperfect man has made through the thousands of years. If you have studied so many versions of the bible I'm sure you can tell me the name of that one and how he proposes to do this. I think you'll find that His name was neither Allah nor Mithra nor Vishnu nor Amun nor Hashem. It seems that not many religious faiths - even those claiming to be christian, can truthfully say they "call on His Name to be saved." (Rom 10:13) Sure they use Jesus name in worship but as you and I know full well, this is not God Almighty.

[Quote] it takes a lot of reading and research to find out the truth, Sometimes its not easy if you were taught something else your whole life. I think the truth is much more interesting. [Quote]

Only after years of being away from all religion did I realise Gods Word is in fact a protection not a restriction as mankind are digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole of complete hopelessness.
Boy did it take some serious research and meditation on Gods Word (and still does) for me to find the truth... which yes quite rightly is VERY VERY interesting, but more than that it helps me see that sad conditions of the world aren't going to remain as they are for long and YAY no natural disasters or sickness or death.
In the words of Louis Armstrong "What a wonderful world!"

I think you should post the question HOW CAN WE PROVE THAT EVOLUTION IS FACTUAL?

Fingers are hot but not smokin lol.

I agree with a lot of what is being said on both sides of this issue. I believe it is a form of dishonesty to establish a position and never analyze it. I think the problem many people have with religious zealots of any faith is that once they establish a position, they will hear nothing that might tend to compromise their position. They will reshape the world... like not believing in dinosaurs... if it puts them in a position of compromise. Some psychologist might have a name for this. For me, these are the truly lazy people.

God gave us a world and life in it. There is much that is hard to understand about it. Without trying to start another string, much seems to contradict standard rhetoric from the generally followed religions. God gave us life, he/she didn't give us religion. Our ancestors made that up (did it numerous times) and it seems to me it is pretty easy to understand why.

We humans have a strong need to understand how we fit into the world we were given. Religion is an attempt to do that. I can't discount the notion that god spoke to people in the past and those people passed that information down to others. Over the centuries, though, religion has been used by many for other purposes. It is a perfect tool for herding those non-seekers of knowledge into controllable boxes. One doesn't have to look very far to see it.

For me, it is a struggle to take it all in and try to sort it out in my own mind. Even though humans can't comprehend the whole ball of wax, it is probably worth a life to be a seeker throughout it. I just work to try and understand little pieces. My conscience won't let me completely lock down a belief if I can't understand/justify it no matter where it comes from... short of divine revelation, of course. But, we haven't had much of that in a while.

If anyone thinks there is a reason to doubt God's Word then the faith and accurate knowledge of that one, attainable through the bible, is obviously weak.

My goal was not to prove how much of a christian my mother is, but to point out that it won't matter what is shown the believer will believe regardles.


A true christian would study the Word deeper to prove to THEMSELVES that it is the truth, to keep testing to "make sure of all things" (1 Thess 5:21) and not just take anothers word for it.

There was more written than what ended up in the Bible. At one time all of the stuff left out of the Bible was also considered the word of God. If a person really wants to study and learn they would get a hold of the other writings. I agree you should never accept someone's word for anything, but isn't that what the christian is doing by believing the Bible? By believing the books in the christian Bible your taking someone's word over the words written by someone else. The only way to change that is study it all and then come to conclusions. It's a long process though, it's something I have been doing now for 20 years. You have to study everything from the history of religion to translations. The first thing I learned when I started was how there was mistranslations and forgeries in the Bible to coinside with whatever the forger believed. This kind of research is easy now, all you have to do is Google history of religion, or history of christianity. It was not that easy when I started my research.


You may call it blindness or stupidity

I would never call anyone stupid for believeing what they believe. However I will suggest there is a lot you don't know about religion as a whole.


I think you should post the question HOW CAN WE PROVE THAT EVOLUTION IS FACTUAL?


That would be too easy. It would also bore me to tears.


Fingers are hot but not smokin lol.

:) :) :)


Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I don't believe dinosaurs really existed, but the evidence of them is merely a trick of satan to cause people to fall away from the real truth.

CHUCK, chuck, chuck,,

Did you really write that??

I have heard this before, but I thought the thing now was believing what the creationists teach, that dinosaurs and humans lived together and the big lizards were even on the ark.

At any rate this is the problem I have with the way christians think at times. To me this is giving satan way too much credit and power.

By believing the books in the Christian Bible you're taking someone's word over the words written by someone else.
You are right on that. The various human selections of Bible books that resulted in the Bible we know today is therefore claimed to be written "guided by God", to give the human selection some glorious higher spiritual lining.
.

I would never call anyone stupid for believing what they believe.
Neither would I. People should be free to believe whatever they prefer. That does not make whatever they believe more than BELIEF, though! Reason why I always ask people - who CLAIM that what they believe is "the one and only truth" - to provide objective supporting evidence for that.
After doing that already for many years I still have to receive the first ever valid evidence...
.



I think you should post the question HOW CAN WE PROVE THAT EVOLUTION IS FACTUAL?
That would be too easy. It would also bore me to tears.

As I stated earlier :

The Evolution Theory can not be proved to be 100% correct based on objective supported evidence. But with the overall majority of the Theory being supported that way, it is at least scientifically accepted as real, and as factual.

The Bible can not be proved to be 100% correct neither based on objective supportive evidence. But hardly a couple of percent of all stories and "facts" in the Bible can be supported from factual historical data and findings.
So the Bible as book and as "word of God" can not be proved to be factual at all. It is not a book of physics or history. It is a religious manual to guide people through life...
;)

To me this is giving satan way too much credit and power.
Epic struggle needs a worthy adversary. If Satan didn't exist, we'd have to invent him.

After doing that already for many years I still have to receive the first ever valid evidence ...
I don't doubt that this has been your experience. What I don't understand is why you think it's noteworthy. After all these years of doing the same thing and getting the same result, why does it still surprise you?

Epic struggle needs a worthy adversary. If Satan didn't exist, we'd have to invent him.

This is true, but Satan does not need to prove his existence by proving God does not exist. To believe in one means you have to believe in the other. Satan would be proving he didn't exist as well which would be pointless on his part. I just don't understand why people would think planting dinosaur bones all over the globe is some diabolical plan from Satan to prove the bible wrong. To reject the bible would be to reject both entities in which case no one wins. If this is indeed a power struggle between God and Satan, Satan would be winning right now because he brings proof to the table while God expects people to get it from a book that can't even agree with itself. That's why I say they give too much credit and power to Satan.

I don't doubt that this has been your experience. What I don't understand is why you think it's noteworthy. After all these years of doing the same thing and getting the same result, why does it still surprise you?
Who says it surprises me? I did not state that! Not even hinted into that direction!
.
I think it is very noteworthy, as - with all my respect for the individual freedom of any individual to believe whatever one prefers to believe - it is necessary to make sure that Church and State for ever stay separated.
;)

I just don't understand why people would think planting dinosaur bones all over the globe is some diabolical plan from Satan to prove the bible wrong. To reject the bible would be to reject both entities in which case no one wins.
Ah, but in their mind Satan DOES win if he fools people into thinking he either doesn't exist, or isn't very powerful.

it is necessary to make sure that Church and State for ever stay separated. ;)
I certainly agree with you about this, but I don't remember you mentioning before now that this is your reason for discussing it. Mostly, you have railed against people who claim that what they BELIEVE is the one and only truth, but offer no "objective proof" to support their position--as if they OWE you that. I agree with you that it's an absurd claim for them to make, but your insistence that they are somehow obligated to meet your standard of "proof" is equally absurd. As long as they don't try to write it into law and use the power of the state to enforce it, they don't owe the rest of us any kind of "proof".

Every time I get into a debate with a Christian about the Christian beliefs, the bible is the only source they ever use to back up what they say.
Don't be frustrated by that, as every religious person who walks the earth does the same thing with whatever book they hold to be divine, by whatever God they worship. The amazing thing I have learned over the years, is they all believe the same thing about their religion, and the book they use, and think its so different, than the guy over there. They even have the shortsightedness to point to the differences, but its an attempt to elevate them over those, and if you stand back, and watch them go at it, its all in the same way. There are a lot more similarities than differences so don't worry about who's the best, and never ask who you should listen to as they will all want you to follow them, and not those. Their book gives them the right, I think to be right. The only real difference really is the geography and custom they talk about, which under careful scrutiny, and the surprise of those that question, they all have the same basic code of conduct. I can only suggest you talk to others, that think they are so different, even if the geography is distant, and see those amazing similarities between humans, and their, writings for yourself. The best analogy is how the young guys wear their colors, to show where they come from, same shirt, different color, same behavior. They hate and kill the other color, because it's the wrong color. So don't let it bother you much, they all think their that right anyway, another similarity they all choose to ignore.

Interesting thing about evolution. The theory demands VERY large time spans. I understand that in the sediment layers, we have a layer that contains NO fossil records, and in the next layer, we find fossil records of everything. What happened to that large time lapse when there would have to be an ever increasing number of fossils, both as to kind and number? Where are those doggone intermediate layers? Maybe those of you who are sold on that theory need to go back and make some changes. Again.

Who says it surprises me? I did not state that! Not even hinted into that direction!
.
I think it is very noteworthy, as - with all my respect for the individual freedom of any individual to believe whatever one prefers to believe - it is necessary to make sure that Church and State for ever stay separated.
;)



So you expect governing officials that have faith in some belief system to be schizophrenic?



Hmmm... do I trust someone who can't even be true to themselves - for the sake of political correctness nonetheless,. versus someone who knows themselves and , is not ashamed to tell you of their beliefs, regardless of what you may think of them.




Oh, I get it you do not want any governing officials to have any faith?




That contradicts fredom of religious expression [ 1st amendment ], doesn't it?

So you expect governing officials that have faith in some belief system to be schizophrenic?
Not at all. These officials should keep to their Constitution that clearly describes that specific separation. What they do in their governmental work should remain separated from and uninfluenced by their personal belief system. Outside their work they are free to believe whatever suits them best. Just as the rest of us all!
.


Hmmm........ do I trust someone who can't even be true to themselves - for the sake of political correctness nonetheless, ..........versus someone who knows themselves and , is not ashamed to tell you of their beliefs, regardless of what you may think of them.
Hmmm... unless you are clear what you mean with that... Why should I be expected to react on this?
.

Oh, I get it you do not want any governing officials to have any faith?
As stated : Not at all. These officials should keep to their Constitution that clearly describes that specific separation. What they do in their governmental work should remain separated from and uninfluenced by their personal belief system. Outside their work they are free to believe whatever suits them best. Just as the rest of us all!
.


That contradicts freedom of religious expression [ 1st amendment ], doesn't it?
Not at all. The original meaning and intention of the Constitution itself comes first and above any later amendments.
And no that does not contradicts freedom of religious expression, as outside their work they are free to believe whatever suits them best. Just as the rest of us all!
If people feel incapable of keeping to the Constitution for that specific reason, they are free to find other employment, and/or should never have accepted governmental employment in the first place.
;)

The original meaning and intention of the Constitution itself comes first and above any later amendments.
What? Surely you don't mean that all of the duly enacted amendments to the Constitution are null and void.

What? Surely you don't mean that all of the duly enacted amendments to the Constitution are null and void.
As is clear from my full post I referred to the original intention of the US Constitution as expressed by the "Fathers of the Constitution" in 1787.
Any amendment to that Constitution made ever since is of course just as valid, but one more step away from that original intention.
.
And that intention was clear and beyond any doubt : Full Separation of Church and State!!

:rolleyes:

Bible is proven.

By 'textual criticism', if you don't know what that is look up on internet.

By quotes included in bible that scholars have proven must have been made by people exactly when they bible says it was written.

By science because we discovery every time we compare the bible and our knowledge that the bible is correct

By the action of the world, because the effect on peoples lives that are changed.

By the miracles, and the books that should be written.

And all these things, are just the things that atheists claim. These are what people admit.

The bible is proven already as fact. The word fact means events that have actually happened. You can believe gravity does not exist, but if you step off a tall building gravity might have something to say to you. The same is true of the view in the bible.

History shows the bible is reliable. Either in total or not at all. The bible says if someone is not realiable 100% of the time, do not listen to them. I KNOW the bible is true.
That you ask this question shows you do not know enough history, or english, or math, or science, or other basis for facts.

There is a need for being saved from ourselves, many call it salvation. Ergo a need for a religion to fill the void, if you choose to not accept the valid path.
People who wrote the bible wrote of their lives. And many died proving it was their life, because many could have simply publicly denounced their beliefs and lived. Would not one out of several hundred have chosen to not be executed, if it was a lie they made up?

No, faith is evidence of things not seen. I have only mentioned what those who are not christians admit. If you are in room, across from a chair. You believe the chair will support your weight, but only by sitting it in, are you actually exerting faith that it supports you.
Belief without action is not faith. It is fantasy. You can say you believe you can pick the lottery numbers every time. But if you want to win, and do not buy a lottery ticket, you are not having faith in your ability to pick the numbers. Just all talk.


Every time I get into a debate with a Christian about the Christian beliefs, the bible is the only source they ever use to back up what they say. I do not know many books that give facts for my arguments for each specific argument; but I do know that to say that the Bible is so factual you can make it the only source for your information is just wrong! Give hard evidence that the men who wrote the Bible did not just write what they believed or thought. We cannot prove that! Religion is made up to explain the unexplainable and to give hope that we do not just live to die. If you contradict that statement then tell me why is there so many different religions? Why is it that the thought of just dieing and being no more bothers so many? I know I got off the subject of proving the Bible to be factual, but I have so many questions and I would like someone who knows real answers besides "Thats called Faith" to answer me.

the bible is proven already as fact.

When did this happen?


history shows the bible is reliable.

Not really, can you give some some examples?


people who wrote the bible wrote of their lives. And many died proving it was their life, because many could have simply publicly denounced their beliefs and lived.

In the past people of all different religious beliefs have died for their faith, does that mean all of them are right? Just because people die believing something doesn't make it true.

1. He was trying to determine if you are sincere, in wanting answers or just hatemongering

2. yes you can ask questions.

3. he did not ask you to accept his view, you asked him to prove his view.

4, even napaleon went across the red sea at the place where it parts or tried to, you must be ignorant of history to not know he proved it exists and where. You see only when the wind blows directly from the east there does the water part. But if the winds shifts, it closes. Napaleon on his horse almost drown trying to get out before the water went back in.
You don't know the history of egypt. The ones called the 'black hearts' because they did not worship but one god were there for quite a while. Joseph of the coat of many colors was known as imhotep. He ruled the country (under the pharoah-who was a relative as the bible states). Abraham brought arithmetic to egypt. His son brought more. Imhotep wrote a book on geometry that euclid admitted joseph wrote, and euclid told all his greek friends he did not invent geometry joseph did. Imhotep made the first pyramid. Joseph servants were physicians. Joseph many think wrote 'genesis', you see moses was in egypt about 400 yeas later, and he was taught all the egyptians knew as a prince of eygpt, and choose to be counted as a hebrew. And when moses left eygpt he wrote down the 5 books (torah) from memory of genesis, and divine inspiration of all.

We have even found the statue of one wearing a coat of many colors, in eygpt, in the place where the bible says they lived, for the hebrews did not live with the eygptians, but in their own settlement. And his tomb, but the bible says when moses and the others left they took his body back to the holy land, and imhoteps tomb is empty. Yes they had oblitered the face on the statue because they wanted to forget the hebrews were ever there. The eygptians often 'wiped out the pharoahs monuments' they did not like after the pharoahs died, but never well enough.

Paranoid is to be overly concerned. I am not overly concerned, just concerned enough that you know that all you ask is already proven beyond any doubt, even has been done so in courts, and other governmental places, many times. But separation of church and state means you do not understand nor can you be told that such things are done. Secrets exist, but often only for a little while.

Do not presume that one thing called a church is equal with another. People who worship idols like spagetti know they do wrong in their heart. And someone mentioned it as a alternative valid thing. Why would anyone think something they cooked would be worthy of worship?


Wow.

Chuck,

You ought to get some counseling.

1. How do you get from an attempt to focus on the the questioner's question to an assumption that someone hates religion?

2. I thought these boards were open to all comers. I didn't know this one belonged only to individuals who were "true believers" in christianity. You probably ought to list it that way.

3. Questioning you is either evil or longing to know the real truth? I would have thought everyone wanted to know the real truth. That's why we study and debate. Your issue is that everyone doesn't accept YOUR view.

4. I don't know of a Dig that turned up a holy ghost or a burning bush or any dry land under the red sea. By the way, there is a very large amount of Egyptian history and there is no mention in it of jews. It ought to have been mentioned somewhere since around 1 million of them walked out on the pharaoh. That would have been around 2/3rds of the population of Egypt at that time.

5. Isn't everyone's motive to get good answers to the questions posed? Isn't the best way to do that getting opinions from all sides? The best minister I ever knew taught that a believer needed to be able to debate anyone over issues of faith without sounding whacked out. He felt it was the best thing that could be done to coax non-believers into the fold.

I think your reply made my point on being paranoid.

I already told you when and where. You are not listening. Obviosly you choose ignorance.

already given many examples. You don't choose to believe in facts.

mentally ill people die can think anything, and commit suicide, but their religion or personal pivotal value is not to blame for mental illness.
only a person who is being killed for their life, and who is offered to live if they renounce what they have lived is a valid person who can be believed. You see spys report what people do, and when you kill someone for their life, that is proven they were correct.

how can we prove the bible is factual, already done! Want to do it again, just read.


when did this happen??

Not really, can you give some some examples??

In the past people of all different religious beliefs have died for their faith, does that mean all of them are right?? Just because people die believing something doesn't make it true.

how can we prove the bible is factual, already done! want to do it again, just read.
WHERE ? WHEN ? With WHAT ?

Some MINOR points in the Bible may be correct. But the Bible as such has never been proved for what it is claimed to be.
Neither was there ever any objective supporting evidence for the Bible being factual, and - because the Bible is based on BELIEF - it never will.

Believe what you prefer, believe whatever suits you, but do not insist that whatever you BELIEVE is factual until that has been proved to be that!

:rolleyes:

Believe what you prefer, believe whatever suits you, but do not insist that whatever you BELIEVE is factual until that has been proved to be that!



Funny... that's EXACTLY what people are doing who lean toward evolution... no proven facts there so far!!

:rolleyes:

Funny..........that's EXACTLY what people are doing who lean toward evolution.......no proven facts there so far!!!!!!! Evolution: Fact Or Theory? How Can It Be Both? What's the Difference? (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/fact_theory.htm)

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution | Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html)

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

What you believe does not make reality. Reality makes you. What you think about it, is never the issue. My beliefs do not change reality, neither do yours, no matter what you think. Actual scientists know what proof is. And you have been given proof, that you do not believe it, shows your ignorance of science. It is proven. Sad you don't know about legal proof, or formal logic. The bible is not about belief, it is a factual book of events. You can choose to belief an event happened or not, but if it did occur the word is fact. You can think jfk did not die, you can think right is wrong, but it will not change the view of everyone else toward you, but to realize you are not reasonable or honest intellectually.

I never quoted anyone in the bible, nor about the bible, I just told you about scientific evidence that proves the bible is right. From people such as yourself who are atheists.
You don't believe atheists? When they say the bible has been proven as true?



WHERE ? WHEN ? With WHAT ?

Some MINOR points in the Bible may be correct. But the Bible as such has never been proved for what it is claimed to be.
Neither was there ever any objective supporting evidence for the Bible being factual, and - because the Bible is based on BELIEF - it never will.

Believe what you prefer, believe whatever suits you, but do not insist that whatever you BELIEVE is factual until that has been proved to be that!

:rolleyes:

i just told you about scientific evidence that proves the bible is right. Is this the scientific evidence you refer to?
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religious-discussions/how-can-we-prove-bible-factual-196528-11.html#post981598

the bible is not about belief, it is a factual book of events.
It's a history book, that gives us a great glimpse into the life of ancient man, and his struggle for his humanity. One thing for sure, ancient man knew right from wrong, and tried to do right, despite many obstacles. Just as modern man does. There are many history books from ancient man, from many regions of the world, that have valuable insights into how they thought, acted, believed, and lived.

quantum algebra for example proves that the complexity of this universe is about 16.
any amoeba requires a complexity of 1024 to exist randomly.
so no single amoeba can exist in this universe by evolution or randomness, only an act of creation by a divine being could create them. And how much more mathematically are people complex compared to an amoeba?
billions and billions is the term.

even the dialetric process has proven that God exists in the mental capacity field. That God must be perfect and think perfect, and so act perfectly. That you have not heard of such scientific proofs that are accepted throughout the world is sad.

even napaleon went across the red sea at the place where it parts or tried to, you must be ignorant of history to not know he proved it exists and where. You see only when the wind blows directly from the east there does the water part. But if the winds shifts, it closes. Napaleon on his horse almost drown trying to get out before the water went back in.


Everyone knows the Red Sea exists, but as you so nicely pointed out it was not an act of God that parted the Red Sea as told in the Exodus story, but an act of nature. This does not in any way prove the story true, it just proves back when the story was written they too knew of the act of nature.


you don't know the history of egypt.

Yes I do, and no where in their history do they mention the story of moses, and the great escape.


joseph of the coat of many colors was known as imhotep. He ruled the country (under the pharoah-who was a relative as the bible states).

This is just fantasy, there is not much to support it because the times these guys lived were not even close to being the same. Imhotep lived during the third dynasty(2635-2595 BCE) while most theologians say Joseph lived around 1730 BCE. Looks to me like someone borrowed an egyptian story and tried to apply it to themselves. That's just my theory though. I would like to mention though that Imhotep was deified and became the son of Ptah. He was thought of as a God by the egyptians. I think this should be more than enough to show they are two different people. Joseph was never considered a God and rightly so because the Bible tells us there is only one, right?


joseph many think wrote 'genesis',

I never heard this.


you see moses was in egypt about 400 yeas later, and he was taught all the egyptians knew as a prince of eygpt, and choose to be counted as a hebrew. And when moses left eygpt he wrote down the 5 books (torah) from memory of genesis, and divine inspiration of all.


Yep and even wrote of his own death and funeral. That's some trick.


we have even found the statue of one wearing a coat of many colors, in eygpt, in the place where the bible says they lived, for the hebrews did not live with the eygptians, but in their own settlement. And his tomb, but the bible says when moses and the others left they took his body back to the holy land, and imhoteps tomb is empty. Yes they had oblitered the face on the statue because they wanted to forget the hebrews were ever there. The eygptians often 'wiped out the pharoahs monuments' they did not like after the pharoahs died, but never well enough.


I don't even know what to say about this. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. It's amazing to me the lengths people will go to just to prove the Bible true. I think you will have to try harder than this. So far you have shown the Hebrews liked to borrow things from earlier legends for their own. This is not the only case of this either. As I have mentioned before a lot of those early stories in the Bible came from earlier stories and legends. History does not prove the Bible factual, and in most cases proves the exact opposite. Sure there is all kinds of proof of all the enemies the hebrews faced but for some reason we come up blank on the heroes. Explain that to me. That's like saying Captain America was a real person because Hitler was a real person.

Funny..........that's EXACTLY what people are doing who lean toward evolution.......no proven facts there so far!!!!!!!
That is a ridiculous claim. There is overwhelming scientific objective evidence for evolution.
A scientific Theory like the Theory of Evolution is not "just a theory", but a scientific near-fact, accepted and supported sufficiently.
That stated : of course there still are - and most probably still will remain - holes in the theory, caused by the long time involved (over 3,5 Billion years ago since life took hold on earth), the lack of evidence for all life forms that lacked bones to be fossilized, and for transition forms between species due to the short time of their existence.

That is entirely different than the position of religious claims for which there will NEVER be any possible way to provide objective supporting evidence!

:rolleyes:

quantum algebra for example proves that the complexity of this universe is about 16.
16 WHAT ?


any amoeba requires a complexity of 1024 to exist randomly.
1024 WHAT ?


so no single amoeba can exist in this universe by evolution or randomness
So? What nonsensical conclusion is that? Based on what argument?


... only an act of creation by a divine being could create them.
That is what you BELIEVE. But on what is that based, if you claim that to be factual?


... even the dialetric process has proven that God exists in the mental capacity field.
WHERE ? WHEN ?


... that God must be perfect and think perfect, and so act perfectly.
"must be"... is THAT your objective supporting evidence ?


...that you have not heard of such scientific proofs that are accepted throughout the world is sad.
Scientific proofs... :D :D ROLFL :D :D I see that you have not even an inkling of what the term scientific proof means...

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Credendovidis] There is overwhelming scientific objective evidence for evolution.
A scientific Theory like the Theory of Evolution is not "just a theory", but a scientific near-fact, accepted and supported sufficiently.[Quote]

If a poll was taken of all the scientists in the world, most would say they believe Darwinism is true not because of fact but because like everybody else, they base most of their opinions on the words of other people.

A comment from Darwins Black Box - "In private many scientists admit that science has no explaination for the beginning of life...Darwin never imagined the exquisitely profound complexity that exists even at the most basic levels of life."

In 2004 the National Geographic described the fossil record as being like "a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor."
The remaining "frames" fail to document the process of evolution as anything more than just a theory.

In several of the digs, they found various things, buildings where after a while some of the bricks no longer used stray, following the exact theme of the Old Testement, There is so much science proof that the Old Testement is true, I can not see anyone with knowledge of it, even doubting the main themes of the storys. They may disagree with what caused the Sea to part, but not the issue of slaves and the such from that time.

Even events like the flood have been proven though flood layers found that showed major parts of the "known" world of that time would have been flooded at some point in history.

So in general, those that don't want to believe will make up their own "BELIEFS" so they don't have to accept, but in the end, it is all what they BELIEVE, since they can't prove it or show it

If you think about it no culture can offer facts for its beliefs, they just believe it.

If a poll was taken of all the scientists in the world, most would say they believe Darwinism is true not because of fact but because like everybody else, they base most of their opinions on the words of other people.
Again you show to lack any understanding of what a scientist is, and how a scientist thinks.
I also note that you CLAIM this, but do not provide any REASONING for your claim.


A comment from Darwins Black Box - "In private many scientists admit that science has no explaination for the beginning of life...
"Darwins Black Box" is correct on that. But you forgot to mention that EVOLUTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE BEGINNING OF LIFE, BUT STARTS WITH THE FIRST LIVING CELL ON EARTH.
Evolution (base : to evolve) needs something living to start with.
You try to include Abiogenesis into the Evolution Theory, something Darwin never claimed.


Darwin never imagined the exquisitely profound complexity that exists even at the most basic levels of life."
All Darwin tried to do is explain what he noticed to happen in nature.
You seem to be the one who intends to provide an entire different reason for Darwin's findings.


In 2004 the National Geographic described the fossil record as being like "a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor." The remaining "frames" fail to document the process of evolution as anything more than just a theory.
First of all National Geographic is a popular semi-scientific magazine, not a peer review of scientific reports.
Second : I already stated that the fossil record is incomplete. And I also provided the causes for that.
Thirdly : there is more than sufficient scientific support to uphold evolution as a valid scientific theory.
Forthly : the value and quantity of objective (i.e. valid) evidence supporting the Evolution Theory is by very very far exceeding the valid support for creationism that is mainly based on belief only.

:rolleyes:

In several of the digs, they found various things, buildings where after a while some of the bricks no longer used stray, following the exact theme of the Old Testement, There is so much science proof that the Old Testement is true, I can not see anyone with knowledge of it, even doubting the main themes of the storys. They may disagree with what caused the Sea to part, but not the issue of slaves and the such from that time.

Even events like the flood have been proven though flood layers found that showed major parts of the "known" world of that time would have been flooded at some point in history.

So in general, those that don't want to believe will make up thier own "BELIEFS" so they don't have to accept, but in the end, it is all what they BELIEVE, since they can't prove it or show it
All that this "proves" is that SOME of the statements made in the Bible were correct. But that is nothing new and was never denied. Even thousands of years older religious claims from the Middle East contained statements that were correct. Many of these stories were re-used later in the Bible : The Epic of Gilgamesh for instance was the basis for the story of Noah's ark.
The question is here : do certain correct statements in the Bible support the claim that the entire Bible story is correct ? Of course the answer to that is NO. Every claim in the Bible is another item to be objectively proved, if the Bible wants to be anything more than based on BELIEF !


There is so much science proof that the Old Testement is true, I can not see anyone with knowledge of it, even doubting the main themes of the storys. They may disagree with what caused the Sea to part, but not the issue of slaves and the such from that time.
So much "science proof" ? What do you mean with "science proof" ?

You mean an entire universe being created in 6 days? With two different versions of that creation story in one and the same chapter?
The issue of slaves etc. does not prove anything more than that there were slaves at that time. So what ?

Or do you mean a hateful, revengeful, love lacking, warmonging, murder and rape condoning deity being proof of the existence of the Christian God and the Bible being factual?

:rolleyes:

Yes, it is like saying prove George Washington lived, I can show you bones, how do you prove they are his, statements of people that knew him, they were lies of course, he was our president, they say he was, but I never saw him,

In 2000 years if many of the papers that existed were destroyed one could argue George Washington was just a myth if you don't accept the facts and evidence that was there.

Yes various writings of the flood could basically be used to prove yes there was a flood. Writings from Babylon from Xisuhrus refer to the Library of Nineveh before and after the flood

From the era of Hammurabi, three separate tablets were found that has the words Jahwe (Jehovah) is God.

Dr Speiser, University PA in 1932 found a Seal dating back to @ 3500 BC that gives part of the story of Adam and Eve, and has been referred to as the Adam and eve seal

And since The Greek, Chinese, indoo, Persian, Mongolians all have similar traditions of a adam and eve event it is very likely they all came from a similar event, and were retold to fix their cultures, which all point back to the actual event.

Showing from the Weld Prism and the Nippur Tablets, they show a histroy of 10 kings that reigned over this area

And you have the flood deposits at UR, Kish, Fara all pointing to a large regioinal flood ( the entire known world)

You have the tablets from Assur banipal at Nineveh which parallel to the bible account of the flood


Tower of Bable, tower remains found with inscription at Borsippa 10 miles south of Babylon

And one could go on and on and on from Sodom to so much more

But the real issues is not the flood, not the creation, not even Moses in the desert, all of the things that can be more proved if anyone wants to actually "BELEIVE"
The real thing is that Jesus was born, and died and came back, and by faith and belief in him we are saved and our souls will live
That is the entire message of the 1000's of pages in the bible, one simple idea and message. In that you will either have faith or you will not.

I can prove with 1000 writings things from the bible, but that will not do you any good, a person with a closed heart will not accept even if Jesus Christ hisself appeared before them.

Chuck,

No one denies places and buildings existed. Even floods happened, heck they still do. The problem is,,

That's how story telling works. How many movies do you watch that takes place in actual cities and buildings? Just because those places exist, does that make the story true?

You think that kind of story telling didn't happen back then?

That's why, as I have explained, you find evidence of some things and not all. That's why we have evidence of enemies but not the heroes. It's classic story telling, hell it's Forest Gump thousands and thousands of years earlier... lol

The OT is filled with stories for people thousands of years a go who obviously went through a lot of hard times. These stories were made to give people hope, and something to believe in during times they had nothing much to believe in. These stories were not made for people who know better, who can just get in a car and drive to a hospital when they are sick. We actually live past 35, we don't need tales of long life. We don't need to get on our knees and repent every time we hear thunder, because we know it's just a storm. If people live near a volcano and it erupts they know to get the heck out of there and start a new life somewhere else, they don't hide under a rock to die because it's the will of an angry God. The Bible is a collection of stories that deals with a certain culture.

That's it, plain and simple.

The real thing is that Jesus was born, and died and came back, and by faith and beleif in him we are saved and our souls will live.
With that I agree : for Christianity that is what it is all about.
But that also means that it is less relevant if the universe was created in 6 days, or if the "Adam and Eve in Paradise" story has to be taken literally, or Noah's flood was regional or worldwide.
For Christianity the important thing is that Jesus was born. That is the true Christian focal point. All the rest is less relevant. And that is also clear from the Christian infighting on every other item in the Bible. A couple of main Christian directions, with a split into 2500+ Christian denominations are the direct result of that realization.
.

I can prove with 1000 writings things from the bible...
1000 writings? What writings? What value have writings? I clearly have always been mentioning OBJECTIVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE as the deciding factor to get the Bible accepted as factual. Not for 1000 items, but for every item in the Bible!
Nothing else will do for the deciding term "FACTUAL" in the name of this topic. Note that this topic is not named "How can we prove 1000 items in the Bible", but "How can we prove the Bible is factual"?
.

... but that will not do you any good, a person with a closed heart will not accept even if Jesus Christ hisself appeared before them.
Another suggestion based on your personal evaluation of the Bible message, and influenced by your opinion on me.
How can you KNOW what my reaction would be if that happened? That's not for you to suggest what I will decide upon with your biased opinions. My credo here states : I believe it as soon as I see it! So I just wait for Jesus to appear. And if that happens it's up to me to decide!
CREDENDOVIDIS !!!

;)

Thats it, plain and simple.
Excellent point, Onan!
;)

And since The Greek, Chinese, indoo, Persian, Mongolians all have similar traditions of a adam and eve event it is very likely they all came from a similar event, and were retold to fix their cultures, which all point back to the actual event.

Retelling the same story, doesn't mean its true. No matter how many times you tell it. Some interesting things were talked about in ancient times, but the fact we still have doubts of people, and events in modern times, is truly telling. Even the fact that an entire belief system, was based on a martyr of his ancient times, after his death. Not knocking the religion, but it was done by man, and evolved by man. That's enough to take it with a grain of salt, but that's just me. As we discover more evidence of a time long ago, its obvious, that this cycle was repeated through out the world, and not just in the middle east, as very real evidence of civilizations going back tens of thousands of years, all over the world, is a very real fact that cannot be swept under the rug, and has to be accounted for. I think its too early in mans world, to say with certainty what's a fact, and what isn't. Now believe what ever you want, that's personal, but to make it fact, because that's what you say, I don't think so. That's too much like repeating a lie, the more you say it, the more you believe it. The amazing thing, I find no facts in this whole thread, that proves or disproves anything the OP has asked. What's wrong with saying "I don't know, but I believe", that would at least be the truth.

I'll tell you what I believe based on what I see.

I believe there is a greater being who put his thoughts, instructions and advice into writing by means of some 40 different men over a period of over 1,600 years without so much as even one contradiction. For me that is truly incredible.

I look out the window and see the trees, birdlife, blades of grass, animals... all living things and I know because of logic that they had to be made by some higher intelligence, just as my watch or my computer was.

One scientist, Francis Hitching even writes that "when you look for links between major groups of animals they simply aren't there" which matches what the bible says - that a family reproduces according to its kind. (Gen 1:11,12)

I believe one needs more faith when not accepting the belief of a creator and His book than one who does, after all when looking back to that 'first cell' why and how was it there in the first place?

What I see around me every day is all the proof I need in order to know that the bible is factual. It gives the explanation of HOW we originated, WHY we originated and even WHAT our purpose is.

People have the ability to believe all sorts, but logic should give you the real answer.

:)

For me that is truly incredible.

in·cred·i·ble
adj.
1. So implausible as to elicit disbelief
Me too.

People have the ability to believe all sorts, but logic should give you the real answer.

Whose logic are we speaking of? Logic without facts, are just glorified opinions.

Yes, what is so silly is the people who could not believe in a loving but strict God can believe in the ideas like I read on Yahoo yesterday where life was suppose to have started now, from something like a jelly fish, as the first real life form..

So if you will only believe when you see, where did all of the material that made up the earth and the planets and the suns all come from, what made it, how did they get into balance with each other
And how did life start from nothing and then that one "life" became all of the fish, the birds, the reptiles and the animals, and it also would have become the grass and the trees.
I mean that does not even sound realistic at all. But people would believe this with no facts, no proof, but then not believe in a God.

The real fact is that they don't want there to be a God, if there is, they will be judged, and they will have to answer to someone besides thierself,

I believe there is a greater being who put his thoughts, instructions and advice into writing by means of some 40 different men over a period of over 1,600 years without so much as even one contradiction. For me that is truly incredible.

This is always one, I find interesting. Even if there were no contradictions in the bible some people would say otherwise but why does that mean something. Anyone can read a story and add to it without contradiction and since some writings didn't make the cut to be included into they bible why would you not throw out the stories that contradict each other if I was putting together a book of stories I'd throw out the ones that didn't match.

Actually I know without any doubt 100 percent there is a God, I have seen him in action, in direct miricles, healings that happened as we watched, and even events where demons were cast from a person.
100's of miricles over the years and have seen the power that God can do in peoples like.

So yes I have seen, but I believed first and after I believed, I saw, so there is no doubt at all that God lives, that Jesus lives and that his word is true.

Actually I know without any doubt 100 percent there is a God, I have seen him in action, in direct miricles, healings that happened as we watched, and even events where demons were cast from a person.
100's of miricles over the years and have seen the power that God can do in peoples like.

So yes I have seen, but I beleived first and after I beleived, I saw, so there is no doubt at all that God lives, that Jesus lives and that his word is true.

This is where this kind of debate usually leads to. There is not really much one can argue against this without calling someone a liar and I won't do that. I will say this though, Benny Hinn claims the same things and he's a known con artist who has been exposed more than once. This guy claims he's seen people come back to life in Africa. There is only one thing I have to say about claims of this nature. In this day and age, why don't we have any of these miracles on tape/dvd/ something??

In this day and age we shouldn't have to take the word of someone else. We should be able to see these things for ourselves. In this day and age faith would not be needed if some of these miracles could end up being recorded somehow. How is it if all these things are happening, we don't have ANY footage of it??

This is always one, I find interesting. Even if there were no contradictions in the bible some people would say otherwise but why does that mean something. Anyone can read a story and add to it without contradiction and since some writings didn't make the cut to be included into they bible why would you not throw out the stories that contradict each other if I was putting together a book of stories I'd throw out the ones that didn't match.

First of all there were well more than 40 writers. We can't forget all the writers that added their own flavor to the rewrites and translations.

Also the Bible is hardly without contradictions.

If the Bible is without contradiction I ask one of the believers to tell me how Judas died?
Who killed Saul?
How many children did Michal the daughter of Saul have?
Who was Josiah's successor?
Does God ever tempt his children?
Has any man seen God?

This is where this kind of debate usually leads to. There is not really much one can argue against this without calling someone a liar and I won't do that. I will say this though, Benny Hinn claims the same things and he's a known con artist who has been exposed more than once. This guy claims he's seen people come back to life in Africa. There is only one thing I have to say about claims of this nature. In this day and age, why don't we have any of these miracles on tape/dvd/ something???

In this day and age we shouldn't have to take the word of someone else. We should be able to see these things for ourselves. In this day and age faith would not be needed if some of these miracles could end up being recorded somehow. How is it if all these things are happening, we don't have ANY footage of it???

Hi Onan,
As a believer but a non christian, I would just like to say that even if a miracle was to be recorded and shown, there would be those who will believe and those will not believe.

The sceptics will remain sceptics and call it a trick or something made up... it has always been that way and will always remain so.
Those who believe see miracles in everyday life while those who do not believe in an Almighty deem it to be an advancement in technology or coincidence or just something unexplainable.

Either way... the debate will go on.

It's hard to sort it all out. The best advice I can think of is to get out the phone book, look up a church near you, and call the preacher, rabbi, priect etc. and set up an appointment and discuss this with him/her.

Yes, there are many religious sects and most of them believe that they are right and are the only ones going to heaven. Narrow minded folks sometimes do this. I hope to live by my own faith and priniciples so that I meet the criteria for eternal life, and once I get there, and if any of this still matters, I'll ask God. We humans get all screwed up when we either try to elevate ourselves to His level or rationalize Him down to ours.

Don't give up on God or yourself. It OK to question and challenge. Regardless and as a friend once said, "May I live my life to be all that Christ would have me be and half of what my dog thinks I am." Good advise. Might give it a try.

Just chuck the bible and the fanatical adherents and live a good life.

The sceptics will remain sceptics and call it a trick or something made up... it has always been that way and will always remain so.


Your probably right, but at least if this stuff started popping up hear and there on the news or something with real news cameras some skeptics may quiet down a bit. I wouldn't believe it if I caught the footage on TBN or a Benny Hinn broadcast, but I would view with an open mind if an actual news crew filmed it and had back ground of the person healed.

40 different men over a period of over 1,600 years without so much as even one contradiction.
I guess that explains the many denominations of Christianity, they all agree on everything.

There appears to be something missing from this thread...

No, there was a post or two that crossed the line and were deleted as are many posts on various boards. Even "discussion" boards have limits.

And several posts all talking about why a post was deleted or complaing why a post was deleted, since there were merely chat and not part of the post.

As noted before, discussion boards allow more jabbing back and forth than regular boards, but they are not rule free by any means.

There were no posts deleted that added to either side of the discussion on this thread.

All I said is there appears to be something missing...

But I saw the original post, and the subsequent posts. I viewed it as a legit question, apparently you did not.

As I remember it, its fact that early Christians used the same type of reasoning when deciding what to put in the bible. Even though there are contradictions, there is no dissenting opinions, therefore it is not questioned what the truth is, or who speaks it. What a great way to squash free thought, just delete it, and it never existed.

No actually what went into the bible was looked into very carefully.
They looked at what was the most used and also looked at which versions were not fully accepted. ( this is of course for the new testement since the old testement was long set) In fact all of the other non used texts are still avialable, for things such as the Acts of Thomas and other writings.

And keeping posts that are of an attacking nature off the boards has little to do with how the bible as determined,

The referring of them is beyond silly.

Me too.

Yeh my bad. I should have used a word like remarkable, extaordinary, outstanding. :o

And Talaniman I guess you do not know that not all christians believe the same things. Only TRUE Christians follow and imitate Jesus example as set out in the bible. This is what sets them apart from the others, as there is no mention in the bible of a literal hell, pergatory, all going to heaven, but they remain separate from the 'world' by staying neutral toward politics and war and preaching diligently to all nations.

no actually what went into the bible was looked into very carefully.

I bet it was scrutinized very carefully. By a hand picked few.

I guess you do not know that not all christians believe the same things.
Only TRUE Christians follow and imitate Jesus example as set out in the bible. This is what sets them apart from the others,
Yes I do know, it seems to be a matter of interpretation. Doesn't matter as they all BELIEVE that they are right, and to be fair, that applies to everyone.

And Talaniman I guess you do not know that not all christians believe the same things. Only TRUE Christians follow and imitate Jesus example as set out in the bible. This is what sets them apart from the others, as there is no mention in the bible of a literal hell, pergatory, all going to heaven, but they remain separate from the 'world' by staying neutral toward politics and war and preaching diligently to all nations.

It's been my impression all Christians think they are TRUE Christians and are following the example Jesus set; and that's part of the problem. The bible is interpreted many, many ways, any everyone thinks their interpretation is "right".

Take the people with Army of God for example, who have murdered abortion providers and justify their actions with scripture; I know many, many Christians who would NEVER murder a person, because it is not their place - that's god's job. It doesn't matter what this person does for a living, because, "thou shalt not murder" (there's something about judgement in there too). But do you think the members of Army of God think they are not "TRUE" Christians? Or is it more likely they think YOU are not a "TRUE" Christian because you don't murder abortion providers (assuming you don't of course!)?

There are other examples too, some people condemn homosexuality using scripture; I've seen others use scripture to justify it. It goes around and around... because it's all interpretation.

So that being said, really, how can you prove the bible is factual, when Christians themselves can't agree on what is literal and what is figurative? If the bible were factual, shouldn't all people who read it get the same thing from it?

And further, why would what went into the bible need to be scrutinized if it is all the inspired word of god? If that's the case, shouldn't each part be equally important? Why would god inspire men to write his message, and then allow man to decide what "makes the cut"? It just doesn't make sense...

The real fact is that they don't want there to be a God, if there is, they will be judged, and they will have to answer to someone besides thierself,
How can you presume to know another person's motive for not believing? If it's OK for you to judge their motive for not believing, then is it OK for them to judge your motive for believing? Like for example, saying that you do it because it makes you feel superior and special? No, I didn't think so. Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you.

And by the way, the word "their" is spelled their, not thier, and even if it's spelled right, "theirself" is not a word.

And obviously not all interpretations are right, and as 2 Pet 3:15,16 shows, by twisting the scriptures to fit our own ideas can result in lasting harm.

Matt 15:8,9 also shows us how religious leaders "honor him (Jesus) with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from him and that it is in vain they keep worshipping him because they teach commands of men as doctrines."

The trinity concept - borrowed from pagan sources and developed after the Bible was completed. (A manmade doctrine and misinterprited in the Bible)
Churches today hardly ever mention the kingdom of God and what it will accomplish - something Jesus did even saying at Luke 4:43 "Also to other cities I must declare the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this I was sent forth."

Of course all religions will argue till they're black and blue in the face that theirs is the TRUE religion, but I take all my beliefs from the Bible and as a Christian, which comes from the word Christ, this means I follow his steps as the perfect model and continually imitate his example.

Sometimes all it takes some personal research and meditation to find out whether what one is practicing originates with man or God. Sadly many rely on their leaders to tell them what is true or not and just take their word for it.

I have not personally heard of the Army of God but I do know that God will exact his own revenge as brought out in Rom 12:9. So it would seem that certain ones take only what they want to out of the scriptures and fail to compare what the rest of them say on the matter.

If the Bible is without contradiction I ask one of the believers to tell me how Judas died??
Who killed Saul??
How many children did Michal the daughter of Saul have??
Who was Josiah's successor??
Does God ever tempt his children??
Has any man seen God??

No one is going to take a stab at this?

To Jillian, that's the whole point I'm trying to get across! Yes the entire bible IS of equal importance - 2 Tim 3:16,17 "ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired of God and BENEFICIAL for TEACHING, for REPROVING, for SETTING THINGS STRAIGHT, for DISCIPLINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equiped for every good work."

It makes sense if you look right back to the start - where Satan challenged Gods rulership by basically saying "God tells lies and holds back good from his subjects. Humans don't need God ruling over them. They can decide for themselves what is good and bad and they'd be better off under my rule."
Now by putting the rebels to death on the spot, would this have answered Satans challenge or proved that Gods way is right? Remember there would also have been millions of angels watching to see what He would do.
Because God has a perfect sense of justice he knew that only time would tell if Satan would be the better ruler or Himself.
After thousands of years, injustice, poverty, crime and war has only worsened despite the various different forms of human rulership. How do you think man is going so far without God?

So then there comes the time to clean the place up and put it back the way God originally intended it - as a paradise with only righteous people taking care of it.

It is up to us to decide whether we want to accept God as our ruler or reject him... BUT ultimately it is His son who as judge, will decide who 'makes the cut' deserving to be in that paradise. (Act 17:31)
So I strive to do Gods will not my own in order to be one of them. (Matt 6:9,10)

Fact or fiction?? ;)

By the way I'd love to know exactly which scriptures people use to justify homosexual actions.? I hear many people try to defend this too, but fail to give evidence from the bible.

No one is going to take a stab at this??

STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB... STAB!


Lol, couldn't resist sorry.:D

By the way I'd love to know exactly which scriptures people use to justify homosexual actions. ?? I hear many people try to defend this too, but fail to give evidence from the bible.Who has ever done that? Most people don't need scripture to justify their actions.

After thousands of years, injustice, poverty, crime and war has only worsened despite the various different forms of human rulership. How do you think man is going so far without God?


None of these things have gotten worse. Populations have grown, but all of these things have been a problem from the beginning.

To Jillian, that's the whole point I'm trying to get across! Yes the entire bible IS of equal importance - 2 Tim 3:16,17 "ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired of God and BENEFICIAL for TEACHING, for REPROVING, for SETTING THINGS STRAIGHT, for DISCIPLINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equiped for every good work."

And has been censored to weed out what doesn't fit. I can only conclude that those writings were not inspired by God.

How do you think man is going so far without God?

Man has a choice, and God lets you chose.

Moparbyfar, I'm not sure of the exact parts where people have used scripture to justify homosexuality, but I found a few links with more info for you. If I remember correctly it has something to do with the supposed homosexual acts between several people in the bible; you can see this link for more information: SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS IN THE BIBLE: CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL VIEWPOINTS (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm). There is also conflict about the definition of terms used: Meanings of the New Testament words "Pornea" & "Akatharsia" (http://www.religioustolerance.org/pornea.htm). There's a bunch of info on that site (on a variety of topics), if you are interested to read more.

But to move on - if all parts of the bible are of equal importance, why are some parts left out? Why did man get to decide what people see when they read the bible, if god inspired it all? If I understand you correctly, you are saying all parts should be there and should have been there from the start, but others do not seem to be of the same opinion...

Army of God is an organization who advocates violence to promote their anti-abortion agenda. I'd link their site, but it's very graphic and I'd hate for someone to get in trouble at work for clicking on it. You can type their name into Google and find more information about them. I don't care what your views on abortion are - it is never okay to kidnap, murder, threaten, or bomb a place or individual who disagrees with you. I use them as an example because they justify their action with the bible - they think they are doing god's work, as does every other Christian (or other religious person) in the world. The point I'm trying to make is, they act based on their interpretations, you act based on yours, another acts on his, yet you all have different values. How do you know you're interpretation is right? You don't.

First no the bible was not censored, since there was no "bible" only various letters from the Apostles that various churches had, these were hand copied and carried or stored, In fact if caught with them, the early Christians would have been put to death.

The early church called a meeting of all of the major church leaders who presented various letters and writings. We can compare those to writings found in the dead sea scrolls to know that there has not been change in these writings. Many of the writings that did not agree with the main writings of the known Apostles were not included of course,

Were there other letters by other apostles that never survived, yes of course they were destroyed by the Romans, not copied or lost over time by 100's of reasons.

and Christians, by the most part will accept that all inspired writings are beneficial for teachings, but not all writings are of equal importance,
Things wrote by Billy Graham may well be inspired but is it of the same importance as the writings of Peter or Paul, one has to compare that writings to the message.

And often it is obviuus when writings are not of God, those that try to warp the word of God to teach things that are against the word of God isone. Just as in the reference to various sins, did some people in the bible comment terrible sins, murders, rapes and more, yes we see that all men are sinners, but the over all message is repentance of that sin, turning away from the sin and living a new life for God.

So all sinners in today's world are called to God,

Many of the writings that did not agree with the main writings of the known Apostles were not included of course,

Censorship!

Who has ever done that? Most people don't need scripture to justify their actions.

Unless of course you are a christian, then you base all your actions on the bible.

None of these things have gotten worse. Populations have grown, but all of these things have been a problem from the beginning.

The Worldwide Institute stated that "3 times as many people fell victim to war in the 20th century as in all the wars from the first century AD to 1899.
More than 100 million people, and rising, have lost their lives as a result of wars just since 1914!
It doesn't matter how big our population is, don't you think this is a huge concern to mankind in general?
It has also been reported on our news channels recently that if humans carry on as they are environmentally speaking and increasing in numbers, within around 50 years the earth will not be able to sustain life any longer.
What then? Shouldn't we have started evolving into something better by now? After all it takes millions of years to become as clever as we are now! :rolleyes:

The Worldwide Institute stated that "3 times as many people fell victim to war in the 20th century as in all the wars from the first century AD to 1899.
More than 100 million people, and rising, have lost their lives as a result of wars just since 1914!
It doesn't matter how big our population is, don't you think this is a huge concern to mankind in general?


War is a horrible thing, my point was there have always been wars. There will always be wars. I guess what I'm trying to say is, how can they get worse, when it's a horrible thing already? Even if one man dies in a war it's a bad thing.


It has also been reported on our news channels recently that if humans carry on as they are environmentally speaking and increasing in numbers, within around 50 years the earth will not be able to sustain life any longer.


It's a bit longer than 50 years... lol

Humans probably won't survive, the dinosaurs didn't. The earth will still be here for whatever takes over when were gone. All it takes is the right astroid hit and were gone. It won't matter what religion we are, what kind of people we are, or where were from. I just hope I get answers to the questions I asked before that happens... lol

The early church called a meeting of all of the major church leaders who presented various letters and writings.

Things were handled during these concils by way of vote, yes even the divinity of christ was an issue voted on. I wouldn't feel very good about something like that.


We can compare those to writings found in the dead sea scrolls to know that there has not been change in these writings.

Actually we have found out about many changes because of the dead sea scrolls. I can't remember off hand what book it was, but I think it was Mark that had a chapter added, and we learned this because of an earlier copy found in the dead sea scrolls. That's just one example I don't have time to look through my notes to find more.


Many of the writings that did not agree with the main writings of the known Apostles were not included of course,


By the time these votes started there were no known Apostles. It was 300 to 400 years later. What was known was there was a lot of different beliefs from his birth to his divinity, life, teachings, etc, etc. Now being that it was the Romans taking care of this, they decided to take the stories that felt more like what they were used to, spruce them up a bit by making them sound more like their own beliefs,( which if you read anything about the Romans they come from a long history in believing in Demi Gods and what not) Presto change-o, you have a new religion to make everyone happy. I don't think a Jew had any part of what we read today as the NT. Why would they write about demi Gods when all of the Jewish writings that ended up as the OT did nothing but speak against this kind of thing? Why would a Jewish writer declare his own people Killed God? See what I'm saying here? The Romans believed in many Gods and demi gods, so doesn't it make more sense that they created this one as well?

If Rome was in control of the meetings it would be a consideration, but the Bishop of Rome was just one of many equals at these meetings. In fact from the Orthodox teachings it was there Bishop actually over the meetings Remember during these times the Church of the East and West had not divided yet and Rome had not yet come to power as it would latter.

And of course why would they write it, the truth perhaps, Iknow it may sound like a sily idea to someone not wanting to accept, but often the truth is told when you are writing things,

The history of man is one of conquer and convert. That's how the traditions are spread, and converts made. When you say bible you must be more specific, as there are a few versions, so which one are we talking about? I know, there is only one true bible, and that's the one true christians follow!

And of course why would they write it, the truth perhaps, Iknow it may sound like a sily idea to someone not wanting to accept, but often the truth is told when you are writing things,
Good, what I have written I believe to be true, but that doesn't make those who disagree silly, does it? That would be a problem, as its up to us as individuals, what we accept or not, and that's the truth, as I believe it.

And of course why would they write it, the truth perhaps, Iknow it may sound like a sily idea to someone not wanting to accept, but often the truth is told when you are writing things,

So then there is a chance that one of the many earlier myths are true? They were written down.

War is a horrible thing, my point was there have always been wars. There will always be wars. I guess what I'm trying to say is, how can they get worse, when it's a horrible thing already?? Even if one man dies in a war it's a bad thing.



It's a bit longer than 50 years......lol

Humans probably won't survive, the dinosaurs didn't. The earth will still be here for whatever takes over when were gone. All it takes is the right astroid hit and were gone. It won't matter what religion we are, what kind of people we are, or where were from. I just hope I get answers to the questions I asked before that happens..........lol

My point is that you seem to miss the real point. Things are definitely worse than before as it was foretold by Jesus at Matt 24:7 "Nation will rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom." This started in 1914 with Total War in that it was not just army against army but nation against nation - approx 93 per cent of the world was involved in that war.
There would also be an increasing of lawlessness (vs 12). Today's moral breakdown is so bad children are becoming desensitized to horror, violence, swearing, sex, all in the form of entertainment, mostly. Are you saying that you don't care what happens to your children or grandchildren because there's no hope anyway?
God gives us hope in the scriptures. (Mic 4:3,4; Psa 37:10; Psa 46:9; Rev 21:3,4 etc etc) The only pity is that you do not take these seriously because God is a good "housekeeper" and it won't take him much to clean this place of his up. Also, he will never let it be destroyed by anyone or anything. (Isa 45:18; Eccl 1:4)

As I recall it, the news bulletin I saw mentioned the year 2050 as the time when earth would no longer cope - whether that was a scare tactic or not, you be the judge but that is not too far away! Maybe a different date or timeframe is given depending which part of the world you're in lol!

Onan, you're not really looking for answers... ;)

If you think children are getting desensitized now imagine how desensitized they must have been when they had to kill their own food and every Sunday the whole family got dressed up to go to the public hangings. Public executions use to be a family friendly event. The kids would gather round and throw rocks at the prisoners as they were lead to their death. Good moral fun, right?
By every measurable quality, life is getting better for the majority of the human race. Sure more of us have died in the last 100 years in war than ever have before but there are more people alive today than have ever lived on earth.

First of all there were well more than 40 writers. We can't forget all the writers that added their own flavor to the rewrites and translations.

Also the Bible is hardly without contradictions.

If the Bible is without contradiction I ask one of the believers to tell me how Judas died??
Who killed Saul??
How many children did Michal the daughter of Saul have??
Who was Josiah's successor??
Does God ever tempt his children??
Has any man seen God??

Judas hanged himself, apparently over a precipice somewhere. Something broke and he fell. What's so hard to understand here?

Saul committed suicide. The Amalekite thought David would reward him if David thought that he had rendered David a service by dispatching king Saul. Wrong!!

Michal had 5 stepsons from her other husband, but none by David.

Josiah was succeeded by his son Jehoahaz, who only reigned 3 months, followed by another son, Eliakim. His name was changed to Jehoiakim. There was another Jehoahaz who was the 11th king of the ten tribes.

The word tempt is used many times in the same sense as to try. God does not tempt any man to do evil.

No man has seen God in His glory. Many have seen Him in human manifestation.

Hope this helps someone.

Hope this helps someone.

THANK YOU!!


Judas hanged himself, apparently over a precipice somewhere. Something broke and he fell. What's so hard to understand here?


Matthew pretty much says he hung himself, nowhere does it say something broke and he fell, where you got that is from the other story of his death in Acts that says

1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Matthew and Acts have two complete different stories about the death of Judas.


The word tempt is used many times in the same sense as to try. God does not tempt any man to do evil.


So tempting Abraham to sacrifice his son is not evil? Again we have a problem with the Bible saying two different things. God tempts, and he doesn't tempt.


No man has seen God in His glory. Many have seen Him in human manifestation.


Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9, along with Ex. 33:23, Ex. 33:11 and Gen. 32:30 says different and it's not speaking of Jesus. Again the Bible saying two different things.

I didn't address 2 of them because we would argue forever over it.

The point I was trying to make, that really is kind of past us now, is the Bible is not without contradiction.

I don't think we've even begun to discuss the translation issues. Some of these problems are related to trying to get from ancient Hebrew to modern English. The difference in context is large as well and people frequently don't bother trying to get the real meaning.

For example, there is a passage in the New Testament that goes something like, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Most people who read that assume that since a camel can't pass through the eye of a sewing needle, rich folks are going south. The needle referred to in the passage isn't a sewing needle. Cities with walls back in biblical times had gates and they were pretty large. At night when the gates were closed, there needed to be access to the city. That access was through a small door built into the larger gate. The person sized door was called the eye of the needle. You could get a camel through it, but it wasn't easy.

What a great discovery! Through a little research, rich people don't automatically go to hell.

The miracle is when the red sea parted.
Just in time for the hebrews to flee the host of those trying to kill them.
Just in time did it close to kill those trying to kill them.

Actually it does. You need to learn more history.

People who do not know how to tell time, do not impress me.
If you studied the actual dynasties you would see that the timeline is wrong that many scholars presume, for example how can a ruler rule for 97 years-when they admit he died at 47? Many people died much younger then. Perhaps the 'scholars' who prepared your timeline counted months as years? As the people who thought there was a fountain of youth did.

Ptah-seeker-osiris is a description of a god who is the father-helper along side-son:
Creator of the universe and law giver-god of light-judge and resurrecter of the dead.
It is the way that it was understood who GOD is by the people who were not hebrew.
And it is another proof the bible is correct. The people who were not hebrew after they left while worshipping other gods may have made some type of incorrect worship, ancestor worship commonly called, instead of worshipping God.


Everyone knows the Red Sea exists, but as you so nicely pointed out it was not an act of God that parted the Red Sea as told in the Exodus story, but an act of nature. This does not in any way prove the story true, it just proves back when the story was written they too knew of the act of nature.

Yes as a matter of fact I do, and no where in their history do they mention the story of moses, and the great escape.

This is just fantasy, there is not much to support it because the times these guys lived were not even close to being the same. Imhotep lived during the third dynasty(2635-2595 BCE) while most theologians say Joseph lived around 1730 BCE. Looks to me like someone borrowed an egyptian story and tried to apply it to themselves. Thats just my theory though. I would like to mention though that Imhotep was deified and became the son of Ptah. He was thought of as a God by the egyptians. I think this should be more than enough to show they are two different people. Joseph was never considered a God and rightly so because the Bible tells us there is only one, right??

I never heard this.



Yep and even wrote of his own death and funeral. Thats some trick.



I don't even know what to say about this. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. It's amazing to me the lengths people will go to just to prove the Bible true. I think you will have to try harder than this. So far you have shown the Hebrews liked to borrow things from earlier legends for their own. This is not the only case of this either. As I have mentioned before a lot of those early stories in the Bible came from earlier stories and legends. History does not prove the Bible factual, and in most cases proves the exact opposite. Sure there is all kinds of proof of all the enemies the hebrews faced but for some reason we come up blank on the heroes. Explain that to me. Thats like saying Captain America was a real person because Hitler was a real person.

I see you choose to remain in ignorance.

Did you do even a Google search to find these proofs?

Do you want to know the truth?

No, it is obvious you are just wrong, you choose to be wrong.
You cannot be right until you are willing to see that there is evidence.
Until you will examine the proof, you are only hatemongering.


16 WHAT ?

1024 WHAT ?

So? What nonsensical conclusion is that? Based on what argument?

That is what you BELIEVE. But on what is that based, if you claim that to be factual?

WHERE ? WHEN ?

"must be" ... is THAT your objective supporting evidence ?

scientific proofs ... :D :D ROLFL :D :D I see that you have not even an inkling of what the term scientific proof means ...

:rolleyes:

No.

The bible is actual facts. Actual events. Proof of every event that you have heard about in the bible has been given. You don't believe in science, you don't believe in proof.
The bible is already proven, legally, morally, scientifically, philosophically, reasonably.
You don't think it is. But you are wrong! You don't control the legal system, nor the moral system, nor the scientific system, nor the philosophical system, not the system of reason.
You onan only decide how ignorant you are by what you refuse to accept.
As does the person who asked this question. It is not belief, for you know in your heart that you are wrong, and hatemongering, but you attitudinal change program fails. The words convict you. The truth always wins out. You only bring more people to truth by harming yourself against the chief cornerstone. You cannot win, only lose. Sad that you do not know.


Chuck,,

No one denies places and buildings existed. Even floods happened, heck they still do. The problem is,,,

Thats how story telling works. How many movies do you watch that takes place in actual cities and buildings?? Just because those places exist, does that make the story true??

You think that kind of story telling didn't happen back then??

Thats why, as I have explained, you find evidence of some things and not all. Thats why we have evidence of enemies but not the heroes. It's classic story telling, hell it's Forest Gump thousands and thousands of years earlier......lol

The OT is filled with stories for people thousands of years a go who obviously went through a lot of hard times. These stories were made to give people hope, and something to believe in during times they had nothing much to believe in. These stories were not made for people who know better, who can just get in a car and drive to a hospital when they are sick. We actually live past 35, we don't need tales of long life. We don't need to get on our knees and repent every time we hear thunder, because we know it's just a storm. If people live near a volcano and it erupts they know to get the heck out of there and start a new life somewhere else, they don't hide under a rock to die because it's the will of an angry God. The Bible is a collection of stories that deals with a certain culture.

Thats it, plain and simple.

No.

Modern litertature proves when and where the bible was written.

You need to get up to speed on what universities now know is fact and teach in college.

I quoted this earlier, don't know why you don't believe modern atheists professors?

Perhaps you are a little bit behind the times?


Retelling the same story, doesn't mean its true. No matter how many times you tell it. Some interesting things were talked about in ancient times, but the fact we still have doubts of people, and events in modern times, is truly telling. Even the fact that an entire belief system, was based on a martyr of his ancient times, after his death. Not knocking the religion, but it was done by man, and evolved by man. That's enough to take it with a grain of salt, but that's just me. As we discover more evidence of a time long ago, its obvious, that this cycle was repeated thru out the world, and not just in the middle east, as very real evidence of civilizations going back tens of thousands of years, all over the world, is a very real fact that cannot be swept under the rug, and has to be accounted for. I think its too early in mans world, to say with certainty whats a fact, and what isn't. Now believe what ever you want, thats personal, but to make it fact, because thats what you say, I don't think so. That's to much like repeating a lie, the more you say it, the more you believe it. The amazing thing, I find no facts in this whole thread, that proves or disproves anything the OP has asked. What's wrong with saying "I don't know, but I believe", that would at least be the truth.

Personal attacks don't impress me, and neither do the credentials of those that repeat stories, and take them as fact, without proof.

Judas having a rope around his neck, that the rope was too long, fell to his death, where he bounced against the ground, spilling his insides out, cause of death. But he was wearing a rope connected to a tree. So technically he died because he was hanging himself

Self or others

If no twins or triplets or multiple births, then just one per time she was pregnant.
Unless she had a abortion, spontaneous or otherwise.

The one he choose

No God does not tempt. Not his job. Not in his nature.

And lived?

Provide more info, answer my questions.


First of all there were well more than 40 writers. We can't forget all the writers that added their own flavor to the rewrites and translations.

Also the Bible is hardly without contradictions.

If the Bible is without contradiction I ask one of the believers to tell me how Judas died??
Who killed Saul??
How many children did Michal the daughter of Saul have??
Who was Josiah's successor??
Does God ever tempt his children??
Has any man seen God??

No.

Modern literature has proven exactly when and where, and who wrote the bible.

You need to take more college classes. Atheists admit this. Why are you so backward?


First of all there were well more than 40 writers. We can't forget all the writers that added their own flavor to the rewrites and translations.

Also the Bible is hardly without contradictions.

If the Bible is without contradiction I ask one of the believers to tell me how Judas died??
Who killed Saul??
How many children did Michal the daughter of Saul have??
Who was Josiah's successor??
Does God ever tempt his children??
Has any man seen God??

Wrong. Jesus said when speaking of the rich man and lazarus of those in torment and those in abrahams bosum, and torment sounds like hell, so reread, and learn. Jesus did talk about hell


Yeh my bad. I should have used a word like remarkable, extaordinary, outstanding. :o

And Talaniman I guess you do not know that not all christians believe the same things. Only TRUE Christians follow and imitate Jesus example as set out in the bible. This is what sets them apart from the others, as there is no mention in the bible of a literal hell, pergatory, all going to heaven, but they remain separate from the 'world' by staying neutral toward politics and war and preaching diligently to all nations.

Only TRUE Christians follow and imitate Jesus example as set out in the bible
Where would you find a true christian? How can you tell a false one?

Not really.

No actually, not.

I don't recall any aspostles living to 300-400 ad, but the councils could only accept what they had. And modern college professors prove that only people trained in colleges and schools before 68ad could have written the bible, indeed rome outlawed certain education.
And it was not rediscovered until about 1880, these classic works, that are quoted in the bible, indeed college professors thought that the works were never quoted from 100 ad to the mid 1880s, but they were wrong, and proved so. And now they teach the truth about it


Things were handled during these concils by way of vote, yes even the divinity of christ was an issue voted on. I wouldn't feel very good about something like that.

Actually we have found out about many changes because of the dead sea scrolls. I can't remember off hand what book it was, but I think it was Mark that had a chapter added, and we learned this because of an earlier copy found in the dead sea scrolls. Thats just one example I don't have time to look through my notes to find more.

By the time these votes started there were no known Apostles. It was 300 to 400 years later. What was known was there was a lot of different beliefs from his birth to his divinity, life, teachings, ect, ect. Now being that it was the Romans taking care of this, they decided to take the stories that felt more like what they were used to, spruce them up a bit by making them sound more like their own beliefs,( which if you read anything about the Romans they come from a long history in believing in Demi Gods and what not) Presto change-o, you have a new religion to make everyone happy. I don't think a Jew had any part of what we read today as the NT. Why would they write about demi Gods when all of the Jewish writings that ended up as the OT did nothing but speak against this kind of thing?? Why would a Jewish writer declare his own people Killed God?? See what I'm saying here?? The Romans believed in many Gods and demi gods, so doesn't it make more sense that they created this one as well??

I apologize that people are mad at my answers. I do not want to tik you all off. But...

the question was: 'how can we prove the bible is true?'
my answer was "it already is proven".

some of you say you are offended at my words. Good.
the bible says only those offended can become believers.
only if you are shocked and outraged can see that maybe God is right.
only by becoming engaged in the discussion do you care enough.

only God can choose to draw someone to salvation. That christ is a scandalon or stumbling
block, only those who stumble can be saved. So only those who are offended that God says that God is the way,truth, and life. The only way to salvation, the only determiner of what is true, and the only life. We say we have a sex life, or a work life, but God says no there are not lifes, just part of existence. God wants us to be fruitful and multiply, so obviously wants us to marry and have kids. And studies show married people have more sex that single ones on average. So God does want us in marriage to have more sex for the purpose of having kids. And God wants us to work. Jesus said the job of man is to thank God. And certainly God wants to be thanked, but do not flatter.

prophecy - the foretelling of future events.
if the bible forecasts future events, and you see those events perhaps that proves its true?
of course many events were future when the bible was written, so perhaps you see already?
israel would return to their land, a nice prophecy, oh wait no one believed they would, after all that time, for them to come back together as a nation? Really? And just like the bible said they would. Amazing.

six step attitudinal change plan
Step 1. Some practice so offensive that it can scarcely be discussed in public is advocated by a RESPECTED expert in a RESPECTED forum.
Step 2. At first, the public is shocked, then outraged.
Step 3. But, the VERY FACT that such a thing could be publicly debated becomes the SUBJECT of the debate.
Step 4. In the process, sheer repetition of the shocking subject under discussion gradually
dulling its effect.
Step 5. People then are no longer shocked by the subject.
Step 6. No longer outraged, people begin to argue for positions to moderate the extreme; or, they accept the premise, challenging, instead, the means to ACHIEVE it.

how can we prove the bible is true? Sounds like you doubt it is true? But instead I state it is
already proven as true. And since a lot of people don't believe me, it becomes the focus of shock and offensive practice or statement, and as we move along the steps, more and more people believe me, and more and more they move toward my belief. You see saints know the bible is true and those who are not saints think it is not true already, so you waste effort if you are trying to do the steps, if you are genuine in your question then I believe I have stated a case that is reasonable, and any casual observer would believe me. But if not continue along the steps, and they will believe me. The steps can be turned on those who think they only work to make people believe less about the bible.

romans 1 - that people who choose to forget God exists become morons. That things are
spiritually discerned, so some will stay blind, and deaf. That there exist people who are not
going to understand no matter what is shown to them that the bible is true. Not everyone learns.

bible code - torah is exactly right down the letter choice in each word.
(see prophecy above.) if torah is correct down to the letter choice that proves it is right.

scientific method - if you make a hypothesis, and do an experiment, and its results are
repeatable then it is proven. Courts have maintained and the supreme court has not invalidated claims in courts that the bible is perfect, infallible, and otherwise beyond reproach. But allows other theories to be taught such as evoloution, if you overturn such cases then evolution cannot legally be taught, because it was only part of such cases.
quantum algebra, perfect mind, computer models of ancient astronomy correlations, anthropology, literature, history, et cetera all prove that no evidence exists to disprove the bible.

saint - those who are called of God are called saints. The term christian is a dirty word that
is on the same level as the n word, or caucasian. The n word comes from people who lived near the niger river in africa. Caucasian is for people who were from the caucus mountains.
christian means: christ-like. A christ like being is trying to act like christ through their
own effort, a saint is made perfect by God not the effort of the undeserving being that's is why it is called grace or unmerited favor.

gravity -we know from einsteins work that gravity effects of 'time' and decay of nuclear
material depend on how far from a gravity well it is. So 10^17 times as much matter, squared equals 10^34 times as much effect, and then the dark matter theory means approximately 10^72 times as much 'time' or decay of radioactive material at the creation point to the present as happens at this space/time point. So the billions of years that could occur in radioactive decay time, could actually be nothing more than thousands of years from the point of view of here. Time or radioactive decay occurs at different amounts depending on how close you are to more intense gravity. All matter was at point of creation or big bang, so a lot more matter there then, than is here now. My numbers are only rough approximations.

sorry you have lost another debate. But perhaps you can try harder. Or let me continue down the steps convincing more and more people. Either way I win. To argue won't make anyone right, it just helps bring more and more people to my way of thinking. Of course you can think you won. I don't mind you thinking that you won the debate or explained yourself or point of view better. It is history that will decide who presented a more valid or interesting point of view.

but that is the fun of such places as askmehelpdesk.com that we can reason together over what is ultimately valid and useful. What is true, and what is obviously false. So continue.
may you be as well, and may your questions help others, because there do exist some who do not ask questions, but want to know the same things as you, or I. be well, I hope that helps.

[QUOTE=eawoodall]I apologize that people are mad at my answers. I do not want to tik you all off. But...


"some of you say you are offended at my words. good.
the bible says only those offended can become believers.
only if you are shocked and outraged can see that maybe God is right.
only by becoming engaged in the discussion do you care enough."



I will repeat what I said in response to this post earlier:
Intimidation and control by repitition and instilling fear.
If you tell a child that the sky is green long enough and often enough, they will actually believe that it is green no matter what pfoof there is to the truth that it is blue.

People control = POWER!

Sorry ea, your post is disjointed and all over the place. It certainly does not offer the solid scientific evidence that the bible is true that you promised.

And you lost me at

studies show married people have more sex that single ones on average
LOL! You obvioulsy are not married and have had very little sex as a single person. :)

All I tried to do is show that Oxman's topic "How can we prove the Bible is factual" makes no sense,

It certainly does make a great deal of sense.

Many people want to know whether they can have faith in the information presented in the Bible. With that in mind, it is easier to have faith in something which is proven factual than in something which is not.

For instance, do you believe that fairies exist? I don't because I have never come across any credible testimony. Any stories I have ever read on the subject have been labeled fiction.

However, I do believe that George Washington lived because his life is testified by multiple eyewitnesses. Therefore I consider that George Washington's life is factual.

By the same token, the informatiion in the Bible has been proven factual as to geography, political information, architecture and culture. Within the Bible, the life of Jesus Christ was testified by multiple witnesses with consistent descriptions of his life and deeds.

So, I have faith in the information presented in the Bible because it has been proven factual to my satisfaction.


as there is no way anyone can prove the Bible is factual, simply because the entire Bible and the religion based on the Bible is based on BELIEF and nothing else.
:rolleyes:

Apparently you've never read the Bible. The history in the Bible, the architecture of the region and many more facts can be independently proven. Most of the information presented in the Bible is factual.

However the Bible does include many forms of literary genre and some of that information is meant to convey a spiritual message using metaphors and parables.

So, you are wrong. The Bible is factual and the religion which is based on the Bible is a religion based on fact. That is why we can have faith in the information. Because it is true.

Sincerely,

De Maria

The history in the Bible, the architecture of the region and many more facts can be independently proven. Most of the information presented in the Bible is factual. The Bourne Supremacy is a great book with lots of facts and correct architectures of regions. It is a factual story by your reasoning.

The Bourne Supremacy is a great book with lots of facts and correct architectures of regions. It is a factual story by your reasoning.

Are you saying that you have faith that Jason Bourne exists?

As I understand it, Jason Bourne is a fictional character in a work of fiction by Robert Ludlum. It is a work of fiction which is weaved into real world politics. But it is a work of fiction.

There are many fictional stories which mix fact and fiction to different degrees. In fact, I don't know any fictional story which doesn't mix fact and fiction to one degree or another. Even stories of fairies acknowledge the existence of towns, temples, statues, trees and grass and other facts of history, architecture, biology and geography.

In the case of historical books, they are intended as presentations of facts which can be verified by other independent observers. I have faith in those works of history which can be verified by independent observations and records.

In the case of the Bible, there are various genres represented. But those which are historical can be verified by independent records and by more than one testimony. And those genres which are fictional contain verifiable cultural and historical facts and communicate observable moral truths. And I have faith in the Bible because it can be thus verified in many aspects.

In the case of Jesus Christ, we have the most intimate historical biography testified by four independent eyewitnesses of any historical biography in the history of mankind. There is more evidence for his existence than for any other contemporaneous historical figure. The Gospels are also the most studied, the most tested, the most inspected texts in the history of mankind. They have passed every test with flying colors and therefore I have faith that Jesus Christ existed and exists and that He is the person represented in the Bible.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Its as factual as any cultural history book that tells the story of the people that wrote it. That would include cave drawings also.

Something to think about... Evolution(Darwin) vs Creation(Bible). Notwithstanding Christianity, I think it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe Creation. At least Creation has a book to back up its beliefs. Another tidbit... do you realize that we've all been taught in school systems that Evolution is FACTUAL, when its still a "THEORY"? What is with that? If that isn't deception... what is?!

Hmmm, almost like Columbus discovered America.

You cannot scientifically PROVE the Bible is factual. You cannot scientifically prove anything. The point of science is to DISprove, and make educated guesses based on what possibilities have been ruled out and what fits with measurable and recordable information.
Regardless of how many prophecies and "facts" can be found in the Bible, scientifically, these can still be regarded as circumstantial.
The Bible cannot be proved to be true. And isn't the whole point of faith that the proof is found in your heart? You cannot share that with anyone, so why try to prove it? Say what you believe to be true, and don't be too downhearted if you fail. People can believe what they like, you shouldn't feel personally responsible for their immortal souls.
In the words of Douglas Adams, God said "Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." Sure, Douglas Adams was very cynical about religion, but from the point of view of either a Christian or an atheist, that line has merit. No one should try to prove the existence of God, and so far, no one has managed to rule out the possibility of His existence. So why try?

Kal

There is so much I would love to add to this right now, but I don't know where to begin.

Eawoodall,


prophecy - the foretelling of future events.
If the bible forecasts future events, and you see those events perhaps that proves its true?
Of course many events were future when the bible was written, so perhaps you see already?
Israel would return to their land, a nice prophecy, oh wait no one believed they would, after all that time, for them to come back together as a nation? Really? And just like the bible said they would. Amazing.

The predictions in the Bible are hit and miss just like any other person predicting things. Some that have come true(as someone else mentioned was wars nation against nation) would be the same as if I were to predict rain in spring. Wars between nations were a common thing and not something that started in 1914 as this person suggested. The Middle East has been at war forever. It is not some great prediction that no one ever thought would come true. Same with Israel, after thousands of years it was bound to come true. Hell, I predict the Arizona Cardinals will some day win a superbowl, now when that happens in a hundred years will I be looked at as some great prophet guided by divine inspiration? Of course not. I would also like to point out that there are still Jews scattered all over the world, so in order for that prediction to be fully settled they would ALL have to return.


I don't recall any aspostles living to 300-400 ad, but the councils could only accept what they had. And modern college professors prove that only people trained in colleges and schools before 68ad could have written the bible, indeed rome outlawed certain education.


This is so far off. It's common knowledge with most scholars that there were tons of mistranslations and forgeries over the years concerning the Bible. Heck even the catholic Encyclopedia admits this. I don't know where you have received your information but I hope you didn't pay for it.

De Maria,,


In the case of Jesus Christ, we have the most intimate historical biography testified by four independent eyewitnesses of any historical biography in the history of mankind.

First of all, no one really knows who wrote the gosples so we don't know for sure they were written by eyewitnesses, and second there are well over 80 other gosples written that tells other stories from supposed eyewitnesses.


There is more evidence for his existence than for any other contemporaneous historical figure.

Are you kidding me? We have dug up Egyptian kings that at one time were thought of as just legend, but we have found no proof at all of a demi God who has once walked the earth. Hell there is more written about Zeus than there is of Jesus, does that make it proof that Zeus was a real being? Exactly what is this evidence? Where is this evidence?


They have passed every test with flying colors and therefore I have faith that Jesus Christ existed and exists and that He is the person represented in the Bible.


Again this is false. An example of not passing every test.

The NT claims that at the time Jesus was born,

Herod was king of Judea (Luke 1:5)
Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) and
Caesar Augustus ruled Rome (Luke 2:1)

Well,, there was never a time when these three spans overlapped. This is what is learned with history and what would be known by eawoodall if he really knew history as he claims to.

Something else that should be pointed out here is the decree of herod to have all males under 2 or at birth to be killed is a work of fiction as well. No where outside the NT is this story mentioned. Even Josephus Flavius, a renowned Jewish historian, who chronicled events during that very period in history, makes no mention of any such decree by Herod, much less any actual killings.

History records that Herod was hated during his reign, and many far less evil acts that Herod committed were carefully recorded in several historical sources. An act this evil and of this magnitude would never have been left out of any account in which Herod was involved.

If that wasn't convincing enough, According to Luke Herod was dead before Jesus was even born.

So during these "tests" how was this overlooked??

I agree with Onan. Personal beliefs aside, the Bible proves nothing. God being a widespread belief counts for no more than belief in dragons appearing in almost every culture. Does it prove that dragons exist?

More to the point, should it have to?

The Bible was written by men. Men make mistakes (even when directed by God, I'm sure). And the Bible has also been translated into several languages before English. If you believe, go on believing. But don't expect other people to share your faith based on an unreliable source.

At least Creation has a book to back up its beliefs.

There are plenty of books on evolution.



do you realize that we've all been taught in school systems that Evolution is FACTUAL, when its still a "THEORY"? What is with that? If that isn't deception... what is?!

The deception comes from the people going around still calling evolution a theory.

A little piece from the WIK

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact)

Something to think about......Evolution(Darwin) vs Creation(Bible). Notwithstanding Christianity, I think it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe Creation. At least Creation has a book to back up its beliefs. Another tidbit.....do you realize that we've all been taught in school systems that Evolution is FACTUAL, when its still a "THEORY"? What is with that? If that isn't deception...what is?!!

Would any other evolutionists like to join me in writing a book about evolution so we can have a book like the creationists and have something to "back up" our beliefs? I mean, hell, if that's all it takes...

Oh wait! There are already a bunch of books about evolution! Huh. Guess this argument is a bit worthless...

And buzzman please learn the difference between "theory", "hypothesis" and "law" (when used in science) before you go getting all in a tizzy about some supposed "deception". Here's a tidbit for you - the definitons you think are right, aren't.

i see you choose to remain in ignorance.

did you do even a google search to find these proofs?

do you want to know the truth?

no, it is obvious you are just wrong, you choose to be wrong.
you cannot be right until you are willing to see that there is evidence.
until you will examine the proof, you are only hatemongering.
I agree... People will see what they want to see. That is why you must NOT engage in useless arguments. Use your time on people that are open to the truth, not people that want to hear what "They're itching ears want to hear". You know aas well as I do, there is no excuses in the end. Every man (We are not exclusive to any of this ruling either) has a choice to reject or accept the truth. It is human nature to seek those that agree with you in order to justify incorrect choices they full well know in their hearts to be true. It is only a temporary satisfaction, because it will never offer the true peace they are looking for.

Would any other evolutionists like to join me in writing a book about evolution so we can have a book like the creationists and have something to "back up" our beliefs? I mean, hell, if that's all it takes.....

Oh wait! There are already a bunch of books about evolution! Huh. Guess this argument is a bit worthless...

And buzzman please learn the difference between "theory", "hypothesis" and "law" (when used in science) before you go getting all in a tizzy about some supposed "deception". Here's a tidbit for you - the definitons you think are right, aren't.
So you are saying that you believe in a Big Bang that apparently happened billions of years ago and allowed everything to perfectly fall in place in complete harmony. Good and Evil exist by its own accord and when you die it is then nothingness? I'm not asking you to even believe creation! I'm asking you to open your eyes to something that is even more unbelievable than Evolution!

There are plenty of books on evolution.




The deception comes from the people going around still calling evolution a theory.

A little piece from the WIK

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact)
All I'm saying is if you really want to get technical about this... Neither Evolution OR Creation can be supported properly if you do your research... Carbon dating is not accurate and has many holes. And if people were truly scientific, they would acknowledge this...

Pardon me... <Correction> "More unbelievable than Creation", was what I meant to say.

So you are saying that you believe in a Big Bang that apparently happened billions of years ago and allowed everything to perfectly fall in place in complete harmony. Good and Evil exist by its own accord and when you die it is then nothingness? I'm not asking you to even believe creation! I'm asking you to open your eyes to something that is even more unbelievable than Evolution!
Correction<"More unbelievable than Creation", is what I meant to say">

There are plenty of books on evolution.




The deception comes from the people going around still calling evolution a theory.

A little piece from the WIK

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact)
And also, if Biologists jumped off a Bridge, would you jump too? Sorry to be blunt, but you have to test everything for yourself. That is my point. Just because he is a Biologist does not make him a "Self thinker". Media/Government rule a lot in our lives today. If we raise our kids to believe that everything is figured out for them, they will cease to think for themselves. Our society today is already proving that.

You cannot scientifically PROVE the Bible is factual. You cannot scientifically prove anything. The point of science is to DISprove, and make educated guesses based on what possiblities have been ruled out and what fits with measurable and recordable information.
Regardless of how many prophecies and "facts" can be found in the Bible, scientifically, these can still be regarded as circumstantial.
The Bible cannot be proved to be true. And isn't the whole point of faith that the proof is found in your heart? You cannot share that with anyone, so why try to prove it? Say what you believe to be true, and don't be too downhearted if you fail. People can believe what they like, you shouldn't feel personally responsible for their immortal souls.
In the words of Douglas Adams, God said "Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." Sure, Douglas Adams was very cynical about religion, but from the point of view of either a Christian or an atheist, that line has merit. Noone should try to prove the existance of God, and so far, no one has managed to rule out the possibility of His existance. So why try?

Kal
This is an oxymoron in itself, because Science today seems to be finding ways to back its beliefs on Evolution "Non-Scientifically". Just by teaching that Evolution is fact is going against every rule they stand for, if they're true intention is to "DISPROVE". The "big Bang Theory" CANNOT be "PROVEN" any more than Creation. If people actually think about this and open their eyes, they would acknowledge this. In my mind, it is a battle of faith EITHER WAY you look at it. Except my faith involves a Savior and a Hope for the future. And I agree with your concept of making people see things that can never be made to be seen. Some people choose to see what they want to.

So you are saying that you believe in a Big Bang that apparently happened billions of years ago and allowed everything to perfectly fall in place in complete harmony.

Complete harmony?

Are you kidding?

If things fell into complete harmony humans wouldn't have struggled for centuries just to live on this highly unstable planet. Floods, fires, earthquakes, blizzards, droughts, and active volcanos still make it hard today. Have humans adapted? Of course we have. It's been long and tough on us and even close to not being during the last mini ice age, when humans almost didn't make it. I just don't get how people have the audacity to claim perfectness when it's been nothing of the sort. I would love to see just how perfect you thought the earth was before we harnessed the power of fire and started cooking our food. That's the problem with people today, we don't ever think about how things were for early humans. We think because we have it easy today it was always that way.

And also, if Biologists jumped off of a Bridge, would you jump too? Sorry to be blunt, but you have to test everything for yourself. That is my point. Just because he is a Biologist does not make him a "Self thinker". Media/Government rule alot in our lives today. If we raise our kids to believe that everything is figured out for them, they will cease to think for themselves. Our society today is already proving that.

Ohhhhhhhhhh I see

We shouldn't take the word of professionals who are actually out there doing tests, searching for answers, and finding proof of what they say over someone toting around a book that was written by uneducated heathens thousands of years ago. I get it, forget using our brain, what the hell do we need that for? We just need to pick up the Bible or listen to our preachers.

I don't have to test anything. I have read both sides and have used my own brain to tell me what is believable and what is not. I know the Bible is not factual because it does not comply with history in so many parts of it. I just showed a few posts ago an example of this and it was completely ignored. So before you go and accuse me of not doing homework I suggest you go back to that post read it, and do some homework of your own.

So you are saying that you believe in a Big Bang that apparently happened billions of years ago and allowed everything to perfectly fall in place in complete harmony. Good and Evil exist by its own accord and when you die it is then nothingness? I'm not asking you to even believe creation! I'm asking you to open your eyes to something that is even more unbelievable than Evolution!

So you are saying you believe an invisible sky wizard pointed his finger and poof! The universe appeared, and he decided to not allow things to fall in place perfectly and in compete harmony for his own amusement? Good and evil are dictated by the sky wizard and the underground wizard (which the sky wizard allows to exist) and a book full of ambiguity that man edited? And when you die you go sit on a cloud or burn in a pit of fire? I'm not asking you to believe in evolution - I'm asking you look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, and to study and comprehend the scientific method before you go spouting off about deception.

If we raise our kids to believe that everything is figured out for them, they will cease to think for themselves.

We do agree on that!

Ohhhhhhhhhh I see

We shouldn't take the word of professionals who are actually out there doing tests, searching for answers, and finding proof of what they say over someone toting around a book that was written by uneducated heathens thousands of years ago. I get it, forget using our brain, what the hell do we need that for?? We just need to pick up the Bible or listen to our preachers.

I don't have to test anything. I have read both sides and have used my own brain to tell me what is believable and what is not. I know the Bible is not factual because it does not comply with history in so many parts of it. I just showed a few posts ago an example of this and it was completely ignored. So before you go and accuse me of not doing homework I suggest you go back to that post read it, and do some homework of your own.
This is your point of view and that is fine. No one is trying to make you see anything, but you sure seem to be trying to push yourself and you're views. And they say that Christians push their views. Quite the contradiction don't you think? Believe what you want, you're going to no matter any one says to you... you're missing the whole point of what I'm trying to say because you have told yourself to believe one thing. Try to calm down cowboy...

So you are saying you believe an invisible sky wizard pointed his finger and poof! the universe appeared, and he decided to not allow things to fall in place perfectly and in compete harmony for his own amusement? Good and evil are dictated by the sky wizard and the underground wizard (which the sky wizard allows to exist) and a book full of ambiguity that man edited? And when you die you go sit on a cloud or burn in a pit of fire? I'm not asking you to believe in evolution - I'm asking you look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, and to study and comprehend the scientific method before you go spouting off about deception.
Why is everyone getting so defensive? I'm simply stating it takes just as much faith OR more to believe in Evolution. Believe what you want! We're just discussing, which is what this is all about.

Why is everyone getting so defensive? I'm simply stating it takes just as much faith OR more to believe in Evolution. Believe what you want! We're just discussing, which is what this is all about.

I know they attack with terms like "sky wizzard" when they have no real defense. The issue is of course, I have always said I could not understand how anyone can beelive the fairly tale of some mysterious energy bolt hitting some pool of some substance and poof, there was life.
And that life had some product they could eat ( live on)
Then somehow that one little spark of life mutated and from that all sea life, all animal life and all trees, grass and flowers all came from that one living cell. To me you got to be smoking some pretty good stuff to even dream up that, and more to accept that as a possible idea.

I have enjoyed reading this thread since it started.

Normally, I keep to myself when it comes to this subject.

I have just one question and would be interested in everyone's opinion on it.

If we believe the Bible, our Earth would be about 6,000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.

How do you explain scientific evidence that our Earth is more like 4.5 Billion years old?

De Maria,, First of all, no one really knows who wrote the gosples so we don't know for sure they were written by eyewitnesses,

Yes, we do. We know that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Two of these people are Apostles of Jesus Christ who walked with him, St. Matthew and St. John.

St. Mark is a disciple of Jesus Christ who also doubled as St. Peter's secretary. In fact, the Gospel according to St. Mark could easily be called, the Gospel according to St. Peter as transcribed by St. Mark.

St. Luke is another disciple of Jesus Christ who walked with the Lord after His resurrection. His Gospel is a compilation of information which the good physician gathered from those who had walked with Jesus Christ from the beginning.

This information has been known for 2000 years. It is only recently that skeptics have begun to claim that the authors of the Gospels were not known.


and second there are well over 80 other gosples written that tells other stories from supposed eyewitnesses.

And those Gospels were rejected by people who were aware that they weren't written by anyone who walked with Christ.

The precise criterion used to reject those pseudo-gospels from the authentic gospels was whether they were written by known Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ. Since they could not be proved to be written by known acquaintances of Jesus Christ, they were rejected as worthy to be included in Scripture.


Are you kidding me?

No.


We have dug up Egyptian kings that at one time were thought of as just legend, but we have found no proof at all of a demi God who has once walked the earth.

You have not accepted the evidence which we have found. Besides the Gospels there is the existence of a Church which has stood for 2000 years teaching what Jesus Christ instructed. There is also the empty tomb, the Shroud of Turin, the headpiece which can all be traced to a person crucified exactly as depicted by the four Gospels. There are the writings of other historians, the writings in the pseudo-gospels and other apocrypha and many other sources of contemporaneous information.


Hell there is more written about Zeus than there is of Jesus, does that make it proof that Zeus was a real being?

No it doesn't. Precisely because Zeus' life can't be verified independently nor are there writing which can be verified to be written by his contemporaries nor by eyewitnesses. All evidence points to the fact that Zeus' life is a myth.


Exactly what is this evidence? Where is this evidence?

Eyewitness testimony is evidence acceptable in a court of law.
Eyewitness testimony which is verified by several witnesses is a very strong form of evidence.
Architectural evidence is very powerful evidence in that regard as well.
Testimony by other contemporaries which are not eyewitnesses but which are familiar with the history is also acceptable.


Again this is false. An example of not passing every test.

No it isn't. Your spin on history simply tries to get around the facts. But it is your spin on history which is wrong.


The NT claims that at the time Jesus was born,

Herod was king of Judea (Luke 1:5)
Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) and
Caesar Augustus ruled Rome (Luke 2:1)

Well,, there was never a time when these three spans overlapped.

Yes, there was. For one, we don't know the precise date of Jesus birth. Nor the precise date of King Herod's death. There is a four year span within which Jesus may have been born and a ten year span within which King Herod may have died.

A date of 8 B.C. for Herod's death gives us a date of 43 B.C. for the capture of Jerusalem by Herod. Again, this date makes sense in conjunction with the earlier date for the death of Julius Caesar in 49 B.C.
The Chronology of Herod the great's Reign (http://www.biblicalchronology.com/herod.htm)

1 B. C. Herod died
See table

"When he had done those things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven."

From the above chart and from this statement above by Josephus, it appears clear to me that Herod the Great died in 1 B. C.

The Date of Herod (http://home.comcast.net/~murrellg/Herod.htm)

Therefore determining the date of Herod's death is anything but an exact science. And since there is no definitive proof that St. Luke is wrong, then St. Luke's statement stands.


This is what is learned with history and what would be known by eawoodall if he really knew history as he claims to.

No. This is the spin you put on history because you wish to disprove something which you refuse to believe. At the very best, you can find no evidence outside of Scripture to disprove Scripture. Therefore you stretch the evidence to prove what you want to prove.


Something else that should be pointed out here is the decree of herod to have all males under 2 or at birth to be killed is a work of fiction as well. No where outside the NT is this story mentioned. Even Josephus Flavius, a renowned Jewish historian, who chronicled events during that very period in history, makes no mention of any such decree by Herod, much less any actual killings.

History records that Herod was hated during his reign, and many far less evil acts that Herod committed were carefully recorded in several historical sources. An act this evil and of this magnitude would never have been left out of any account in which Herod was involved.

If that wasn't convincing enough, According to Luke Herod was dead before Jesus was even born.

So during these "tests" how was this overlooked??

Nothing was overlooked. You have simply clung your hopes to speculative history which proves nothing. The evidence provided by Scripture stands since there is no evidence which disproves it.

Let me explain further. Your interpretation of history neglects the fact that there were many Herods. Not just one.

Herod was king of Judea (Luke 1:5)

Search wikipedia under the term "King Herod" brings up this information:

* Herod the Great (c. 74-4 BC), king of Judea who reconstructed the Second Temple in Jerusalem and was described in the Gospel of Matthew as ordering the "Massacre of the Innocents"
* Herod Archelaus (23 BC-c. AD 18), ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea
* Herod Antipas (20 BC-c. AD 40), tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, who was described in the New Testament as ordering John the Baptist's death and as mocking Jesus
* Herod Agrippa I (c. 10 BC-AD 44), king of Judea, called "Herod" in the Acts of the Apostles
* Herod Philip I, father of Salome
* Herod Philip II (4 BC-AD 34), tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis
* Herod of Chalcis, also known as Herod III, king of Chalcis (AD 41-48)
* Herod Agrippa II (AD 27-100), tetrarch of Chalcis who was described in Acts of the Apostles as "King Agrippa" before whom Paul of Tarsus defended himself
Herod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Herod)


Your interpretation of history also neglects the fact that the birth and death of all of those Herods is an estimate. There is no way to ascertain the exact date of birth or death of any of them

Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2) and

And you also neglect the fact that Quirinus was tetrarch twice:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

As for the killing of the innocents.

Macrobius

In the fourth century, the Roman philosopher Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius gave the following comment in his Saturnalia:

When Augustus heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the age of two years to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, "I'd rather be Herod's sow than Herod’s son." ― Macrobius, The Saturnalia, trans. Percival Davies (New York 1969), 171.

And Josephus gave the direct impression that Herod was certainly capable of such atrocities:

Josephus records several examples of Herod’s willingness to commit such acts to protect his power against perceived threats, but suggests that not all such acts were recorded, as he summarizes that Herod "never stopped avenging and punishing every day those who had chosen to be of the party of his enemies."[10] "Such a massacre," Francis Wright Beare observes, "is indeed quite in keeping with the character of Herod, who did not hesitate to put to death any who might be a threat to his power."[11]

Caesar Augustus ruled Rome (Luke 2:1)

As mentioned above, Macrobius acknowledged that Caesar Augustus himself was appalled at Herod killing his own sons with the innocents.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maira, I'm impressed by the amount of time and research that went into that post!

You must have been typing it while I was posting my question since I didn't get quoted?

Would you have an answer for me as well?

I have enjoyed reading this thread since it started.

Normally, I keep to myself when it comes to this subject.

I have just one question and would be interested in everyone's opinion on it.

If we believe the Bible, our Earth would be about 6,000 years old, give or take a few hundred years.

How do you explain scientific evidence that our Earth is more like 4.5 Billion years old?

It depends on how you read the Bible. If you prefer to read the Bible as saying the earth is 6000 years old, then you need to prove that statement.

However, as Catholics we don't believe that faith contradicts reason. We believe the Bible and authentic science (as opposed to speculative science) are true.
Evidence for Evolution and Old Earth, A Catholic Perspective (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p14.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maira, I'm impressed by the amount of time and research that went into that post!

You must have been typing it while I was posting my question since I didn't get quoted?

Would you have an answer for me as well?

I've been answering this type of question for about ten years. If I still had my old PC, which had all my information archived, I could have posted the information even more quickly.

However, I've lost several pc's to viruses since then. I no longer try to keep the info on my hard drive since I'm so often disappointed when they crash and burn.

Thanks for the input.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Yes, there are many issues to the age of the earth, first even if we follow creation, we have no idea of how many years Adam was in Eden, one year or 10 million years before the fall.

Also one has to look into if the bibical "day" was a day or a million years, since this was given to man by God himself God would not have been able to fully explain to man how it was all done.

I did not attack, nor did I get defensive. My first post was telling buzzman to look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, as they pertain to science. Buzzman is the one who dragged the big bang theory into the equation and attacked the belief in it. My post essentially repeated what he said from the other side of the argument, and reiterated what I originally instructed him to do (look up definitions).

So please, buzzman, don't patronize me with this "defensive" and "we're just discussing" stuff. Look up the definitions, read about the scientific method, and once you understand the difference between a scientific theory and a theory in common use, maybe we can discuss this intelligently. But if you will never bother to learn about the scientific method there is no way to discuss this with you, because you will always think it is "just a theory". Once you understand these things, you will be able to understand it does not take "faith" to believe in evolution.

And Chuck, just as you don't understand how someone can believe in the scenario you laid out, non-theists don't understand how you believe in the scenario I laid out. What's that? The scenario I laid out isn't detailed and doesn't depict all the subtleties of your faith? Golly... the scenario you laid out doesn't even come close to summing up evolution in a nut shell. Imagine that... Shall I re-phrase what you said from the other side of the argument and see if it makes sense then?

Arguing about the Bible makes as much sense as arguing whether water is wet. It is a no win situation... the believers will die trying to make anyone believe. It's been going on for thousands of years. If you take a news story and let a thousand people read it,, you will get one thousands translations of that story.

I thought all information that contradicted the bible was put on earth by Satan. Like dinosaur bones and stories that tell the mostly The same story as Jesus but have a different character name like Krishna, Moses, Romulus, King Arthur, Perseus, Watu Gunung of Java, Heracles, Mohammad, Beowulf, Buddha, Zeus, Nyikang, a cult-hero of the Shiluk tribe of the Upper Nile, Samson, Sunjata, the Lion-King of Ancient Mali, Achilles, Odysseus, and Harry Potter all work of the Devil. S

Complete harmony??

Are you kidding??

If things fell into complete harmony humans wouldn't have struggled for centuries just to live on this highly unstable planet. Floods, fires, earthquakes, blizzards, droughts, and active volcanos still make it hard today. Have humans adapted?? Of course we have. it's been long and tough on us and even close to not being during the last mini ice age, when humans almost didn't make it. I just don't get how people have the audacity to claim perfectness when it's been nothing of the sort. I would love to see just how perfect you thought the earth was before we harnessed the power of fire and started cooking our food. Thats the problem with people today, we don't ever think about how things were for early humans. We think because we have it easy today it was always that way.

These words are pretty big assumptions without knowing the type of person that I am. By the way that you wrote your words shows how narrow minded you are being by judging my personal character by one comment. Who do you think you are? All of this has been brought upon Man to himself my friend. Its Man's greed in the world that has caused the diseases of today, Greenhouse affect, plastics . Do you not think we can change the molecular structures that were put in place to be natural and clean, modify them (By Man) and accept the domino affect that it can cause damage to in an entire ecosystem? ON the contrary regarding how humans have adapted. It is my point exactly. Point be known, I read the other day that no one in the United states has died of natural causes since the late 1950s. What does that mean? Think about the largest money making companies in the world... Cigarette companies, Oil companies, and Pharmaceuticals. You don't think they manipulate our Governments to assure their stability whether people get hurt or sick? Don't kid yourself. Remember, safety books and Policies are normally written in Blood. If there were no consequences ($$Lawyers$$) then nothing would change. It's the $$ that motivate the changes, not the Companies hearts. You should know by now that justice is directly proportional to your pocket book... So to conclude, its not nature that is not perfect harmony. It is that Man has CREATED DISHARMONY. Consequences to actions my friend. We have created some of it for ourselves. Some of it we are casualties of war . In the end it all comes down to People as a common denominator.

I did not attack, nor did I get defensive. My first post was telling buzzman to look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, as they pertain to science. Buzzman is the one who dragged the big bang theory into the equation and attacked the belief in it. My post essentially repeated what he said from the other side of the argument, and reiterated what I originally instructed him to do (look up definitions).

So please, buzzman, don't patronize me with this "defensive" and "we're just discussing" stuff. Look up the definitions, read about the scientific method, and once you understand the difference between a scientific theory and a theory in common use, maybe we can discuss this intelligently. But if you will never bother to learn about the scientific method there is no way to discuss this with you, because you will always think it is "just a theory". Once you understand these things, you will be able to understand it does not take "faith" to believe in evolution.

And Chuck, just as you don't understand how someone can believe in the scenario you laid out, non-theists don't understand how you believe in the scenario I laid out. What's that? The scenario I laid out isn't detailed and doesn't depict all the subtleties of your faith? Golly.... the scenario you laid out doesn't even come close to summing up evolution in a nut shell. Imagine that.... Shall I re-phrase what you said from the other side of the argument and see if it makes sense then?
This is a useless discussion that has turned into a childish argument and I'll have no part in it. No one is attacking your view. You need to take a "chill pill".

Hmmmm.. no proof of evolution,, Tadpoles into Frogs,, Caterpillars into Moths,, hmmmmm

Arguing about the Bible makes as much sense as arguing whether or not water is wet. It is a no win situation....the believers will die trying to make anyone believe. It's been going on for thousands of years. If you take a news story and let a thousand people read it,,,you will get one thousands translations of that story.
So true!

Faith is a powerful motivator!

I have studied about this off and on my entire life, you can't help but be curious about how big the gap is between these two opinions, Evolution or Creation?

From what I have found, there are a substantial group of individuals that put the age of earth between 6331 to 6578 years old, and within this theory, creation taking place between
4323 and 4570 BC.

In this time line, which seems to be very well researched, I found some of the most hard to believe information such as:

Seth was born when his father Adam was 130 years old.
Enosh was born when Seth was 105 years old.
It gets a little closer to believable with Enosh a dad at 90, Kenan a dad at 70, Mahalalel
A dad at 65, but then, Jared a dad at 162, or Methuselah a dad at 187? Really?
But even better yet, that Noah was 600 years old when the flood started, and 601 years old when it landed.

These figures were backed up with specific scripture passages in the bible.

I know I won't change anyone's mind who believes in the Bible 100% but it really is hard to accept that men were having babies at 187 years old, or, that a guy could fill an ark and sail for almost a year, at 600 years old?

Hmmmm..no proof of evolution,,,,,,,Tadpoles into Frogs,,,,,Catepillars into Moths,,,,,hmmmmm
Now you're just making yourself look foolish... grow up...

EXcuse me,, they are examples of biological evolution,, Doubt it? Check your high school biology courses. THis thread has gotten so outragious,,

Hmmmm..no proof of evolution,,,,,,,Tadpoles into Frogs,,,,,Catepillars into Moths,,,,,hmmmmm


No that is not evolution, evolution tadpoles into trees, or perhaps that maple tree turning into a whale??

I thought all information that contradicted the bible was put on earth by Satan. Like dinosaur bones and stories that tell the mostly The same story as Jesus but have a different character name like Krishna, Moses, Romulus, King Arthur, Perseus, Watu Gunung of Java, Heracles, Mohammad, Beowulf, Buddha, Zeus, Nyikang, a cult-hero of the Shiluk tribe of the Upper Nile, Samson, Sunjata, the Lion-King of Ancient Mali, Achilles, Odysseus, and Harry Potter all work of the Devil. S

J. K. Rowling is Satan?? Do her editors know this? :eek:

Sheesh...

I did not attack, nor did I get defensive.

Actually Jillian, you do seem to get defensive. And your posts do sound like an attack on anyone who disagrees with your opinion. I've been at the receiving end of those attacks all too often.

You toned down your presentation a bit since PitbullRuby corrected you and others concerning your attitude that everyone must agree with you or they are trolls. But that didn't last very long. You soon returned to your old habits.

Lets go over your post in question:


So you are saying you believe an invisible sky wizard pointed his finger and poof!

Calling God an invisible sky wizard. You don't consider that demeaning and insulting to Christians and Jews? Sounds like an attack on all people who believe in God to me.


the universe appeared, and he decided to not allow things to fall in place perfectly and in compete harmony for his own amusement?

Insinuating that God is evil. Again, an attack on Christianity and Judaism.


Good and evil are dictated by the sky wizard and the underground wizard (which the sky wizard allows to exist) and a book full of ambiguity that man edited?

Assasinating the Bible. Again an attack on Christians and Jews.


And when you die you go sit on a cloud or burn in a pit of fire?

Making fun of our belief in heaven and hell. More insults.


I'm not asking you to believe in evolution

No, you're pretty much insulting everything we believe and calling yourself the victim after we object to your insults.

But what is your motivation for these insults. The only reason I can possibly see is because we don't agree with you. Because we believe in God and you don't, therefore you will insult everything we believe in an effort to coerce an agreement with you.


- I'm asking you look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, and to study and comprehend the scientific method before you go spouting off about deception.

No you're not. You're trying to bully us into accepting your beliefs carte blanche. Sorry Toots. It ain't going to happen.


My first post was telling buzzman to look up the definitions of theory, hypothesis and law, as they pertain to science.

You can only characterize your message that way if you skip you're entire diatribe about the invisible sky wizard.


Buzzman is the one who dragged the big bang theory into the equation and attacked the belief in it. My post essentially repeated what he said from the other side of the argument, and reiterated what I originally instructed him to do (look up definitions).

Well, I believe I've had this discussion with you and I looked up the definitions as they pertain to science and those definitions support Buzzman and my contention that even in the scientific definitions "theories" are not always equivalent to "facts".

Lets look at one explanation which seems to agree with you:

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

According to the National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.[1]
Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)

Note that this explanation never equates theory with fact even in scientific use. The closest it comes is to say:

It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

Now, what would happen if the theory no longer explained natural phenomenon? It would be discarded.

Now lets compare different scientific theories. The theory of gravity for instance, could, without my objecting be considered factual. I believe it very well explains and predicts natural phenomenon concerned with the attraction of bodies in space. We can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that things fall when dropped from a height. That is absolute truth.

However, the theory of evolution, although it explains many archaeological discoveries, must in the end be reduced to speculative science. There is no way to prove that dinosaurs came from bugs nor that whales came from dog like creatures. That is simply speculation. And until some sort of absolute proof can be obtained, it remains speculation.


So please, buzzman, don't patronize me with this "defensive" and "we're just discussing" stuff. Look up the definitions, read about the scientific method, and once you understand the difference between a scientific theory and a theory in common use, maybe we can discuss this intelligently. But if you will never bother to learn about the scientific method there is no way to discuss this with you, because you will always think it is "just a theory". Once you understand these things, you will be able to understand it does not take "faith" to believe in evolution.



It seems to me you need to study the difference between the idea that theory and fact do not stand necessarily in opposition and the statement that theory is absolute fact every time.


And Chuck, just as you don't understand how someone can believe in the scenario you laid out, non-theists don't understand how you believe in the scenario I laid out. What's that? The scenario I laid out isn't detailed and doesn't depict all the subtleties of your faith? Golly... the scenario you laid out doesn't even come close to summing up evolution in a nut shell. Imagine that... Shall I re-phrase what you said from the other side of the argument and see if it makes sense then?

Problem is Jillian that you frequently jump to false conclusions. And when anyone disagrees with your false conclusions, you become defensive. Actually, even when you come up with healthy conclusions, if anyone disagrees, you become defensive and then offensive in that order. But no matter how many times you insinuate illogical ideas such as the one that in science theory is equivalent to fact, that doesn't make them true.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hmmmm..no proof of evolution,,,,,,,Tadpoles into Frogs,,,,,Catepillars into Moths,,,,,hmmmmm

Fetuses into humans...

Fetuses into humans...................

Steel into autos, oil into gas, money into taxes

no that is not evolution, evolution tadpoles into trees, or perhaps that maple tree turning into a whale ???

That's a little far fetched, even for you. But what about salt water amphibians, into fresh water ones, in say a few million years.

steel into autos, oil into gas, money into taxesNope, those are man made. Nice try.

This is a useless discussion that has turned into a childish arguement and I'll have no part in it. No one is attacking your view. You need to take a "chill pill".

I'm sorry you think we're arguing, and I don't think you, or anyone else is attacking my view. I'm trying to encourage you to educate yourself about the scientific method so you will understand why evolution isn't "just a theory". If you have no interest in doing that, this conversation can't go anywhere, because it hinges on it. I've also turned your statements around on you so you can get some perspective from the other side and see that each argument you make can essentially be made in the same way from the other side, so that means (neither) argument "proves" anything.

But that's fine, conversation over, I have no problem with that.

I'm sorry you think we're arguing, and I don't think you, or anyone else is attacking my view. I'm trying to encourage you to educate yourself about the scientific method so you will understand why evolution isn't "just a theory". If you have no interest in doing that, this conversation can't go anywhere, because it hinges on it. I've also turned your statements around on you so you can get some perspective from the other side and see that each argument you make can essentially be made in the same way from the other side, so that means (neither) argument "proves" anything.

But that's fine, conversation over, I have no problem with that.

You are corect evolution is too far fetched to be a good theory, it is more of a fable or idea. But science has accepted it as a unproven theory.

you are corect evolution is too far fetched to be a good theory, it is more of a fable or idea. But science has accepted it as a unproven theory.
Sorry to disagree.

I find evolution much easier to believe than these statements:

Adam was 130 when Seth was born.

Methuselah was 187 when Lamech was born.

And, a 600 year old man was able to gather 2 of every species of animal, load them all onto an ark, and sail around for almost a year, and then run aground safely.

Side by side, evolution wins in my opinion.

you are corect evolution is too far fetched to be a good theory, it is more of a fable or idea. But science has accepted it as a unproven theory.

Um... where did I say evolution is too far fetched to be a good theory?

I said the arguments being presented (in this thread) aren't going to "prove" anything, but that's not the same as saying evolution is an unproven theory, or that it's a fable or idea.

Here's the thing (in a nut shell, and rather off topic, sorry); there is evidence for evolution. We have fossil records, we have observed evolution in nature (what many refer to as "micro evolution"), but it is true, we have not observed ape-creature turning into human. That part of the fossil record is still missing, but here's the thing, fossils aren't easy to come by, and they aren't made every time something dies. Just because we don't have that specific fossil, doesn't mean the whole theory is bunk. It's sort of like context clues when reading; you look at what you are given, and figure out what it all means. Now, for some people, they require more evidence than what we have - that's fine. If you won't believe in evolution until every last part of the chain is found, I'm OK with that. Some require that sort of proof, some require less. But just because some people require that as proof, doesn't mean it isn't a good theory, or that it's far fetched. Remember, there are a lot of people (I'm one of them) who won't believe in god unless he literally appears before me and says, "Believe, dang it!". That is the proof some require of god, and some require less.

And you could say all the same things about your point of view, and your reason for believing in god; you have evidence, you have observations, etc. That might equate proof to you, but not to someone else. Same thing on both sides.

And please also remember your ideas of biblical literalness, the creation of the universe, life after death, etc. sound just as far fetched to me as my ideas of the big bang theory, evolution, and nothingness sound to you. Our ideas are far fetched to one another, but the great thing is, we don't have to agree, we just have to respect the other's rights to believe what they want.

you are corect evolution is too far fetched to be a good theory, it is more of a fable or idea. But science has accepted it as a unproven theory.

I love it when two sides of an argument mirror each other... couldn't that just as easily read: "You are correct, the bible is too far fetched to be a good theory. It is more of a fable or idea. But (religion) has accepted it as....fact???"

I tend to agree with some of the earlier posts in this thread. While some events described in the bible can be accounted for by archeological findings and cross references. The way the words were strung together and the message conveyed is completely dependent on the creativity of man and therefore subject to man's fallacy and tendency toward hubris. (How vain to claim that we as mankind are in God's image, talk about a superiority complex!) Fictional stories throughout time have made reference to actual historical events and people to create the idea of realism, to allow the reader to connect. I see the bible in that same aspect, as allegory.

And on the philo-funk-o-sophical side... if the more far fetched events in the bible happened and happened so frequently (when all these folks were supposed to have witnessed all of this) and God made his presence so obvious... why did it stop? You don't see those types of miracles going on today. Why not? (We could really use an abundance of fish and loaves in Darfur right now, we could use it in every town, in every nation :( ). Why all the mystery? Why not send a Bible 2.0 - The Later Years?

Some guy says he's hearing the voice of God now-a-days and he gets pumped full of drugs and put in a padded room or opens up a commune where you should really avoid the Kool-aid.

Why would God, if he is so important to us, let us "forget" him?. not call us once in a while?. take us bowling?. come over for Chinese? Is there a "No Contact" rule that God is imposing on us less-faithful, non-believers for some reason? What made us "break up" with God or vice versa, God break up with us? The "faithful" will no doubt say that He's there, you're just too blind to see... but if "He" is all that is proclaimed, again, why the mystery? Why the test of faith? Do you make your children prove that they love you before you bring them home from the hospital? If the leader of a group or organization turns his/her back on the group/organization/country, no longer hears it's concerns, no longer nurtures the overall good and provides for its well-being... the group eventually turns on that leader or otherwise regroups under alternate "management." Why are so many so surprised when that same concept would also apply so something like religion? When we can't get answers from God, but we can get answers through scientific discoveries, are you surprised when people lean toward the tangible?

Is there a "No Contact" rule

Ok, that actually made me laugh out loud! Thanks! :D

I'm sorry you think we're arguing, and I don't think you, or anyone else is attacking my view. I'm trying to encourage you to educate yourself about the scientific method so you will understand why evolution isn't "just a theory". If you have no interest in doing that, this conversation can't go anywhere, because it hinges on it. I've also turned your statements around on you so you can get some perspective from the other side and see that each argument you make can essentially be made in the same way from the other side, so that means (neither) argument "proves" anything.

But that's fine, conversation over, I have no problem with that.
You are nothing but a control freak... it is quite obvious. You're words mean nothing to me.

Um... where did I say evolution is too far fetched to be a good theory?

I said the arguments being presented (in this thread) aren't going to "prove" anything, but that's not the same as saying evolution is an unproven theory, or that it's a fable or idea.

Here's the thing (in a nut shell, and rather off topic, sorry); there is evidence for evolution. We have fossil records, we have observed evolution in nature (what many refer to as "micro evolution"), but it is true, we have not observed ape-creature turning into human. That part of the fossil record is still missing, but here's the thing, fossils aren't easy to come by, and they aren't made every time something dies. Just because we don't have that specific fossil, doesn't mean the whole theory is bunk. It's sort of like context clues when reading; you look at what you are given, and figure out what it all means.

In other words, its speculation.


Now, for some people, they require more evidence than what we have - that's fine. If you won't believe in evolution until every last part of the chain is found, I'm OK with that.

In other words, it is only a theory without all the facts. Otherwise, if it were a fact, it would be impossible for anyone to argue against it.

For instance, gravity is a fact. What goes up must come down.

But evolution is not a fact. There could be many reasons that mouse has teeth like an elephant. None of them make it necessary that the mouse evolved into an elephant.


Some require that sort of proof, some require less. But just because some people require that as proof, doesn't mean it isn't a good theory, or that it's far fetched.

You have again proved its only a theory, because the opposite is also true. In other words, it doesn't mean that it is a good theory or that it isn't far fetched either.


Remember, there are a lot of people (I'm one of them) who won't believe in god unless he literally appears before me and says, "Believe, dang it!". That is the proof some require of god, and some require less.

There you go. Actual, true and beautiful logic. You require extraordinary proof in order to believe in that which you don't see. Well, you are correct, we require at least ordinary proof before we submit to the idea that that your theory is a fact.


And you could say all the same things about your point of view, and your reason for believing in god; you have evidence, you have observations, etc. That might equate proof to you, but not to someone else. Same thing on both sides.

She can be taught!! ;)


And please also remember your ideas of biblical literalness, the creation of the universe, life after death, etc. sound just as far fetched to me as my ideas of the big bang theory, evolution, and nothingness sound to you. Our ideas are far fetched to one another, but the great thing is, we don't have to agree, we just have to respect the other's rights to believe what they want.

And that is what we have been trying to say all along.

Thanks for finally producing a polite message.

Sincerely,

De Maria

This is an oxymoron in itself, because Science today seems to be finding ways to back its beliefs on Evolution "Non-Scientifically". Just by teaching that Evolution is fact is going against every rule they stand for, if they're true intention is to "DISPROVE". The "big Bang Theory" CANNOT be "PROVEN" any more than Creation. If people actually think about this and open their eyes, they would acknowledge this. In my mind, it is a battle of faith EITHER WAY you look at it. Except my faith involves a Savior and a Hope for the future. And I agree with your concept of making people see things that can never be made to be seen. Some people choose to see what they want to.
This is why it's called the Big Bang "Theory". It's taught in school's as a theory, based on no more likely scenarios being discovered so far. It's still not acceptable in most places to teach this as more than a theory. No one can be certain where the universe came from.

Btw, I don't see the problem in believeing in both God and evolution. Seriously, what's so bad about believeing that God made his creatures able to adapt over time? And you don't need to read about evolution to know that it happens. Selective breeding happens all around you, you can see it on a day to day basis! Life forms change over time, there are natural mutations that become part of the mainstream if they're able to be successful enough to reproduce. You don't need to be a scientist to see that!

Hmmmm..no proof of evolution,,,,,,,Tadpoles into Frogs,,,,,Catepillars into Moths,,,,,hmmmmm

Ok... I think you've missed the point. A tadpole does EVOLVE when it turns into a frog. Evolution is about change over generations. Becoming a frog or a butterly is just growing up.
Evolution is when you breed creatures with unusual traits together and it gets passed on to their children. If the traits and other changes continue on, they eentually become a separate species.
It happens. A good example is the peppered moth from England. Before the industrial revolution, these moths were mostly white. When the factories came in, there was so much pollution going into the air that the white moths stood out, and thus got eatern. As a result, only the darker coloured moths could survive, so over a few generations (only moth generations, so a couple of years) the majority of the species became black. Selective breeding. It's easy to observe. It's everywhere. You cannot deny that it happens.
And what about people who are born with missing chromosomes? Too many fingers? Why can 2 brown-eyed parents have a blue-eyed baby? It's because of traits that are passed on through generations. It's because every living thing is capable of change.

It's because every living thing is capable of change.
Now that's the best statement of this whole thread. Men may lie, and exaggerate, but nature is the best proof of life adopting to its environment. That includes man. Change over time... evolution.

You are nothing but a control freak...it is quite obvious. You're words mean nothing to me.

Feel free to add me to your "ignore" list if my words are so meaningless. In fact, feel encouraged! :)

De Maria,,

I loved reading your response to my post, you will keep me on my toes for sure. I have a lot of respect for you because of the time you have spent on it and quite frankly it was the type of post I was expecting from Chuck.

HOWEVER

I still have a lot of problems, and I will try to address all of them if I have the time, your post was quite long. I guess I will start at the beginning and work my way down.


Yes, we do. We know that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Two of these people are Apostles of Jesus Christ who walked with him, St. Matthew and St. John.

St. Mark is a disciple of Jesus Christ who also doubled as St. Peter's secretary. In fact, the Gospel according to St. Mark could easily be called, the Gospel according to St. Peter as transcribed by St. Mark.

St. Luke is another disciple of Jesus Christ who walked with the Lord after His resurrection. His Gospel is a compilation of information which the good physician gathered from those who had walked with Jesus Christ from the beginning.


This is just hearsay, there really is no proof of it, or that the stories are true.


This information has been known for 2000 years. It is only recently that skeptics have begun to claim that the authors of the Gospels were not known.


It's not a recent thing, people has been questioning the validity of the story and it's writers since the beginning. That's why people like Justin Martyr had to defend the story. Lets not forget, the Jews have never accepted the story and have been skeptics from day one. Throughout the years there have always been skeptics. Have you ever read the works of Thomas Paine? I wouldn't consider that very recent either.


And those Gospels were rejected by people who were aware that they weren't written by anyone who walked with Christ.

The precise criterion used to reject those pseudo-gospels from the authentic gospels was whether they were written by known Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ. Since they could not be proved to be written by known acquaintances of Jesus Christ, they were rejected as worthy to be included in Scripture.


By the time people started putting these books together there was no way of knowing who actually "walked or talked" with Jesus.

A christian teacher named Tatian produced a harmony of the four gospels to avoid difficulties and iron out the differences between he and Marcion(you have heard of him right? ) His harmony was called the 'Diatessaron' which means 'through the four (and into the one gospel)'.

Later on the early church was forced to say why it wanted only four gospels? Irenaeus the great Christian Bishop of Lyon in 180AD answered saying this, "the earth has four corners, there are four living creatures, there are four winds and there are four covenants. So there should be four gospels to match".

That's pretty much why and how the four gospels were chosen from the many others. At one time though all of the gospels were believed and used by different sects.


Besides the Gospels there is the existence of a Church which has stood for 2000 years teaching what Jesus Christ instructed.

Many religions claim the same thing.


There is also the empty tomb

Have you seen it? Again that's just hearsay. I believe if you were to take a tour of the erea they would show you three different places of the supposed spot. The same thing for his birth. Proof of an empty tomb is not given in the form of words written or told.


the Shroud of Turin, the headpiece which can all be traced to a person crucified exactly as depicted by the four Gospels.

This has already been exposed as a fake, they found traces of paint on it for crying out loud. After reading this whole post I found it really hard to believe that you would have brought up the Shroud. Don't worry though, none of us are perfect... lol


There are the writings of other historians

No there's not. Most things brough up by other historians only mention the word christian, which only proves christians walked the Earth, not it's founder(if you are to believe it was Jesus who founded christianity, some believe it was Paul)


No it doesn't. Precisely because Zeus' life can't be verified independently nor are there writing which can be verified to be written by his contemporaries nor by eyewitnesses. All evidence points to the fact that Zeus' life is a myth

I'm sorry to say, but the same applys to the Jesus story. All evidence points to myth. As in every God and Demi God.


Eyewitness testimony is evidence acceptable in a court of law.


But is thrown out if the witnesses don't tell the same story, which is the case in the gospels. They can't agree on things from JCs last words to how many people went to the empty tomb. This would not be a good case in court at all.


Architectural evidence is very powerful evidence in that regard as well.


There is none that support the Jesus story. Yes it would be powerful if they came up with some. For instance if they found Roman records of the crucifixion. Romans kept detailed records of these things. I'm sure if it took place these records would be dug up. Until then, there is no proof.


Your interpretation of history also neglects the fact that the birth and death of all of those Herods is an estimate. There is no way to ascertain the exact date of birth or death of any of them


Including Jesus,

I agree fully, however one would expect more from eye witnesses. One would expect from a person who actually walked and talked with JC to have a better record of the accounts. Maybe the subject never came up? I can buy that I guess. Of course I have revealed my birth date on many occasions for different reasons, some of them just BSing with coworkers. So I do find it hard to believe that we don't have a birth date given to us from the people who actually walked and talked with him. I'm sure if the gospels were written by eyewitnesses they would have known just what Herod they were talking about and given the full name. I don't buy into the fact that there were many so it could have been any of them. I knew of the other Herods, I just feel someone should have gotten the names right if the story was valid.


And you also neglect the fact that Quirinus was tetrarch twice:


This has been in debate for a long time, it's not fact either way really. The only reason why it's such a huge debate is because Josephus says one thing and Luke says another. This debate will never end, because some will believe the Bible and some will believe a historian. So here we are, as one of each... lol


When Augustus heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the age of two years to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, "I'd rather be Herod's sow than Herod's son." ― Macrobius, The Saturnalia, trans. Percival Davies (New York 1969), 171.


Augustus said this when he heard Herod killed his sons Aristobulus and Antipater, who were adults at the time and who's death had nothing to do with the hunt and destruction of babies who might be considered a future king of the Jews. It is in fact an interesting story though, and one I would recommend people to read. It's actually a common story among royal families back in the day.


And Josephus gave the direct impression that Herod was certainly capable of such atrocities:


That's my point,, if it had happened, something of this magnitude would have been recorded. Were talking about a massacre of many children. This would be big news then as it would be today. Something like that would not go unmentioned today. It wouldn't have back then either, especially from a guy everyone hated.

I hope I addressed everything, and am looking forward to the response.

These words are pretty big assumptions without knowing the type of person that I am. By the way that you wrote your words shows how narrow minded you are being by judging my personal character by one comment. Who do you think you are? All of this has been brought upon Man to himself my friend.

Dude really,

I would love to take the credit for natural disasters,, lol,, but that would make me God... lol

Man has nothing to do with natural disasters, they have been around long before man became industrialized. I have not judged your personal character at all, especially from one little quote, for I have ready many of yours. Diseases have been around for ever as well. The frkn Sun is dangerous to us if we spend enough time sitting under it. So don't tell me we brought this on ourselves.


Point be known, I read the other day that no one in the United states has died of natural causes since the late 1950s

:eek: :eek:

I would really love to see this article, because I could swear I hear of people dying of natural causes all the time.


Think about the largest money making companies in the world... Cigarette companies, Oil companies, and Pharmaceuticals. You don't think they manipulate our Governments to assure their stability whether people get hurt or sick? Don't kid yourself. Remember, safety books and Policies are normally written in Blood. If there were no consequences ($$Lawyers$$) then nothing would change. It's the $$ that motivate the changes, not the Companies hearts. You should know by now that justice is directly proportional to your pocket book... So to conclude, its not nature that is not perfect harmony. It is that Man has CREATED DISHARMONY. Consequences to actions my friend. We have created some of it for ourselves. Some of it we are casualties of war . In the end it all comes down to People as a common denominator.


I don't mean to be rude man, but you really don't make much sense. Judging from your posts one would think no one started dying until man became industrialized. This just isn't the case. The Earth was unstable long before man could even talk, let alone become advanced enough to start putting holes in the O Zone. Please don't take this the wrong way man. I don't mean anything by it, I just don't understand how you think Man today is responsible for the troubles early humans had with earthquakes, volcanos, floods, etc etc. I do think we take for granted how easy we have it today, I don't mean that as an attack on you, I include myself. It's hard to imagine how hard it was for early humans because of how easy we have it today.

One thing we do know about ancient man was his knowledge was limited, and his view of his world, and environment, was harsh, and unrelenting. Tribe warred with tribes, and the winner called the shots. Religion, and what you were allowed to do, rested with whoever's army was in charge, so the potential for pure thinking, and seeking knowledge, and truth, was severely hampered, by whomever was in control. What's interesting, is the bible is about a specific time, in mans history, and a specific region, but doesn't account at all, for the bigger world, or civilizations, of other parts of the Earth, and we do have proof that man was all over the planet, and not just in the middle east. So to make one region superior, as the be all of all human truth, is ridiculous. Man is more than his middle eastern roots. Why do we ignore the rest of our heritage?

Feel free to add me to your "ignore" list if my words are so meaningless. In fact, feel encouraged! :)
Lol good one:D