Biblical Archaeology; the most stunning proof of God.

[Dan4reason]

The arguement is sound and satisfys me.

Peace.

Actually I showed that your argument was fallacious. You may be satisfied to believe something without a shred of evidence but no one else in the world will believe you. If you want to convince people and hold your own in a debate you will need evidence. Until then you are simply declaring your opinions.

 

[mickiel]

Actually I showed that your argument was fallacious. You may be satisfied to believe something without a shred of evidence but no one else in the world will believe you. If you want to convince people and hold your own in a debate you will need evidence. Until then you are simply declaring your opinions.

You have showed nothing to me. I hold no intrest in convincing anyone of anything, I couldcareless what others believe.

Peace.

 

[dogsgod]

You have showed nothing to me. I hold no intrest in convincing anyone of anything, I couldcareless what others believe.

Peace.

That's where we differ, I couldn't care less what others believe.

 

[mickiel]

That's where we differ, I couldn't care less what others believe.

Well I feel that people are free to believe as they wish, having nothing to do with me and my concerns.

Because their concerns have nothing to do with how I believe, and never will.

Peace.

 

[Dan4reason]

You have showed nothing to me. I hold no intrest in convincing anyone of anything, I couldcareless what others believe.

Peace.

You are right. I did show you nothing. That is because you refused to see what I tried to showed you. Here is my refutation of your claims again.

Your post is not convincing at all because just because the bible can get some of its historical statements right does not mean that all its mythological statements is right. This argument is obviously ridiculous.

If you could care less what others believe then why are you going to all this effort to convince them? You yourself seem to be learning very little of what others think because you ignore their arguments. Isn't this whole thread a waste of your time?

 

[mickiel]

If you could care less what others believe then why are you going to all this effort to convince them? You yourself seem to be learning very little of what others think because you ignore their arguments. Isn't this whole thread a waste of your time?

If its a waste of time, explain to me why you are reading it. I am not trying to convince and say that constantly, I am expressing my views.

Nothing more.

Peace.

 

[Dan4reason]

If its a waste of time, explain to me why you are reading it. I am not trying to convince and say that constantly, I am expressing my views.

Nothing more.

Peace.

This discussion is valuable to be because I am trying to see if I can reason with someone who does not want to reason. Maybe I will learn something from this discussion. As you said, you are not trying to convince and that is why you are nearly impossible to reason with.

If all I wanted was to express my view and let it all out I would certainly not do it in a debate forum that is dominated by atheists and agnostics such as myself who will constantly rip apart every ideological claim you make. The fact that you have been unable to make a connection between biblical archaology and the existence of God makes your argument even easier to refute.

If you simply want to express your opinion I suggest that you do it around people who hold the same ideology you do. That way there will be no one to show that you are wrong and you will walk away feeling good about your opinions.

 

[mickiel]

This discussion is valuable to be because I am trying to see if I can reason with someone who does not want to reason. Maybe I will learn something from this discussion. As you said, you are not trying to convince and that is why you are nearly impossible to reason with.

If all I wanted was to express my view and let it all out I would certainly not do it in a debate forum that is dominated by atheists and agnostics such as myself who will constantly rip apart every ideological claim you make. The fact that you have been unable to make a connection between biblical archaology and the existence of God makes your argument even easier to refute.

If you simply want to express your opinion I suggest that you do it around people who hold the same ideology you do. That way there will be no one to show that you are wrong and you will walk away feeling good about your opinions.

It is your view that I have been unable to make a connection, in my view the connections I have made and will make are perfect. And The amount of people who read my views is satisfying to me.

As far as Atheist and Agnostics ripping at me, thats goose and gander, I know what I write rips back in its own way.

Peace.

 

[Dan4reason]

It is your view that I have been unable to make a connection, in my view the connections I have made and will make are perfect. And The amount of people who read my views is satisfying to me.

As far as Atheist and Agnostics ripping at me, thats goose and gander, I know what I write rips back in its own way.

Peace.

In your view your opinions are true and assuming that you are perfect and infallible then they must necessarily be true. The facts tell another story. The facts say that you have yet to prove anything so the validity of your claims is still dubious.

Take a look at this discussion. Here is post by Agnostic75.

Yes, King Nebuchadnezzar probably existed, but you are attempting to establish an invalid correlation, meaning that you are claiming that the probable existence of King Nebuchadnezzar reasonably proves that the God of the Bible exists. Such a correlation is not logical. Even some conservative Christian college professors will tell you that. As I said, "As any rational person knows, historically, it has been quite common for people to frequently write about real people and places that are a part of their lives, and to mix religious myths with secular facts."

Surely you must know that some other religious books contain some accurate secular history, and that Christians are not the only religious people who have visions that they believe are true. For all we know, all of the story of Noah and the flood was recorded centuries after the supposed facts by a writer who had visions about Noah and the flood, and wrote about his visions.

If a God exists, and wanted people to believe that he exists, he would not have any trouble at all convincing far more people to believe that he exists.

If a God inspired the Bible, how much of it did he inspire, and who correctly interprets it?

This is a pretty strong attack on your position. Lets see your response.

He inspired all of it except what was changed by translators. Those who correctly interpit it, are those who the God has himself inspired to interpit it.

Peace.

You do not even respond to the bulk of Agnotic's argument and the response you do make proves nothing and is just opinion. You have not "ripped back" in any way at all except with factless opinion.

However, you claim to make a connection between biblical archaology and the existence of God? Can you tell it to me?

 

[mickiel]

However, you claim to make a connection between biblical archaology and the existence of God? Can you tell it to me?

Just keep reading, and thank you for your obvious intrest. It may intrest you that Archaeologist have found the ruins at " Samaria", a city mentioned in Ezek. 6:1 and that they found the " Moabite Stone", mentioned in the book of Kings. I can tell you these things, but I hold no intrest in swaying your mind one way or another.

Peace.

 

[Dan4reason]

Just keep reading, and thank you for your obvious intrest. It may intrest you that Archaeologist have found the ruins at " Samaria", a city mentioned in Ezek. 6:1 and that they found the " Moabite Stone", mentioned in the book of Kings. I can tell you these things, but I hold no intrest in swaying your mind one way or another.

Peace.

What does the bible say about Samaria? What evidence do we have that Samaria existed? What does the bible say about the Moabite stone? What evidence do we have that this stone actually exists? How does this all prove God?

Thanks for the information. It is very interesting.

 

[mickiel]

What does the bible say about Samaria? What evidence do we have that Samaria existed? What does the bible say about the Moabite stone? What evidence do we have that this stone actually exists? How does this all prove God?

Thanks for the information. It is very interesting.

Samaria was located on the top of a mountian, complettely encircled by a valley. Beyond lay mountian ranges which surrounded the valley. This strategic location on a hilltop enabled a lone watchman to see the approach of an enemy from any point. Ezekiel used this to illustrate our need to stand as watchmen against the enemy of our souls in 3:17-21. Because of this natural fortification which surrounded Samaria, Israel trusted in the mountians more than God, Ezk. 6:1. These are biblical lessons which perfectly match the landscape of the earth. Samaria is spoken of in 2Kings 17:1-24; 18:11-12.

The Moabite stone is mentioned in 2Kings 3:4-5. Not the stone itself, but the events recorded on the stone match perfectly with what the bible records, because back then they wrote on stone tablets.

Both of these finds can be accesed on the internet. It proves God because the bible proves these events were real, and the events, people, places and things then prove God is real.

Peace.

 

[TEXASBULL]

Find it yourself, I found it.

Peace.

Why did this thread go on after this statement?

 

[Dan4reason]

Samaria was located on the top of a mountian, complettely encircled by a valley. Beyond lay mountian ranges which surrounded the valley. This strategic location on a hilltop enabled a lone watchman to see the approach of an enemy from any point. Ezekiel used this to illustrate our need to stand as watchmen against the enemy of our souls in 3:17-21. Because of this natural fortification which surrounded Samaria, Israel trusted in the mountians more than God, Ezk. 6:1. These are biblical lessons which perfectly match the landscape of the earth. Samaria is spoken of in 2Kings 17:1-24; 18:11-12.

The Moabite stone is mentioned in 2Kings 3:4-5. Not the stone itself, but the events recorded on the stone match perfectly with what the bible records, because back then they wrote on stone tablets.

Both of these finds can be accesed on the internet. It proves God because the bible proves these events were real, and the events, people, places and things then prove God is real.

Peace.

I hope that you understand that it is impolite for you to expect me to run around the internet looking for your evidence when these are your claims and you could easily post a link. The verses you talk about do not talk about any stone and there is no evidence that they did. Does the bible even talk about the Moabite stone?

I did find that Samaria actually existed but nothing was found about its landscape. The Moabite stone actually exists so you are right there. I do not see what any of this has to do with the existence of God.

 

[mickiel]

I hope that you understand that it is impolite for you to expect me to run around the internet looking for your evidence when these are your claims and you could easily post a link. The verses you talk about do not talk about any stone and there is no evidence that they did. Does the bible even talk about the Moabite stone?

I did find that Samaria actually existed but nothing was found about its landscape. The Moabite stone actually exists so you are right there. I do not see what any of this has to do with the existence of God.

I hold no intrest in posting links, I am not trying to convince, but everything I post can simply be acessed on the internet. Its there for those interested. IF I was trying to convince, I would simply post all my material and links, but again and again, I hold no intrest in convincing others.

I understand that you cannot understand what this has to do with the existence of God, so it is with YOUR comprehension. Mine is different. If the bible speaks of a God, speaks of other things, persons and places, then conversely if those things can be proven, then so can God.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

Why did this thread go on after this statement?

Your avitar says your christian and searching, whats wrong with telling someone to search for themselves?

Peace.

 

[Dan4reason]

Samaria was located on the top of a mountian, complettely encircled by a valley. Beyond lay mountian ranges which surrounded the valley. This strategic location on a hilltop enabled a lone watchman to see the approach of an enemy from any point. Ezekiel used this to illustrate our need to stand as watchmen against the enemy of our souls in 3:17-21. Because of this natural fortification which surrounded Samaria, Israel trusted in the mountians more than God, Ezk. 6:1. These are biblical lessons which perfectly match the landscape of the earth. Samaria is spoken of in 2Kings 17:1-24; 18:11-12.

The Moabite stone is mentioned in 2Kings 3:4-5. Not the stone itself, but the events recorded on the stone match perfectly with what the bible records, because back then they wrote on stone tablets.

Both of these finds can be accesed on the internet. It proves God because the bible proves these events were real, and the events, people, places and things then prove God is real.

Peace.

You are saying that because one part of a book is true all of it is true. This is against reason itself and is a fallacy. For example, just because the Koran contains correct claims does not mean the whole thing is true. The bible did not prove these things you speak of to be real, archaologists did. They have not validated that God exists so there is no evidence of him from this quarter.

 

[mickiel]

You are saying that because one part of a book is true all of it is true. This is against reason itself and is a fallacy. For example, just because the Koran contains correct claims does not mean the whole thing is true. The bible did not prove these things you speak of to be real, archaologists did. They have not validated that God exists so there is no evidence of him from this quarter.

I have never stated in my life that because one part of a book is true, then all of it is true, including the bible. I have NEVER stated that, and never will because I do not believe that, the bible has errors in it.

And in my view, again MY view, biblical archaeology is proof of God.

Its all academic to me.

Peace.

 

[Dan4reason]

I have never stated in my life that because one part of a book is true, then all of it is true, including the bible. I have NEVER stated that, and never will because I do not believe that, the bible has errors in it.

And in my view, again MY view, biblical archaeology is proof of God.

Its all academic to me.

Peace.

Apparently you are not saying that, so I am sorry for mischaracterizing your post.

How am I supposed to interpret this statement then?

If the bible speaks of a God, speaks of other things, persons and places, then conversely if those things can be proven, then so can God.

 

[mickiel]

Apparently you are not saying that, so I am sorry for mischaracterizing your post.

How am I supposed to interpret this statement then?

If the bible speaks of a God, speaks of other things, persons and places, then conversely if those things can be proven, then so can God.

You just do your best to understand people, thats what I do. What we can't get to, we just cannot.

I look at it like this; We have Jesus tomb the tomb of Joseph, one of a possible two. We have the place he was baptised in, the river Jordan. We have the city this occured in - Jerusalem, we have the actual place and location he was killed in - the place of the skull, we have parts of the spot he stood in before Pilate--The Via Dolorosa, we have the actual gate he was marched through to his death-- The Damascus Gate, we have the actual bones of the high priest who judged him- Caiaphas, We have the house of Martha and Mary his friends he visted, we have the house of Peter his Apostle, we have the garden he prayed in and was betrayed in, we have the historical records of Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pling the Younger, the Talmud and Lucian, then in my view Christ existed.

I consider this sufficent evidence of him. The bible spoke of and recorded these things, so in my view its sufficent evidence of its validity. The bible states that God is real. Its academic.

Peace.