Nine Pieces Of Evidence That Confirm The Historical Accuracy Of The Bible

[Dan Mellis]

That hasn't been my experience - that left-wing theologians are infinitely more educated on Biblical matters. Most of the time they're anti-supernaturalists trying to rationalize Biblical miracles. Or they're making up wild Q theories or arguing against the Gospel Jesus, the resurrection, etc.

No, I didn't say educated on bible matters. I said educated, implying level of qualification attained. I also didnt exclude the right wing theologians - however if you put a highly educated theist theologian on a debate stage with a novice atheist, the theist would still lose. Thats something I have actually seen. The theologian was reduced to saying "you dont have any faith, that makes you immoral" repeatedly, while refusing to answer any valid questions posed by the novice of the field.

The fact of the matter is that you position is indefensible without resorting to fallacy - the only way to believe in any abrahamic religion is to reject actual, observable evidence to the contrary.

These religions all depend on the concept of a soul, which is something that can almost be proved to not exist at this point.

I say almost because you cant prove a negative, but we're about as close as you can get.

 

[Dan Mellis]

I've actually done both - spent time with medical professionals and observing healing services, so I'm one up on you.

Congrats, you've been comvinced by charlatans and fraudsters. One-nil to you.

 

[Dan Mellis]

If you say something is false then you should provide your basis and evidence for that.

I have at no point claimed that anything is false. I have claimed it is as likely as bugs bunny being real, which is to say not very.

You, however, claim to be privy to some sort of revealed truth. Therefore, the burden of proof here lies squarely at your feet.

 

[Spartan]

Congrats, you've been comvinced by charlatans and fraudsters.

Back at you.

 

[Spartan]

No, I didn't say educated on bible matters. I said educated, implying level of qualification attained. I also didnt exclude the right wing theologians - however if you put a highly educated theist theologian on a debate stage with a novice atheist, the theist would still lose. Thats something I have actually seen. The theologian was reduced to saying "you dont have any faith, that makes you immoral" repeatedly, while refusing to answer any valid questions posed by the novice of the field.

The fact of the matter is that you position is indefensible without resorting to fallacy - the only way to believe in any abrahamic religion is to reject actual, observable evidence to the contrary.

These religions all depend on the concept of a soul, which is something that can almost be proved to not exist at this point.

I say almost because you cant prove a negative, but we're about as close as you can get.

I have the historical accounts of Jesus Christ. You have denials.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Tell me about some of the "true things" you believe about the Gospels and the life and/or miracles of Jesus?

Which things do you claim to be true, and why? In other words, why do you believe them?

 

[Dan Mellis]

I have the historical accounts of Jesus Christ. You have denials.

You have tenuous, unreliable sources that claim to be evidence of a person who was likely to be mythical. If jesus existed, the fact that he did exist is not evidence of his superpowers. If he existed, he was a wandering rabbi who told stories and was probably quite charismatic.

I have questions about that and will withhold my belief until they are answered. I do not have denials.

 

[Spartan]

You have tenuous, unreliable sources.

Nonsense.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Nonsense.

Look, its been explained multiple times why its tenuous and unreliable. That doesnt mean untrue, but you must accept that its by no means proven fact

 

[Spartan]

Look, its been explained multiple times why its tenuous and unreliable. That doesnt mean untrue, but you must accept that its by no means proven fact

You have your opinion on that. I don't share it.

 

[Dan Mellis]

You have your opinion on that. I don't share it.

Ahhh, we have reached the inevitible "fingers in ears lalallala" point of a religious debate. Thats ok. This is why a novice atheist will usually win in a debate against an experienced, qualified, professional apologist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have your opinion on that. I don't share it.

So how do we go about determining who is right and who is wrong?

 

[Spartan]

Ahhh, we have reached the inevitible "fingers in ears lalallala" point of a religious debate. Thats ok. This is why a novice atheist will usually win in a debate against an experienced, qualified, professional apologist.

In your dreams. A novice atheist is Biblically-challenged. The ones I've encountered who do do some studies don't read anything but left-wing theological nonsense - whatever suits their biases.

 

[Dan Mellis]

In your dreams. A novice atheist is Biblically-challenged. The ones I've encountered who do do some studies don't read anything but left-wing theological nonsense - whatever suits their biases.

My point exactly. The bible is not proof of god, and cant be used as such or you have a circular argument. Other (or as well as, more accurately) than the bible, the evidence of god is so laughably weak that literally anyone who can string an argument together can reduce their opponent to "its a matter of faith".

Is there any position that couldnt be justified if faith was a valid argument?

Capybaras can talk and are masters of chess and fencing. You dont believe me, but I have faith and you dont. Thats why.

You dont need to be well-read to reach this conclusion. Just semi-literate and free from indoctrination in your youth.

 

[Spartan]

My point exactly. The bible is not proof of god, and cant be used as such or you have a circular argument. Other (or as well as, more accurately) than the bible, the evidence of god is so laughably weak that literally anyone who can string an argument together can reduce their opponent to "its a matter of faith".

Is there any position that couldnt be justified if faith was a valid argument?

Capybaras can talk and are masters of chess and fencing. You dont believe me, but I have faith and you dont. Thats why.

You dont need to be well-read to reach this conclusion. Just semi-literate and free from indoctrination in your youth.

Yep, their all liars, screwballs, and charlatans - the disciples, the Gospel authors, Paul, James, Jude, Thomas, everyone who has written about them as being historical, etc., etc., etc. The long list of people who have to be crackers in order for you to be right grows by the hour.

And you don't even realize how lame that makes the dedicated Christ-denier crowd look.

 

[RESOLUTION]

...so you can only believe in god if you believe in god? Why would god create certain people who cant believe and so presumably go to hell? This is patent nonsense

With respect, do not change the subject or answer something not said. If you cannot debate or give an explanation then don't give an answer at all.

 

[RESOLUTION]

So again, it boils down to faith. Reject all evidence to the contrary, and you'll believe. Even worse, do as you're told by the bible without questioning it, and you'll believe in god.

You're damn right I'm unwillig to accept that. I have at least an understanding of critical thinking.

iT BOILS DOWN TO TRUTH. Something you reject and ignore according to your own unstable and unfounded beliefs, NOT once have you counteracted or been able to bring evidence to support
what you witter on about, You have been given factual truths but you bring down the shutters and write as above. You do not seek truth or to debate the issues or tenets of faith. Just write meaningless drivel that have no foundation in truth either known to scholars or even scientist. Go away and study till you can argue from a learned point of view. You waste everyones time with inuendo based on nothing but your own unfounded beliefs you cannot prove you have personal knowledge to sustain.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Show us the contradictions from NT using the OT and let us see what you really have.

Your quote function is all screwed up. Check yourself.[/QUOTE]

Not it was yours which was originally screwed up. Check your posts. You put part of my post as if your own See post 943 it is you who got the quote function wrong.

 

[RESOLUTION]

600,000 able bodied men with their wives, parents, siblings and children.. and two midwives according to scripture. Why don't you READ it?

Are you so afraid of being found out that you ignore all the post so people won't see the obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. When I was 11 one of the first things I was taught was the full facts about Moses and the Israelites. Unless you can discuss the facts and not make up your own stories what do you really hope to gain or show? Please do not reply to my posts unless you want to discuss what is written and not what you make up.

 

[sooda]

Are you so afraid of being found out that you ignore all the post so people won't see the obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. When I was 11 one of the first things I was taught was the full facts about Moses and the Israelites. Unless you can discuss the facts and not make up your own stories what do you really hope to gain or show? Please do not reply to my posts unless you want to discuss what is written and not what you make up.

The Exodus Begins … 36 And the LORD gave the people such favor in the sight of the Egyptians that they granted their request. In this way they plundered the Egyptians.

37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth with about 600,000 men on foot, besides women and children.

38 And a mixed multitude also went up with them, along with great droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.…