Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-03-2013, 10:15 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
If the stories of the bible were corroborated by any other contemporary historians, that would be a different story. Also if the stories made sense would be good too. As in, they don't defy logic, reason, rationality, and the natural laws of the universe.

And history texts are not taken literally all the time either. Some figures are found to either be fake, made-up, or so exaggerated that they transcend into myth. Like Saint Nicholas.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
05-03-2013, 11:21 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(05-03-2013 10:03 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It seems like that the standard most of you will accept for anything is empirical evidence, however, there is only documentary evidence for most facts accepted in history textbooks.

Horseradish!

What is in the history books most of us read is there because empirical evidence was found and so it was included...you know like having real knowledge

Kinda like this

http://www.archaeology.org/slideshow/508...s-skeleton
in Archaeology Magazine

as opposed to your "history" book. You, my delusional friend, are the one who needs to move on.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
05-03-2013, 12:04 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
There is better evidence that the witches of Salem Mass actually were witches, than there is for the resurrection. Yet SexuallyPleasingJebus is biased, and dispite the fact the evidence is better for the witches, makes the CHOICE to ignore it. SPJ is a hypocrite, and is the LAST person who should be whining about evidence, and who believes what. Tongue




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 12:05 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(05-03-2013 10:03 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  There's just a lot of confusion on this thread from the opposing side. It seems like that the standard most of you will accept for anything is empirical evidence, however, there is only documentary evidence for most facts accepted in history textbooks. We have documentary evidence in the scriptures but the authors are taken for biased or as having confirmatory bias. Can't we just say y'all reject every fact of history so we may move on?
Thanks.


And in the end this is the best he can do, a terrible and contrived attempt at equivocation.

SleazyJesus has nothing to bring to the table, and has proven himself repeatedly to be a unrepentant, purposely ignorant, troll for Jesus. Please just let this thread die...

[Image: Remember-Don-t-Feed-the-Trolls-fanpop-22...12-341.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 12:29 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:If the stories of the bible were corroborated by any other contemporary historians, that would be a different story. Also if the stories made sense would be good too. As in, they don't defy logic, reason, rationality, and the natural laws of the universe.

And history texts are not taken literally all the time either. Some figures are found to either be fake, made-up, or so exaggerated that they transcend into myth. Like Saint Nicholas.
Many of them are corroborated. Ezra corroborates Samuel, Mark Matthew, Paul Luke, etc. I don't understand what the difference is between a Suetonius or a Josephus and a Paul, Paul being lettered in Hebrew and Greek and etc. I agree that historical texts are not taken literally all the time--we have to look at context--but there's not empirical evidence for much or most of what is taken as historical events, right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 12:45 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(05-03-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:If the stories of the bible were corroborated by any other contemporary historians, that would be a different story. Also if the stories made sense would be good too. As in, they don't defy logic, reason, rationality, and the natural laws of the universe.

And history texts are not taken literally all the time either. Some figures are found to either be fake, made-up, or so exaggerated that they transcend into myth. Like Saint Nicholas.
Many of them are corroborated. Ezra corroborates Samuel, Mark Matthew, Paul Luke, etc. I don't understand what the difference is between a Suetonius or a Josephus and a Paul, Paul being lettered in Hebrew and Greek and etc. I agree that historical texts are not taken literally all the time--we have to look at context--but there's not empirical evidence for much or most of what is taken as historical events, right?
CIRCULAR!

See we can be fairly confident that some dynastic ruler in china existed a long time ago b/c there are contemporaneous writings describing them by multiple authors, we can corroborate events in those histories to archeological evidence. we can also take these writings more credibly as they haven't been re-written, translated, modified, and sanitized by biased parties.

Your bible can not demonstrate any of those traits. Sure we can find a couple of historical accuracies in them but far too many inaccuracies and contradictions to be reliable, let alone the outright falsehood contained therein.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes devilsadvoc8's post
05-03-2013, 01:29 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
It's not circular, since we can meet your tests. We can verify literally thousands of Bible place names, people and yes, events to archaeological finds. Three that come to mind as I write include the extraordinary engineering under King Hezekiah, markings denoting the borders of King Solomon's holdings, and King David's tomb. We also can see extraordinary textual evidence demonstrating that the scriptures have not changed. A translation doesn't change them. The Christians agreeing with earlier Jewish sources that the Apocrypha are false doesn't change them. In sum, we're talking about thousands of accuracies in them and alleged falsehoods within.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 01:42 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(05-03-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:If the stories of the bible were corroborated by any other contemporary historians, that would be a different story. Also if the stories made sense would be good too. As in, they don't defy logic, reason, rationality, and the natural laws of the universe.

And history texts are not taken literally all the time either. Some figures are found to either be fake, made-up, or so exaggerated that they transcend into myth. Like Saint Nicholas.
Many of them are corroborated. Ezra corroborates Samuel, Mark Matthew, Paul Luke, etc. I don't understand what the difference is between a Suetonius or a Josephus and a Paul, Paul being lettered in Hebrew and Greek and etc. I agree that historical texts are not taken literally all the time--we have to look at context--but there's not empirical evidence for much or most of what is taken as historical events, right?
None of the new testament texts were written during the life of Jesus. Earlier texts of the Old Testament show that it has been edited and re-edited numerous times.

But, as has already been pointed out, the bible can't prove the bible to be true. And I can write anything I want and use the names of real places, does not make it fact. I mean, no one takes the stories as written by J.K. Rowling seriously because places like London are real.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
The fact that some, and only some of the OT sites have been found in no way proves anything. A work of fiction set in Washington does not mean Washington is true. They were all biased, and SPJ is, in an age of "pious fraud", assuming good will. Paul admitted he was a liar, as did many of the church "fathers".
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly+church
http://www.goddess.org/vortices/pious_fraud.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2013, 02:47 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(05-03-2013 02:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact that some, and only some of the OT sites have been found in no way proves anything. A work of fiction set in Washington does not mean Washington is true. They were all biased, and SPJ is, in an age of "pious fraud", assuming good will. Paul admitted he was a liar, as did many of the church "fathers".
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly+church
http://www.goddess.org/vortices/pious_fraud.html
Actually, I think Washington is true. Or more accurately, real. Did you mean that a work of fiction set in Washington does not mean the fiction is true?

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: