The Bible..

  • 69 Replies
  • 18292 Views
?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
The Bible..
« on: June 04, 2010, 04:18:11 PM »
The Bible is just a collection of cool stories designed to stop people raping and killing each other by pretending that there's someone that you can't see who's gonna kick your ass if you're bad.

Discuss.

Re: The Bible..
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2010, 04:24:18 PM »
I think Jesus is very unoriginal.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2010, 05:00:14 PM »
The Bible was written at a time allegorical literature was incredibly common, and just to top it off:

Jesus died in 33AD
The first Gospel written, Mark i believe, mentioned an event in 70AD
So the four Gospels of Jesus' life had to have come after 70AD, probably much later.
All we know of 30-70AD comes from Paul the Apostle, who wrote down much of what we know of early Christianity
Paul never mentions what we know of the life of Jesus: he only knows of the death and resurrection.
And these he doesn't believe happened on Earth. like the other religions of the time, Jesus lived in a purely mythical realm.


Where do you get this stuff from?  Completely unfounded and not researched.
  • Mark was NOT the 1st gospel written - Matthew was.  Matthew covered the time period of 2 B.C. to 33 A.D. and completely finished his writing around 41 A.D.
  • Mark covered time period between 29 - 33 A.D. and finished around 60-65 A.D.
  • Paul wrote 14 different books of the bible, and the reason he wrote after Christ's death, was because he was not originally a Christian, (but a Jew) and killed Christians.  He was not one of the original 12 apostles.  Once he converted to Christianity he was known as an apostle of the nations.

Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

Re: The Bible..
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2010, 06:26:42 PM »
The Bible was written at a time allegorical literature was incredibly common, and just to top it off:

Jesus died in 33AD
The first Gospel written, Mark i believe, mentioned an event in 70AD
So the four Gospels of Jesus' life had to have come after 70AD, probably much later.
All we know of 30-70AD comes from Paul the Apostle, who wrote down much of what we know of early Christianity
Paul never mentions what we know of the life of Jesus: he only knows of the death and resurrection.
And these he doesn't believe happened on Earth. like the other religions of the time, Jesus lived in a purely mythical realm.


Where do you get this stuff from?  Completely unfounded and not researched.
  • Mark was NOT the 1st gospel written - Matthew was.  Matthew covered the time period of 2 B.C. to 33 A.D. and completely finished his writing around 41 A.D.
  • Mark covered time period between 29 - 33 A.D. and finished around 60-65 A.D.
  • Paul wrote 14 different books of the bible, and the reason he wrote after Christ's death, was because he was not originally a Christian, (but a Jew) and killed Christians.  He was not one of the original 12 apostles.  Once he converted to Christianity he was known as an apostle of the nations.



We evidently have very different sources.
Mark is clearly the first written; if you read them, the other three are clearly derived from it, though they tell the same basic tale. Mark specifically makes a mention of an event that occurred in 70AD, the destruction of a temple I think though I'm not positive, so it has to come after that.
And a chapter in Hebrews I think, it's been a while since I heard the information but I'm pretty sure on the premise, says if Jesus was on Earth, he wouldn't have amounted to much at all. Something like that.

Mark was written first, because Matthew and Luke were based in large part on the gospel of Mark as well as what is now believed to be a lost narrative of Christ known among scholars as "Q".

The dates themselves are difficult to place, but the order they were written in is a bit more obvious. However, all were written in the decades after Christ's death and resurrection.

EDIT: This is only one theory but it is the one I've heard most often.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 06:46:52 PM by Canadark »
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2010, 09:23:39 PM »

We evidently have very different sources.
Mark is clearly the first written; if you read them, the other three are clearly derived from it, though they tell the same basic tale. Mark specifically makes a mention of an event that occurred in 70AD, the destruction of a temple I think though I'm not positive, so it has to come after that.

And a chapter in Hebrews I think, it's been a while since I heard the information but I'm pretty sure on the premise, says if Jesus was on Earth, he wouldn't have amounted to much at all. Something like that.

Different sources ?  I have a bible, in fact I have access to 10, so which one would you like to use?  Or perhaps we could skip the bible and use non-secular books like "The Jewish War" or "Jewish Antiquities" written by non-biblical historians.

No No and still NO.  Mark did not start writing or finish writing in 70 A.D., and NO he did not write about the destruction he saw of a temple.  You are confused as to timeframes and temples - there was more than one, AND some of the same ones were rehabilitated, rebuilt, or moved over the years, or entirely new ones built, and by different people.  Here is the info on temples:

  • The Tabernacle - a temporary and transportable tent set up in the wilderness at Mt Sinai in 1512 B.C.
  • After Israel crossed the Jordan into the promised land, the tabernacle was set up at Gilgal.
  • After that it was relocated to Shiloh, during the time of dividing the land.
  • Then it was moved to Nob
  • Later it was at Gibeon

Then the Temple was built by King Solomon (son of King David), which now was a permanent place and that was done starting in 1034 B.C.  That temple remained there until 607 B.C - but not without many problems such as theft, neglect, turbulence, and pollution of the temple.  This caused it to have many repairs during those years:

  • King Jehoash of Judah (898-859 B.C.) oversaw its repair once - then robbed.
  • King Jotham (777-762 B.C.) did some construction, building the upper gate.
  • Ahaz', son of Hezekiah ( 745-717 B.C) reopened the temple and cleaned it up after his father King Ahaz damaged it.
  • Then it went into a half century of desecration, and finally destroyed by the Babylonian army under King Nebuchadnezzar in 607 B.C.

Then an entirely separate and different Temple built by Zerubbabel of the tribe of Judah in 537 B.C.

Then there was the temple built by Herod starting between the 15th and 18th year of his reign.  It took only 18 months for the sanctuary to be built, but another 8 years for the courtyards and such, but in all took 46 years for the complexes of the courts and buildings.  The work was not finished until 6 years before it's destruction in 70 A.D.

The closest thing Mark ever said in reference to a temple being destroyed was when he wrote about what Jesus had said, "my house will be called a house of prayer," and later continues with "but you have made it a cave of robbers."  (see Mr 11:17)  The book of Mark or as some call it the Gospel of Mark starts with John the Baptist, the one that came before Christ to pave the way, and then talks about Jesus' ministries - not some future event of destruction of a temple.

Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2010, 09:48:35 PM »
Babs, calm down.  Nobody knows for sure, but the majority of scholars believe you're wrong.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49792
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2010, 08:46:29 AM »
But do the scholars have access to 10 bibles?!!!
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2010, 09:54:34 AM »
Different sources ?  I have a bible, in fact I have access to 10, so which one would you like to use?  Or perhaps we could skip the bible and use non-secular books like "The Jewish War" or "Jewish Antiquities" written by non-biblical historians.

Please use the book that discusses how the Bible is just a book written to stop us killing and raping.

Re: The Bible..
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2010, 05:18:22 PM »
The Bible was written at a time allegorical literature was incredibly common, and just to top it off:

Jesus died in 33AD
The first Gospel written, Mark i believe, mentioned an event in 70AD
So the four Gospels of Jesus' life had to have come after 70AD, probably much later.
All we know of 30-70AD comes from Paul the Apostle, who wrote down much of what we know of early Christianity
Paul never mentions what we know of the life of Jesus: he only knows of the death and resurrection.
And these he doesn't believe happened on Earth. like the other religions of the time, Jesus lived in a purely mythical realm.


Where do you get this stuff from?  Completely unfounded and not researched.
  • Mark was NOT the 1st gospel written - Matthew was.  Matthew covered the time period of 2 B.C. to 33 A.D. and completely finished his writing around 41 A.D.
  • Mark covered time period between 29 - 33 A.D. and finished around 60-65 A.D.
  • Paul wrote 14 different books of the bible, and the reason he wrote after Christ's death, was because he was not originally a Christian, (but a Jew) and killed Christians.  He was not one of the original 12 apostles.  Once he converted to Christianity he was known as an apostle of the nations.



We evidently have very different sources.
Mark is clearly the first written; if you read them, the other three are clearly derived from it, though they tell the same basic tale. Mark specifically makes a mention of an event that occurred in 70AD, the destruction of a temple I think though I'm not positive, so it has to come after that.
And a chapter in Hebrews I think, it's been a while since I heard the information but I'm pretty sure on the premise, says if Jesus was on Earth, he wouldn't have amounted to much at all. Something like that.

Well anyways, the issue that was raised by BiJane is unfounded as far as I see it.

What you said about Paul is just wrong anyways, he made reference to other things that happened in Jesus' life but this was not in connection with scripture. Paul would have heard these stories from the disciples who were with Christ during his ministry.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2010, 08:59:07 PM »

The Bible was written at a time allegorical literature was incredibly common, and just to top it off:

Jesus died in 33AD
The first Gospel written, Mark i believe, mentioned an event in 70AD
So the four Gospels of Jesus' life had to have come after 70AD, probably much later.
All we know of 30-70AD comes from Paul the Apostle, who wrote down much of what we know of early Christianity
Paul never mentions what we know of the life of Jesus: he only knows of the death and resurrection.
And these he doesn't believe happened on Earth. like the other religions of the time, Jesus lived in a purely mythical realm.

Where do you get this stuff from?  Completely unfounded and not researched.
  • Mark was NOT the 1st gospel written - Matthew was.  Matthew covered the time period of 2 B.C. to 33 A.D. and completely finished his writing around 41 A.D.
  • Mark covered time period between 29 - 33 A.D. and finished around 60-65 A.D.
  • Paul wrote 14 different books of the bible, and the reason he wrote after Christ's death, was because he was not originally a Christian, (but a Jew) and killed Christians.  He was not one of the original 12 apostles.  Once he converted to Christianity he was known as an apostle of the nations.

We evidently have very different sources.
Mark is clearly the first written; if you read them, the other three are clearly derived from it, though they tell the same basic tale. Mark specifically makes a mention of an event that occurred in 70AD, the destruction of a temple I think though I'm not positive, so it has to come after that.
And a chapter in Hebrews I think, it's been a while since I heard the information but I'm pretty sure on the premise, says if Jesus was on Earth, he wouldn't have amounted to much at all. Something like that.

Well anyways, the issue that was raised by BiJane is unfounded as far as I see it.

What you said about Paul is just wrong anyways, he made reference to other things that happened in Jesus' life but this was not in connection with scripture. Paul would have heard these stories from the disciples who were with Christ during his ministry.

Something else Canadark and I agree on.  Yep agree with you on BiJane (unfounded) and I think I understand what you are trying to say with respects to Paul - so I probably agree there as well.

Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2010, 09:43:03 PM »
Mark was written first, because Matthew and Luke were based in large part on the gospel of Mark as well as what is now believed to be a lost narrative of Christ known among scholars as "Q".

The dates themselves are difficult to place, but the order they were written in is a bit more obvious. However, all were written in the decades after Christ's death and resurrection.

EDIT: This is only one theory but it is the one I've heard most often.


Babs didn't respond to this.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2010, 02:11:12 PM »
Babs, calm down.  Nobody knows for sure, but the majority of scholars believe you're wrong.

Ok - good point Roundy.  - calm, calm

I suppose I could spot some leniency on whether the book of Mark was written first among the gospels or not, (for there is alot of controversy on that one).  BUT I am not incorrect on the dates of all the temples and when their destruction came, or the fact that Mark did not mention the destruction of any temples in his writings.  I gave a thorough anaylsis, with dates, places, and who did it, and cited scripture as well -all in a previous post.  Mark never talked about the destruction of the temple of 70A.D., or that he saw it, or heard about it.  But I will give you the benefit of the doubt on Mark as first, and "Q" but will still state my opinion, which I'm sure no one will take as valid.  See below.

Mark was written first, because Matthew and Luke were based in large part on the gospel of Mark as well as what is now believed to be a lost narrative of Christ known among scholars as "Q".

The dates themselves are difficult to place, but the order they were written in is a bit more obvious. However, all were written in the decades after Christ's death and resurrection.

EDIT: This is only one theory but it is the one I've heard most often.


Babs didn't respond to this.

Response:
The books of Matthew and Luke were supposedly compiled from the Book of Mark and another supplementary source, some scholars call "Q" from the German Quelle or "source."

#1)  Although numerous copies were made of the so-called "Q" NONE exist today, and no one can prove it existed ever.

#2)  The document "Q" was never mentioned by any of the church fathers of the day, and church leaders today rarely quote it in hardly any religion, except maybe a handful, and I don't think they even do that anymore.  This is based on scholars view of it.

#3)  There was no mention of this "Q" or the reliability of the Gospels in the 1st 17 centuries of this NEW milleniums (not meaning B.C.), and has only been questioned since the 19th century forward.

#4)  If Matthew and Luke copied in part from the book of Mark, then why is Mark so short?  Wouldn't he have more info than the others?

#5)  Mark did not see the accounts firsthand - he wasn't even an apostle.  He was a publican and later a follower, and assisted Paul in his travels for missionary work, but Mark was never an apostle.  For that matter neither was Luke, he was a physician.

#6)  The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John were both from apostles - see Matthew 10:2-4 for list of the 12 apostles and note that Mark and Luke are not mentioned.  Also see Acts 1:12 & 13 where it lists the 11 remaining apostles after Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus.  Note:  the Judas listed here as part of the 11 is Judas the son of James, not Judas Iscariot the son of Simon.  There were many Judes and Judasas in the bible - I can count oh at least 6 maybe 7 of them.  They were assembled to choose one to replace Iscariot, and 2 were put up for consideration, but in the end Matthias was picked.  If you continue reading to the end of Chapter 1 of Acts, you will see this, and also see that Mark is still not listed as an apostle in any part of Chapter 1 of Acts.

#7)  However to say that the Gospel of Mark is not important would be incorrect.  To say that Mark was written first, because Luke and Matthew added very little to the account would also be incorrect.  The latter two are larger works.  To say that Luke and Matthew, and even John were just compilers and plagiarists of Mark's work would also be incorrect, for there are 180 passages and details that are found in Mark's work that are not copied over into the other three.

#8)  The above just uses reasoning AND history, AND some scriptures, but I can find other scriptures, as well as other references (non-secular), and other historians much older than the 19th century ones, and they would also disagree.  This is from my learned knowledge but I do not expect you to agree, and that's OK.  You guys can just chalk it up to my "opinion".

Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

Re: The Bible..
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2010, 06:34:47 PM »
The fact that Mark is shorter than Luke or Matthew is evidence that if it did come first, than the authors probably referred to another source when they authored their gospels.

Also, Mark was not of Jesus' 12, but much of what he wrote down he gathered from his experiences with Peter to whom the young missionary was a dedicated disciple. Peter as we all know was Jesus' right hand man during his earthly ministry and had insight into those aspects of his life that Matthew was not exposed to.

That being said, the possibility that Matthew's gospel did come first is certainly not outside the realm of possibility,
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2010, 04:11:50 AM »
The Bible is just a collection of cool stories designed to stop people raping and killing each other by pretending that there's someone that you can't see who's gonna kick your ass if you're bad.

Discuss.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2010, 06:26:38 PM »
The Bible is just a collection of cool stories designed to stop people raping and killing each other by pretending that there's someone that you can't see who's gonna kick your ass if you're bad.

Discuss.

The bible is more than cool stories, for there are other books that are secular (non-religious) that are:

#1)  From historians of the 1st - 4th centuries A.D. - I will only give 2 examples here - "The Jewish War" and "Jewish Antiquities", which back up the account of the bible's historical accuracy.

#2)  From the B.C. years - hundreds of years before Christ - Herodotus 484 to 425 B.C. writes about the origins of Greco-Persian wars, and the dynastic history of the four Persian Kings, i.e. Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes. (2 of which are also in the OT of the bible - Cyrus and Darius)

#3)  Books in libraries or info on the internet about the fall of empires, which the bible had already predicted much earlier in the OT as it pertains to the demise of Babylon, Nineveh (in Assyria), and Tyre, which all came true, as history books show.

AND
#4)  Hundreds of artifacts unearthed from archeological digs that also proof the historical accuracy of the Bible.


It is just my knowledge, but you don't have to accept it on my word - look it up.


« Last Edit: June 07, 2010, 06:54:35 PM by babsinva »
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2010, 06:27:25 PM »
The Bible is just a collection of cool stories designed to stop people raping and killing each other by pretending that there's someone that you can't see who's gonna kick your ass if you're bad.

Discuss.
Have you actually read it?

Re: The Bible..
« Reply #16 on: June 07, 2010, 06:35:15 PM »
The Bible is just a collection of cool stories designed to stop people raping and killing each other by pretending that there's someone that you can't see who's gonna kick your ass if you're bad.

Discuss.

The bible is more than cool stories, for there are other books that are secular (non-religious) that are:

#1)  From historians of the 1st - 4th centuries A.D. - I will only give 2 examples here - "The Jewish War" and "Jewish Antiquities", which back up the account of the bible's historical accuracy.

#2)  From the B.C. years - hundreds of years before Christ - Herodotus 484 to 425 B.C. writes about the origins of Greco-Persian wars, and the dynastic history of the four Persian Kings, i.e. Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes.  (2 of which are also in the OT of the bible - Cyrus and Darius)

#3)  Books in libraries or info on the internet about the fall of empires, which the bible had already predicted much earlier in the OT as it pertains to the demise of Babylon, Nineveh (in Assyria), and Tyre, which all came true, as history books show.

AND
#4)  Hundreds of artifacts unearthed from archeological digs that also proof the historical accuracy of the Bible.


It is just my knowledge, but you don't have to accept it on my word - look it up.




Haha... ok?

(EDIT: I don't disagree with this, I just think this is a neat post)
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2010, 12:09:45 AM »
The Bible is just a collection of cool stories designed to stop people raping and killing each other by pretending that there's someone that you can't see who's gonna kick your ass if you're bad.

Discuss.

The bible is more than cool stories, for there are other books that are secular (non-religious) that are:

#1)  From historians of the 1st - 4th centuries A.D. - I will only give 2 examples here - "The Jewish War" and "Jewish Antiquities", which back up the account of the bible's historical accuracy.

#2)  From the B.C. years - hundreds of years before Christ - Herodotus 484 to 425 B.C. writes about the origins of Greco-Persian wars, and the dynastic history of the four Persian Kings, i.e. Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes. (2 of which are also in the OT of the bible - Cyrus and Darius)

#3)  Books in libraries or info on the internet about the fall of empires, which the bible had already predicted much earlier in the OT as it pertains to the demise of Babylon, Nineveh (in Assyria), and Tyre, which all came true, as history books show.

AND
#4)  Hundreds of artifacts unearthed from archeological digs that also proof the historical accuracy of the Bible.


It is just my knowledge, but you don't have to accept it on my word - look it up.




Ragtime by E.L. Doctorow. Historical facts back up part of it, and it involves real people and events, so it must be true?
Not to mention, if people believed the Bible then they'd let the empires fall, or help them fall, knowing it would happen anyway. Cause and effect.
Finally, just because something has historical accuracy around some of its points, doesn't make it true. As I said: Ragtime, the novel by E.L. Doctorow.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2010, 02:18:07 AM »
The bible is more than cool stories, for there are other books that are secular (non-religious) that are:

I don't doubt that there are books which document some events that are also described in the Bible. That doesn't stop it being cool stories. It just makes it cool stories painted over the colourful background of historical conflict.

See Sherlock Holmes for another cool story with a historical background.

Have you actually read it?

Yes.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2010, 06:13:17 AM »
Have you actually read it?
Yes.

So, which part is the OP referring to specifically?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2010, 07:01:07 AM »
So, which part is the OP referring to specifically?

Specifically? All of it.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2010, 02:37:32 PM »
The Bible is just a collection of cool stories designed to stop people raping and killing each other by pretending that there's someone that you can't see who's gonna kick your ass if you're bad.

Discuss.

The bible is more than cool stories, for there are other books that are secular (non-religious) that are:

#4)  Hundreds of artifacts unearthed from archeological digs that also proof the historical accuracy of the Bible.


Finding artifacts prove only that places existed around the area the bible said they did. Finding artifacts does not tell us whether the magical acts in the bible are true or not, only that the place existed.

Just like, the ruins of Troy have been found, but does that prove everything that was described in the Illiad is true, or does it just mean that there was once a castle there?

If they were to find a skeleton with an arrowhead in it's heel, would that mean that Achilles really did exist, and his heel was the only place on his body that was invulnerable making the story of the River Styx real, and in extension, the Greek Gods?

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2010, 11:08:23 PM »

The Bible is just a collection of cool stories designed to stop people raping and killing each other by pretending that there's someone that you can't see who's gonna kick your ass if you're bad.
Discuss.

The bible is more than cool stories, for there are other books that are secular (non-religious) that are:

#4)  Hundreds of artifacts unearthed from archeological digs that also proof the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Finding artifacts prove only that places existed around the area the bible said they did. Finding artifacts does not tell us whether the magical acts in the bible are true or not, only that the place existed.

Not so - the artifacts do not only mention places, but also mention or include:

#1) names of kings, and their sons - which are also included in the bible account

#2) A clay seal impression shows name of a Jewish official, also found in the bible account

#3) Sennacherib annals record his military campaign, & successes except Jerusalem which he failed - In the bible.

#4) Sennacherib's assassination by his 2 sons, found in 2 Assyrian inscriptions - which too is in the bible

#5) A cuneiform inscription records Cyrus who released the Jews who then rebuilt Jerusalem - yep in bible

#6) A cuneiform inscription shows Cyrus' conquest of Babylon - it's also in the bible

#7) Assyrian King Sargon II captured Samaria and wrote in 1 of his 4 annals; yes in bible too

#8) Sargon records his capture of Ashod - also is in that thing called the bible

#9) 20,000 clay tablets found giving the details of legal customs - yes it's in bible

... and many other details.

Ragtime by E.L. Doctorow. Historical facts back up part of it, and it involves real people and events, so it must be true?
 
Finally, just because something has historical accuracy around some of its points, doesn't make it true. As I said: Ragtime, the novel by E.L. Doctorow.
Response to this ^^...
This book you mentioned is historical fiction, NOT historical; and has only been around since 1975, and my book has been around for almost 2 milleniums, of which some parts are even older.  Not to mention the key word is "novel", so I don't think this lends any credence to your statement; - what a novel idea.


Not to mention, if people believed the Bible then they'd let the empires fall, or help them fall, knowing it would happen anyway. Cause and effect.

What does this have to do with cause and effect?  They were on opposite sides.  Those believers of the nation of Israel (the Jews) followed the commands, and heard and believed the prophecies, but it was NOT their empires that fell.  It was the empires of wicked rulers, and pagan kings who did NOT believe.  So why would those wicked ones give a cr-p about knowing it would happen anyway because of bible prophecy?  Since they did not follow God, they were not going to give up a fight, because God said it would happen, and just let God be right, so prophesy could be fulfilled.   Your claim makes no sense at all Im sorry.


Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2010, 02:30:46 AM »


Ragtime by E.L. Doctorow. Historical facts back up part of it, and it involves real people and events, so it must be true?
 
Finally, just because something has historical accuracy around some of its points, doesn't make it true. As I said: Ragtime, the novel by E.L. Doctorow.
Response to this ^^...
This book you mentioned is historical fiction, NOT historical; and has only been around since 1975, and my book has been around for almost 2 milleniums, of which some parts are even older.  Not to mention the key word is "novel", so I don't think this lends any credence to your statement; - what a novel idea.


Not to mention, if people believed the Bible then they'd let the empires fall, or help them fall, knowing it would happen anyway. Cause and effect.

What does this have to do with cause and effect?  They were on opposite sides.  Those believers of the nation of Israel (the Jews) followed the commands, and heard and believed the prophecies, but it was NOT their empires that fell.  It was the empires of wicked rulers, and pagan kings who did NOT believe.  So why would those wicked ones give a cr-p about knowing it would happen anyway because of bible prophecy?  Since they did not follow God, they were not going to give up a fight, because God said it would happen, and just let God be right, so prophesy could be fulfilled.   Your claim makes no sense at all Im sorry.


The Quran has been around plenty of years (one and a half thousand), and the Old Testament has been around longer-of course, that's no longer relevant. Plus, Christianity has changed a great deal in those two thousand years: only one kind of belief in God has stayed constant, with no divisions or changes: atheism.
Just showing why the length of time something's been available doesn't necessarily make it good. Also, yes Ragtime is historical fiction: but it includes real events, just like the Bible, that was my point. The Bible was also written at a time when allegory was popular.
By the prophecy cause-and-effect point, there are many possible meanings: believers could've done their best to make an Empire fall simply to gain public support, and don't forget the influence of psychology. the rulers might've heard people constantly saying they were sure that their Empire would fall: lack of confidence, or maybe there were believers on the inside who were making it fall.
And what of the prophecies that have not come true?
Jeremiah 49:33 states no man shall live in Hazor, and dragons will live there instead. People still live there.
Jeremiah 3:17 states every nation will embrace Judaism.
Isaiah 19:5 in one translation states the Nile will dry up.
Isaiah 19:18 states Egypt will speak Canaanite, but that has never happened and the language is extinct now.
Isaiah 19:17 states Judah will be a threat to Egypt. Hasn't happened yet.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2010, 10:57:01 AM »
Not so - the artifacts do not only mention places, but also mention or include:

#1) names of kings, and their sons - which are also included in the bible account

#2) A clay seal impression shows name of a Jewish official, also found in the bible account

#3) Sennacherib annals record his military campaign, & successes except Jerusalem which he failed - In the bible.

#4) Sennacherib's assassination by his 2 sons, found in 2 Assyrian inscriptions - which too is in the bible

#5) A cuneiform inscription records Cyrus who released the Jews who then rebuilt Jerusalem - yep in bible

#6) A cuneiform inscription shows Cyrus' conquest of Babylon - it's also in the bible

#7) Assyrian King Sargon II captured Samaria and wrote in 1 of his 4 annals; yes in bible too

#8) Sargon records his capture of Ashod - also is in that thing called the bible

#9) 20,000 clay tablets found giving the details of legal customs - yes it's in bible

... and many other details.

Cool. So the Bible is a list of names and places. Kind of like The Lonely Planet Guide of its day.

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2010, 01:51:01 PM »
Not so - the artifacts do not only mention places, but also mention or include:

#1) names of kings, and their sons - which are also included in the bible account

#2) A clay seal impression shows name of a Jewish official, also found in the bible account

#3) Sennacherib annals record his military campaign, & successes except Jerusalem which he failed - In the bible.

#4) Sennacherib's assassination by his 2 sons, found in 2 Assyrian inscriptions - which too is in the bible

#5) A cuneiform inscription records Cyrus who released the Jews who then rebuilt Jerusalem - yep in bible

#6) A cuneiform inscription shows Cyrus' conquest of Babylon - it's also in the bible

#7) Assyrian King Sargon II captured Samaria and wrote in 1 of his 4 annals; yes in bible too

#8) Sargon records his capture of Ashod - also is in that thing called the bible

#9) 20,000 clay tablets found giving the details of legal customs - yes it's in bible

... and many other details.

Cool. So the Bible is a list of names and places. Kind of like The Lonely Planet Guide of its day.

No that's not all - but the response above was in relation to a specific question English Gent had about artifacts. 

He claimed they only listed places, whereas I showed they also listed:
names of people, rulers, and kings
conquests
military campaigns
assassinations
Legal customs and so on
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49792
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #26 on: June 10, 2010, 04:52:07 PM »
A lot of novels mention all those things too.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2010, 10:15:46 AM »
No that's not all - but the response above was in relation to a specific question English Gent had about artifacts. 

He claimed they only listed places, whereas I showed they also listed:
names of people, rulers, and kings
conquests
military campaigns
assassinations
Legal customs and so on


Cool. Have you read Doctor Zhivago? It also describes people and places.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2010, 11:25:13 AM »
A lot of the history is inaccurate, too.  Try finding a contemporary non-Biblical reference to Herod's terrible deeds at the start of the NT.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

babsinva

  • 2222
  • aka Mr. Fahrenheit
Re: The Bible..
« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2010, 09:18:44 PM »
No that's not all - but the response above was in relation to a specific question English Gent had about artifacts. 

He claimed they only listed places, whereas I showed they also listed:
names of people, rulers, and kings
conquests
military campaigns
assassinations
Legal customs and so on

Cool. Have you read Doctor Zhivago? It also describes people and places.

Crusty you so silly.  I liked Dr. Zhivago, but the issue at hand at this particular juncture was whether the bible was just cool stories, and I showed 3 OLD books (in a previous post) that back up the historical accounts in the bible, as well as artifacts, so no they were NOT just stories.


You aren't addressing the issue at hand. Most people do not dispute that the Bible has historical accuracies in it. However, the other parts (the God parts, the magic parts) are what is being discussed.

Also, just because its been around for 2000 years doesn't make it automatically true.

I did address the issue at hand as it pertained to English Gent's remark & Crusty's with respects to artifacts.  There are many things we can discuss about the bible, but this was just one of them, AND there are alot more issues on the table as to why people don't believe in God or the bible as accurate, for more than just reasons of magic.

Some parts of the bible are older than 2000 years, and when Moses started writing, - Homer's "Illiad" and "Odyssey" wasn't even a thought, and yet people don't deny THOSE old writings.


A lot of the history is inaccurate, too.  Try finding a contemporary non-Biblical reference to Herod's terrible deeds at the start of the NT.

There were many Herods, just as there were many Caesars. 
  • Herod the Great
  • Herod Antipas
  • Herod Agrippa I
  • Herod Agrippa II
  • Herod (King of Chalcis)
  • Herod Philip
  • And many other sons, grandsons, and great grandsons that did not bare the name Herod, but were of his line, and owned property that was devided by Herod the Great, which each one ruled.

Herod the Great had 10 wives and 15 children in all.  5 of the wives I can name off the bat, but the others may take some time, as my brain is dead tonight.  The five I remember were: Doris;  Mariamne I;  Mariamne II;  Cleopatra of Jerusalem;  and Malthace.

As far as finding a non-biblical reference to the Herods, yes there are non-secular books by historians.  Contemporary probably not so much, because one cannot sit at their office desk or kitchen table and re-create something they did not see or hear.  I know scientists prefer to find peer-reviewed articles when talking evolution because science is always ever-changing and having new discoveries, but God has not changed and there is no new info there.  People may uncover an artifact but it only lends credence to what us bible studiers already know, but the rest of the world needs these artifacts to believe.  Archeologists unearth something, and us bible people go,  ... yep that was in the book of so an so, verse so and so.  For example, many history books never contained anything about Belshazzar, for they believed he was a figment of Daniel's imagination, and that Bible writers fabricated certain characters, but when artifacts were found to corroborate the bible's account, it quashed earlier claims of the critics.  Now finding artifacts to corroborate other details of the bible, would most likely be written about today by archeologists. 

I don't expect you to believe me, but that's ok guys.
Quote from Big Giant Head:  "Considered fictitious or phantom does not quantify its non-existence."

Quote from Soze:  "We cannot escape perception, but we can't assume reality doesn't exist outside of perception."