One Verse At A Time...

[Kuroikaze]

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

 

 

So why is it so hard for you to admit that you're a Catholic?

 

Apparently you don't see the point of the Catholic church to be based off of the apostilic church. The Aposolic church is one that is based off of Christ's teachings. So if it is a Catholic church based off of Christ teachings etc, etc, then yes I would go to that church.

 

But I am not Catholic, I am Christian.

 

 

Ok, listen, the people who wrote the nicne creed were catholic, they believed that anyone who disobyed the one true church (for them this was the catholic church) was a heritic. Therefore bassed on this creed you are a heritic because you go to a protestant church.

 

Protestant comes from the root word protest because the original protestants were protesting against the catholic church....exactly what the creed is telling you not to do. Is this concept really that hard to understand?

 

According to catholics there teachings "ARE" bassed on the teaching of christ, and your teachings are the heresy...but your to dogmatic apperently to see the obvious sillyness here.

[NotBlinded]

 

OK, so God the Father creates things in His own image. God's image is a triune God.

 

>snip<

 

God is referring to the triunity, when it states "us".

I don't know if you realize what you are saying but this is what you are saying. We are all triune creations...that I believe. We are cause, meduim and effect or in an allegorical sense, God, Holy Spirit, Son. Everything that exists exists in a triune matter. You have a thought (cause), you use a medium to create...say a paintbrush (medium) and then you have a finished product, a painting (effect). Please recognize what you said. This is not proof that the Christian god exists, it is just a philosophical truth that is present in the myth of the Bible.

[Open_Minded]

OUTSIDE EVIDENCE PROVING THE BIBLE IS CORRECT IN WHAT IT TALKS ABOUT:

1) Ebla tablets

 

OK.... Let's start with #1) Ebla tablets.

 

If you are using the Ebla tablets to prove "the Bible is correct in what it talks about."

 

Then let's look at the entire Ebla discoveries shall we. Because if we do - we're going to find a lot.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla

Entry on Ebla... quote about religious items found Ebla.

 

Some well-known Semitic deities appear at Ebla (Dagan, Ishtar, Resheph, Kanish, Hadad), and some otherwise unknown ones (Kura, Nidakul), plus a few Sumerian gods (Enki and Ninki) and Hurrian gods (Ashtapi, Hapat, Ishara).

 

You see, Sub, finds at Ebla also support Summerian mythology.

 

Look at the following Wikipedia article about Summerian mythology:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_mythology

 

Mesopotamian mythology is the collective name given to Sumerian, Akkadian, and Assyrian, and Babylonian mythologies from the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in modern Iraq.

 

The Sumerians practiced a polytheistic religion, with anthropomorphic gods or goddesses representing forces or presences in the world, much as in the later Greek mythology. The gods originally created humans as servants for themselves, but freed the humans when they became too much to handle.

 

Many stories in Sumerian religion appear homologous to stories in other middle-eastern religions. For example, the Biblical account of the creation of man as well as Noah's flood narrative resemble earlier Sumerian tales very closely though the Sumerian myths were written many years earlier then the Bible. Gods and goddesses from Sumer have distinctly similar representations in the religions of the Akkadians, Caananites, and others. A number of related stories and deities have Greek parallels as well; for example, Inanna's descent into the underworld strikingly recalls (and predates) the story of Persephone.

 

Not only that - Sub - but if you had studied your ancient Sumerian history before posting Ebla as a site which verifies the authenticity of YOUR theology... then you would know that the Sumerian gods listed in the above excerpt from Wikipidea, Enki and Ninki, are also central characters to the Sumerian garden of the gods story - (the land of Dilmun) - I'm sure you've read about it because you are so knowledgeable in the area of ancient archeaology.

 

There are many parallels between the Garden of Eden story and the Land of Dilmun story. The Dilmun story is much older than the Eden story. Would you like details on the link between Ninki and Eve? If you want them I'll be happy to supply them - you might want to a search on the internet first though and at least know what the hell you're talking about before coming in and listing something as benign as an ancient archeaological dig as proof of your "presupposition".

 

Archeaological digs prove lots of things. They provide much information about concrete things - but they do not verify flawed theology just because they exist.

 

Give us something more.

 

I won't move on to #2 until we explore Ebla in depth. And you better come in here with something solid. What was found at Ebla that makes the Bible the only TRUE word of God as in comparison to other finds at Ebla about other religions. We can stick with the ancient Summerian Religion if you like (it is actually one of the most fascinating). But Ebla had evidence around Hurrian gods as well. What among all that holds your theology as TRUE?

[SkepticOfBible]

Gen 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

OK, so God the Father creates things in His own image.

 

So once again you are rewriting to bible to say

 

Gen 1:27

So GOD THE FATHER created man in his own image, in the image of GOD THE FATHER created he him; male and female created he them.

 

I have told you this is a strict NO-NO according to the bible

God's image is a triune God.

 

I didn't know Humans had the triune personality(since we are made in the image of god)

 

God is referring to the triunity, when it states "us".

 

Just because you say doesn't make it so. You are going with a bias when you approach the bible.

 

Please provide OT proof for your assertion

 

I think the "Us" could also refer to all of god's sons who wanted to come down and boink earth women.

 

What "Sons of God" came down from heaven to have sex with woman on earth?

 

Gen 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

 

And I thought you believed that flood had happened?That is whole reason why God destroyed the earth, because these "sons of God" were screwing around on earth

[Fweethawt]

All of that hard work that I put into my Bugs Bunniology™ comments, and nobody even noticed!

 

 

[NotBlinded]

All of that hard work that I put into my Bugs Bunniology™ comments, and nobody even noticed!

 

 

I thought it was really funny Fwee! I laughed...really I did. (HA!) No really, it was funny and related perfectly.

[Guest sub_zer0]

OUTSIDE EVIDENCE PROVING THE BIBLE IS CORRECT IN WHAT IT TALKS ABOUT:

1) Ebla tablets

 

OK.... Let's start with #1) Ebla tablets.

 

If you are using the Ebla tablets to prove "the Bible is correct in what it talks about."

 

Then let's look at the entire Ebla discoveries shall we. Because if we do - we're going to find a lot.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla

Entry on Ebla... quote about religious items found Ebla.

 

Some well-known Semitic deities appear at Ebla (Dagan, Ishtar, Resheph, Kanish, Hadad), and some otherwise unknown ones (Kura, Nidakul), plus a few Sumerian gods (Enki and Ninki) and Hurrian gods (Ashtapi, Hapat, Ishara).

 

You see, Sub, finds at Ebla also support Summerian mythology.

 

Look at the following Wikipedia article about Summerian mythology:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_mythology

 

Mesopotamian mythology is the collective name given to Sumerian, Akkadian, and Assyrian, and Babylonian mythologies from the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in modern Iraq.

 

The Sumerians practiced a polytheistic religion, with anthropomorphic gods or goddesses representing forces or presences in the world, much as in the later Greek mythology. The gods originally created humans as servants for themselves, but freed the humans when they became too much to handle.

 

Many stories in Sumerian religion appear homologous to stories in other middle-eastern religions. For example, the Biblical account of the creation of man as well as Noah's flood narrative resemble earlier Sumerian tales very closely though the Sumerian myths were written many years earlier then the Bible. Gods and goddesses from Sumer have distinctly similar representations in the religions of the Akkadians, Caananites, and others. A number of related stories and deities have Greek parallels as well; for example, Inanna's descent into the underworld strikingly recalls (and predates) the story of Persephone.

 

Not only that - Sub - but if you had studied your ancient Sumerian history before posting Ebla as a site which verifies the authenticity of YOUR theology... then you would know that the Sumerian gods listed in the above excerpt from Wikipidea, Enki and Ninki, are also central characters to the Sumerian garden of the gods story - (the land of Dilmun) - I'm sure you've read about it because you are so knowledgeable in the area of ancient archeaology.

 

There are many parallels between the Garden of Eden story and the Land of Dilmun story. The Dilmun story is much older than the Eden story. Would you like details on the link between Ninki and Eve? If you want them I'll be happy to supply them - you might want to a search on the internet first though and at least know what the hell you're talking about before coming in and listing something as benign as an ancient archeaological dig as proof of your "presupposition".

 

Archeaological digs prove lots of things. They provide much information about concrete things - but they do not verify flawed theology just because they exist.

 

Give us something more.

 

I won't move on to #2 until we explore Ebla in depth. And you better come in here with something solid. What was found at Ebla that makes the Bible the only TRUE word of God as in comparison to other finds at Ebla about other religions. We can stick with the ancient Summerian Religion if you like (it is actually one of the most fascinating). But Ebla had evidence around Hurrian gods as well. What among all that holds your theology as TRUE?

 

The reason the Ebla tablets is mentioned by me to prove that the Bible is true in areas that can be validated by modern worldly ways, such as archeology and the like, is because when discovered (1971) it answered critics who attempted to say that the word "Canaan" was not used during the times and did not have a proper use in the early books of the Bible.

 

So you see, for me, since the Ebla tablets said something in reference to the world's real history and was proven right about it, proves to me just that much more that the Bible is right in all other areas that cannot be validated.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

So you see, for me, since the Ebla tablets said something in reference to the world's real history and was proven right about it, proves to me just that much more that the Bible is right in all other areas that cannot be validated.

 

I told you to read that my post (Post 385)

 

A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua.

 

Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

 

The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.

 

Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).

............

Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.

 

So there you go, archealogy proved the bible wrong.

[Vulgaris Prime]

None of which proves any more than historical setting.

 

Which, if you look at ANY(or almost any...Scientology doesn't count) religious text, they all have.

 

This does not prove it's truth.

 

Now, prove the aspects that would, the mystical and miraculous parts please.

 

Talking critters, angels, demons - resurrections all that crap. Prove that.

 

Good it PROVES that the Bible is true in history and everything else.

 

Now again like I said to believe what the Bible says in ALL areas, not just things that are validated by the world, takes faith!!

 

WHICH PROVES NOTHING. Are you listening? We're telling you to PROVE IT, not just bark about faith. "Faith is believin' what you know ain't so." If you're not gonna own up, then you'd best get out before you get forced out.

 

Just because some of the bible is true, doesn't mean everything else is true.

 

I gave you numerous examples where the bible has made a false statement.

 

Secondly where is the evidence that I asked for.

 

That is how I view it, because what can be validated through the Bible by archeology, etc, makes me believe everything else is true.

 

Where has the Bible made a false statement?

 

Okay, so you think that. Oh, look at this, here's a religion that talks about things that are real, so it MUST be true! And the Harry Potter books take place in England, which is a real place, so they must be true!

 

See where it goes all wrong? The supposed historical accuracy of the Bible (which is shaky at best) doesn't prove that it's all true. All it proves is that the authors of the Bible wrote down some history. That's pretty common. History textbooks and all that.

[SkepticOfBible]

So you see, for me, since the Ebla tablets said something in reference to the world's real history and was proven right about it, proves to me just that much more that the Bible is right in all other areas that cannot be validated.

 

Muslims can take the same stance.

 

So you see, for me, since the Quran said something in reference to the world's real history and was proven right about it, proves to me just that much more that the Quran is right in all other areas that cannot be validated.

 

If it cannot be validated, doesn't mean it is true.

 

 

See where it goes all wrong? The supposed historical accuracy of the Bible (which is shaky at best) doesn't prove that it's all true. All it proves is that the authors of the Bible wrote down some history. That's pretty common. History textbooks and all that.

 

Not only that, it also wrote some bad history. As I mentioned in my post.

[Guest sub_zer0]

I didn't know Humans had the triune personality(since we are made in the image of god)

 

We have the Holy Spirit that dwells inside of us, we believe in Jesus Christ the son of God and we believe in God the Father. I suppose that is how the triune personality is manifested in those who have faith and believe. Not in all humans though.

 

Gen 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

 

And I thought you believed that flood had happened?That is whole reason why God destroyed the earth, because these "sons of God" were screwing around on earth

 

The idiom "sons of" is used in reference to men who bore the character of someone or something. Elohim in Scripture is used in reference to human leaders in Exodus 21:6; Psalm 82:1. And very well could be a reference to Lamech and the like (4:23).

 

Notice also in verse 3 it states that "My spirit will not srtive with man forever." Then in verse 4 it states that the offspring were "... men of renown."

[Ouroboros]

But I am not Catholic, I am Christian.

Zoooom... yet another ball fly over your head...

 

You're either lying or in a big religious conflict. According to your own words, a true Christian believes in the Nicene Creed, are you taking that back, since you intentionally remove a part from it?

 

The creed say the Holy Church is the Catholic Church, and you obviously don't believe that. Hence by you're previous declaration of the creed, you're not a true Christian, or your declaration was false.

 

Make up your mind.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

We have the Holy Spirit that dwells inside of us, we believe in Jesus Christ the son of God and we believe in God the Father. I suppose that is how the triune personality is manifested in those who have faith and believe. Not in all humans though.

 

 

Well why not. All humans are made in the image of God right, or are saying that humans lost their triune nature down the road.

 

Besides you haven't provided us with a scriptural proof of triune god.

 

Whenever someone tries to teach you a doctrine that is UNscriptural, he will always be forced to use words that are unscriptural.

 

First of all, nowhere in the Scriptures is God referred to or called a "trinity."

 

Second, the word "three" is never used in reference to Who or What God is.

 

Third, God is never called or referred to as "a person."

 

Four, the holy spirit is never called "God."

 

Five, since Christ is the Son, He cannot also be the Father or be coequal with His Father. Christ plainly said:

 

"My Father is GREATER than I" (John 14:28).

 

The holy spirit is never called God, and God is never referred to as a trinity or a person or consisting of three, and Christ is the Son of the Father, YET this mysterious doctrine is believed by millions. Why?

 

Is God a Closed TRINITY or an Open FAMILY?

 

 

The idiom "sons of" is used in reference to men who bore the character of someone or something. Elohim in Scripture is used in reference to human leaders in Exodus 21:6; Psalm 82:1. And very well could be a reference to Lamech and the like (4:23).

 

So you are saying that the Sons of God doesn't mean "son of gods" and is a idiom. What is your proof for that.

 

BTW have you heard of Jason gastrich. He once said that these nephilims were demonic creatures.

[NotBlinded]

I didn't know Humans had the triune personality(since we are made in the image of god)

 

We have the Holy Spirit that dwells inside of us, we believe in Jesus Christ the son of God and we believe in God the Father. I suppose that is how the triune personality is manifested in those who have faith and believe. Not in all humans though.

Did you not read what I posted? It is true for everyone and everything. Let me repost it:

 

I don't know if you realize what you are saying but this is what you are saying. We are all triune creations...that I believe. We are cause, meduim and effect or in an allegorical sense, God, Holy Spirit, Son. Everything that exists exists in a triune matter[sic, should be manner]. You have a thought (cause), you use a medium to create...say a paintbrush (medium) and then you have a finished product, a painting (effect). Please recognize what you said. This is not proof that the Christian god exists, it is just a philosophical truth that is present in the myth of the Bible.

[Guest sub_zer0]

A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua.

 

Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

 

The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.

 

Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).

............

Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.

 

So there you go, archealogy proved the bible wrong.

 

So there was no evidence of the city of Ai during 1500-1200 B.C.?

 

LaMoine F. DeVries tells us that "During it’s Early Bronze history Ai grew from a small village to a sizable city or town and in the process experienced several significant changes."

 

In his overview of the history of Ai, DeVries lists out the larger picture of the changes this city is said to have gone through as follows:

 

2700 B.C.E. A major destruction occurs, the cause of which is still unknown. A new city is built, reflecting a strong Egyptian influence in its architecture.

 

1220 B.C.E. Ai inhabited again, on a smaller scale. The newcomers may have been Hittites, who established a new unwalled agricultural village with cobblestone paved streets. This was the first Iron Age I settlement.

 

1125 B.C.E. Another wave of newcomers establish the second Iron Age I Village. They continued the agricultural use of the city, building numerous silo granaries and remodeling the facilities.

 

In order to more clearly hear Livingston’s arguments, we need to let him speak for himself. His alternative location for both the cites of Bethel and Ai is "in the vicinity of el-Bireh, 3km south of the present locations." He further goes on to point out that "The location of Bethel is fixed by (Jerome and Eusebius) at the twelfth Roman milestone on the Jerusalem-Neapolis road." In the conclusion to his recent journal article defending his position, Livingston states:

 

Ai should...be east of el-Bireh on the other side of Jebel et-Tawil (Gen. 12:8). Ten seasons of excavation at Khirbet Nisya, our proposed new location for Ai, have clearly shown that the site was occupied during the biblical periods when Ai was in existence.

 

Periods of significant occupation, determined by ceramic, artefactual and architectural evidence are: Early Bronze (possibly), Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze I, Late Bronze IIB, Iron Age I and II, Persian, Hellenistic, Early Roman, Byzantine and early Arab. Furthermore, the topography around the site matches every detail given in the account of the destruction of Ai in Joshua 7-8.

 

http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/seminar...KMcFall/ai.html

 

Just because we have no evidence of Kings that once lives thousands of years ago doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong.

 

Did you not read what I posted? It is true for everyone and everything. Let me repost it:

 

I don't know if you realize what you are saying but this is what you are saying. We are all triune creations...that I believe. We are cause, meduim and effect or in an allegorical sense, God, Holy Spirit, Son. Everything that exists exists in a triune matter[sic, should be manner]. You have a thought (cause), you use a medium to create...say a paintbrush (medium) and then you have a finished product, a painting (effect). Please recognize what you said. This is not proof that the Christian god exists, it is just a philosophical truth that is present in the myth of the Bible.

 

No. The only way we are triune in nature is by how I said and even that is not what God meant by creating us in His image.

[Ouroboros]

No. The only way we are triune in nature is by how I said and even that is not what God meant by creating us in His image.

It's true the "absence of evidence" is not "evidence of absence", but in your case "absence is evidence", and by that measure that gives right to anyone of any religion to claim whatever they want. For instance, there's no evidence that Muhammed did not meet the angle Gabriel, so by using your stick of measurement, we can conclude that he must have met the angle Gabriel. And hence the Quran must be true.

[NotBlinded]

No. The only way we are triune in nature is by how I said and even that is not what God meant by creating us in His image.

Oh I forgot...you are the All-Knowing!

 

You have no idea what I'm talking about do you? Oh the sad irony of one searching for something that is right in front of their face...

 

O_M, you want to have a go? It is probably worthless to try, but you know I will enjoy what you say!

[Antlerman]

BTW, the truth is the bible has invalidated time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time, again. Yet you still believe. Do expect a pat on the head from God for that, or something?? Is that what motivates your ignorance?

 

Name one time when the Bible has been invalidated...

You're expecting me to present you with contradictions within the text, but you have seen them all and will not accept them. But I will offer something of far greater invalidation that all the scholarship you have dismissed:

 

The bible has been invalidated by the words and actions of every single hard line, inflexible, unloving, dogmatic, judgmental, self-righteous, young fundamentalist Christian who has come into this forum such as you proclaiming the truth of God in one had - yet spewing forth nothing other that spiritual death in the other.

 

Here is your invalidation: The actions of the so called interpreters of Holy Truth. All these actions are a direct product of believing dogmatically as you do, and have made the words and the spirit of the Law of no effect. You have invalidated the Bible by exhibiting the fruits of a spiritless life.

 

Ask yourself just this one question: “How did all the thousands of people who read me tell a Christian they were not a Christian because they didn’t believe exactly as I do, react to seeing me judge another human being like that, when I am supposed to be filled with the spririt of Love? Where are my spritual fruits? Maybe this is why people won’t listen to my arguments?”

 

Truth? Prove it by your actions.

 

P.S. I would love for other Christians from anywhere to jump in and tell the fundi just how awful an attitude this is for a Christian, and how much it damages your faith, not helps it.

[SkepticOfBible]

 

In order to more clearly hear Livingston’s arguments, we need to let him speak for himself. His alternative location for both the cites of Bethel and Ai is "in the vicinity of el-Bireh, 3km south of the present locations." He further goes on to point out that "The location of Bethel is fixed by (Jerome and Eusebius) at the twelfth Roman milestone on the Jerusalem-Neapolis road." In the conclusion to his recent journal article defending his position, Livingston states:

 

Once again you forgot the mention the previous statement

 

Of course, my conservative bias leads me to concur with this hypothesis, in light of the fact that most of he major work on Ai has seemed to have been interpreted in a way that non-literalizes the Biblical record. But also, I’m inclined to wonder at the all too curious meaning of the words "Ai" and "et-Tell" as a "heap of ruins." To me it’s almost too obvious that the name itself is a rhetorical "storytelling device" and that perhaps it is applied to a literal event. The true name of Ai is probably lost to history, and Hebrew tradition could have given it the name "Ruins" as a way of identifying the story to those whom it was passed down to. In this way, we take into consideration the later compilation of the Dueteronomic history with the reality of the account in Joshua not matching up with what scholars are insisting is the site known as Ai.

 

This guys admits he has a bias to prove the bible is right.

 

This would in turn mean either that the general assumption for the date of the Exodus from Egypt is wrong, or that the Bible is reflecting a reactor’s "etiological" purposes in creating a story of Joshua’s conquest to explain how Ai fell in the process of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. But with Livingston’s newer hypothesis , we are allowed to read the text of Joshua as it stands, using it’s own description of the times and geography as fine moorings for our understanding of history.

 

Note the word hypothesis.

 

Besides you never explained the historical mistakes in the book of Daniel

 

Just because we have no evidence of Kings that once lives thousands of years ago doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong.

 

Nor does it prove that the bible is right. This is where "blind" faith comes in.

 

This also shows the incompetence of the christian god, who cannot even ensure that vital evidence is preserved.

 

No. The only way we are triune in nature is by how I said and even that is not what God meant by creating us in His image.

 

Once again you putting yourself above the God of the bible.

 

You still haven't proved to us why your interpretation is the correct one, considering how many times you have the twisted the bible to make it say what you want it to say. And then expect us to believe that god agrees with your dishonesty.

 

You also want to say that 90% of the world population(including those christians who sincerely believe in JC) will goto Hell. After all it people with false interpretation of the bible will goto hell.

[SkepticOfBible]

By the way Sub_Zero, could you please give tell us when was Jesus born(Since christians keep giving ambigous dates)

 

Please give your answer here

[SkepticOfBible]

 

 

We have the Holy Spirit that dwells inside of us, we believe in Jesus Christ the son of God and we believe in God the Father. I suppose that is how the triune personality is manifested in those who have faith and believe. Not in all humans though.

 

 

BTW I forgot to mention. Your claims about the Holy spirit dwelling inside you are proven false by the hebrew bible. You obviously do not walk in all of God's commandments as defined by Ezekiel. So your claims is just much as real as OM's.

[Taphophilia]

A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua.

 

Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

 

The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.

 

Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).

............

Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.

 

So there you go, archealogy proved the bible wrong.

 

So there was no evidence of the city of Ai during 1500-1200 B.C.?

 

LaMoine F. DeVries tells us that "During it’s Early Bronze history Ai grew from a small village to a sizable city or town and in the process experienced several significant changes."

 

In his overview of the history of Ai, DeVries lists out the larger picture of the changes this city is said to have gone through as follows:

 

2700 B.C.E. A major destruction occurs, the cause of which is still unknown. A new city is built, reflecting a strong Egyptian influence in its architecture.

 

1220 B.C.E. Ai inhabited again, on a smaller scale. The newcomers may have been Hittites, who established a new unwalled agricultural village with cobblestone paved streets. This was the first Iron Age I settlement.

 

1125 B.C.E. Another wave of newcomers establish the second Iron Age I Village. They continued the agricultural use of the city, building numerous silo granaries and remodeling the facilities.

 

In order to more clearly hear Livingston’s arguments, we need to let him speak for himself. His alternative location for both the cites of Bethel and Ai is "in the vicinity of el-Bireh, 3km south of the present locations." He further goes on to point out that "The location of Bethel is fixed by (Jerome and Eusebius) at the twelfth Roman milestone on the Jerusalem-Neapolis road." In the conclusion to his recent journal article defending his position, Livingston states:

 

Ai should...be east of el-Bireh on the other side of Jebel et-Tawil (Gen. 12:8). Ten seasons of excavation at Khirbet Nisya, our proposed new location for Ai, have clearly shown that the site was occupied during the biblical periods when Ai was in existence.

 

Periods of significant occupation, determined by ceramic, artefactual and architectural evidence are: Early Bronze (possibly), Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze I, Late Bronze IIB, Iron Age I and II, Persian, Hellenistic, Early Roman, Byzantine and early Arab. Furthermore, the topography around the site matches every detail given in the account of the destruction of Ai in Joshua 7-8.

 

http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/seminar...KMcFall/ai.html

 

Just because we have no evidence of Kings that once lives thousands of years ago doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong.

 

Did you not read what I posted? It is true for everyone and everything. Let me repost it:

 

I don't know if you realize what you are saying but this is what you are saying. We are all triune creations...that I believe. We are cause, meduim and effect or in an allegorical sense, God, Holy Spirit, Son. Everything that exists exists in a triune matter[sic, should be manner]. You have a thought (cause), you use a medium to create...say a paintbrush (medium) and then you have a finished product, a painting (effect). Please recognize what you said. This is not proof that the Christian god exists, it is just a philosophical truth that is present in the myth of the Bible.

 

No. The only way we are triune in nature is by how I said and even that is not what God meant by creating us in His image.

 

Just because someone has a PhD does not a historian make. LaMoine F. Devries is a Theologian, not a historian. Since he is a Theologian he is not going to be objective to contradictions of his religion. If you want to know about history, read something by a historian not a Theologian.

 

LaMoine F. Devries received his Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Missouri State University. He has contributed numerous articles to books such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Mercer Bible Dictionary, and Holman Bible Dictionary.

[Open_Minded]

Give us something more.

 

I won't move on to #2 until we explore Ebla in depth. And you better come in here with something solid. What was found at Ebla that makes the Bible the only TRUE word of God as in comparison to other finds at Ebla about other religions. We can stick with the ancient Summerian Religion if you like (it is actually one of the most fascinating). But Ebla had evidence around Hurrian gods as well. What among all that holds your theology as TRUE?

 

The reason the Ebla tablets is mentioned by me to prove that the Bible is true in areas that can be validated by modern worldly ways, such as archeology and the like, is because when discovered (1971) it answered critics who attempted to say that the word "Canaan" was not used during the times and did not have a proper use in the early books of the Bible.

 

So you see, for me, since the Ebla tablets said something in reference to the world's real history and was proven right about it, proves to me just that much more that the Bible is right in all other areas that cannot be validated.

 

OK... Sub.. there is a real part of me that feels sad for you, very sad. There is also a part of me that is just plain angry. I keep hoping you come in here day after day, because somewhere down in the depths of your soul a tiny little voice is pushing you to seek honest answers. But, I fear, that you are coming in here, day after day out of nothing but arogance.

 

I'm going to go with hope that you are ultimately here to seek honest answers.

 

Sub... Your wording above says that you respect archeaology and it's ability to "validate" things. So do all of us. But - here is the tricky part, Sub. If you accept archeaology's ability to "validate" the use of the word "Canaan" then archeaological evidence is legitimate to "validate" and "invalidate" in all areas of Biblical study as well. With archeaology there is no "presupposition", we go where the evidence leads us. So... that is where we are going to go.

 

You set the bar here, Sub, and we are going to stick with it. For emphasis sake the bar is as follows:

 

Archeaological evidence is legitimate to "validate" and "invalidate" in all areas of Biblical study. With archeaology there is no "presupposition", we go where the evidence leads us.

 

Again... one of the finds at Ebla was more information about a Sumerian god named "Enki". Following is some information about Enki from Wikipidea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enki

 

Enki was a deity in Sumerian mythology, later known as Ea in Babylonian mythology. The name Ea is of Sumerian origin and was written by means of two signs signifying "house" (E) and "water" (A/Ab).

 

Enki was the deity of water, intelligence and creation. The main temple of Enki was the so-called é-engur-ra, the "house of the (water-)deep"; it was in Eridu, which was in the wetlands of the Euphrates valley at some distance from the Persian Gulf. He was the keeper of the holy powers called Me. The exact meaning of his name is not sure: the common translation is "Lord of the Earth": the Sumerian en is translated as "lord", ki as "earth"; but there are theories that ki in this name has another origin.

 

He is the lord of the Apsu, the fresh-water ocean under the earth. His name is possibly an epithet bestowed on him for the creation of the first man, Adamu or Adapa. His symbols included a goat and a fish, which later combined into a single beast, the Capricorn, which became one of the signs of the zodiac.

 

Enki had a penchant for beer and a string of incestuous affairs. First, he and his consort Ninhursag had a daughter Ninsar. He then had intercourse with Ninsar who gave birth to Ninkurra. Finally, he had intercourse with Ninkurra, who gave birth to Uttu.

 

According to Sumerian mythology, Enki allowed humanity to survive the Deluge designed to kill them. After Enlil, An and the rest of the apparent Council of Deities, decided that humankind would suffer total annihilation, he covertly rescued the human man Ziusudra by either instructing him to build some kind of an boat for his family, or by bringing him into the heavens in a magic boat. This is apparently the oldest surviving source of the Noah's Ark myth and other parallel Middle Eastern Deluge myths.

 

Now just to summarize what is happening on an archeaological level.

1. Sumerian culture predates Babylonian culture.
   
2. The gods Enki and Ea are the same gods known by different names at different times in history.
   
3. Enki is the most ancient name - affiliated with the Sumerian culture.
   
4. Ea is the Babylonian god - Same as Enki - but affiliated with the older Babylonian culture.
   
5. Wikipedia is affiliating Enki with the oldest surviving source of the Noah's Ark myth and other parallel Middle Eastern Deluge myths.
   
6. Enki - Sumerian god within Sumerian mythology - is predessesor for Ea. Enki is also - by timeline - a predessesor to Noah
   
7. You said: "The reason the Ebla tablets is mentioned by me to prove that the Bible is true in areas that can be validated by modern worldly ways, such as archeology and the like, is because when discovered (1971) it answered critics who attempted to say that the word "Canaan" was not used during the times and did not have a proper use in the early books of the Bible."
   
8. If you accept that archeaology is capable of validating a timeline for the use of the word "Canaan", then you must also accept archeaology's ability to date the timeline of the ancient flood stories.
   
9. By this reasoning - you must accept that the Enki story predates the Noah story by several 100 years.
   
10. And you must accept the archealogical evidence that the Enki story is - as Wikipedia reports - "the oldest surviving source of the Noah's Ark myth and other parallel Middle Eastern Deluge myths."
    

Again...

 

You set the bar here, Sub, and we are going to stick with it. For emphasis sake the bar is as follows:

 

Archeaological evidence is legitimate to "validate" and "invalidate" in all areas of Biblical study. With archeaology there is no "presupposition", we go where the evidence leads us.

 

The arceaological evidence is as follows:

 

1. There is in fact - a flood myth with many parallels to the Biblical flood story.

2. In fact - archeaologists used the same techniques you trusted to define timelines for the use of the word "Canaan" to determine that the Sumerian flood story with Enki predates Noah - and is the source of the Noah story.

 

You are now in a position where you must either let go of Ebla as archeaological proof of your theology. Or rethink your approach to accepting the Biblical flood story as actual historical fact.

 

I look forward to your response.

[Antlerman]

Ahh Damn it!!! I was just rolling up my sleves and sitting back to watch this unfold with Sub and then this!!

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=141544

 

He's opting out.

 

See if you can get him to take you on one to one. I want to see that.

[Guest sub_zer0]

OK... Sub.. there is a real part of me that feels sad for you, very sad. There is also a part of me that is just plain angry. I keep hoping you come in here day after day, because somewhere down in the depths of your soul a tiny little voice is pushing you to seek honest answers. But, I fear, that you are coming in here, day after day out of nothing but arogance.

 

I'm going to go with hope that you are ultimately here to seek honest answers.

 

Sub... Your wording above says that you respect archeaology and it's ability to "validate" things. So do all of us. But - here is the tricky part, Sub. If you accept archeaology's ability to "validate" the use of the word "Canaan" then archeaological evidence is legitimate to "validate" and "invalidate" in all areas of Biblical study as well. With archeaology there is no "presupposition", we go where the evidence leads us. So... that is where we are going to go.

 

You set the bar here, Sub, and we are going to stick with it. For emphasis sake the bar is as follows:

 

Archeaological evidence is legitimate to "validate" and "invalidate" in all areas of Biblical study. With archeaology there is no "presupposition", we go where the evidence leads us.

 

I agree that archeology can be used to validate and invalidate the Bible. But remember, the Bible many times before has been proven right after thought to of been proven wrong.

 

Again... one of the finds at Ebla was more information about a Sumerian god named "Enki". Following is some information about Enki from Wikipidea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enki

 

"Enki was a deity in Sumerian mythology, later known as Ea in Babylonian mythology. The name Ea is of Sumerian origin and was written by means of two signs signifying "house" (E) and "water" (A/Ab).

 

Enki was the deity of water, intelligence and creation. The main temple of Enki was the so-called é-engur-ra, the "house of the (water-)deep"; it was in Eridu, which was in the wetlands of the Euphrates valley at some distance from the Persian Gulf. He was the keeper of the holy powers called Me. The exact meaning of his name is not sure: the common translation is "Lord of the Earth": the Sumerian en is translated as "lord", ki as "earth"; but there are theories that ki in this name has another origin.

 

He is the lord of the Apsu, the fresh-water ocean under the earth. His name is possibly an epithet bestowed on him for the creation of the first man, Adamu or Adapa. His symbols included a goat and a fish, which later combined into a single beast, the Capricorn, which became one of the signs of the zodiac.

 

Enki had a penchant for beer and a string of incestuous affairs. First, he and his consort Ninhursag had a daughter Ninsar. He then had intercourse with Ninsar who gave birth to Ninkurra. Finally, he had intercourse with Ninkurra, who gave birth to Uttu.

 

According to Sumerian mythology, Enki allowed humanity to survive the Deluge designed to kill them. After Enlil, An and the rest of the apparent Council of Deities, decided that humankind would suffer total annihilation, he covertly rescued the human man Ziusudra by either instructing him to build some kind of an boat for his family, or by bringing him into the heavens in a magic boat. This is apparently the oldest surviving source of the Noah's Ark myth and other parallel Middle Eastern Deluge myths."

 

You still haven't even mentioned the actual date of the Sumerian myth to clue me in on that it actually does predate Noah's. How can it be compared to the Biblical account when it is older than it?

 

Now just to summarize what is happening on an archeaological level.

1. Sumerian culture predates Babylonian culture.
   
2. The gods Enki and Ea are the same gods known by different names at different times in history.
   
3. Enki is the most ancient name - affiliated with the Sumerian culture.
   
4. Ea is the Babylonian god - Same as Enki - but affiliated with the older Babylonian culture.
   
5. Wikipedia is affiliating Enki with the oldest surviving source of the Noah's Ark myth and other parallel Middle Eastern Deluge myths.
   
6. Enki - Sumerian god within Sumerian mythology - is predessesor for Ea. Enki is also - by timeline - a predessesor to Noah
   
7. You said: "The reason the Ebla tablets is mentioned by me to prove that the Bible is true in areas that can be validated by modern worldly ways, such as archeology and the like, is because when discovered (1971) it answered critics who attempted to say that the word "Canaan" was not used during the times and did not have a proper use in the early books of the Bible."
   
8. If you accept that archeaology is capable of validating a timeline for the use of the word "Canaan", then you must also accept archeaology's ability to date the timeline of the ancient flood stories.
   
9. By this reasoning - you must accept that the Enki story predates the Noah story by several 100 years.
   
10. And you must accept the archealogical evidence that the Enki story is - as Wikipedia reports - "the oldest surviving source of the Noah's Ark myth and other parallel Middle Eastern Deluge myths."
    

 

Why must I, by thinking that archeology is capable of validating the Bible, have to accept that the Enki story predates the Noah story?

 

The arceaological evidence is as follows:

 

1. There is in fact - a flood myth with many parallels to the Biblical flood story.

2. In fact - archeaologists used the same techniques you trusted to define timelines for the use of the word "Canaan" to determine that the Sumerian flood story with Enki predates Noah - and is the source of the Noah story.

 

You are now in a position where you must either let go of Ebla as archeaological proof of your theology. Or rethink your approach to accepting the Biblical flood story as actual historical fact.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

1. Be specific, use a verse in the Bible and something from the Sumerian myth and see if they compare.

2. How can they, through archeological means, concede that the Sumerian myth is the source of the Noah story and not the other way around?