One Verse At A Time...

[webmdave]

But I am not Catholic, I am Christian.

 

 

Catholic means "UNIVERSAL" in the creeds. In other words, it means CHRISTIAN.

 

When the historic creeds say "CATHOLIC" they do not mean the Roman Catholic Church.

[Ouroboros]

Oh. I didn't know that.

 

I always thought that Catholic meant the Catholic Church only.

 

Okay ... reprogramming done...

 

(See, I can admit when I'm wrong.)

[white_raven23]

Has anyone else noticed that whenever we make a reference to a story that is familiar to us FROM THE BIBLE.......Sub_Zero ALWAYS asks what verses we are talking about?

 

And then only AFTER we provide the verse does he have an explaination?

 

WTF???

 

Why the heck is Sub not already at least FAMILIAR with our references BEFORE we provide him exact verses?

 

Isn't HE the one who is supposed to be the Grande PooBah who came here to "explain" the bible to us ignorant heathens? Shouldn't at least SOME of the verses we bring up be familair to him already, if he's such a Good Christian who knows his bible?

 

And a lot of the verses we've referred to are so generally known that anyone who has actually read the bible before this moment will at least already know weather or not the reference is OT or NT, and most likely know which book of the bible it appears in.

 

We are pretty much reading the bible to Sub_Zero. He keeps it up, and he'll be able to say in church on Sunday that he's read the bible and not be lying at this rate.

[thunderbolt]

And then only AFTER we provide the verse does he have an explaination?

 

WTF???

Yeah, I noticed here too. Like when I mentioned Romans 5, he asked which verse. As if every matter can be established with a single verse. But then again, he is like GOD. Full of "answers" and never in need to explain himself. Pfhhhht.

[SkepticOfBible]

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.

 

And I have shown that archeaology has also proven the bible wrong. (Eg in the book of Daniel)

 

Here is another example

 

The Walls of Jericho

The incidents related in Joshua are those that could conceivably be verified by archaeology. We are told, for instance, in Joshua chapter 6 that he made the walls of Jericho tumble, by having his men circle the city seven times and blowing their trumpets.

 

There was a flurry of excitement when, in 1930, a British archaeological expedition led by John Gerstang on the ancient site of Jericho found a collapsed defensive wall and a destroyed city at the site. Based on some vessels broken pieces of pottery found in a few houses built over the fortifications and in tombs, Gerstang dated the destruction to around 1400 BC, just right at the point where biblical chronology had predicted. This discover was hailed by some as proving that “the Bible was right after all”.[d]

 

However in the 1950’s another British expedition to the site, this time led by Kathleen Kenyon showed that Gerstang’s interpretation of the pottery evidence had been wrong. She showed conclusively that the walls and the city were destroyed almost a thousand years earlier, in 2,300 BC! Kenyon’s interpretation of the pottery evidence is today accepted by all archaeologists as the correct one. Thus, the site excavated by Gerstang could not have been contemporaneous with Joshua. Could there have been another wall, built upon the old damaged ones? The answer is no. For the period between 1400 and 1300 BC, Kenyon’s team found only one little building (dated to 1320 BC) and a few reused old tombs. After 1300 BC, Jericho was not even settled at all. Thus, Joshua’s men would have found either a few small huts or nothing at all in Jericho. They would certainly not have found a walled and fortified city. Therefore, one of the most important event in the Joshua narrative is fictitious

 

You are forgetting the biggest archealogical evidence against the bible is the age of the earth itself. The Earth was not built in 6 days. If you want debate about the age of the earth, please goto science vs religion section on the forum

 

I am still waiting for you here, so that you can give me the year that Jesus was born in(along with the historical evidence)

 

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

 

Otherwise it shows that you are cherry picking your facts.

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

err just got message from Sub_zero

 

"I can't reply, admin took my posting rights.".

 

So there is no point posting here anymore.

 

Which of the Mod did this and why?

[Open_Minded]

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?

 

You want specifics?

On the Sumerian flood myths pre-dating Noah mythology:

http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/m104web...ons/flood/flood

 

One of the oldest versions of the Flood Myth is the Sumerian version, which is as many as 4000 years old. The Sumerians, originally a nomadic people, migrated from the east and settled in the delta of the Tigris and Euphrates around 3500 B.C. They kept 'King Lists, and it was the discovery of these Sumerian king lists which fostered the belief of an ancient, great flood.

 

The Sumerian king lists divided Sumerian history into two basic periods: before and after the Great Flood. The legendary Sumerian hero of the catastrophe was Ziusudra, the son of Ubara-tutu, the last king of Shuruppak. Ziusudra reigned during the pre-dynastic period, over a thousand years before the Babylonian text. Thus, the chronicles and heroic epics of the Sumerians and their cultural heirs, the Babylonians and Assyrians, all seem to regard the Great Flood as the primary event of their history.

 

If you want specifics - and you are asking good questions. But copying and listing the specifics in this posting area - doesn't allow for a table format. Just go to the linked site and scroll down. You'll see summaries of all the applicable flood stories and at the end a columned formated listing of the parallels.

 

Sub_Zero.. the Sumerian flood story is the oldest. But it evolved into a Babylonian flood myth with a hero Gilgamesh. You'll find info there as well. If you would like another site to look at regarding the Gilgamesh story you can find it here:

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/floodorigins.html

 

Looking forward to your response

[Ouroboros]

I don't have the details, but I think Sub0 has been blocked.

 

And it was probably because he started another topic.

 

I posted this in another thread:

FYI, I've got some info that Sub0 is a pain in the tail on other web sites too, even been banned from some, after starting multiple topics and just being an annoyance to everyone.

[white_raven23]

Great......

 

Wonder who he went out of his way to piss off in order to be rescued from having to answer us. All those twistings, spin doctorings, and turns of phrase must have been making him dizzy.

 

I believe I predicted this....ah yes, post number 200 of this thread.

 

Crazy-Tiger! I have psychic powers too!

[Fweethawt]

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.

 

 

Did I forget to mention that when Bugs Bunny rubs a bald man's head that his scalp will sprout flowers within seconds? BEHOLD!

 

[crazy-tiger]

Great......

 

Wonder who he went out of his way to piss off in order to be rescued from having to answer us. All those twistings, spin doctorings, and turns of phrase must have been making him dizzy.

 

I believe I predicted this....ah yes, post number 200 of this thread.

 

Crazy-Tiger! I have psychic powers too!

Yay! Lets be psychics together!

 

 

Bow down before us, for we are psychic!

[Fweethawt]

 

 

[thunderbolt]

LOL

 

You are wicked Fwee!

[Amanda]

I don't have the details, but I think Sub0 has been blocked.

 

And it was probably because he started another topic.

 

I posted this in another thread:

FYI, I've got some info that Sub0 is a pain in the tail on other web sites too, even been banned from some, after starting multiple topics and just being an annoyance to everyone.

 

Is that the reason I was unable to access the site Antlerman referenced in his post about Sub Zero, just above in this thread?

 

I can't believe Sub Zero got blocked off this site! I was hoping that he'd stick around, because I think it would of lead to him modifying his views. It's tough to get past the literal hell endoctorinated beliefs one must have, to escape hell. This site is usually very liberal to all posters, and the very, very few who were blocked had warnings first and then went over the line... in sort of a vindictive manner, before they were blocked. I'm curious what Sub Zero did... he didn't seem like the type to do that... and seemed to be patient with everyone, and vice versa?

[Antlerman]

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?

Is it just me, or did you really say this?? Sub, what do you mean? You honesty don't understand what this would suggest?

 

Answer: If there is another mythology floating around in other cultures prior to the Biblical story, and the Bible retells this same story with a few added embellisments of it's own, then the Bible borrowed it from someone else! This suggests rather strongly that it is not divine revelation!

[Open_Minded]

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?

 

Is it just me, or did you really say this?? Sub, what do you mean? You honesty don't understand what this would suggest?

 

Answer: If there is another mythology floating around in other cultures prior to the Biblical story, and the Bible retells this same story with a few added embellisments of it's own, then the Bible borrowed it from someone else! This suggests rather strongly that it is not divine revelation!

 

See... that's just it. He doesn't understand. We were playing archeaology 101 with him and he's still clueless. He doesn't realise that by accepting archeaology's ability to put a timeline on the use of the word "Canaan" he was kicking the foundation out from under his house of cards. Archeaology's ability to put timelines on history undoes so much of Biblical literalism.

 

Accepting that the Sumerian flood myth is older than the Noah flood myth is just the beginninig. Once you accept this point, than it opens the door to the whole library of Sumerian mythology. .... And then your house of cards comes tumbling down.....

 

 

I don't have the details, but I think Sub0 has been blocked.

 

And it was probably because he started another topic.

 

I posted this in another thread:

FYI, I've got some info that Sub0 is a pain in the tail on other web sites too, even been banned from some, after starting multiple topics and just being an annoyance to everyone.

 

Awe.... and just when we were beginning to have some fun...

[Antlerman]

I don't have the details, but I think Sub0 has been blocked.

 

And it was probably because he started another topic.

 

I posted this in another thread:

FYI, I've got some info that Sub0 is a pain in the tail on other web sites too, even been banned from some, after starting multiple topics and just being an annoyance to everyone.

 

Is that the reason I was unable to access the site Antlerman referenced in his post about Sub Zero, just above in this thread?

 

I can't believe Sub Zero got blocked off this site! I was hoping that he'd stick around, because I think it would of lead to him modifying his views. It's tough to get past the literal hell endoctorinated beliefs one must have, to escape hell. This site is usually very liberal to all posters, and the very, very few who were blocked had warnings first and then went over the line... in sort of a vindictive manner, before they were blocked. I'm curious what Sub Zero did... he didn't seem like the type to do that... and seemed to be patient with everyone, and vice versa?

I don't believe he was. I think the reason the link I put up there is not working anymore is because the topic he started is gone. I must have seen just after he posted it, then he changed his mind and got rid of it somehow? He had taken up Asimov on a one to one challange because he said he couldn't take on debating 5 people at once.

 

(I guess I could understand that for him, but I was pissed because I so wanted to see OM and Sub go head to head. Wise Christian versus Blind Christian

[webmdave]

Subby is not banned.

 

I did, however, selfishly give him a few hours off.

 

I needed a break from all his annoying posts flooding my inbox.

[white_raven23]

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?

Is it just me, or did you really say this?? Sub, what do you mean? You honesty don't understand what this would suggest?

 

Answer: If there is another mythology floating around in other cultures prior to the Biblical story, and the Bible retells this same story with a few added embellisments of it's own, then the Bible borrowed it from someone else! This suggests rather strongly that it is not divine revelation!

 

Sub_Zero, congratulations. You have just invalidated the bible. NOT just the flood story....but the Creation too. After all, how can there be mythologies predating Genesis......and Sumerian floods a rockin the world.....when biblegod has't created it yet?

[Ouroboros]

The flood story is widely spread over the world, and almost every culture have their own version. Even the Hawaiians, and their "Noah" landed on Hawaii of course.

 

http://www.crystalinks.com/floodstories.html

 

 

In the earliest times in Hawaii, there was no sea, nor even fresh water. Pele came to Hawaii because she was displeased over her husband having been enticed from her. Her parents gave her the sea so she could bring her canoes. At Kanaloa she poured the sea from her head. It rose until it covered the high ground, leaving only a few mountains not entirely submerged. She later caused it to recede to what we see today. This sea was named after the mother of Pele, Kahinalii, because the sea belonged to her; Pele simply brought it. [barrère, pp. 23-24]

 

The people had turned to evil, so Kane punished their sin with a flood. Nu'u and his company were saved by entering into the Great-Canoe, a large canoe roofed over like a house, which had been given them by Kane. The canoe contained a number of things, and Nu'u ruled over the whole like a chief. After the flood, these people repopulated the islands. The waters came up as a wicked brother-in-law of Nu'u was indulging himself in pleasure. He ran to enter the ark, but his calls were unheard by those inside. He prayed to the god Lono in the name of his sister but did not escape. He became angry at the first pair of people who had brought this trouble by bringing evil into the world, and he prayed to Lono that the whole earth be destroyed and that the first pair of people be brought back to life to witness the trouble they caused. [barrère, pp. 19-21]

 

Nuu was of the thirteenth generation from the first man. The gods commanded Nuu to build an ark and carry on it his wife, three sons, and males and females of all breathing things. Waters came and covered the earth. They subsided to leave the ark on a mountain overlooking a beautiful valley. The gods entered the ark and told Nuu to go forth with all the life it carried. In gratitude for his deliverance, Nuu offered a sacrifice of pig, coconuts, and awa to the moon, which he thought was the god Kane. Kane descended on a rainbow to reproach Nuu for his mistake but left the rainbow as a perpetual sign of his forgiveness. [Kalakaua, p. 37; Barrère, pp. 21-22]

[white_raven23]

Subby is not banned.

 

I did, however, selfishly give him a few hours off.

 

I needed a break from all his annoying posts flooding my inbox.

 

 

Yeah.....we all wanted to watch the Opening Ceremonies too.

 

Seriously though, I didn't know he was flooding your inbox.

 

Hey Subby!!! You got something to say, why not say it to everyone. We want a shot at ignoring your pleas for attention too!

[zfunkman]

I am following the fulfilled Old Law through Christ or the New Covenant that was made by God to replace the conditional Mosaic Law that is spoken about in Jeremiah 31!

So once again you are lying about the New Covenant in Jer 31

 

Here is the New Covenant in Jer 31

 

Jer 31:27-36

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.

And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD.

In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.[

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

 

 

Note the key items of the new covenant:

** A covenant is a contract.

Under the new covenant, God will reaffirm his existing laws with the house of Israel and Judah under a new contract. Nowhere does it states that if the House of Isreal and Judah reject it, the Gentiles are free to take up the covenant.

 

 

This post was briliant ! This is one of the best arguments I have ever read the that disproves christianity. GOOD JOB!

[thunderbolt]

Zfunk.... Several of us have pointed out the EXACT same thing to Sub_Zero. It's apparent that he continues to "pooh-pooh" what is so obvious. He is using the NT to interpret the OT and not the other way around, hence he choses to be blind to the facts. If the OT doesn't agree with the NT, he will not accept it.

Yep, gotta love Jer 31, but subby have a whole different methodology of getting around it. As we told him, we read the world more literally than he does, and we don't make "poetery" or "idioms" out of the parts which are clearly meant to be read literally. But subby is invested, knee deep, so he must defend the faith tooth and nail. It's how that game works.

[Open_Minded]

Sub...

 

I was going to wait until you came back to the board before going to the next step of our discussion. But it seems the discussion is continuing on - either way. So... I'm going to lay out what is the next bench mark in our discussion.

 

In summary we've defined the boundries as follows.

 

Post #467

 

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.

 

Post #484

 

From Antlerman

(sub_zer0 @ Feb 10 2006, 08:40 PM)

 

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?

 

Is it just me, or did you really say this?? Sub, what do you mean? You honesty don't understand what this would suggest?

 

Answer: If there is another mythology floating around in other cultures prior to the Biblical story, and the Bible retells this same story with a few added embellisments of it's own, then the Bible borrowed it from someone else! This suggests rather strongly that it is not divine revelation!

 

In your above post you said the following:

 

How can it be compared to the Biblical account when it is older than it

 

So... to summarize: We have now established that archeaology can legitimately be used to put a timeline on the use of the word "Canaan". Archeaology also legitimately establishes that the Sumerian flood myth pre-dates the Noah myth by several hundred years. So... now we are going to look at Sumerian mythology as it relates to the Bible in general.

 

Also... since you have now accepted archeaology's ability to date both the use of the word "Canaan" and the Sumerian flood myth ... this opens up another area of discussion. Specificially how valid are the dating methodologies used by literalists to determine (among other things) when Moses supposedly wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, when the Exodus happened, etc..

 

Sub... this is our new bench mark of discussion on Sumerian mythology and the Bible. I look forward to discussing this in more depth with you when you do come back to the board.

[SkepticOfBible]

This post was briliant ! This is one of the best arguments I have ever read the that disproves christianity. GOOD JOB!

 

That particular post was pretty much 90% from the site in my link. Here was the article

The New revised Covenant Of Christianity

 

If you go through that site (particularly Various Christian Claims and Rationalisation), you can pretty much defeat any missionary arguement

 

Plus I also usually refer to jewish counter missionary sites.

 

Check out the following

 

Messiah Truth

Messianic Verses in Tanach:

 

If you study the OT carefully, you will find it outright rejects the NT.

[Asimov]

The arguments are provided in the Bible actually. The arguments for Christianity are in the Bible, what you could do, since that is the pont of this topic, is debate me about what the Bible says and how Christiainity views it...

 

sub_zer0...The Bible makes no arguments because it is not a person. The Bible contains the information you USE to make an argument, which you must corroborate with other known facts in order to formulate a proper case for your religion.

 

My point is this. That some of the Bible can only be validated anyway by worldly means. Not everything in the Bible can be 100% validated and cooraberated with outside evidence. Since most of what the Bible talks about is literally true, that leads me to think the rest is true that cannot be validated.

 

That is a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. If the Bible cannot be validated 100% then it isn't 100% true, it's that simple. If you present it as truth before even verifying it as truth, then you are dishonest.

 

You can believe your bullshit religion as much as you want, but you're not doing yourself any favours by actually admitting that you cannot prove that your bible is 100% true.

 

The whole point about presupposition is that it doesn't matter if the Bible is 100% true, if what is in the Bible can be validated that leads me to believe in the rest. Not to mention I have my faith in it as well which backs up the fact that not all things can be validated.

 

No it doesn't, you're speaking as if this should apply to us. We don't care what you believe. If you present it as objectively verified truth, and then shift your goalposts to say "well I accept it", nobody is going to listen to you.

 

Your bible is then not objectively true, but subjectively true....by applying what you subjectively believe to be true as if it is objective is also dishonest.

 

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

1) Ebla tablets

2) Finds in Egypt are consistent with the time, place, and other details of biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt

3) The Hittites were once thought to be a biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered in Turkey.

4)Crucial find in Nuzi (northeastern Iraq), an entire cache of Hittite legal documents from 1400 B.C.

5) In 1986, scholars identified an ancient seal belonging to Baruch, son of Neriah, a scribe who recorded the prophecies of Jeremiah (Jer. 45:11).

6) THE PILATE INSCRIPTION

7) POLITARCHS IN THESSALONICA

8) SERGIUS PAULUS THE PROCONSUL OF CYPRUS

9) CONCERNING DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION

10) GALLIO, PROCONSUL OF ACHAIA

 

I could go on...

 

What about these?

 

I can list hundreds of things the Iliad is accurate about, therefore Zeus exists and your religion is false.