Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 False. Everything regarded as true or false must be verified to be true or false before one can claim it as such. People thought the world was flat before it was verified, they claimed it as such... Yes you do, your blindly accept that the unverified portions of the Bible are true regardless of evidence or logic. No I don't. I base it off of the parts that are validated. Ok... P1) Books are written by either Gods or Humans. P2) It is impossible to prove that God exists. C1) Therefore it is impossible to prove that the Bible was written by God. C2) Therefore the Bible was written by Men. Again, basing it off of the worlds current knowledge. It is just like the belief in the worlds view that the earth is flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Again, what "lies" of mine have proven it false? First of all, you have just been called out by the owner of the Atheist web. Are you disputing his report? Secondly, I already showed you that you lied a while back. You in post #47 The difference is I study the Bible with NUMEROUS resources and an honest heart to know the truth it contains. You in post #666 You are forgetting that His word is still AVAILABLE to us. You can read any Bible at face value . It takes all those other things to STUDY His word. And there are plenty of examples in this post alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 You in post #47 The difference is I study the Bible with NUMEROUS resources and an honest heart to know the truth it contains. You in post #666 You are forgetting that His word is still AVAILABLE to us. You can read any Bible at face value . It takes all those other things to STUDY His word. And there are plenty of examples in this post alone. OK, so I am saying that Gods word is available for us to read. Or if you want to study use all sorts of sources.... What lies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 People thought the world was flat before it was verified, they claimed it as such... So? No I don't. I base it off of the parts that are validated. Non sequiter. If I say: Today I went to the store, I bought some ham and cheese. On my way back I was abducted by aliens. Are you going to believe me because I showed you the receipt for ham and cheese? Again, basing it off of the worlds current knowledge. So? There is nothing else. It is just like the belief in the worlds view that the earth is flat. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 You in post #47 The difference is I study the Bible with NUMEROUS resources and an honest heart to know the truth it contains. You in post #666 You are forgetting that His word is still AVAILABLE to us. You can read any Bible at face value . It takes all those other things to STUDY His word. And there are plenty of examples in this post alone. OK, so I am saying that Gods word is available for us to read. Or if you want to study use all sorts of sources.... What lies? Cough Cough - yikes dude - keep up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 No I don't. I base it off of the parts that are validated. Non sequiter. If I say: Today I went to the store, I bought some ham and cheese. On my way back I was abducted by aliens. Are you going to believe me because I showed you the receipt for ham and cheese? Sure, until otherwise proven wrong. So? There is nothing else. Use the Bible as the authority not the world, that is something else. How so? Since the WORLD cannot prove God exists I believe world. Well, likewise back in the day, since world says earth is flat, I believe world. You in post #47 The difference is I study the Bible with NUMEROUS resources and an honest heart to know the truth it contains. You in post #666 You are forgetting that His word is still AVAILABLE to us. You can read any Bible at face value . It takes all those other things to STUDY His word. And there are plenty of examples in this post alone. Cough Cough - yikes dude - keep up! Again, where is the lie? I am saying I study the Bible with numerouus sources to get the wide scope of views and how it should be looked at, while I am saying you can just read the Bible and hopefully achieve the correct meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 What do you want from me, what evidence do you need?. Anything, you pick! Come on subby, you have an opportunity. Just one piece of evidence - I have made it really easy for you. Pick anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Come on subby, you have an opportunity. Just one piece of evidence - I have made it really easy for you. Pick anything. What is this evidence for, to prove the validity of the Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Sure, until otherwise proven wrong. So do you believe that Zeus exists and he is the master over everything? Use the Bible as the authority not the world, that is something else. No, that is presupposing something is true without verifying it as true. The world is observable, and verifiable. The Bible is not. Since the WORLD cannot prove God exists I believe world. Well, likewise back in the day, since world says earth is flat, I believe world. You would too, because you're an idiot. I wouldn't, because I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 So do you believe that Zeus exists and he is the master over everything? No because it contradicts the Bible, my source for everything that is true. No, that is presupposing something is true without verifying it as true. The world is observable, and verifiable. The Bible is not. The Bible is observable and verifiable and it NEVER changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Again, where is the lie? And you came in here to try and clarify “verses” for us (the title of this post) but recant by saying you are NOT here to validate anything, but to speak the “word of god.” That makes you an outright fraud. And are you saying mmccaskill is incorrectly calling you out as a lair? Dig some more ... Come on subby, you have an opportunity. Just one piece of evidence - I have made it really easy for you. Pick anything. What is this evidence for, to prove the validity of the Bible? Whatever you had in mind when you made that statement. You go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 So do you believe that Zeus exists and he is the master over everything? No because it contradicts the Bible, my source for everything that is true. You just said you would believe me if I said I was abducted by aliens until proven wrong. The Iliad hasn't been proven wrong, therefore Zeus must exist. Since the Bible hasn't been proven right, both books must be right until proven wrong. The Bible is observable and verifiable and it NEVER changes. Never? Then why does Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls differ from Scripture now? The Bible is not observable and verifiable, you admitted that it was so before! Are you no reneging on your statement that you can verify that the Bible isn't 100% verified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 And you came in here to try and clarify “verses” for us (the title of this post) but recant by saying you are NOT here to validate anything, but to speak the “word of god.” That makes you an outright fraud. And are you saying mmccaskill is incorrectly calling you out as a lair? Dig some more ... lol, I am fraud because I want you to understand the Bible? I am not here to validate it I am here to help you understand it. Never? Then why does Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls differ from Scripture now? The Bible is not observable and verifiable, you admitted that it was so before! Are you no reneging on your statement that you can verify that the Bible isn't 100% verified? How do the DSS differ from Scripture now? You can ovserve the Bible and you can verify the Bible. I am not saying the whole Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 How do the DSS differ from Scripture now? Chapters are not included between other chapters (means stuff was added). Verses are missing from the DSS that are in the Bible of today. Look it up. You can ovserve the Bible and you can verify the Bible. I am not saying the whole Bible. By saying the Bible, you are making a generalized statement, all-inclusive. If the whole bible is not observable (to be consistent with reality) and verifiable, then you cannot do what you claimed you could do. Once again, you are being dishonest. Oh, and way to ignore this: You just said you would believe me if I said I was abducted by aliens until proven wrong. The Iliad hasn't been proven wrong, therefore Zeus must exist. Since the Bible hasn't been proven right, both books must be right until proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 lol, I am fraud because I want you to understand the Bible? I am not here to validate it I am here to help you understand it. Yes, because your own statements makes you a fraud. You came in here attempting to validate the contradictions for us, while cunningly reversing your position in another post. And mmccaskill provided credible evidence that you have played this fraudulent game on their site. You are not disputing it when I asked twice already, which means you have something to hide, and mmccaskill is right after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Your book is like ALL other religious books - written and compiled by men, not any god. The burden of proof is on you this time... That's easy. Who wrote the books of bible?Men Who is responsible for the preservation of these books?Men(and yet along the way, many verses are modified because they are inspired by God cough cough*****cleric****cough cough? Who decided from a list of 100 other book, which book are "divinely" inspired? Men(And they still can't come to an agreement) Who translates these books from their orginal ,language? Men Who decides on how to interpretate the bible?Men(and the result is 20000 different interpretation. So much so for promise of unity by JC) And who gave these the authority to do declare the bible as "word of god"? Men All the above features are common with all the religious books of the world. I had once asked you this question Considering the history as to how the bible came into formation, can you show me one divine intervention that would prove your protestant bible is the the "correct" and "absolute" word of god? Non sequiter. If I say: Today I went to the store, I bought some ham and cheese. On my way back I was abducted by aliens. Are you going to believe me because I showed you the receipt for ham and cheese? Sure, until otherwise proven wrong. I am sorry, extraordinary claims remain false until proven true. You do know that the Book Of Genesis account has never been proven. Plus the bible makes numerous scientific mistakes. You never rebutted my point about the mistakes the book of Daniel makes regarding history I am still waiting for you give the year in which JC was born?(I gave you a link while back) Well, likewise back in the day, since world says earth is flat, I believe world. And who were the people who still held on this view despite the scientific evidence? Christians This position was held even till the end of the 19th centuary, by both Catholoc and Protestant churches. Even today it is christians who are Flat Earth Creationist. They were the ones who raised the most objection because it contradicted the biblical position of the Earth being in the centre of the universe. If they were making a such a critical mistake about the nature of the earth, where was the Holy Spirit to correct them? Isn't it the duty of the Holy spirit to guide people to the "TRUTH"? The Bible is observable and verifiable and it NEVER changes. It never changes!!!!!!Please don't lie. Do I have to remind you, of the numerous addition and discrepancies between the manuscripts of the NT, eg mark 16:9-20 ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.)) If they exist in the easly manuscript then what the heck are they masquerading as the "infallible word of god"? Mark 16-9-20 is a critical verse, because you do know that there are churches out there who practice snake handling and drink poison based on these verse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I think we have a new.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 That's easy. Who wrote the books of bible?Men Who is responsible for the preservation of these books?Men(and yet along the way, many verses are modified because they are inspired by God cough cough*****cleric****cough cough? Who decided from a list of 100 other book, which book are "divinely" inspired? Men(And they still can't come to an agreement) Who translates these books from their orginal ,language? Men Who decides on how to interpretate the bible?Men(and the result is 20000 different interpretation. So much so for promise of unity by JC) And who gave these the authority to do declare the bible as "word of god"? Men All the above features are common with all the religious books of the world. Who wrote the Bible? Men inspired by God Who decided which books are "divinely" inspired? Men--and they have come to an agreement, it is called the Bible. There is always unity within the true church of Christ. I can tell you exactly how to acheive unity with Christ. There is no need to unify man with man, each man is to unify with Christ. Those features are common with other religous books, accept those ones contradict the one I call truth. I had once asked you this question Considering the history as to how the bible came into formation, can you show me one divine intervention that would prove your protestant bible is the the "correct" and "absolute" word of god? I think you and I differ on the history... It never changes!!!!!!Please don't lie. Do I have to remind you, of the numerous addition and discrepancies between the manuscripts of the NT, eg mark 16:9-20 ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.)) If they exist in the easly manuscript then what the heck are they masquerading as the "infallible word of god"? Mark 16-9-20 is a critical verse, because you do know that there are churches out there who practice snake handling and drink poison based on these verse The textual criticism that was reached in regards to Mark 16:9-20 is something I have no quarrels about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Who wrote the Bible? Men inspired by God Who decided which books are "divinely" inspired? Men--and they have come to an agreement, it is called the Bible. There is always unity within the true church of Christ. I can tell you exactly how to acheive unity with Christ. There is no need to unify man with man, each man is to unify with Christ. Those features are common with other religous books, accept those ones contradict the one I call truth. Subby, another factual error: These men that compiled the canon were far from being in agreement. It was not a unanimous vote, and furthermore, the Catholics had a different “agreement among themselves” than the Protestants, thus ending up with two different canon's. Which set of men were the “true”™ Church then, and on what basis? And I am curious, this "feature" is common in religious bookS, unless it's not the true ONE. So which other religious bookS are also true? And are you still avoiding my question about mmccaskill calling you a lair? Are you thus confirming mmccaskill assertion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Who wrote the Bible? Men inspired by God and what proof did they provide for this extraordinary claim?The book of mormon and Quran are also claims to be inspired by God. How is the claims of Joseph Smith and Mohammed different than than the other writers? Who decided which books are "divinely" inspired? Men--and they have come to an agreement, it is called the Bible. So explain the reason behind the existence of different canons? And why were these canons decided by men?And once again on what authority did they decide on the canon? Why does your god allow false books to exist, without providing a objective method to determine the true one There is always unity within the true church of Christ. Once again "true" Church of Christ is based on personal preference and nothing more. Each of the various sects of christians claim to be "true" church of christ. I can tell you exactly how to acheive unity with Christ. So can the other 20,000 denomination. What makes you think you are different? There is no need to unify man with man, But unity amongst his believer is exactly the thing that christ promised A Prayer Of Jesus That Failed John 14:16-17,26 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 16:13-14 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. According to Jesus, this Holy Spirit would guide the believers to all truth. When a person believes in Jesus, repents and is baptized, they receive the "gift" of the Holy Spirit. Christians call this being filled with the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Jesus himself prayed that all those who believed in him would represent complete unity of thought. John 17:20-23 Neither pray I for these alone(his immediate disciples), but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I(Jesus) in them, and thou(God) in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou(God) hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. This prayer of Jesus has huge implications. Jesus has prayed that those who believe in him will exhibit complete unity. This means believers not only of that time but all believers in the future would exhibit complete unity in thought and doctrine. After all, these believers would have the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth. If Jesus, who Christians say is the most important being in the universe, prayed this prayer and promised the Holy Spirit would guide his believers to all truth then it should be obvious if his power is real or not. If the prayer of Jesus, who is also supposed to be God according to most Christians, fails in any way, then all the claims of Christianity are suspect. How has this vitally important prayer of Jesus turned out? Has it lived up to expectations? Those features are common with other religous books, accept those ones contradict the one I call truth. So once again you bring a subjective criteria. Hence your truth is subjective. Muslims would not consider the bible as true because what they consider quran as the truth. I think you and I differ on the history... How so?What false information have I presented regarding the history? From your answer I take it that you mean no The textual criticism that was reached in regards to Mark 16:9-20 is something I have no quarrels about. But it proves your claim about the bible not changing. The bible has changed at the whims of men. Many of the recent editions of the bible do not contain this verse precisely for the reason that I mentioned This is one of the proof that christianity is man-made religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I do not see how, because the Sumerian myth speaks of a flood and that it predates Noah's Ark, that it can be viewed as invalidating the Noah's Ark story. There could of been many floods, it is important to remember that the story in the Bible is a global flood. Are you saying that the Biblical depiction of the global flood is borrowed from the Sumerian myth? If so, list a verse in the Bible and something from the Sumerian myth and we will see if they match up. I am sure that the contrasts will outweigh the comparisons. Hey Taphophilia - thanks for providing the details in your post. He's too lazy to go read the sites I linked him to below. So... we're going to do a quick review for Sub. and the date of this sumerian myth is what again? From post #476 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. Then later on ... while you were on a temporary ban.... From post #494 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... So..... Sub ... quick catch up. I do not see how, because the Sumerian myth speaks of a flood and that it predates Noah's Ark, that it can be viewed as invalidating the Noah's Ark story. There could of been many floods, it is important to remember that the story in the Bible is a global flood. Are you saying that the Biblical depiction of the global flood is borrowed from the Sumerian myth? If so, list a verse in the Bible and something from the Sumerian myth and we will see if they match up. I am sure that the contrasts will outweigh the comparisons. Taph has provided you specific incidences of parallels between the two mythologies. I linked you to those parallels but you were too lazy to do the work of reading them yourself. At any rate ... we have established.. That Sumerian mythology predates Genesis mythology. You ask.... I do not see how, because the Sumerian myth speaks of a flood and that it predates Noah's Ark, that it can be viewed as invalidating the Noah's Ark story. There could of been many floods, it is important to remember that the story in the Bible is a global flood. The problem with your logic is that you think this is about the flood story and that is it. This is about much more than the flood story. Sumerian mythology predates Genesis Mythology. Want dates see, the above quotes. We're not revisiting the date issue, so get it down now. You accept archeaology's ability to date the use of the word "Canaan", as reviewed above you have also accepted archeaology's assessment of Sumerian mythology pre-dating Genesis mythology. Just read the details above .... don't ask us to review them ..... the review is here and we will use the new benchmark as the standard. Again... new benchmark.... 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... TO REPEAT: The problem with your logic is that you think this is about the flood story and that is it. This is about much more than the flood story. Sumerian mythology predates Genesis Mythology. Want dates see, the above quotes. We're not revisiting the date issue, so get it down now. _________ New data.... See the linked website for details.... and don't ask me to date the Sumerian mythology... it's already been dated. http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religio..._sumerian_l.htm Biblical parallels in Sumerian literature Traces of Sumerian religion survive today and are reflected in writings of the Bible. As late as Ezekiel, there is mention of a Sumerian deity. In Ezekiel 8:14, the prophet sees women of Israel weeping for Tammuz (Dumuzi) during a drought. The bulk of Sumerian parallels can, however be found much earlier, in the book of Genesis. As in Genesis, the Sumerians' world is formed out of the watery abyss and the heavens and earth are divinely separated from one another by a solid dome. The second chapter of Genesis introduces the paradise Eden, a place which is similar to the Sumerian Dilmun, described in the myth of "Enki and Ninhursag". Dilmun is a pure, bright, and holy land - now often identified with Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. It is blessed by Enki to have overflowing, sweet water. Enki fills it with lagoons and palm trees. He impregnates Ninhursag and causes eight new plants to grow from the earth. Eden, "in the East" (Gen. 2:8) has a river which also "rises" or overflows, to form four rivers including the Tigris and Euphrates. It too is lush and has fruit bearing trees. (Gen. 2:9-10) In the second version of the creation of man "The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being." Enki and Ninmah (Ninhursag) use a similar method in creating man. Nammu, queen of the abyss and Enki's mother, bids Enki to "Kneed the 'heart' of the clay that is over the Abzu " and "give it form" (Kramer & Maier p. 33) From there the similarities cease as the two create several malformed humans and then the two deities get into an argument. Do you get this Sub.... this is NOT just about two flood stories that are extremely similiar. This is about two BODIES of mythology that are extremely similar. One body of mythology (Sumerian) can be dated to 3500 B.C. (See above - and don't ask - it's already been established.) Not only can the Sumerian BODY of mythology - which has many parallels to Genesis - be predated. Tablets of this mythology can be found all over the Middle East across multiple time periods. To be very specific here... when Genesis mythology was being written the mythology discussed above was so well known that towns and villages throughout the area regularly acted out creation myths.... etc... This mythology permeated life in the world in which the earliest Hebrews lived. They'd have had to be hiding under rocks not to be aware of it. So.... now... here's the decision you have to make. A long time ago ... post # 425 to be exact ... you listed the following as outside archeaological sources that you would use to verify YOUR theology (not mine). 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. 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 We started with #1 - you said that the reason you chose the Ebla tablets is that archeaology could date the use of the word "Canaan" to earlier times than previously established. We decided that archeaology's ability to "date" historical evidence was a valid line of thought to pursue.. and that line of thought has now brought us to this point. Archeaologically speaking Sumerian mythology pre-dates Genesis by 100s of years. There is no way Sumerian mythology could have been copied from Genesis. The parallels between the two bodies of mythology are numerous and span many different stories. (See above for details - go to the linked site for questions - I'm not revisiting it). Your choices now. A. Drop # 1 (Ebla tablets) from your list of archeaological evidence for your position. (Oh by the way check the rest of your list - if any of it depends on archeaology's ability to put things on a time line - take it off your list). or ..... B. Drop your insistence that Noah's Ark was an actual event, you would also have to drop your insistence that a huge chunk of Genesis is an actual event - since Sumerian mythology parallels the creation myth - garden of eden, etc... What is it going to be Sub? Choice A or Choice B? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmccaskill Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 No, the Bible is 100% true despite it not being able to be verefied 100%. This says it all folks. He admits the bible cannot be verified 100%, yet he knows the bible is 100% true. That he cannot see past this fallacy is evidence of his hopelessness. I honestly cannot comprehend how anyone can continue to attempt to have a successful dialog with him.Its like pounding titanium with a rubber mallet with expectations to dent the metal. But I guess if you have the faith of a mustard seed it should happen right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Hello Sub.. Fresh post... just more information about Sumerian parallels to Genesis. See the following web sites: http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6 Most interesting quote: VI. I've heard that there are a lot of Biblical parallels in Sumerian literature. What are they? Traces of Sumerian religion survive today and are reflected in writings of the Bible. As late as Ezekiel, there is mention of a Sumerian deity. In Ezekiel 8:14, the prophet sees women of Israel weeping for Tammuz (Dumuzi) during a drought. The bulk of Sumerian parallels can, however be found much earlier, in the book of Genesis. A s in Genesis, the Sumerians' world is formed out of the watery abyss and the heavens and earth are divinely separated from one another by a solid dome . The second chapter of Genesis introduces the paradise Eden, a place which is similar to the Sumerian Dilmun, described in the myth of "Enki and Ninhursag". Dilmun is a pure, bright, and holy land - now often identified with Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. It is blessed by Enki to have overflowing, sweet water. Enki fills it with lagoons and palm trees. He impregnates Ninhursag and causes eight new plants to grow from the earth. Eden, "in the East" (Gen. 2:8) has a river which also "rises" or overflows, to form four rivers including the Tigris and Euphrates. It too is lush and has fruit bearing trees. (Gen. 2:9-10) In the second version of the creation of man "The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being." Enki and Ninmah (Ninhursag) use a similar method in creating man. Nammu, queen of the abyss and Enki's mother, bids Enki to "Kneed the 'heart' of the clay that is over the Abzu " and "give it form " (Kramer & Maier p. 33) From there the similarities cease as the two create several malformed humans and then the two deities get into an argument. Returning to Enki and Ninhursag, we find a possible parallel to the creation of Eve. Enki consumed the plants that were Ninhursag's children and so was cursed by Ninhursag, receiving one wound for each plant consumed. Enlil and a fox act on Enki's behalf to call back Ninhursag in order to undo the damage. She joins with him again and bears eight new children, each of whom are the cure to one of his wounds. The one who cures his rib is named Ninti, whose name means the Queen of months, (Kramer & Maier 1989: pp. 28-30) the lady of the rib, or she who makes live. This association carries over to Eve. (Kramer, History Begins at Sumer 1981: pp. 143-144) In Genesis, Eve is fashioned from Adam's rib and her name hawwa is related to the Hebrew word hay or living . (New American Bible p. 7.) The prologue of "Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Underworld" may contain the predecessor to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This tree not only contains a crafty serpent, but also Lilith, the legendary first wife of Adam. The huluppu tree is transplanted by Inanna from the banks of the Euphrates to her garden in Uruk, where she finds that: ...a serpent who could not be charmed made its nest in the roots of the tree, The Anzu bird set his young in the branches of the tree, And the dark maid Lilith built her home in the trunk. (Wolkstein and Kramer 1983: p. 8).... Another possible Sumerian carry-over related to the Fall of man is the lack of "pangs of childbearing" for those in Dilmun. In particular, Ninhursag gives birth in nine days, not nine months, and the pass "like good princely cream" (Kramer 1981: p. 142,145) or "fine oil" (Kramer & Maier 1989: p. 25) The quarrels between herder god and farmer deity pairs such as Lahar and Ashnan or Enten and Emesh are similar in some respects to the quarrels of Cain and Abel . In the Sumerian versions death appears to be avoided, although we do not have the complete Lahar and Ashnan story. (Kramer 1961 pp. 49-51, 53-54) The ten patriarchs in Genesis born prior to the flood lived very long lives, most in excess of 900 years. The seventh patriarch, Enoch, lived only 365 years before he "walked with God". (Genesis 5). The account which numbers those Patriarchs as ten is attributed to the Priestly source. The Yahwist source (J), details only seven Patriarchs prior to Noah, so that with him included, there are eight antediluvian patriarchs. (Genesis 4: 17-18) The eight antediluvian kings of in the Sumerian King List also lived for hundreds of years. (Kramer 1963 p. 328) S. H. Hooke notes another version of the Sumerian King list, found in Larsa details ten antediluvian kings. (Hooke, p. 130) The clearest Biblical parallel comes from the story of the Flood. In the Sumerian version, the pious Ziusudra is informed of the gods decision to destroy mankind by listening to a wall. He too weathers the deluge aboard a huge boat. Noah's flood lasts a long time, but Ziusudra comes to rest within seven days and not the near year of the Bible. He does not receive a covenant, but is given eternal life. (Kramer 1963 pp. 163-164; Kramer 1961 pp. 97-98) As far as the New Testament goes, many also draw a parallel between Dumuzi and Jesus because Dumuzi is a shepherd-king and he is resurrected from the dead . This is perhaps appealing to some as Dumuzi's Akkadian analog, Tammuz, appears in the Bible, however Dumuzi's periodic return from the underworld is not unique even in Sumerian literature. His sister Geshtinanna also rises from the dead, and if one counts those born as deities, Inanna does as well. Periodic death and rebirth is a common theme in agricultural myths where the return of the deities from the earth mirrors a return to life of plants. 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden Sumerian Dilmun and Garden of Eden Sumeria and Dilmun The first Sumerians lived in the plains of what is now southern Iraq. Some of the historians working from within the cultural horizons of southernmost Sumer, where the earliest surviving non-Biblical source of the legend lies, point to the quite genuine Bronze Age entrepot of the island Dilmun (now Bahrain) in the Persian Gulf, described as 'the place where the sun rises' and 'the Land of the Living'. The setting of the Sumerian creation myth, Enûma Elish, has clear parallels with the Genesis narratives. After its actual decline, beginning about 1500 B.C., Dilmun developed such a reputation as a long-lost garden of exotic perfections that it appears to have influenced the story of the Garden of Eden. Some interpreters have tried to establish an Edenic garden at the trading-center of Dilmun. 3. http://www.crystalinks.com/gardenofeden.html Garden of Eden and Dilmun Dilmun Some of the historians working from within the cultural horizons of southernmost Sumer, where the earliest surviving source of the legend lies, point to the quite genuine Bronze Age entrepot of the island Dilmun (now Bahrain) in the Persian Gulf, described as 'the place where the sun rises' and 'the Land of the Living'. The setting of the Sumerian creation myth, Enûma Elish, has clear parallels with the Genesis narratives. After its actual decline, beginning about 1500 B.C., Dilmun developed such a reputation as a long-lost garden of exotic perfections that it appears to have influenced the story of the Garden of Eden. In a reverse process, literal-minded interpreters have sometimes tried to establish an Edenic garden at the trading-center of Dilmun. Sumer The first Sumerians lived in the plains of what is now southern Iraq. The Sumerian word for plain is "edin", and it is very likely that the name "Eden" has derived from this . 4. Last but not least - Just nailing down the Dates: http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic...%2Fwhymeso.html 3000 BCE Early Dynastic Period (ca. 2800-2270) Old Sumerian literature See site for table of CHRONOLOGY OF ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN HISTORY To Repeat - Sub - your choices are as follows: A. Drop # 1 (Ebla tablets) from your list of archeaological evidence for your position. (Oh by the way check the rest of your list - if any of it depends on archeaology's ability to put things on a time line - take it off your list). or ..... B. Drop your insistence that Noah's Ark was an actual event, you would also have to drop your insistence that a huge chunk of Genesis is an actual event - since Sumerian mythology parallels the creation myth - garden of eden, etc... What is it going to be Sub? Choice A or Choice B? We are all waiting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Faith arises when the current world's knowledge cannot find the proof to answer something stated in the Bible. Unlike you, I do not need proof as I have faith. Sub, you have just described perfectly what's known as the "God of the Gaps" theory. Whenever science or logic is lacking an explanation for anything, "God" is the answer to that mystery. This has been true throughout all the generations of man, trying to understand things such as thunder, etc. Whenever science finally is able to have enough data to be able to propose a testable and falsifiable model of explanation ("Scientific Theory), then this "evidence" of God is somehow forgotten about, and "God" is moved over to the next gap, and so on. So in short, when you are presented with explanations for these mysteries that you are using as "evidence" of God, which of the following do you do? 1. I accept the reasonableness of the tested explanation and look to another unexplained mystery to see God's hand again, forgetting I mistakenly saw him there 2. I accept the reasonableness of the tested explanation and begin to question how I have been approaching "faith", by looking for any sort of "evidence" whatsoever (i.e., making mythology an earthly occurrence testable through archeology, etc) 3. I argue against the findings and call the entire planet full of scientists and scholars, "idiots and pinheads" because I have concluded the strength of my beliefs outweighs all contrary evidence. "I'll be right, you'll see" I guess from what I've seen of you I would say you're probably more number 3, but I could be wrong about you. What would you say, or is there another nimber that would describe how you deal with the evidence once reasonable answers are found to the gap you found God in? I sincerely want to hear how you process these sorts of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Again, basing it off of the worlds current knowledge. It is just like the belief in the worlds view that the earth is flat. No one ever believed the world was flat. That's a modern mythology http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts