One Verse At A Time...

[mmccaskill]

What I find interesting is religion is about faith. Faith is believing without proof or despite contradicting proof. Why then do xians try so hard to prove to nonbelievers in a concept that in of itself requires no proof? The answer is that's part of their programming.

[Asimov]

Only a fool absolutely believes in something that cannot be proven absolutely.

[Antlerman]

What I find interesting is religion is about faith. Faith is believing without proof or despite contradicting proof. Why then do xians try so hard to prove to nonbelievers in a concept that in of itself requires no proof? The answer is that's part of their programming.

This is exactly the point I'm always trying to make, and how contradictory it all is with the fundamentalist. The only thing I can conclude is: they don't really have faith. They need corroboration. Why else try to support the mythology with facts?

 

I have no problem with someone choosing to accept a mythology because it has meaning to them, but I don't think most people need it to have it's feet in the reality we live in. Sub does. Sub needs proof, even if just a little. He lacks faith.

[♦ ficino ♦]

sub_zero: Against your assertions that the bible is 100% true, and that those of its claims that are testible have been proved true:

There are many statements in the bible that are not true. Note posts 150-152 by Han Solo and me on Edward Abbey's thread in the Lion's Den, i.e.

 

A few things to prove that the Bible is not inspired by God:

 

1. contradictions. There are such a large number of them, discussed so often on this site and elsewhere, that I will not start listing them.

 

2. historical inaccuracy. falsehoods about the governor Quirinius and many others.

 

3. scientific inaccuracy. The Bible makes statements about geography, astronomy, biology, etc. , many of which are false.

 

4. general inanity of the whole system. If God wants rational creatures in heaven worshiping him, why not just start there instead of beginning the whole chancy creation? If God wants each worshiper to worship out of free will, thus requiring a period of testing on earth, then why does God confirm each saved soul in grace after death? They're not worshiping out of free will in heaven any more if their free will ended at death. Why is god called good and loving when he glories in the eternal torment of his own creatures (verses say this, I'm not making it up neither did Calvin). And on and on.

 

5. economy of explanation - not a proof but a reason not to bother with believing the Bible. The nature of the world as we experience it can be explained more simply and with fewer contradictions without theistic presuppositions than it can with them. Theistic presuppositions bring further, insoluble problems in their wake.

 

6. injustice. Why are fundamentalist christians so often on the side of oppressive power structures and not on the side of freedom and social justice? Why do they call for oppression of gays and lesbians? Many theologians in the South justified slavery from the Bible (I admit that abolitionists often appealed to the bible against slavery - so it has its good stuff in it, I'm not denying that. Abolitionism also follows from non-religious principles of the Enlightenment, though.)

 

(Han added 7 - promises that do not come true when you try them, esp. unanswered prayer)

I added 8 - prophecies that did not come true. I mentioned destruction of Tyre. Jesus' failure to return in the lifetime of those who listened to him is another set of unfulfilled prophecies.

 

The only way you can deny all this counterevidence is to twist words out of their meanings, to invent additional entities (loads of world-wide floods, doublets of angels etc. a la Matthew, etc.), claim that the bible manuscripts either were copied wrong or translated wrong (but then - WHERE'S the Holy Spirit all that time?), and so on. Eventually your system becomes like Ptolemaic astronomy; it collapses under the weight of the countless problems it has to face, and you adopt a simpler, more economical explanation, like the realization that the bible is a human artifact on a level with many other religious texts.

[Ouroboros]

Who wrote the Bible? Men inspired by God

How do you know?

Do you know these people?

Did you meet them?

Did you sit down and talked to them over a cup of coffee?

What besides their own words do you have as a guarantee that they wrote words from God?

If I claim my writing to be inspired by God, does it make my writing to be inspired by God?

 

Who decided which books are "divinely" inspired? Men--and they have come to an agreement, it is called the Bible.

Do you even know the names on the people that voted for the Canon?

Do you know their ages, when they did it?

Who were they're parents?

Where did they live?

What hair color, shoe size and favorite food did they have?

 

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.

The unity you talk about is an estimated to have 37,000 different version of it.

 

Do you agree with the Russian Orthodox Church?

Do you agree in teachings with the Armenian Church?

Do you confess to the same faith as the Methodists or the State Church in Sweden?

Do you have the same faith as the Anglicans?

And what about the Greek Orthodox?

Or Word of Faith?

and so on...

 

Already in 300 CE there were documented between 150-200 different Christian sects. Notice between 150 and 200, just 2.5 century after the birth of the Church. There's no unity.

 

What united the Christian Church was the orthodox and catholic church. The largest Christian body of unity is the Catholic Church. So we get back to this question, but this time I'll ask you, why are you not a Catholic?

 

Those features are common with other religous books, accept those ones contradict the one I call truth.

Tell me, from where and from who did Paul learn about Jesus?

Did Paul learn anything from the disciples/apostles?

Did Paul meet Jesus in person, physically?

[mmccaskill]

This is exactly the point I'm always trying to make, and how contradictory it all is with the fundamentalist. The only thing I can conclude is: they don't really have faith. They need corroboration. Why else try to support the mythology with facts?

I agree. Why struggle so hard to prove to others a concept that requires no proof? Only to prove it to themselves because deep down they know its mythology.

 

I think some pyschology is in play. Most are indoctrinated so it is exceptionally difficult to refute everything one was taught from childhood.

 

I have no problem with someone choosing to accept a mythology because it has meaning to them, but I don't think most people need it to have it's feet in the reality we live in.

Exactly. It is especially annoying when a government administration attempts to restrict legal marriage to fit religious marriage. Or when a government administration gives public tax money to religious organizations. I guess the government isn't required to actually follow the Constitution.

 

Sub does. Sub needs proof, even if just a little. He lacks faith.

Yes indeed. I still think it is dishonest that this is just an experiment. A True Christian™ would've been truthful outright instead of posting his intentions on his website after violating forum rules and being subsequently banned.

[Ouroboros]

This site does not have the purpose to gather unbelievers to one place, so the religious fanatics can come and "shoot fish in a barrel" so to speak. This site is here to support and help people that have lost their faith and walked away from the religious community, not to find a way back into it.

 

SubZ, considering your statement below, I had given you yet another warning. This site is here to teach you to understand us, not the other way around.

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.

 

 

When it comes to understanding the Bible we have far more years of learning that you, and we know the Bible a lot more than you do. The only difference is that we don't take its "truth" at prima facie, we are more critical and skeptical in our analysis of it, and don't take words in the Bible as truth because we or you believe them to be so.

 

If you want to give us explanations of the Bible verses, your approach should not be "it's true, because I believe so". That doesn't fly with us. It only means that you will, and do, interpret the Bible anyway you want, just to make it fit into your belief.

 

Say, if you start a discussion with another Christian, and you get into disagreement, my guess is that you will even in that situation claim superiority on interpretations based on what you believe, and not what the other Christian believe. This is prideful and a haughty attitude, which is a sin.

 

May your "God" have mercy on your soul.

[Antlerman]

Sub does. Sub needs proof, even if just a little. He lacks faith.

Yes indeed. I still think it is dishonest that this is just an experiment. A True Christian™ would've been truthful outright instead of posting his intentions on his website after violating forum rules and being subsequently banned.

Where did he say this? Was this on his site somewhere? Do you the link so we can all see just how spiritual our evangelist here is?

 

I always see the motives of people like him who come here as being about proving to themselves, or a personal little fan club of theirs, how good they are at wielding the "Sword of the Lord". I suspect his "experiment" is another word for stroking his own ego or showing off. Ego, Ego, Ego!!!

 

Sub=Ego. 3 letters each. Good enough evidence for me to conclude it is a divine, infalliblly revealed truth. If you doubt this, hell awaits....

[mmccaskill]

Sub does. Sub needs proof, even if just a little. He lacks faith.

Yes indeed. I still think it is dishonest that this is just an experiment. A True Christian™ would've been truthful outright instead of posting his intentions on his website after violating forum rules and being subsequently banned.

Where did he say this? Was this on his site somewhere? Do you the link so we can all see just how spiritual our evangelist here is?

Sure thing. Here it is..

 

Here is the firs sentence on his webpage, which has been edited since the last time I read it. By the way, I saved the HTML of his original page in case anyone is interested.

I decided to conduct a bit of an experiment to see how atheists react to Christians, specifically ones defending the Inerrancy of the Bible that comes from Textual Criticism so to speak.

No where does he mention helping atheists understand the bible. This is soley a troll acting like a troll. How much disingenious can this guy get? I'm sure he will attempt to twist his way out of it. It won't be the first and won't the last.

[Anakin]

Just a question. Is this the general tactic displayed by Mr/Mrs Zero?

1. Make an assertion,

2. Be provided with excellent refutals of the assertions,

3. Make an unsupported assertion that the evidence given is wrong,

4. More attempts to clarify the excellent refutals made by ExC's,

5. More unsupported assertions that the refutals are wrong,

6. Later make assertions similar and ignore that is has already

been refuted,

7. Tries to put the burden off himself and on to the ExC's,

8. Starts the whole process over and over until people get tired

of it and stop debating,

9. Then in the end claim some sort of twisted victory and

earn more jewels for his crown that he will get in his heaven.

 

I can see him/her asking for examples or proof of this. But I don't care enough to

re-type just about this whole thread. Everything has been said. Anything that

doesn't agree with his mental version of the bible, including the views of other

christians, he will simply dismiss as wrong without any support.

Any Monty Python fans out there? Can you say "Argument Clinic".

[thunderbolt]

Good summary Anakin

 

Which all leads to this:

[mmccaskill]

^^^^

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Good one!

[Guest sub_zer0]

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?

 

Comes down to choice. I choose to accept the Bible likewise accepting what Isaiah, Paul and all the others say about the divine inspiriation they received.

 

They aren't different, in fact they present people with choices, which is a good thing.

 

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

 

Great questions about canon... It is a tricky subject.

 

The books that make-up the

 

There are not different canons, there is only one and it was ordained before man had anything to do with it by God.

 

There are many books, but if we are saying that the Bible is God's word, than the false books are of no importance.

 

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 what it takes to

 

So can the other 20,000 denomination. What makes you think you are different?

 

Because it is directly related to Christ.

 

But unity amongst his believer is exactly the thing that christ promised

 

Only if there is unity with Christ.

 

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.

 

Exactly the ones who believe what you are saying Jesus says for us to believe! The only way to have unity between believers is to have unity with Christ.

 

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.

 

Indeed true believers of Christ who have asked for the Holy Spirit to come into their heart, will be guided to Christ and will then abide in Him, and if all follow unity comes with them.

 

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?

 

Of course it has, there are literally billions of Christians around the world professing the Good News, the word of Christ and of God!

 

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.

 

Yes I know.

 

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.

 

The Bible never changes from the one who wrote it, obviously that being God through man. God, the author of the Bible used mankind to physically write the Bible, but books were later gathered by mankind to discern the correct ones that were in fact from God.

 

The only man-made part about the Bible is the fact that we had to discern and unite the books that were in fact God's word. The OT canon was finalized by the times of Jesus, so the NT is really the one we should be debating in its canonicity.

 

If what we call the Biblical canon has or does not have some portion of what God originally wrote and what He considered canon, does it stay the same or not?

[Antlerman]

Sub, are you open to being wrong, or are we part of your sick ego-driven experiment? For myself, I think you are just a sick troll based on everything your history is showing. Prove this assesment wrong, before you prove the Bible.

[Asimov]

Sub, are you open to being wrong, or are we part of your sick ego-driven experiment? For myself, I think you are just a sick troll based on everything your history is showing. Prove this assesment wrong, before you prove the Bible.

 

He's not here to prove the bible. He's here to evangelize.

 

He's a fool, and one who will be deeply sorry to have wasted his life doing nothing but proselytizing a religion that he can't prove absolutely, despite his absolute conviction in its veracity.

 

Sub, you are a sad, strange little man. You have my pity.

[Guest sub_zer0]

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?

 

Comes down to choice. I choose to accept the Bible likewise accepting what Isaiah, Paul and all the others say about the divine inspiriation they received.

 

They aren't different, in fact they present people with choices, which is a good thing.

 

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

 

Great questions about canon... It is a tricky subject.

 

The books that make-up the word of God were not decided by men to begin with as God is the author, mankind rather discerned what to be included as such because so many other books had surfaced. They did so by the authority of Christ!

 

There are false books, but there is only one canon. The objective method is to base the entirety of the Bible on those other books and see if they match up. They do not and thankfully the apocrypha were not ever seriously considered.

 

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.

 

The church of Christ is based on Christ's preferences, teachings and life, not man. It is quite easy to distinguish real from fake believers. Jesus spoke of this to give us discernment when needed in this area. If what it says in Ephesians and other places isn't the aim of the church that claims to be the church for Christ, it is not true...

 

Ephesians 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

 

So can the other 20,000 denomination. What makes you think you are different?

 

Because it is directly related to Christ. If the denomination is built upon Christ of the Bible it is solid.

 

But unity amongst his believer is exactly the thing that christ promised

 

Only if there is unity within Christ can mankind become united in Him.

 

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.

 

What you have bolded and what Christ says is exactly how you find the true church. Indeed true believers of Christ who have asked for the Holy Spirit to come into their heart will be guided to Christ (the ultimate truth).

 

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?

 

Of course it has, there are literally billions of Christians in this world. Including me who is a walking testimony to the prayer of Jesus for His church.

 

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.

 

Yes I know. God gives us all choices to either ultimately accept Him or not. Accepting Him -- meaning the Bible in this case -- or not accept Him, anything else but the Bible.

 

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.

 

Again we have a choie in the matter to accept what has been writtten or to accept how it has been. We can become educated in this instance and make a reasonable guess with intensive study and prayer to Christ.

 

The Bible never changes from the one who wrote it, obviously that being God through man. God, the author of the Bible used mankind to physically write the Bible, but books were later gathered by mankind to discern the correct ones that were in fact from God.

 

The only man-made part about the Bible is the fact that we had to discern and unite the books that were in fact God's word. The OT canon was finalized by the times of Jesus, so the NT is really the one we should be debating in its canonicity.

 

If what we call the Biblical canon has or does not have some portion of what God originally wrote and what He considered canon, does it stay the same or not?

[Open_Minded]

YOOOOO ..... HOOOOOO Sub.... Not going away .... answer the question please.

 

.....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?

[Asimov]

Yes I know. God gives us all choices to either ultimately accept Him or not. Accepting Him -- meaning the Bible in this case -- or not accept Him, anything else but the Bible.

 

God doesn't exist, little man.

[thunderbolt]

You are right, and a bad one at that. He only answers the questions which he has answers for, or which is convenient for his style of evangelization. It’s rather pathetic.

 

Of course it has, there are literally billions of Christians in this world. Including me who is a walking testimony to the prayer of Jesus for His church.

And how does that make them one if they have bitter disputes among themselves about the Message? How does it make the one if they kill each other because they disagree. Wake up Subby, and stop spinning!

[Antlerman]

Can we just drop calling him sub, and just say zero instead?

[Guest sub_zer0]

.....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).

 

It is not used to verify my theology, it is used to verify the Bible and that it is true in what it talks about.

 

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?

 

I will choose C. I will keep Ebla tablets to legitimize the Bible to you guys in its use of the word "Canaan."

 

Also, for the Sumerian myth you are speaking of, is it Gilgamesh Epic tablet XI?

[thunderbolt]

^^^^^

You are right - zero is more fitting. Will do from now on.

[Asimov]

^^^^^

You are right - zero is more fitting. Will do from now on.

 

Zero_credibility

[Open_Minded]

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?

 

I will choose C. I will keep Ebla tablets to legitimize the Bible to you guys in its use of the word "Canaan."

 

And I will choose Z - for Zero.

 

 

Good bye Z - you're a troll - and you're clueless.

[Antlerman]

Yes, bye bye Zero. Thanks for sharing your version of Christ with us