Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Superman -Money Over B*******- on November 14, 2009 at 10:49pm

Not just Christianity, religion in general.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Natty - X on November 15, 2009 at 10:12am

f***** cryan how many f****** times are we gonna re-hash the same s*** , if you actually wanted answers why the f*** arent you speaking to a minister? , you're making excuses to take shots you dont expect anything productive to come out of this thread , you just feel the need to f*** with people and subvertely undermine there beliefs , you want guidance? go to the source otherwise f*** off with you're b******* thread , christianity is much more than the bible in its literal form , study and understanding of it takes years.

furthermore , there is no physical evidence of many historical events other than the recording of such events into written form , there is no physical evidence ludwig von beethoven was deaf or that he even composed a symphony , i never seen him do it there is no video he didnt show his birth certificate, there is no physical evidence of the boston tea party either , i dont see tea bags floating in boston harbor.

Lastly there are literally thousands of physical artifacts and evidence that support and confirm the bible accounts of historical events found and analyzed and confirmed by scientists .

If you are going to make a statement like "there is no proof whatsoever" dont be so blatantly ignorant as to outright make a false statement like that without actually taking the time to actually look into the facts behind you're arguement it just hows how bias you are to begin with.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan on November 20, 2009 at 1:43am

Happy to see this thread worked.


Your example of historical events having no physical proof is relevant in this case, simply because these events were documented in plenty of sources, while most of the s*** in the bible is only supported by the bible, Jesus is supported by other written evidence but his so called miracles aren't.

And your gonna have to me more specific with those thousands of artifacts found...

Furthermore this thread was no excuse to take shots at Christianity is was pretty f****** obvious what I was doing here.. Also 1 more thing



U MAD?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Natty - X on November 22, 2009 at 9:03pm

wrong , this is what frustrates me about you , you have not taken even a 5 minutes of google time to bother to look it up for yourself, and you refuse to talk to the sources regarding the research.

its been well documented and if you ever bothered to look at all you would know different it just shows your arrogance and ignorance and makes it clear your bias.

http://www.discoverymagazine.com/digger/d93dd/d9302dd.html

How do we know the Bible is real? How do we know it is not just a big joke? — Sara of Hays, KS

Dear Sara,

There are several reasons to believe the Bible is real. First, it has proven to be correct when it describes people and places. For instance, Isaiah wrote that Sargon was king of Assyria (Isaiah 20:1). For many years some people thought that Isaiah was wrong. But then Paul-Emile Botta discovered Sargon's palace in 1843. This showed that the Bible was right after all. Such has happened many times.

Second, the predictions in the Bible were correct. For instance Isaiah, who lived about 700 years before Jesus, described Christ's death perfectly (read Isaiah 53). How did Isaiah know what would happen 700 years away? God must have told him what to write.

Third, the Bible does not contradict (go against) itself. About 40 men wrote the books of the Bible. They also lived many years apart and in different places. Yet, their writings all agree about what is right and what is wrong. The writings of men today are not like that. This shows how special the Bible is. It also shows how important it is to study and obey it.


http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html


Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt.

This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of archaeology since the mid-1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative.

Here are some examples:

* Clay Tablet, Ebla. Photo copyrighted.The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
* The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
* Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.
* It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
* Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

Archaeological discoveries verify the historical reliability of the Old and New Testaments.

When compared to other religious books, the Bible is unique in that it is the oldest, as testified by the places, people, titles, and events mentioned in the Bible; and the language and literary formats used to compose the Bible.

Many scholars today question the validity of Biblical accounts, supposedly based on the findings of archaeology. When the “discrepancies” are examined in detail, however it is found that the problems lie with the archaeology (i.e. misinterpretation of evidence, lack of evidence, or poor scholarship) and not with the Bible.
How can archaeology prove helpful to someone seeking for truth to the basic questions about life?

The discoveries of archaeology can be helpful in removing doubts that a person might have about the historical trustworthiness of the Bible. The miracles described, as well as the spiritual message, must be accepted on faith, which is the basis of our relationship with God. When the truth of Scripture is challenged by skeptics, archaeology can be used to demonstrate that the people, places, and events of the Bible are real.
What archaeological discovery would you point to as the most convincing evidence for the Bible being God's Word?

Any one discovery can be explained away as coincidence, or an alternative interpretation can be given to disassociate it from the Bible. It is the weight of a myriad of discoveries that demonstrates the Bible to be the Word of God.

These discoveries fall into three categories:

1.

Archaeological evidence demonstrates the historical and cultural accuracy of the Bible.
2.

The Bible's message of a loving Creator God who interacts in the affairs of mankind and has provided a means of salvation stands in sharp contrast to the pagan fertility religions of the ancient world as, revealed by archaeology.
3.

Archaeological findings demonstrate that the Biblical prophets accurately predicted events hundreds of years before they occurred—something that lies beyond the capability of mere men.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-arch1.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#7UMn8kDV...

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/false.html#ko2Wo3icwOyd

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Natty - X on November 22, 2009 at 9:26pm

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/reason.html#SQBg3zeT11J0

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12135770/

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

http://books.google.ca/books?id=w5FpP9ZxqlYC&printsec=frontcove...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vip | My internet lifes over lol on November 22, 2009 at 9:32pm

ppl dont follow religion blindly... ppl have a choice... if u follow something blindly then obv there is something wrong with u

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Josh Britt @CROWNMEFRIED on November 15, 2009 at 2:44pm

this thread will self destruct in 100,99,98,97,96....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SWB on November 22, 2009 at 9:16pm

what? none makes any sense

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Classyle | BlueHoodieSwag on November 22, 2009 at 9:30pm

People believe we were created by a "big bang" and evolved from monkeys there's no proof to that either.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page