Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 123
  1. #81
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The bible is either historical or it is not. It has things that are true, or it does not.
    That you can gain get insight into ancient Jews, religion, mythology, culture etc .. I saying the bible is a historical document.
    From there, you simply cherry pick what you wish to believe and what you do not wish to believe without any realistic historical standard.
    Now this is all in the context of a historical Abraham, (not the flood).
    Well that's fine by me. If this is what we mean by "historical" then I can't help but agree. I would be surpried if anyone would disagree, including any atheist I can think of. But that's not the type of historicity that the OP is attacking here.

    ---------- Post added at 07:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    This shows an extreme ignorance of ancient language, writings, and history. Frankly, I'm surprised considering your education Allo. It's as if you are saying here "How we understand an ancient language, culture and even history should all be thrown out the window when it comes to this 1 particular collection of books, the Bible. Why? Because I say so and I do it from extreme prejudice and ignorance."

    Not exactly a compelling argument there bro. Frankly, it's retarded.

    The op's claim is that the Bible is not historical, that it it lacks historical reliability. I showed how fallacious the reasoning was, and even GAVE you and the rest of those who do think think the Bible is accurate historically, the game plan on how to disprove the Bible's historicity. All you have to do is show where in the Bible a historical record is counter to actual historical record. I went to great length and detail and addressed one of jinny1's claims, the Battle of Jericho. Let's start there as I have NO interest in having my time further wasted by pseudo-intellectualism marinated with nothing but prejudicial and fallacious reasoning.

    All you've done here, is said "nuh-uh." I expect this type of nonsensical and fallacious response from the lessor experienced and educated atheists like kevin and jinny1, but I expect more from our established veterans and more intellectual atheists here at ODN.

    How about you actually providing something substantial to work with instead of crawling up in a hole and saying "No! It can't be! You are just wrong and a dummyhead!"

    If you don't want to discuss the issue here in an intellectual, productive manner, then simply don't post in the thread. It really is not all that complicated.

    ---------- Post added at 08:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------


    Oh please Allo. You've demonstrated NOTHING but the inability to actually address the topic in an objective, productive way. Let's not try to pretend you are above that which you have demonstrated you are not.
    You've said absolutely nothing above. This isn't an argument at all. It's simply an unsupported attack of my position (a bare assertion that not only it's wrong but also that it's unreasonable) and of my person.

    In my experience, this is the type of attack often made by people who know they have no way of justifying their position. Cheap and nasty ad-hominem, Apok.

    And yet, I stand by what I say. You will dismiss the flood as regional, the creation story as poetic, and the countless descriptions that fly in the face of modern knowledge as metaphor and still continue to maintain that the balance of the work is historically correct. You will not provide any evidence that actually corroborates any (or, by very far, most) of its claims.

    "Just because part of it is clearly mythology, doesn't mean it's all wrong", you'll say.

    Well, I reply with "Just because part of it is clearly mythology, doesn't mean the rest is true". I will, of course, add that a guy who talks about talking snakes (without the dimmest hint of it being a metaphor!) and rib-made-women with a straight face is not a guy who should be considered a credible source on other issues. How could he? "Oh, let me make up an interesting story about how two folks were created. I know! A magic fruit and a talking snake! That ought to make it good! And now I'll talk about a guy who actually existed". Come on.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  2. #82
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Well that's fine by me. If this is what we mean by "historical" then I can't help but agree. I would be surpried if anyone would disagree, including any atheist I can think of. But that's not the type of historicity that the OP is attacking here.
    Well, the OP goes a very long way to make a conclusion that I argue is not a reasonable one at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    Who are we to disagree with the belief by most archaeologists, biblical scholars and theologians that most of the stuff and characters in the bible never actually happened/existed??
    I don't think you can consistently say that the bible is historically significant in it's ability to convey to us ancient Jews, religion, mythology, culture etc ... and say that nothing in the bible actually happen nor did any of the people actually exist.

    The one thing I simply do not understand is why the Jewish culture itself is not considered sufficient evidence that the Egyptian enslavement occurred. I mean, their cultural practices HINGE on it's occurrence and were designed to pass down from generation to generation the experience that they had. I don't believe it is a very historically honest approach to dismiss it's occurrence out of hand without a significant and more supported alternate explanation for the existence of the practices. I think it is more historically reasonable to believe that the events were exaggerated in order to preserve the fundamental parts for future generations.

    Back to the OP, I can understand skepticism with a lot of biblical claims, but the OP seeks to throw the baby out with the bath water, and that I contend is unreasonable.
    To serve man.

  3. #83
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    You've said absolutely nothing above. This isn't an argument at all. It's simply an unsupported attack of my position (a bare assertion that not only it's wrong but also that it's unreasonable) and of my person.

    In my experience, this is the type of attack often made by people who know they have no way of justifying their position. Cheap and nasty ad-hominem, Apok.
    Nonsense. It's calling out your NON-RESPONSE.

    "Nuh-uh" is NEVER a response Allo...NEVER. And that is precisely what you have done.

    Address the ARGUMENTS or concede the argument. It's that simple.

    Furthermore, I recommend looking up the ad hom fallacy. You have falsely charged that one exists. There is no ad hom committed against you.

    Merely because I've addressed what I believe to be your shortcoming here...doesn't default to a commission of an ad hom. Your response is not wrong because of WHO you are or your BACKGROUND nor your CHARACTER...but rather the response is wrong because it is a "nuh-uh" response. It doesn't a address anything. You don't tackle the argument, you dismiss it...presumably, because you cannot.

    Address the ARGUMENTS or concede the argument. It's that simple.

    Provide archaeological evidence that directly contradicts historical events recorded in scripture. You cannot...because absolutely none exist. NONE. All you can argue is "X even is not supported by archaeology yet" which is not an objection at all (and as to why, it has already been explained in previous posts).

    So again...either there does exist evidence that contradicts historical events recorded in the Bible...or there doesn't. If you agree with me that there does not, then my role in this thread is complete, argument over (for me). If you disagree, and believe there is archaeological evidence that contradicts recorded historical events in the Bible, then time to put it on the table Allo. Either it exists or it doesn't. To date, not a single atheist in this thread has been able to provide such evidence. I know the reason why...it would seem that only a few select atheists do not.

    So, to make this formal:

    Challenge to support a claim.

    Provide archaeological evidence that directly contradicts historical events recorded in scripture.





    ---------- Post added at 08:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by jinny1 View Post
    Okay this thread has turned into a huge egotistical flame war. Not your typical flame war but those who like to utilise personal attacks very subtly and in a condescending manner. Surprised the very owner of this forum is one of the main culprits.

    Anyway Apok; i'm still very curious to know how a small local flood does anything at all to achieve God's aim of cleansing the world of evil. I'm sure the Japanese rapists were not at all affected by a mini flood in the middle of Africa.

    If you have time please tell me how localised floods can go cubits above the tip of the mountain without spilling over to the otherside like in Genesis 7:20.
    I've given you 3 in-depth rebuttals showing how your reasoning is flawed. Those rebuttals have been ignored. You have not been able to respond to them.

    I will not waste further time addressing silly challenges.

    If you sincerely wish to know how the regional flood is relevant and applicable, then I will provide links to you. But I'm not going to defend a position only to have it ignored yet again. My time is far too valuable and I've spend more than enough time and energy showing how the "critics" in this thread have no leg to stand on.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; October 25th, 2012 at 09:19 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  4. #84
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,461
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Hyde View Post
    Allo, Sig, I'm curious, would you reject the histories written by Herodotus?
    No, but I would certainly be critical of them and not simply trust that they were accurate accounts. Herodotus has been widely critiqued for recording folk lore and legend as history. One can sympathize that in his time there were not more reliable methods for collecting information about far off times and places. So while I have respect for him (as I would for the authors of the bible) I would not simply trust that all his stories are true until we can prove they were not. The more outlandish the claim the more suspect I would be of it until it could be well verified. The more simple elements I would be less suspicious of but there would still be some uncertainty.

    Show me an ancient roman record of who used a given bath house and I probably wouldn't bother doubting it much unless it had almighty Zeus on the register.

    ---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then I feel your position is not one that I am currently countering, as it doesn't directly support the extreme stance of the OP or contradict my position against the OP.

    I don't want to dismiss your post out of hand, but if you feel that I am incorrect in the above then I am here expressing that I do not and you will need to explain it to me.
    Fair enough. I often respond to statements made in rebuttal even if I don't agree exactly with the OP. You were responding to such a response. I do think the bible has passages that are demonstrably false. but my line of argument was a related to what level of trust in general you can reasonably apply to such texts. Just because a text contains some things that are certainly false, it does not mean all the text is certainly false. But, if you find a text with many false statements, it leads to greater doubt on others, where as many true statements lead you to greater confidence in others.

    ---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 PM ----------

    APOK: You seem agitated. I'm torn between three options.
    1. Ignoring you and letting you blow it off
    2. Being extra nice and reasonable to ease you off whatever has got your goat (certainly includes Jinny's rather bad debating)
    3. Laying down cold hard debate on you along with a reproach for being a dick (cause hey, I kind of come here for a good fight)

    I'm going to try a mix of 2 and 3, well see how it goes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    What nonsense. I have already addressed bad reasoning by Jinny1, three times and in detail. I did this with the Battle of Jericho (#7), the claim that Jesus is just a combination of myths from other cultures (#11) AND the flood (post #64). I addressed his global flood claim in detail. He has yet to respond back. You either are not paying attention or are just being trollish here (is there a 3rd possibility that I haven't thought of?).
    I re-read the whole of the thread in detail to see if I could substantiate your claim.

    If you read the last half this post
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post506807

    Or nearly all of this post (where the same are repeated)
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post506813

    You will find a number of rational challenges to your local flood contention that you utterly failed to address. You told him after the second to "pick one" and he (foolishly) picked the language challenge. You had already offered a strong rebuttal on that point and you gave another one. I followed up on your rebutalls with a weakening challenge to say that the language could be used in either a global or a local and which way you take it depends a lot on other factors. Factors such as what I felt were fairly strong logical challenges that Jinny presented (he cribbed them from christian apologists who support a global flood of course).

    You never responded to them at all. Until you do so, they remain strong unopposed arguments that the flood in the bible was written to be a global flood. I will repeat what I think are the strongest here for you (but in my own language). They were however first introduced by Jinny.

    1. If this were a local flood, why build an Ark?
    a. Noah could have saved himself and his family by leaving the area of the flood plane.
    b. A local flood would not have wiped out all the animals requiring Noah to preserve them on the Arc. Some animals would simply leave the area, few populations would be isolated to the flood plane.
    c. If it were only certain local species in danger, the arc would not need to be nearly so large as the one Noah built.

    2. How could a local flood cover all the local mountains? Floods occur in flood plains and the water naturally spreads out as far as it can withing the contours of the land. To cover an actual mountain for any period of time it would pretty well need to cover pretty much the whole of the world. For a local flood to cover mountains it those mountains would need to be little more than low hills.

    3. Use of the word all in the English translation happens over and over again. All the living things died and all men. How do all men die in a localized flood? While floods do kill many people, most of them don't die. they can flee the area or swim to safety of find high ground somewhere.

    4. If the world was so full of sinful people, then how does flooding a localized area solve that problem? Plenty of sinners are still rolling around after a local flood kills of the people in that river valley.

    5. Local floods don't act like this. Sudden flash floods that give no hope of escape generally last hours, possibly a few days at most and then the wash out. Some floods can last for weeks, but they are always slow onset floods that people can generally escape from and take a long time to create the full flooding.

    6. God says to Noah "Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done." We already covered the problem with the fact it's every living creature which doesn't fit a local flood. Even if you say its "every living creature in the area of this localized flood" you run into the problem that we get flooding all over the earth on a fairly frequent basis. And they do kill creatures in the area (though admittedly not all of them). So you either have to have a flood that magically kills anything it touches, or you have god simply lying he will never bring another local flood on anyone.

    That is a lot of alignment that only makes much sense if the flood is of a global scale and makes little to no sense if it is a regional flood of the sort we have geologic evidence for.

    Note: there is at least one mega flood that happened in the northwestern US, but that was before men walked the earth. It was caused by melting inland glaciers that formed a massive inland lake that eventually broke ground and washed out to the ocean. Really interesting story if you want to look it up.

    So if a language interpretation is of a word that can have a wide range of meaning, and you find it in passages that contextually don't make sense with a given meaning, I think its not reasonable to use that interpretation.

    Lets talk battle of Jerico shall we?

    Up front. You rebutted Jenny and hard. So I won't say you didn't kick his ass there. But Jenny has a lot to learn about debate and research. (not that the research I did was very hard)

    You claimed Jenny's information was out of date and you had statements from Bryant G Wood in 1990 contradicting the somewhat earlier findings.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_G._Wood
    Bryant is a "biblical archaeologist" and apparently called a "creation archaeologist" and a Christian apologist of sorts. So he does archaeology with an eye to upholding and verifying the bible. And while this is all well and good, it is important to consider when there is a dispute between his dissident voice and other less focused/bias archaeologists on a topic related to the bible.

    Wood's claim got a lot of attention and some criticism such as this from Piotr Bienkowski ( http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research....a.bienkowski/ )
    "Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 BC). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected.[5]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_G._Wood
    "Wood responded that he had produced evidence to back his argument, and that any counter-claims should also be backed by fresh evidence."

    Sig: And hey, that is a fair rebuttal. Wood did have evidence, though again it was partly a critique of other findings based on where those findings were found which cast doubt on the dating. Thing of it is, if we want to look at more up to date evidence...

    "In 1995 fresh evidence became available in the form of charred cereal grains from the City IV destruction layer. Radiocarbon dating of these grains showed that Jericho City IV was destroyed "during the late 17th or the 16th century BC", in line with Kenyon's findings, and that "the fortified Bronze Age city at Tell es-Sultan [Jericho] was not destroyed by ca.1400 BC, as Wood (1990) suggested".[6] "

    Now Woods responded to this, but essentially just said he thought his pottery dating was valid despite the contrary findings.

    And really if you dig deeper, and I did, you will find all kinds of dates and arguments and evidence which only leads me to think that none of this can truly be relied upon with great certainty. It casts significant doubt on the biblical account but doesn't entirely rule out the possibility. Nor is the argument that would confirm that such a city existed at the proper time strong enough in the face of contrary evidence to confirm the events described are possible.

    All we really know is there was such a city and it had walls at one time and those walls have been defeated on occasion as the city was destroyed. I think it most like the bible story is a legend arising from that event rather than a historical account of it. And that is largely because the story contains some fantastic elements that are unlikely to be true and thus casts it as legend.

    Back to the whining about atheists

    It is not my responsibility to convince you or anyone else that every single one of his arguments is unsound. You atheists have shown a complete disregard for critical thinking and reasonable discourse.
    And you are full of piss and vinegar (not to mention the occasional ********) but I'm not going to hold it against you. you left some serious arguments in the dust because you didn't feel like responding to them. That's fine that you decided to ignore them due to time and interest, but its not fair to turn around and claim you rebutted every point in full when you simply didn't. Your case for the flood being local is only about half complete. You have established that the language used could refer to a local rather than global flood. You have abandoned the argument that the story makes no contextual sense for a local flood which undermines your possible use of the language.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #85
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I re-read the whole of the thread in detail to see if I could substantiate your claim.

    If you read the last half this post
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post506807

    Or nearly all of this post (where the same are repeated)
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post506813

    You will find a number of rational challenges to your local flood contention that you utterly failed to address. You told him after the second to "pick one" and he (foolishly) picked the language challenge.
    The argument is over. I'll respond to you...but copy/pasting what I've already said throughout this thread.

    Apok: Pick one, I'll answer it. As explained previously, I'm not going to answer each and every question you ever pose here.

    Jinny1: Can you actually tell me what "all", "world", "everything", "Earth", "every" mean in Hebrew word??
    Tada.

    That's it.

    Why is that it?

    Apok: The op's claim is that the Bible is not historical, that it it lacks historical reliability. I showed how fallacious the reasoning was, and even GAVE you and the rest of those who do think think the Bible is accurate historically, the game plan on how to disprove the Bible's historicity. All you have to do is show where in the Bible a historical record is counter to actual historical record. I went to great length and detail and addressed one of jinny1's claims, the Battle of Jericho. Let's start there as I have NO interest in having my time further wasted by pseudo-intellectualism marinated with nothing but prejudicial and fallacious reasoning.

    Provide archaeological evidence that directly contradicts historical events recorded in scripture. You cannot...because absolutely none exist. NONE. All you can argue is "X even is not supported by archaeology yet" which is not an objection at all (and as to why, it has already been explained in previous posts).

    I'll not have my time wasted, thank you. For those actually interested in learning something (of which, very few atheists are), I mentioned I'd provided sources explaining the significance or relevance of a local vs global flood. I have no interest with debating the issue considering the atheist's record of 0-3 in this thread on the points I addressed. In other words, I don't need to prove anything to you, you need to prove something to me.

    This is not only due to the complete and utter failure to actually substantiate a single claim in this thread on the atheist's part, but also because it is the atheist who is making the case against these events. Make a claim, support the claim. It's a simple concept and "slogan" we've had here at ODN for years. This topic is no different.

    I'm not interested in any topic where an atheist does not provide archaeological evidence that allegedly contradicts a historical event recorded in the Bible. So I'm ignoring all arguments (as I should) that fail to meet that obligation. Lastly, the meaning or relevance of regional/local flood is not an issue of historicity, it is an issue of theological significance. This thread is not about theological significance, but rather historical accuracy (yet another reason I will ignore questions about a regional/local interpretation vs global, and only provide sources that legitimately want to know vs continue to display their own hubris and put their ego on parade...I have no patience for such childish nonsense).

    Lets talk battle of Jerico shall we?

    Up front. You rebutted Jenny and hard. So I won't say you didn't kick his ass there. But Jenny has a lot to learn about debate and research. (not that the research I did was very hard)

    You claimed Jenny's information was out of date and you had statements from Bryant G Wood in 1990 contradicting the somewhat earlier findings.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_G._Wood
    Bryant is a "biblical archaeologist" and apparently called a "creation archaeologist" and a Christian apologist of sorts. So he does archaeology with an eye to upholding and verifying the bible. And while this is all well and good, it is important to consider when there is a dispute between his dissident voice and other less focused/bias archaeologists on a topic related to the bible.

    Wood's claim got a lot of attention and some criticism such as this from Piotr Bienkowski ( http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research....a.bienkowski/ )
    "Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 BC). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected.[5]"
    Super. Let's see what the failings are Sig? Please provide them for us.

    Furthermore, it's convenient to leave out the rest of Wood's response. Here it is in full from the Wiki page:

    [I]Wood responded to the newer evidence in an article for the Associates for Biblical Research, concluding that he still held to the date ca. 1400 B.C. based on pottery finds. Furthermore, Wood points out that even more recent samples yield results that confirm his dating, and that the discrepancy is part of a larger ongoing dispute between Egyptologists and radiocarbon experts, centering around the date of the Thera eruption.

    This is an extremely important point to leave out Sig...why would you do so? You made it sound like woods just said "I'm aware of that counter-claim, but I'm sticking to what I already believe and discovered. So 'nuh-uh.'". And that simply isn't the case at all. Additional and more samples, according to Woods, further support his earlier research and the discrepancy is something between Egyptologists and radiocarbon experts, centering around the date of the Thera eruption

    Again, you are being hypocritical. You accept experts ONLY when they side with your own prejudicial position, and reject those when it requires that you remain neutral and objective. You, despite your claims otherwise, are not making up your own mind on the issue here, you are siding with those who you are predisposed to agree with anyway.

    So...I'm going to hold you to task. Please refute Wood's claims instead of using hearsay.

    And you are full of piss and vinegar (not to mention the occasional ********) but I'm not going to hold it against you. you left some serious arguments in the dust because you didn't feel like responding to them.
    I left them in the dust because 1) they were nonsensical, 2) atheists have absolutely demonstrated their inability to actually support their own claims, 3) I've addressed 3 separate issues in detail and none have been adequately responded to.

    What you are doing, is insisting that not only I address what I have, but then address additional issues. This would go on ad nauseam. There are some people that just cannot be reasoned with Sig...I happen to believe you are one. Unless you can provide some actual archaeological support that directly contradicts an event recorded in the Bible, there is nothing to discuss. I came into this thread only to address those false charges, nothing else. It would seem then, that the atheist has no such evidence and we can put this tired, unfounded objection to rest.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; October 25th, 2012 at 03:16 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  6. #86
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,461
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    The argument is over. I'll respond to you...but copy/pasting what I've already said throughout this thread.
    A big whopper of a fail and cop out. I presented direct arguments, you utterly ignored them again and substitute a bunch of whining and bitching. Man up and face the argument or but out of this thread like you say you intend to.

    Super. Let's see what the failings are Sig? Please provide them for us.
    His failings? Only that his findings disagree with a number of other archaeologists who don't have his stated bias or any notable bias of their own. They are interested in accurately dating the site, he is interested in making sure it lines up with the bible. He is using pottery dating, so is the person he rebuts, and there is confirming evidence of grain remains that support his opponent and contradict him. These things all cast considerable doubt on his conclusions.

    Furthermore, it's convenient to leave out the rest of Wood's response. Here it is in full from the Wiki page:

    [I]Wood responded to the newer evidence in an article for the Associates for Biblical Research, concluding that he still held to the date ca. 1400 B.C. based on pottery finds. Furthermore, Wood points out that even more recent samples yield results that confirm his dating, and that the discrepancy is part of a larger ongoing dispute between Egyptologists and radiocarbon experts, centering around the date of the Thera eruption.
    You will note that I concluded by saying that the evidence is not clear one way or another and there were many disputed claims and that we can draw no certain conclusion as to who is correct. You may have missed all that due to whatever rage blinders you seem to have donned this week. I felt that this part of his statement was best covered by that summary. There are in fact many other archaeologists with opinions on this subject.

    If you want to really get into the debate about Thera/Minoa we can do that. But the radio carbon dates are backed up by other scientific evidence such as tree rings. On the opposing side are pottery dating techniques that involve corroborating information about materials, styles and decoration on ceramics. While I'm not discounting the techniques used entirely, I'd point out they are based on the somewhat inconsistent habits of human beings and assume little variation in individual potters over the span of 100 years and entire civilizations. this is Vs the decay of elements which so far as we know is near universal, backed up by the more sketchy but still often used tree rings. (which are reliable for dates but not always for cause-effect).

    Again, you are being hypocritical. You accept experts ONLY when they side with your own prejudicial position, and reject those when it requires that you remain neutral and objective. You, despite your claims otherwise, are not making up your own mind on the issue here, you are siding with those who you are predisposed to agree with anyway.
    No, you are being narrow minded and reactionary. I concluded that you could not be sure one way or another. I did not side with either group on a conclusion. My take was that I could not make a strong judgement on the question given the desperate evidence.

    So...I'm going to hold you to task. Please refute Wood's claims instead of using hearsay.
    i refuse, I will only point out that there are many other experts with sound evidence that contradict his findings. That does not prove him wrong but it casts significant doubt as to the certainty of his findings.

    What you are doing, is insisting that not only I address what I have, but then address additional issues.
    No Apok. I am responding to your claim that you have refuted all the arguments presented to you. You have not. you chose not to respond to perfectly valid arguments because you were feeling dismissive of the person making them. you are welcome to ignore them but I will not let you claim some kind of victory so long as you have left them standing without the slightest rebuttal.

    You want to win here you will have to man up and address them directly. Fail to do that and you fail this debate as a significant event in the bible stands as refuted by science. Namely the global flood. your linguistic interpretation is contradicted strongly by the context and content of the story. That means the bible speaks to a global flood and we know the evidence tells us there has never been such a flood.

    I would further point out there is no evidence any such ancient civilization was wiped out by a localized flood either and that area has been dug through by archaeologists and geologists for more than a hundred years now.

    This would go on ad nauseam.
    That is debate for you. You can bow out any time you like but so long as there are arguments standing you can't bow out claiming victory and have the last word.

    There are some people that just cannot be reasoned with Sig...I happen to believe you are one.
    And so are you. Neener neener. You ready to grow up or you just want to trade insults with me?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. #87
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    His failings? Only that his findings disagree with a number of other archaeologists who don't have his stated bias or any notable bias of their own. They are interested in accurately dating the site, he is interested in making sure it lines up with the bible.
    100%, absolute BS. Merely because one has a particular worldview does not mean that they have some hidden agenda Sig. It is this type of just plain ignorance that I speak of in my previous posts. It's not even ignorance, it's just a stupid, prejudiced, unfounded and unsupported statement that once again, you cannot support in the least. It's become the status quo for you lately and is why IMO, your posts are no better than kevins or Jinny1's. I see no reason to read anything else in your thread when it starts out with this kind of silliness and non-intellectualism.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  8. #88
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,461
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    100%, absolute BS. Merely because one has a particular worldview does not mean that they have some hidden agenda Sig.
    Apok, honestly man. His agenda is not hidden, it is freely expressed. He is the director of Associates for Biblical Research. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/about/
    Their motto: "Demonstrating the historical reliability of the bible through Archaeological research and related apologetic investigation."

    Their goals include such things as...
    Propagating the Christian faith by encouraging faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and yielding to Him as Lord, whenever and wherever such opportunity occurs.
    and
    Demonstrating the historical reliability of the Bible!

    So you want to tell me again how my claim of his bias and prior agenda is BS?

    Does this sound like a statement of principle from a group interested in objective science?
    "We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the verbally inspired Word of God, and inerrant in the original writings, and that they are of supreme and final authority in faith and life."

    They say the bible can never be wrong, so how can they every objectively look at any piece of archaeological evidence vis a vis whether it supports or goes against the bible?

    They are apologists pure and simple with a pre-determined outcome of their investigations leading to an absolute and unshakable bias.

    And surprise surprise their front page has all kinds of books, DVDs and conferences to sell you, the happy believer. Or you can donate money directly to them to help them fight the good fight against the evil secular archaeologists who don't first assume the bible is absolutely inerrant before daring to set dates for the things they find.

    It is this type of just plain ignorance that I speak of in my previous posts.
    Ahh, more insults how incredibly brilliant you must be to come up with one for every post. Why not try arguing instead of hurling mud, or better yet, take a break, have a beer, hang with the family and relax a bit. Then come back when you are feeling like a debate instead of an insult match.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. #89
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Apok, honestly man. His agenda is not hidden, it is freely expressed. He is the director of Associates for Biblical Research. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/about/
    Their motto: "Demonstrating the historical reliability of the bible through Archaeological research and related apologetic investigation."
    That doesn't make them dishonest, or untrustworthy.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Does this sound like a statement of principle from a group interested in objective science?
    In what way does it preclude them from acting as such?

    What you are basically saying is that because they actually have a world view and state it for all to know that they thus can not be trusted to do honest science.. Given the long history of substantial Christian contributions to science, from people who hold the exact belief stated.
    I don't think that your accusation holds water in the least. Unless some how they have first proven themselves or at least hinted at being very bad at science.

    Question to opponent.
    Is it the case that in your mind anyone who professes that they believe in the Bible and believe it to inerrant word of God.. can NOT be an honest scientist?
    To serve man.

  10. Likes Apokalupsis liked this post
  11. #90
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Apok, honestly man. His agenda is not hidden, it is freely expressed. He is the director of Associates for Biblical Research. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/about/
    Their motto: "Demonstrating the historical reliability of the bible through Archaeological research and related apologetic investigation."
    That he is a member of a group of people who believe the Bible is true, is not a reason to not accept his research. Have you seriously not considered that his worldview is inspired because of the research he has done? Have you read a single one of his studies? Any of his books? Watched or listened to any one of his lectures? How about any of his documentaries?

    No, you haven't. None. Nada. Zilch.

    If you had however, you'd have learned than in several, he insists on merely examining the evidence and letting it take you where it does. He insists, unlike you for some reason, that one ought not appeal to an authority, but make up their own minds based on the available evidence. He insists, unlike you for some reason, that only the evidence is to be used to determine the conclusion.

    Why is it that anyone who does not agree with YOUR worldview must 1) be wrong by default and 2) be biased? Are you aware how absurd that is Sig?

    Why not try arguing instead of hurling mud, or better yet, take a break, have a beer, hang with the family and relax a bit.
    Because from my view, it would appear that you have forgotten HOW to (at least when it comes to any issue related to religion). Your posts have demonstrated themselves to be hypocritical, incapable of reason, full of bias, prejudice and ego.

    I don't expect you to understand this nor accept it (because you seem to disagree with conventional teachings and understandings about what the rules of reason are and what fallacious theory encompasses), but you have committed the textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy. It couldn't be any more textbook than you have exhibited. There isn't a credited critical thinking classroom in the country that would not ding you for that fallacy.

    You seemingly outright refuse to work with facts and evidence, and insist instead that his position is not credible because he's a Christian, he believes that archaeology has shown the historicity of the Bible, etc... It's the most ridiculous, biased, and disturbingly possible position to take. You demonstrate time and time again, that you are not the sort of thinker you claim to be Sig. And as a result, from my perspective it means that you are one of the more closed-minded debaters in this community when it comes to issues of religion. I think that it has been so long since you've taken a critical thinking course, that you've forgotten how to [think critically]. And what is even more perplexing, is that I've recommended numerous times, cheap resources for you to refresh your memory and you show you are "above" learning anything new or considering the possibility that you are just wrong.

    Because of this, you just have nothing to offer me in a discussion concerning religious topics. I come into a discussion wanting to either correct forwarded bad reasoning or a misunderstanding about something OR wanting to learn something new (thus having my own understanding grown or corrected). For you, I just don't think this will ever be the case...for you argue from a position of the most extreme sort...that of extreme closed-mindedness, hypocrisy, inconsistency, bias, and prejudice. It is why I will not respond to any of your posts regarding religion again. I simply cannot because it's a waste of my time to engage in a discussion with someone I believe to be incapable of rational, objective thought on certain topics.

    Until you can prove to me that you are capable of objective reasoning, arguing through evidence only, and show a bit more humility and acknowledge that you just may not have all the answers after all and you may just have a gross misunderstanding how to evaluate claims (which you have certainly demonstrated time and time again IMO), then I just have no time or energy for the otherwise, silly posts that stand without merit. I need substance, not bruised ego and misplaced rhetoric.

    You can have the last word of course, I won't be checking this thread again, the atheists have proven they have no evidence for their claims and they simply misunderstand simple fallacies of reasoning (both of which, you and Allo are guilty of, specifically the ad hom...you committing it, him falsely charging it).
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; October 26th, 2012 at 07:04 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  12. #91
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,461
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That doesn't make them dishonest, or untrustworthy.
    I did not say it makes them dishonest. It does make them less trustworthy. If you are an investigator, and you predisposition is that you will find X, and you mission is to find X, then you will do everything you can to find X, not to simply find whatever it is you find. Its not like someone who has the mission of proving the bible inerrant is going to come along, find some evidence and say "wow, this makes the bible look wrong, gee, I guess we should pack it up and abandon our mission since we were wrong." That just doesn't happen. They will dig and ponder and look for a way the bible is not wrong no matter what. They are utterly invested in a conclusion prior to looking at any actual evidence.

    Scientists are not beyond that kind of behavior but not even close to this degree. If I were the head of the "God is a lie foundation' who's mission was "to show the world Christianity is a sham" and I were doing research I claimed disproved the bible that conflicted with scientists who had no such declared affiliation, wouldn't you be very skeptical of my interpretation? You should be!

    In what way does it preclude them from acting as such?
    Human nature. When was the last time you saw a priest say he's disproved the bible? It happens rarely and they generally quit at that point. When people are commited to a conclusion they are almost impossible to shake from it no matter the evidence you present them. You've been on ODN long enough to realize that I think.

    What you are basically saying is that because they actually have a world view and state it for all to know that they thus can not be trusted to do honest science.. Given the long history of substantial Christian contributions to science, from people who hold the exact belief stated.
    There is a difference between being a christian and an archaeologist, and being a person at the head of an organization dedicated to doing archaeology with the expressed purpose of doing it to uphold the bible. If you can't see that there isn't much I can do for you. Its like asking the chairman of the DNC to fairly pick a candidate in a race between a democrat and a republican based on purely objective factors. Expecting a truly objective outcome is insane.

    I don't think that your accusation holds water in the least. Unless some how they have first proven themselves or at least hinted at being very bad at science.
    What exactly would it take for you to show bias, or is bias impossible if you are an expert in your field?

    Is it the case that in your mind anyone who professes that they believe in the Bible and believe it to inerrant word of God.. can NOT be an honest scientist?
    No, not at all. but when your organization has the stated objective of using science to prove a pre established conclusion, then it's not science.

    ---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    That he is a member of a group of people who believe the Bible is true, is not a reason to not accept his research.
    No Apok. Members of a church believe the bible is true. This guy is the LEADER of a group who's expressed mission is to prove the bible true. That doesn't just describe his current belief, it describes his express intent to uphold that belief against all challengers and that their goal is to only find evidence that supports that conclusion. That is very very different than simply being a christian or belonging to a faith group. This is a group with a mission to argue for a given position no matter what. There is no stronger bias you can have. Science requires objectivity. It requires that you not have a foregone conclusion when you engage in it.

    Have you seriously not considered that his worldview is inspired because of the research he has done? Have you read a single one of his studies? Any of his books? Watched or listened to any one of his lectures? How about any of his documentaries?
    Have you?

    If I told you I was a distinguished scientist and head of the Atheists Archaeological Association and my mission statement was "Proving Christianity is a lie" and that my research on pottery fragments shows that the Canaanites never lived near the Hebrews, and that was out of agreement with archaeologists no such affiliation, would you suspect me of bias or would you say. "Well I've not seen his research so he's probably right due to his school credentials." ??

    If you had however, you'd have learned than in several, he insists on merely examining the evidence and letting it take you where it does. He insists, unlike you for some reason, that one ought not appeal to an authority, but make up their own minds based on the available evidence. He insists, unlike you for some reason, that only the evidence is to be used to determine the conclusion.
    Care to share with me the evidence for this?
    And keep in mind one can say anything they like. But when you act in a way contrary to that, when you head an organization that does research but has already declared the result of it before each time its done, its rather hard to believe the words he says that are contrary to that.

    Why is it that anyone who does not agree with YOUR worldview must 1) be wrong by default and 2) be biased? Are you aware how absurd that is Sig?
    How is it no matter how many times I tell you its not like that do you repeat this stupid claim?

    I was ready to call this one a tie but then you had to go and question my concern about his bias, and I go and discover not only is he a bit bias, he is as bias as it is possible to be. It start from a position of trust until someone shows me they cannot be trusted. Scientists do not do their work by first declaring a certain conclusion and then setting about to find evidence for it. That is the work of apologists. Answers in Genesis is full of that kind of ********. Scientist can test hypothesis they create, but they then publish whatever it is they happen to find. They work hard to remove bias from their work, not plaster it on their website and sell books about it asking for donations from the faithful. Its simply not how science is done.

    Because from my view, it would appear that you have forgotten HOW to (at least when it comes to any issue related to religion). Your posts have demonstrated themselves to be hypocritical, incapable of reason, full of bias, prejudice and ego.
    Says the pot to the kettle. Insult me all you like but they are hollow words coming from you. You have hidden like a coward from answering challenging questions while doing nothing but hurling insults. I present facts, you just call me ignorant. you have nothing but empty rhetoric backing up your side of the argument. Nothing but insults. Its pathetic. You can do better than this if you try.

    I don't expect you to understand this nor accept it (because you seem to disagree with conventional teachings and understandings about what the rules of reason are and what fallacious theory encompasses), but you have committed the textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy. It couldn't be any more textbook than you have exhibited. There isn't a credited critical thinking classroom in the country that would not ding you for that fallacy.
    You only demonstrate your own ignorance or desperation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.[1] "

    I have not identified being a christian as a negative characteristic. I have plenty of respect for people who are christian and think they can make fine scientists. I would not claim bias only because someone has a professed faith. Chadn is a christian and a scientist and I certainly respect his opinions as much as any other. Furthermore this is not an unrelated belief, it is in fact directly related to the claim in question. His belief is the bible cannot be wrong, and the question is if a given bible passage could have happened in history or not. A belief cannot be more related. Not only that, he does his work under the guise of this organization that expresses this belief in the strongest terms possible and does theri work with the expressed purpose of supporting that belief.

    If no reputable sceintists stood in opposition to his argument then I would have no expert grounds for doubting it, only his bias and that would not be a strong position. In fact if un-bias sources supported his conclusions then that would be a strong confirmation that could discount any such bias. But since other scientists who do not share his bias dispute his conclusion and offer concrete evidence contradicting it, I must choose who to have greater trust in. And this is where his very obvious and strong bias comes into play. It is not an ad hom because it is a directly related and explicit agenda that he holds.

    Take this to your logic professor and ask him if its a an ad hom or a valid consideration of bias. Be sure to mention what group he heads, the question at hand and the fact his work is disputed by those who do not have a bias association.

    You seemingly outright refuse to work with facts and evidence, and insist instead that his position is not credible because he's a Christian, he believes that archaeology has shown the historicity of the Bible, etc...
    And what facts and evidence have you presented? All you did was site this guy and claim it was the latest and last word on the issue. I showed you evidence that your claim was false, that others dispute his claims and it is hardly the most contemporary evidence or claim. You claimed I suspected a hidden agenda. I showed you direct evidence he had an explicit agenda for the exact conclusion being discussed.

    i present evidence, you present insults. Its no contest.

    Why should I trust a bias scientist with a stated agenda who studies pottery designs vs unbiased scientists who use the atomic decay of carbon atoms as well as pottery designs? I see no good reasons why his bias, second hand study should be taken over the work of first hand investigation by scientists without a stated agenda. If you were being honest with yourself you wouldn't either.

    It's the most ridiculous, biased, and disturbingly possible position to take.
    ********. I called it a draw. I said that we couldn't assume truth or fiction at first blush. You are the one assuming everything is true till proven beyond a doubt to be false. You have a bias position of truth of your claim. You (presumably) pray every day in commitment to a given world view.

    I keep an open mind. I don't have a commitment to any given viewpoint. I evaluate bias where I see it and not where I don't. I am ready to debate any point without hurling insults at them as an excuse not to respond. I actually use the definition of logical fallacies rather than throwing them around however I like as a rhetorical weapon. I research and report what I find.

    You demonstrate time and time again, that you are not the sort of thinker you claim to be Sig. And as a result, from my perspective it means that you are one of the more closed-minded debaters in this community when it comes to issues of religion. I think that it has been so long since you've taken a critical thinking course, that you've forgotten how to [think critically]. And what is even more perplexing, is that I've recommended numerous times, cheap resources for you to refresh your memory and you show you are "above" learning anything new or considering the possibility that you are just wrong.
    I think you are full of **** and hiding behind all that crap as an excuse not to counter my points and instead level insults at me. I think I am well above calling you names or insulting your intelligence or education like you so often do to others. The reason I challenge you is I do think critically. I find flaws in claims and I expose them. I use the rules of logic accurately rather than using them to suit my purposes.

    Because of this, you just have nothing to offer me in a discussion concerning religious topics.
    Then piss off and stop responding to me. But time and time again you come back, get frustrated that you can't browbeat me into submission or lure me into violating the boards policies. Time and time again you resort to simply insulting me instead of debating the topic. you have devolved into nothing more than Trolling Apok. And I can't report you because its your own damned BBS. All I can do is push back for the sake of my own instinctual honor and challenge you to rise above it.

    Try making just one post on this topic with me where you don't level some insult or accusation. If you don't like arguing with me, just stop doing it.

    I come into a discussion wanting to either correct forwarded bad reasoning or a misunderstanding about something OR wanting to learn something new (thus having my own understanding grown or corrected).
    Notice how you come into an argument predetermining the answer to it. Anything you disagree obviously just needs correction. I come at a discussion ready to fight for a position but also ready to be wrong about it. I come into a thread interested in learning why someone thinks what they do and trying to counter it as best I can. I don't presume to be correcting people until I've done the research to be sure of it.

    For you, I just don't think this will ever be the case...
    Me neither, I like to keep an open mind.

    for you argue from a position of the most extreme sort...that of extreme closed-mindedness, hypocrisy, inconsistency, bias, and prejudice.
    And you seem to argue from a thesaurus of high brow insults, that frankly don't ring true. My reputation here is of a rather open minded willingness to take both sides. It just so happens there are many rowdy Christians and conservatives here so that's what I argue against most often. I receive positive reputation from a wide range of debaters here and I've earned them. Your personal frustration does not mean much to me compared to that.

    It is why I will not respond to any of your posts regarding religion again. I simply cannot because it's a waste of my time to engage in a discussion with someone I believe to be incapable of rational, objective thought on certain topics.
    You have said that before but here you are. How generous of you.

    You can have the last word of course, I won't be checking this thread again, the atheists have proven they have no evidence for their claims and they simply misunderstand simple fallacies of reasoning (both of which, you and Allo are guilty of, specifically the ad hom...you committing it, him falsely charging it).
    About damned time. Enjoy debating with yourself in the echo chamber or picking on inexperienced debaters. You reap what you sew.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. #92
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You are the only Christian I have ever heard mention that take on it. I'm not saying its not a view shared by others, only that I have not encountered it before you.
    I only bring this up to say that I think many atheists are not aware anyone holds such a view and most theists who we encounter who argue for theism tend to argue for a global flood. After debating on ODN I did encounter a movie that re-enacted something like this but it was not apologizing for the bible and instead was trying to create a plausible event that the story could be based on.

    Personally I think the regional explication is plausible, at least in so much as it is a story based on a great flood that happened. We know there have been some pretty substantial regional floods in that part of the world. I do tend to think that there are many other elements that are likewise exaggerated in the story. The question becomes how far can you reduce it down and still have it be a miraculous story rather than a fantastic one (aka a fable).
    If you have only heard Apok mention such a 'take' on the Noah story, meet another Christian who is of like mind. Do you hail from the Deep South Bible Belt, 'coz that might explain things! Here in the UK I know a lot of Christians who believe the story refers to Noah's more parochial/localised view of 'his' world.

    I also do not interpret Biblical references to 'days' as always being literal passages of 24 hours.

    ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

    There are similar utterances in the Psalms.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  14. #93
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You only demonstrate your own ignorance or desperation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
    "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.[1] "

    I have not identified being a christian as a negative characteristic. I have plenty of respect for people who are christian and think they can make fine scientists. I would not claim bias only because someone has a professed faith. Chadn is a christian and a scientist and I certainly respect his opinions as much as any other. Furthermore this is not an unrelated belief, it is in fact directly related to the claim in question. His belief is the bible cannot be wrong, and the question is if a given bible passage could have happened in history or not. A belief cannot be more related. Not only that, he does his work under the guise of this organization that expresses this belief in the strongest terms possible and does theri work with the expressed purpose of supporting that belief.
    Negative. And I'm only responding to this point because it was pointed out to me that you objected to the ad hom. You are demonstrated, once again, that you are completely inexperienced and ignorant of fallacious theory.

    There are several variants and sister fallacies of the ad hominem (abusive, circumstantial, tu quoque, genetic fallacy, etc...), it is specifically a fallacy of relevance. It occurs when the argument is rejected or objected to on the basis of the person (or a characteristic, circumstance, etc...) making the argument itself. You, Sig, specifically committed the ad hominem circumstantiall, plain and simple. The reason why this is fallacious, is because the person making the argument is entirely irrelevant to the argument's veracity itself. With the circumstantial in particular, the reason why it is irrelevant (to attack the man, or Dr. Woods) is that while he is a Christian and while he believes in the authority of scripture, it does not make his conclusions (reached by evidence and reason) false nor lack credibility. So what does? The evidence and the reason alone! This is a serious struggle for several members of this board it seems, and regardless of how many times they are explained how they are mistaken, their pride just blinds them to the truth of the matter.

    And from a previous lesson you learned about using Wikipedia as a source, one would think that you would have recalled that it is not a wise choice, especially when you are discussing a topic with someone who actually has a little expertise on the topic (philosophy/critical thinking/fallacious theory). The definition you just used is not an actual definition of the ad hominem nor is it the one used by the source that the Wikipedia article is referencing. That is, you won't find it anywhere except for Wikipedia. The ad hominem fallacy is not limited or restricted in the way you are claiming...at all! Shall I correct that page for you to illustrate your mistake? In fact, I think shall. Not just to prove the point again, but to correct the asshattery of whoever made that claim of reference in the Wki article.

    Wikipedia article now updated to reflect what the West's Encyclopedia of American Law actually says (see below).





    So, to quickly address your definition:

    1) You provided an alleged LEGAL definition. It is not the proper context of this discussion. The proper context is that of argument analysis or evaluation. We don't use legal definitions of terms, which often have a significant different meaning than terms used outside the courtroom, in a discussion requiring argument evaluation independent of legal restrictions.

    However...

    2) #1 is irrelevant! It's irrelevant because the source does not even define the ad hominem fallacy that way!

    The definition you are using is: is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.

    But there are 2 problems here...

    (a) You are operating as if there is only one applicable understanding of the term (ad hominem), which in turn exposes a complete lack of understanding of fallacious theory Sig. So again, your "aha!" moment there that you are so sure of (more of that ego stroking it seems), is completely misplaced, unwarranted and grossly mistaken.

    (b) The source of that definition is West's Encyclopedia of American Law. The problem with that however, is that it is a lie! WEAL does not define the ad hominem fallacy that way at all.

    Here is how ad hominem fallacy is actually defined in this legal reference:

    [Page 81]
    [Latin, To the person.] A term used in debate to denote an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument.

    I know this...because I'm staring at it right now. Go to your public library if you don't happen to have it in your library or access to it and verify it yourself. Wiki...and you by using Wiki (a mistake you should have learned last time), are absolutely wrong.

    The fact is Sig, the ad hominem fallacy is merely the mistaken attack of the man instead of the argument itself. Someone could be a child molester and give statistics as to how child molestation is down the past decade...this doesn't make their argument wrong nor does it mean that they have a hidden agenda or intent that would negate the argument.

    Quit simple..."In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument." And that is precisely what you did by saying that Dr. Woods is not a scientist, or that "he is interested in making sure it lines up with the bible."

    Arguments are evaluated based solely on the existence and strength of evidence that are laid out for them. It does not matter how many times you ignore that fact...nor does it matter how much you do not want it to be true and instead, just want to be able to determine the merits of a claim by merely who made it...it will not make it come true.

    EVERY argument Sig, should be seen through the lens of objectivity and neutrality. That means you must evaluate EVERY argument as if the argument maker is completely anonymous. The argument is being evaluated on its conclusion which rests solely on its stated reasons. It doesn't matter if a YEC makes a claim, an atheist, a clown, a criminal, a scholar, or someone who has a history of mental illness. The argument's strength cannot be determined by evaluating the claim maker, ever. It's strength is determined by the reasons that support its conclusion, period, end of story.






    Actual definitions of the ad hominem fallacy vs nonsensical, conveniently made up definitions...


    An attack, or an insult, on the person, rather than directly addressing the person's reasons. -Asking the Right Questions, 9th ed, Brown/Keely, p72

    To attack the man who presents an argument rather than the argument itself. - The Art of Deception, Capaldi, p 92

    An argument which attempts to refute a claim by discrediting its proponents. They try to discredit a claim or proposal by attacking its proponents instead of providing a reasoned examination of the proposal iteslf. - Logic, 2nd ed, Nolt, Rohatyn, Varzi, p196 & Glossary

    Irrelevantly attacking opponents rather than their arguments - Logic and Philosophy, Tidman/Kahane, p 352

    An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). - http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

    Ad Hominem arguments attack the source of an argument - not anything within the argument itself. - http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/AdHominem.html

    A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate. - http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

    Here's a simple and concise yet extremely accurate video to help explain the fallacy:



    You are completely mistaken about the nature of this fallacy Sig, and you used a horrible source (and application) to try to support your case...a source that has now been corrected.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  15. #94
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,461
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut View Post
    If you have only heard Apok mention such a 'take' on the Noah story, meet another Christian who is of like mind. Do you hail from the Deep South Bible Belt, 'coz that might explain things! Here in the UK I know a lot of Christians who believe the story refers to Noah's more parochial/localised view of 'his' world.
    Glad to year it! I'm actually in Seattle which is sort of a hotbed of Atheism and very liberal versions of Christianity. Thing of it is, Seattle are also polite to a fault so we don't really talk divisive issues in public. My family is either Jewish or Agnostic or I don't talk to them about religion. So most of my exposure to Christian argument is from the internet on sites like these. Usually its the answers in Genesis crowd as they seem to love arguing about or parading their beliefs.

    As of this debate I've done a fair bit of reading on the back and forth on the issue and know the arguments much better than I did. Its one of the things I really like about debating. I find out new viewpoints and research them.

    I really want to side with the local flood position. Its just a far more reasonable belief. And there are some good biblical arguments contextually (if you think the bible can never be false). But for my part, having read both sides, I think that it reads like a world wide flood (even though no ancient had a concrete idea of how big the world was). I think its plausible and likely it was based on a local flood, but I think the intent of the passages was to express a flood of the known world at the time.

    I also do not interpret Biblical references to 'days' as always being literal passages of 24 hours.
    Also wise I think. Genesis is a book that even if you are a believer should be read as at least partly symbolic. It describes events that you simply could not explain both simply and accurately for an audience where much of the physical world is a great mystery. It is my favorite book of the bible by far, and not because its easy to pick at it, but because it presents such an imaginative and compelling vision with dramatic elemental stories. It also has some beautiful language and imagery. For the believer I think it is a challenge best met with an open mind as to how to interpret it.

    Its not my thing to go attacking the bible but I do like arguing about it with folks provided they want to argue about it. I have thoughtful opinions even if I don't have incontrovertible proofs.

    ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’
    That and as I like to point out "days" are measured by the earths rotation compared to the sun. And in the genesis account the sun didn't exist during some of the early "days" which makes it pretty hard to measure a "day". I think its best seen as figurative language not intended as a precise measurement.

    I usually only critique the creation account when someone claims its an uncannily accurate description fully compatible with known science. And they tend to be literalness. I see it as a poetic description of a supernatural event. In that light its hard to critique it much apart from the differences in the two accounts, but honestly those are fairly minor if your talking about human beings recording a legend about the acts of a god. Some differing details would be expected.

    ---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 PM ----------

    See Apok, you just can't resist arguing with me. You promised not to read my post, promised to stop debating with me and here you are arguing with me moments later having clearly read my post. Were it not for one another we might actually get useful things done. Why not just be gracious and informative instead of dismissive and insulting? This post of yours was much better BTW, actual arguments with solid points, I like that!

    I will read your material and watch your video and then have a response for you. note I didn't say I would prove you wrong. I don't know yet, I have to go find out. That is how unbiased people do things rather than decide first and investigate second.

    PS: Thank you for your hard work improving Wikipdeia. It is the efforts of individuals such as yourself who make it a great source of general information that is generally well sourced but never perfect. Then again what is?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #95
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Scientists are not beyond that kind of behavior but not even close to this degree.
    Well, I'm not really certain as to what "degree" you are talking about. You say that it isn't to the level of "dishonest".

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If I were the head of the "God is a lie foundation' who's mission was "to show the world Christianity is a sham" and I were doing research I claimed disproved the bible that conflicted with scientists who had no such declared affiliation, wouldn't you be very skeptical of my interpretation? You should be!
    Skepticism is one thing, throwing the research out all together is another.
    Should we throw out all the studies done by "MAD" (mother against drunk driving) because they have a stated disagreement with drinking and driving?

    The point is, not all organization afiliation should lead one to think that they are going to resort to manipulating facts or out right inventing them
    in order to prove their point/goal. To me, being a Christian means trying to be honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Human nature. When was the last time you saw a priest say he's disproved the bible? It happens rarely and they generally quit at that point. When people are commited to a conclusion they are almost impossible to shake from it no matter the evidence you present them. You've been on ODN long enough to realize that I think.
    Your right.. I will no longer listen to any atheist argue against God.. because, well.. you know they are all biased and stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    There is a difference between being a christian and an archaeologist, and being a person at the head of an organization dedicated to doing archaeology with the expressed purpose of doing it to uphold the bible. If you can't see that there isn't much I can do for you. Its like asking the chairman of the DNC to fairly pick a candidate in a race between a democrat and a republican based on purely objective factors. Expecting a truly objective outcome is insane.
    Fist, I recognize hesitancy. But should we then throw out any study done by the DNC on political fronts?
    See the assumption you make is that the evidence or topic of study is in equal inherent conflict as the DNC and the RNC.
    I don't agree with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    What exactly would it take for you to show bias, or is bias impossible if you are an expert in your field?
    I think that if you are an archaeologist you have a Job. If you are biased then you are not doing that job and can not rightly be called an archaeologist.
    The thing is, unless he is inventing data, then you have to accept the data as valid for the basis of argumentation.
    That he is an expert, means that you need greater reason to argue against his experimentation of the data.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No, not at all. but when your organization has the stated objective of using science to prove a pre established conclusion, then it's not science.
    I think if they are not using science it should be demonstrable. If not, then the doubt and skepticism is unfounded.
    To serve man.

  17. #96
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    193
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    The entire OP is extremely ignorant in so many ways. This is the problem with atheists or religious opposition trying to discredit the bible, torah, and quran. They are completely ignorant about it. Apokulupis has done a great job picking your false information apart. The fact that the OP thinks Christians actually believe Jesus's birthday was on the 25th of December is evidence enough for me to stop reading. If you want to historically discredit the bible first you would have to read it. You would have to understand the meaning and translation.

    This is why the best Bible critics used to be Christians, and have either gone agnostic or atheist. I don't like getting in these debates much anymore regarding religion. I find it a waste of time. Tends to be more ignorant debate if anything, and the only people who can do it well are religious scholars.

    Anyway I did enjoy reading Apokalupsis replies.

  18. #97
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Nonsense. It's calling out your NON-RESPONSE.
    Actually, I told you what my argument is. Since quite a lot of what we read in the Bible is pure mythology, what gives us any reason to believe any of what the Bible says? What criteria can we use to assess whether a particular non-supernatural story (or non-supernatural interpretation of a supernatural story) is to be considered reliable? If you want to say that the Bible is historically realiable, you have to address that question.

    Otherwise, you have done nothing to attack my position: the Bible can't be relied on as an historical source because we have no criteria by which to assess the reliabiblity of any of its parts.





    "Nuh-uh" is NEVER a response Allo...NEVER. And that is precisely what you have done.

    Address the ARGUMENTS or concede the argument. It's that simple.
    Exactly! Address my aguments. Stop reversing the burden. I don't have to exclude every single biblical claim as untrue. Either there is a way of reading the Bible with a view to learning about history or there isn't. Unless we have some workable criteria of separating truth from fiction, the thing is of no use to us.

    Furthermore, I recommend looking up the ad hom fallacy. You have falsely charged that one exists. There is no ad hom committed against you.
    Yes, you're correct. It wasn't strictly ad hominem. It was a flame.


    Merely because I've addressed what I believe to be your shortcoming here...doesn't default to a commission of an ad hom. Your response is not wrong because of WHO you are or your BACKGROUND nor your CHARACTER...but rather the response is wrong because it is a "nuh-uh" response. It doesn't a address anything. You don't tackle the argument, you dismiss it...presumably, because you cannot.
    There is nothing "ah-huh" about my position. My position is clear and I've stated it even more clearly above.

    Provide archaeological evidence that directly contradicts historical events recorded in scripture. You cannot...because absolutely none exist. NONE. All you can argue is "X even is not supported by archaeology yet" which is not an objection at all (and as to why, it has already been explained in previous posts).
    Reversing the burden. You don't just assume that any old mythology is factually correct on historical issues. Mythologies are mythologies. They're about spooky stuff; supernatural stuff. The Bible has tonnes of incredible stories. How do you want me to prove archaeologically that a guy never lived in the belly of a fish (or whale?) for 3 days? How do you want me to prove archaeologically that there never was a tower that reached so high that you could see the entire Earth from it? How do you want me to prove archaeologically that there was no magical tree and that the Sun never stopped and that there were never giants and unicorns? How do you want me to prove archaeologically that the Earth isn't 6000 years old? How do you want me to prove archaeologically that all species weren't created in a single week and that a woman was never made from a guy's rib? How do you want me to prove archaeologically that many of the figures in the book of Numbers exceed the entire believed population of the entire region? How do you want me to prove archaeologically that a prophet never ascended into heaven?

    Or better yet. Why would I have to? If I have to teach you everything we know about evolution, astronomy, biology and physics then I give up. There's no point. I will never have the time to teach you all that.

    Alternatively, you might simply agree with me that those stories are false. And that being the case, why would you accept as historical truth any uncorroborated story from the same authors? You simply can't. Not with a straight face. It would be purely mad, insane. Sure, there may be parts in the Bible that to some degree do reflect some actual events. The problem is that, without corroborating evidence, we can't possibly identify which parts those are. How then can you rely on any of the book?


    Challenge to support a claim.

    Provide archaeological evidence that directly contradicts historical events recorded in scripture.
    Strawman. My position is not that the Bible incorrect on all of its claims. My position is merely that we can't rely on it without a solid assessment criteria. And I've explained why. Do you take issue with that? If so, why?

    relevant and applicable, then I will provide links to you. But I'm not going to defend a position only to have it ignored yet again. My time is far too valuable and I've spend more than enough time and energy showing how the "critics" in this thread have no leg to stand on.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  19. #98
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    193
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    How do you want me to prove archaeologically that the Earth isn't 6000 years old?
    Allocutus,

    Problem here is your taking everything written in the bible literally. Lots of things written in the bible are in laymen terms, and expressed in ways people could relate at that time. How would people understand if it wasn't?. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that the earth is 6000 years old. It does say the heavens and earth was created in 6 days. But what is a day to God? With time dilation 1 day to God could be 2.08 billion years to us. So there is no need to prove the earth is 6000 years old.

    I think Christians can accept old earth creationism and still keep to there faith. There is many other similar metaphorical statements in the bible which can also have much more meaning by them. We can go line by line if your really interested.

    When God took Adams rib and created women is this not possible scientifically? Yes. In 1996 scientists proved that a cell taken from a specific body part could recreate a whole individual. Dolly the sheep was cloned from cells taken from a mammary gland and became the exact replica of the donor.

    So why should we take the bible absolutely literal when it is told metaphorically for ancient peoples to understand?

  20. #99
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Allocutus,

    Problem here is your taking everything written in the bible literally. Lots of things written in the bible are in laymen terms, and expressed in ways people could relate at that time. How would people understand if it wasn't?. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that the earth is 6000 years old. It does say the heavens and earth was created in 6 days. But what is a day to God? With time dilation 1 day to God could be 2.08 billion years to us. So there is no need to prove the earth is 6000 years old.

    I think Christians can accept old earth creationism and still keep to there faith. There is many other similar metaphorical statements in the bible which can also have much more meaning by them. We can go line by line if your really interested.

    When God took Adams rib and created women is this not possible scientifically? Yes. In 1996 scientists proved that a cell taken from a specific body part could recreate a whole individual. Dolly the sheep was cloned from cells taken from a mammary gland and became the exact replica of the donor.

    So why should we take the bible absolutely literal when it is told metaphorically for ancient peoples to understand?
    Actually, it's told metaphorically for ancient people to have no idea what it's saying. We know that an expanding Universe (along with the Singularity) is a concept that could be explained to ancient peoples because there are ancient religions with just this type of cosmology.

    But that's beside the point. No, I'm not suggesting that the Bible must be interpreted literally. Not at all. I'm suggesting the opposite: the Bible should be approached with extreme caution because we can't know just how reliable it is in anything it says.

    Now, getting back to metaphor; there's something to be said about that. In the days when we didn't know the Solar System was heliocentric, people accepted geocentricity as a fact and did so based on ideas from the Bible. Prior to understanding evolution, people accepted the Biblical creation account as more or less literally accurate. There's a tendency for believers to claim over time that each part of the Bible is correct and then, when faced with strong evidence to the contrary, to change their stance. Once they see that a particular part can't be correct they claim it's a metaphor and at the same time continue to claim that all the others (not disproven thus far) parts are incorrect. Given the huge number of ridiculous claims in the Bible, that's not a rational position. What doesn't help is the fact that even of the non-ridiculous claims, very few have found any historical or archaeological confirmation. Not encouraging at all.

    And yet, as you can see above, Apok goes ahead and challenges me to prove that the Bible is not historically correct. He's starting from the very same assumption as theists have started from since ancient times.

    What I'm suggesting is that people stop and think "hang on a minute, why should I believe any of this stuff?" And I'm not at all limiting this only to the Bible. You should do the same with any source you want to consider for its reliability. You should always be skeptical but especially so with mythology-like sources of uncertain authorship that have a solid record of being proven wrong.
    Last edited by Allocutus; October 26th, 2012 at 10:15 PM.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  21. #100
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    193
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Historicity of the Bible (or the lack thereof)

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Actually, it's told metaphorically for ancient people to have no idea what it's saying. We know that an expanding Universe (along with the Singularity) is a concept that could be explained to ancient peoples because there are ancient religions with just this type of cosmology.

    But that's beside the point. No, I'm not suggesting that the Bible must be interpreted literally. Not at all. I'm suggesting the opposite: the Bible should be approached with extreme caution because we can't know just how reliable it is in anything it says.

    I wouldn't say extreme caution, but ok.

    Now, getting back to metaphor; there's something to be said about that. In the days when we didn't know the Solar System was heliocentric, people accepted geocentricity as a fact and did so based on ideas from the Bible. Prior to understanding evolution, people accepted the Biblical creation account as more or less literally accurate. There's a tendency for believers to claim over time that each part of the Bible is correct and then, when faced with strong evidence to the contrary, to change their stance. Once they see that a particular part can't be correct they claim it's a metaphor and at the same time continue to claim that all the others (not disproven thus far) parts are incorrect. Given the huge number of ridiculous claims in the Bible, that's not a rational position. What doesn't help is the fact that even of the non-ridiculous claims, very few have found any historical or archaeological confirmation. Not encouraging at all.

    I do not believe it says anything in the bible about geocentrically. Here is the problem many people in power have corrupted the message in the bible for there own personal gain. The
    overall moral message in the bible is very clear. The catholic church for example has strayed far from the bible in many ways. If your going to say claims in the bible are ridiculous you should provide examples. Lets not argue over semantics in genesis though. Clearly all of genesis is metaphorical. There is plenty of evidence in history that goes along with stories of the bible so I don't understand what you mean. There is lots of places to visit in Jerusalem, and other ancient cities. The temple mount for example? The Hebrew language? The dead sea scrolls? Many Christian religions have strayed far from the bible though. This is a problem with religious leaders not the message.


    And yet, as you can see above, someone like Apok goes ahead and challenges me to prove that the Bible is not historically correct. He's starting from the very same assumption as theists have started from since ancient times.

    What I'm suggesting is that people stop and think "hang on a minute, why should I believe any of this stuff?" And I'm not at all limiting this only to the Bible. You should do the same with any source you want to consider for its reliability. You should always be skeptical.
    I agree but why not stop and try to understand the meaning first? If we jump to conclusions, and misinterpret the message of the author for any book. What if your wrong? You state so many things are ridiculous in the bible but have you thought on the meaning? Have you even read the bible?

 

 
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone game for a historicity of Jesus debate?
    By eliotitus in forum General Debate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2012, 08:24 AM
  2. Why do you believe in the Bible?
    By Warner in forum Religion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: May 31st, 2012, 02:39 PM
  3. Faith: Historicity is More of A Weakness than A Strength
    By The Great Khan in forum Religion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: June 9th, 2010, 05:17 PM
  4. The Bible
    By wanxtrmBANNED in forum Religion
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: January 21st, 2007, 07:46 PM
  5. The Bible
    By mrs_innocent in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: November 27th, 2004, 01:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •