Part 30 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity>>>MOD ALERT<<<

You provided no contradictions. You tried to create a contradiction but
your limited knowledge of the Bible was to no avail.

Seriously, try again.

Yes I did. To fulfill prophecy. You know, the stuff you claim the Old Testament
provides but what you ignore when it flies in your face.

 

But a stock answer with evidence. Unlike your stock answer which is wishful
thinking at best.

Try again?

 

Why does it not have to make sense? So you're ok with the notion that everything came about by accident even though it doesn't make any sense?

Why do you do the things that you do? I hope you do them because it makes sense. For example when your car is low on gas, does it make sense for you to go to the gas station to buy more gas so you can continue driving your car?

Or does it make more sense to you to steal your gas by siphoning it out from the nearest car you see?

Well He didn't keep us completely in the dark, I mean He has giving us His best selling book of all time the Holy Bible. God speaks to us through he Holy Bible and I can tell you that His best selling book of all time after reading it makes a whole lot of sense. But of course just don't take my word...check it out for yourself but hey if you don't want to do that then is there anything anyone can say to you?...if not then so be it!

Well if you read the Holy Bible it will tell you who and why. God created for a purpose and not for no apparent reason.

 

BINGO! We have another winner.

 

The laws of science are different from theories. But only because they're
different from theories.

 

Oops! There isn't any. But somebody once said it was that's good enough for some
and especially those who will grasp straws in hopes that nobody will call them on it.

 

This is evidence of you trying way too hard. The part in which you're referencing has no citation in the source you provided.
As far as my research tells me, archaeologist are still unsure about whether Et-Tell is Ai or not. They've been debating this for years.
Source: http://davelivingston.com/ai15.htm

 

Um...yes, I notice the contradiction in YOUR argument. You claim that objective morals exist, right? You also claim that there is a difference between good and evil, and right and wrong. Now, according to you, right and wrong are based on God's nature, as you've said recently. However, you have ALSO said that right and wrong are arbitrary devices that we have to follow, and are NOT based on God's nature (instead you've given me examples of right and wrong being based on HUMAN LAWS). Now which is it? That is why there is confusion here.

It comes from MULTIPLE groups of people, not just one. I thought I wouldn't have to make that distinction for you, but apparently I have to. There can be one, two, or MULTIPLE stratas of different morality in a society, but these different moralities all derive from the opinions of a group of people.

Well, one, we didn't kill Stalin so I don't know how well versed you are on history, BUT....

I'm seriously confused by your weird parallel between killing one evil man, and killing innocent women and children. If I think killing one evil man is wrong, I have to think killing innocents in right? Uh.... No comprende.

Yes, the Canaanites may have been evil, they may have sacrificed children. Apparently you think that an answer to sacrificing of children by a group of people is to KILL ALL THE CHILDREN. I mean, at least they won't be sacrificed then, I guess.

 

Yes... and evolution has laws of its own as well. However, laws and theories are two completely different things, anyways.

 

This is reasonable.

I can direct you to this video to support my claims. A video is probably the best way to do it since it can encompass audio explaining what is being seen.

[video=youtube;LdSExDE8EsU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdSExDE8EsU[/video]

 

Got the bullet points? Your argument is not new to me nor is my rebuttal... archeology provides no empirical proof God. If you can give me specific bullet points I will address them... and as I am about to make dinner I will let the video play in the background for a while and will further comment on what is said... but I doubt I will make it through 100 minutes of it.

 

God killed Canaanites because they sacrificed children. So what does God do for humanity? He sacrifices his child? Hypocrisy?

 

2 minutes in there is a spliced in comment lacking context about DNA. Whose DNA? Jesus? And even if it is the DNA of Jesus how is that proof that God exists?

Around 3:30 in a man talks about the archaeological evidence of places, events, and people in the Bible... which I do not contest the non fantastical claims. I do argue that this is not proof of God nor the dogma of the resurrection that Christianity is based upon.

4:50 in a man talks about a reproduction of an ancient engraving said to contain the oldest known use of the word Yahweh. This still does not prove that God exists.

5 minutes plus man goes on and on and on and on and on about all the archaeological evidence that supports stories in the Bible... which I do not refute. This is still not proof of God.

Skiped ahead a bit hoping that the man would have something more compelling yet still he is going on and on and on and on and on about all the archaeological evidence that supports stories in the Bible... which I do not refute the non fantastical claims. This is still not proof of God.

Skipped ahead some more... at around 36 minutes in a man is now rambling on about Mt. Sinai as evidence of creation because the Bible says so. Still not proof that God exists as it is just speculation and based upon the Bible and not empirical evidence.

39:40 a man goes on about Mt. Sinai as prove that God came down, shows a clip of a short geological lesson then some Bible verse to prove his point. This is still not proof of God.

This is where I stopped as it had become abundantly evident to me that the man who made this video is clearly a victim of confirmation bias. He starts from a predetermined conclusion then seeks evidence to support it... that is anything but scientific and is junk archeology.

I am at a loss as to how anyone can see this as some persuasive argument for the existence of God?!

 

Bullet points to provide you prove of archaeological findings also written in the bible? LOL! That's a lot of work you're asking me to write down. That video is good enough.

 

No idea. I didn't hear anything about DNA.

This video was never about proof of God. It was about the archaeological accuracy of the bible

That was never the point, nor was this your original argument.

Uh huh

Ya don't say?

Because Mt. Sinai has charred rock at its summit while no other mountain in its vicinity has charred rock.

w00t w00t

No. He just combines 4 archaeological sources together in one video.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

One could go through any well researched historical fiction novel and find numerous verifiable facts - does that make them any less a work of fiction?

 

You have no idea? Have you even watched this video?! Perhaps go back a couple seconds more to 1:58 and you should hear the word DNA.

Which I have not contested.

My argument:

I am still waiting for proof to support your claim that:

Where in the video is the above claim of a "99.98% accuracy rating" substantiated?

How is this proof of God? Have you ruled out all other possibilities? Do you understand than the inability to prove the negative is not proof of the positive? That correlation does not imply causation?

Placing your words in my mouth does not make them my own, it only highlights your ignorance of my actual position. My position is not one of knowing, but one of questioning? How about you?

 

The OT Provides nothing. There is no prophecy of anything to do with Jesus in the OT. All we have are bits torn from their context by Christianity.

There is certainly nothing to take Joseph and Mary north to Nazareth when Egypt is in the opposite direction.
There is certainly nothing to take Joseph and Mary 90 miles to Bethlehem Ephrata. The Roman Laws took censuses where people were residing. Not in their descendants birthplace. That was for the obvious reason of not causing chaos in the Roman World - Which is not irrelevant. In our own country we have the same conditions. Your US censuses are slightly different.

I'm afraid it's your limited knowledge of what the Bible is saying, and what the conditions of the time were. Anyone studying these will immediately ask 'Why did Joseph drag Mary all the way to Bethlehem' when it wasn't necessary.

Matthew, of course, gives us a very different story.

You remind me of the 2 JW's I spent 30 minutes talking to the other day. So indoctrinated they'd never thought for themselves. When I showed them one or two things they were saying could not possibly be true they left saying they would return.

The things Christians take for granted when taught the Bible, and not its context of time and culture, is amazing. Are they frightened to understand what it really says? Cloistered within their tiny world of 'faith'.

 

You just can't be bothered to study and work things out for yourselves. You'd prefer to remain comfortable refuting things you know little about. Many of these things are clear to those of us who have studied the times and areas.

War between Israel and Judah. Israel 800,000 men - Judah 400,000 men. That's 1.2m - just men. Knowing the culture and custom of the day these men would almost cetainly be married men. But lets say, for arguments sake, a few were not. 1m men with wives and families ( the culture of the day was to have big families) but lets just say 1 child. That makes 3m. If we add the older generation and larger families it would bring the total to 4-5 million.

If anyone on here thinks that that area could sustain this quantity with the agricultural methods of the day they are potty. Today Israel can production 95% of its needs by a highly advanced technology, but importing meat, grain and various products for a population of around 8m.

In those days grain had to be grown. Hand sown, hand reaped, hand thrashed, hand ground.
Much of Judah was 'mountainous'. Much of Israel hilly. Not a great deal of arable land and a lot of desert and scrubland.

Could Canaan support 4-5 million. Could Israel and Judah raise 1.2m soldiers?

In your dreams.

 

I suppose you could. You could disregard the video if you wish. One thing that I do, is if someone tells me something is a fact, I go and research it. I won't just disregard it due to my own bias thoughts.

 

I'll check it out when I have time and we'll talk about it, if its really what you want to do.

In an attempt to be fair, I grabbed a video that was the least preachy. I could point you to the biblical archaeologists or the New Testament scholar sources. If you're willing to accept those, then I'll provide them. One thing I don't like is sourcing bias sources. I try to find neutral ones. However, when it comes to the bible, many of these sources are dedicated pretty hard core. One thing, though, is that many of them are very accurate in their findings. I just don't know how you will accept them.

I thought you and I already established that wasn't the point? Didn't we establish that? Yeah, I think we did.

I didn't place words in your mouth. I made a statement that you could not refute. I said you don't want to see the evidence, so you're not looking. It's pretty obvious this is the case, because your actions speak for you.

 

Rob doesn't see the evidence because there is no evidence. Never has been. Not a jot of evidence of the supernatural, ever.

Meantime, your 'evidence' has as much weight as the evidence for all other gods and magic. That cuts jesus down to size, don't it

 

I'm going to reply to the last bit of responses I made to you and that's about it. I don't have time to respond to child-like rhetoric. I really want people like you to exercise my brain. You, my friend, are not at that level yet.

 

Another arrogant Christian. We do get them on here don't we. But then they don't think they need to learn. What a laugh.

 

Did you read what he said? I'm not going to reply to someone who just mocks and mocks without making any sort of point of their own. He doesn't reply to my questions or addresses anything I say. Now I'm arrogant for telling him I'm just not going to reply to his pointless banter any more? That's pretty funny.