Archeologly proves the Bible?

[dogjones]

I have re-revelated it. Needle nardle noo.

 

[TimCallahan]

Are you calling Wikkipedia, a site founded by an atheist, a religiously neutral site?

ETA

For example Wiki's article on Diocletian does not mention the thousands of Christians killed by him whereas many other sites do.

DOC:

Since you responded to my last post, I might be excused for assuming you actually read it, though, frankly you failed to understand that I was asking you for a good, religiously neutral site on Ramsay's converstion. I might also assume you read what I had to say oabout the archaeological record of the Roman emperors, as well as my reiteration of the questions regarding the discrepencies in the Nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke. However, I still wait for any sort of answer. So here it is one more time:

1) Please give me a good site, hopefully religiously neutral, that tells something of Ramsay's conversion to Christianity.

2) What is your response to what I had to say regarding Roman coins, busts and monuments as preserved documentation of the lives of the Roman emperors?

3) What is your explanation for the contradictions and inconsistensies between the Nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke?

 

[eccles]

You're clearly a recipient of a version of the Gospel which was subject to transcription errors.

Ying tong, ying tong, ying tong, ying tong,
Ying tong tiddle i po....

And so are you Zooterkin: Dreaded transcription errors of the "All Leather" Goon Show. The Ying Tong song goes: "Ying tong, IDDLE i Po".
You will all be murdered in your beds. DEADED.
And you live in Berkshire: A POM. Well the Poms lost 8 wickets for 308 runs. You might not get the Ashes back.

 

[zooterkin]

And so are you Zooterkin: Dreaded transcription errors of the "All Leather" Goon Show. The Ying Tong song goes: "Ying tong, IDDLE i Po".
You will all be murdered in your beds. DEADED.

You rotten swine, you've deaded me! I knew I shouldn't have trusted my cardboard memory...

 

[DOC]

...How do we know whence commeth the "sayings of Jesus. Were they written down by those who actually heard Jesus say them I think not. If we accept that the fist Gospel was the one 'attributed to Mark, was written about 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, the writer had a bloody good memory, or a tape recorder

Well my bible says Mark was written 60 - 65 AD. Which would make it 27 to 32 years after the crucifixion. And Mark was an associate of Peter from which he undoubtedly heard preaching of Jesus' words.

Also with regard to remembering things, Christ said in John 14:26:

"But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So If the Holy Spirit brings things to your memory it doesn't matter how long after the fact the words were written down.

 

[DOC]

The Rise of Atheism - Australian Convention 2010
Type: Common Interest - Beliefs & Causes
Description: Atheist Alliance International and Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc present...

"THE RISE OF ATHEISM"
Global Convention 12-14 March 2010
Melbourne, Australia

Speakers will include:
- Richard Dawkins
- PZ Myers
- Phillip Adams
- Peter Singer
- Taslima Nasrin
- Catherine Deveny
and many more.

And people said Peter Singer was not that influential, when I put up a thread about him. I guess if you can make this plug I should be able to say something about one of the speakers.

Here is a little about Peter Singer and Simon Weisenthal:

From the International Task Force website:

"Not suprisingly, his appointment was met with shock, dismay and protests. Peter Singer is an advocate of infanticide and euthanasia... Disapproval of his views came from all quarters. In l997, when Singer was invited to address a Swedish book fair, Simon Wiesenthal, the world's leading Nazi hunter, wrote to the organizers stating that "a professor of morals who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns...is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level..."

"{Singer} says it's ethical for parents to conceive and give birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs and transplant them into their ill older children. by Marvin Olasky (townhall.com, 12/2/04)".

http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/singer.htm

Please start another thread rather than derail this one.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Nonpareil]

Well my bible says Mark was written 60 - 65 AD. Which would make it 27 to 32 years after the crucifixion. And Mark was an associate of Peter from which he undoubtedly heard preaching of Jesus' words.

Also with regard to remembering things, Christ said in John 14:26:

"But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So If the Holy Spirit brings things to your memory it doesn't matter how long after the fact the words were written down.

You are trying to prove the authenticity of the Bible by using quotes from the Bible. I hope I don't have to explain the logical fallacy there.

 

[I Ratant]

You are trying to prove the authenticity of the Bible by using quotes from the Bible. I hope I don't have to explain the logical fallacy there.

.
Again.
Waste of time anyway.

 

[joobz]

Well my bible says Mark was written 60 - 65 AD. Which would make it 27 to 32 years after the crucifixion. And Mark was an associate of Peter from which he undoubtedly heard preaching of Jesus' words.

You know what else your bible says?
luke 12:35-48


Please note: if you don't want me bringing this up, either refute my argument (in the appropriate thread) or stop using arguments that rely on the bible being "fully true".

 

[Simon39759]

And people said Peter Singer was not that influential, when I put up a thread about him. I guess if you can make this plug I should be able to say something about one of the speakers.

Here is a little about Peter Singer and Simon Weisenthal:

From the International Task Force website:

"Not suprisingly, his appointment was met with shock, dismay and protests. Peter Singer is an advocate of infanticide and euthanasia... Disapproval of his views came from all quarters. In l997, when Singer was invited to address a Swedish book fair, Simon Wiesenthal, the world's leading Nazi hunter, wrote to the organizers stating that "a professor of morals who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns...is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level..."

"{Singer} says it's ethical for parents to conceive and give birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs and transplant them into their ill older children. by Marvin Olasky (townhall.com, 12/2/04)".

http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/singer.htm

Well, it still is off topic and we might get ourselves transferred into a new thread, but no big deal.

But... So what?
First of all, the man is one of the many speaker in a conference in his home country. Does not make him influential. Especially to the subject of atheism, which was your actual claim and still is not Singer's topic of expertise.
Most people mentioned never having heard about him, so that suggest he is not all that influential.

Regardless, a lot of people also look at his interview and personal website and read through his books and found no argument supporting any of the controversial opinions attributed to him.
The website you bring in is new, but, looking for it appear quite controversial. And they clearly stand in opposition to euthanasia. That is not too say that they are not objective or lying about Singer, they are not Ann Coulter, but I'd take their reporting of Singer's positions with a grain of salts, especially when they run contrary to what I read from the man own's pen (or keyboard as the fact may be).
In fact, looking through the link, one of the site is a very right wing one that seems to make the same misrepresentation than Ann Coulter did. The others are mostly what I know (from reading Singer's actual words) are gross misrepresentation of his position.
Singer is in favour of euthanasia. That does not means he wants to murder every disabled person.

The most interesting is the article by Harriet McBryde Johnson, but, then again, she makes no pretence of being objective. And, once again, I do not think she understands, let alone represent, Singer's position accurately.

 

[eccles]

Which version of the Bible

The best look-up site for bible passages is:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke 12:35-48;&version=9;
Now you can choose which version you want. If you go to the Pop-up menu you will find there are Twenty(20) English versions. I use either the KJV or the NIV. But which NIV? The US or English? Well to quote Professor Henry Higgins ("My Fair Lady") "English- the Americans haven't used it for years".

When the The Committee on Bible Translation (100 bible experts) finished their work they found they had to publish two English versions: One for Americans and one for English due to the differences in English in the two countries.

 

[pakeha]

Well my bible says Mark was written 60 - 65 AD. Which would make it 27 to 32 years after the crucifixion. And Mark was an associate of Peter from which he undoubtedly heard preaching of Jesus' words.

Also with regard to remembering things, Christ said in John 14:26:

"But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So If the Holy Spirit brings things to your memory it doesn't matter how long after the fact the words were written down.

DOC isn't content with misquoting academics, posting sources which disprove his/her ideas and misleading the forum with bloated statistics:

Well my bible says Mark was written 60 - 65 AD.

Will DOC give us chapter and verse for this assertion of his/hers?

Well my bible says Mark was written 60 - 65 AD.

 

[amb]

Not only are there no original manucripts, but out of the 27 books that make up the N/T, only 8 almost go back to the author whose name they bear: the seven undisputed letters of Paul and the revelation of John although we have no idea who this John was.
The other 19 books were authored by people who knowingly claimed to be someone other than who they were. Also, they were written in Greek which may be proof they were written outside of Israel by people who may well be wrting hearsay.

 

[pakeha]

Intersting observations, amb.

The other 19 books were authored by people who knowingly claimed to be someone other than who they were. Also, they were written in Greek which may be proof they were written outside of Israel by people who may well be wrting hearsay.

At the very least, they were witten in Greek for an audience who understood Greek. I say audience because these copies were produced for groups of people to listen to. Perhaps the 2nd century version of an audio book?

 

[eccles]

Video: Jesus named Obama as the Antichrist

http://lifewithoutfaith.com/?p=1975

Make sure to watch the Video.

This shows how the Bible can be interpreted by anyone in any way to "prove" a point.

I often say: Give 6 preachers one passage from the bible as the text for a sermon and you will get 24 different sermons.

 

[DC]

http://lifewithoutfaith.com/?p=1975

Make sure to watch the Video.

This shows how the Bible can be interpreted by anyone in any way to "prove" a point.

I often say: Give 6 preachers one passage from the bible as the text for a sermon and you will get 24 different sermons.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

lol first he tells its written in Aramaic and then he uses a hebrew dictionary......

 

[DC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak

 

[eccles]

The Moses Mystery: The African Origins of the Jewish People

I am a member of the Guardians Egypt Forum and I came across this:

Review from KMT: A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt, 8:3, Fall 1997 followed by author’s response

http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/ancientne/MMkmt.html

That is worth a look.

 

[TimCallahan]

Well my bible says Mark was written 60 - 65 AD. Which would make it 27 to 32 years after the crucifixion. And Mark was an associate of Peter from which he undoubtedly heard preaching of Jesus' words.

Also with regard to remembering things, Christ said in John 14:26:

"But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

So If the Holy Spirit brings things to your memory it doesn't matter how long after the fact the words were written down.

1) Mark was written after the destruction of Jerusalem in CE 70. This gospel is full of errors concerning the geography of Galilee, and Mark has a fuzzy idea of Jewish law. It is highly unlikely that the tradition that Mark was Peter's secretary is true. The failed geography alone makes it unlikely that he was an eyewitness.

2) If as you say, "the Holy Spirit brings things to your memory it doesn't matter how long after the fact the words were written down," then perhaps the Gnostic gospels, written probably in the second century, as well as the Infancy Gospels, written about the same time, were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Certainly I could imply that using your argument that it doesn't matter when te material was written down.

3) I will take your repeated failure to answer my arguments regarding the discrepencies in the Nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke as evidence that you are conceding that argument, even though you seemingly lack the courtesy to respond to my posts. Ditto for my points on the archaeological evidence on the Roman emperors.

4) I'm also still waiting for you to answer my simple request for evidence on the conversion of Ramsay, whom you say was originally a skeptic. If you can't find it, at least show the courtesey of telling me so.

 

[Fireshadow]

3) I will take your repeated failure to answer my arguments regarding the discrepencies in the Nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke as evidence that you are conceding that argument, even though you seemingly lack the courtesy to respond to my posts. Ditto for my points on the archaeological evidence on the Roman emperors.

4) I'm also still waiting for you to answer my simple request for evidence on the conversion of Ramsay, whom you say was originally a skeptic. If you can't find it, at least show the courtesey of telling me so.

All I have to say to this is that you show far more patience with DOC's seeming inability and lack of desire to answer direct questions than I would ever be able to.