Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well one problem is that Jesus himself often referred to the Old Testament events. Jesus talks about Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4–5 . He talks about Noah in Matthew 24:37–39. He even refers to himself as the God of Abraham in Matthew 22:32. Now why would Jesus do that if He believed that these characters were just old Hebrew myths?
Because he was just as stupid and brain-washed as everyone else.
The fact that a brain-washed person repeats information used to brain-wash them doesn't make it true.
Jesus was also ignorant. So ignorant, that if Jesus would be here now, he couldn't even hold a conversation with a genealogist, because he doesn't understand DNA.
There was either an Adam, or there was an Eve, but they could not both exist at the same time.
One of them, either Adam or Eve, came first, and they were totally unique on this Earth.
The other came many generations later, because it takes that long for a mutation to spread through a population.
Jesus is also stupid if he believes the Noah myth, because if it would be true, then we would have DNA evidence that would prove it.
Y-DNA is passed only from father to son, so according to the Noah myth, all Y-DNA Haplogroups were eliminated from Earth, except one.
It takes 10,000 to 40,000 years for a mutation to occur to alter a Y-DNA Haplogroup.
The fact that there are 12 Y-DNA Haplogroups alone for just the indigenous populations of North and South America single-handedly debunks the Noah story.
The fact that there are dozens of other Y-DNA Haplogroups for populations in Africa, Europe and Asia totally annihilates the Noah story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Problems for atheists and skeptics -
Archaeology always supports the Bible, not disprove it
Wrong answer. Archaeology destroys the Exodus myth.
Jericho, Gibeon and Ai weren't even occupied at the time of the Exodus, which debunks it.
Jericho wasn't destroyed, which further refutes the Exodus myth.
Only three cities were destroyed, debunking the Exodus myth further.
Of the three cities that were destroyed, two cities are known for a fact to have been destroyed by sea-peoples, and not the Israelites.
That's just more damning evidence the Exodus is pure myth.
For the sole city that was destroyed, Israelite culture and Canaanite culture are so virtually identical, that it is impossible for archaeologists to determine if the city was destroyed by Israelites or Canaanites.
For the sole city that was destroyed, Israelite culture and Canaanite culture are so virtually identical, that it is impossible for archaeologists to determine if the city was destroyed by Israelites or Canaanites.
Aaaaaah, but you see, that is the point. The city was destroyed because the Israelites were never supposed to become the Canaanites. They were supposed to influence the Canaanites by living righteously. This is why God did not want the to mix. It wasn't due to any racism, because there are no races (hence why Jesus would not give one thought to DNA ). He didn't want the Israelites to adopt the Canaanites unclean ways. DNA has nothing to do with anything, because we are basically the same (though there are a few important distinctions ). It is culture that matters. This is why lineage is so important in the Bible. Your culture is based on a values system. God instilled in his people certain values to live by. You do not get values from DNA. The reason archaeologists cannot determine whether the city was destroyed by Israelites or Canaanites is because it was destroyed by them both. They became one big indistinguishable ball of unrighteousness. You have basically validated the fundamental lesson of the Bible.
Jews and Israelites - not the same thing. Any time you reference "Jews" your argument will fall short, because they are a distinct people with a distinct history outside of the Bible. They use the OT as their holy book but the book is not about them specifically. Do you get it now? They are a religion, like Jehovah's Witnesses or any other "sect" that uses the same book as other religions. But instead of using the entire thing like Chrisitian religions, they stay in the OT because that is where their religion is focused.
And that's the last time I'm going to explain that. This gets exhausting. Before you say it, yes, I know Jewish is a culture as well. Their culture is centered around their religion. Like the Mormons.
Yes, I understand now you have problems when reading the OT.
Archaeology always supports the Bible, not disprove it - My position is that if the Bible is false then there should be hundreds of archaeological finds that poke huge holes into the narrative. Yet the opposite is true. The thing I find remarkable about the first books of the Bible is the narrative unflinchingly intersects with other ancient cultures like Egypt and it gets the details a lot more correct than wrong. Skeptic's biggest defense is not contradicting archaeology, but rather the lack of archaeology for events like Exodus. But that doesn't take away from the fact that countless artifacts discovered so far support the Bible's details. If someone would truly invest the time to lay everything out on the table, the evidence would be overwhelmingly in favor of the Bible. Unfortunately, there are too many enemies of God's word out there that seek the opposite.
Facts like men who had died 200 years earlier building cities? Yes, the usual rubbish from Jeff.
It's truly sad that the skeptics have successfully rooted the notation of the Bible as myth that it would take a scholar of grit and boldness to go against the grain and examine the evidence from a fresh and unbiased perspective.
apply the same rigor you do to us to yourself. apply the same rigor to 'literal bible'.
yeah, did men in the stone age run around doing stupid stuff and end up dead? yes. Did good men stand up to bad men and win sometimes? yes. did a good man stand up to injustice and get beaten and killed? sure, it happened.
there is no reason for me to deny you those events. well, unless I have a personal agenda I need to put on others.
how about we address a dude literally dying, waking, up, and flying away?
how about we address a person raising a dead man?
how about walking on water? liquid water, not solid water?
notice ... i said nothing about god or no god. I am just and atheist ... well ... thats what people say i am.
That's funny because I have another Jewish bible written by a Jewish person who acknowledges the Tanakh is the OT. Some of you guys have perfected the art of telling people what's down is up.
Whatever floats your boat. Point is, you're using the same Bible everyone else, but only a portion of it, with slight variations in wording.
I believe that one of the greatest testaments to the truth and reality of a living God is the Holy Bible. Yet the Bible continues to be brutally attacked by skeptics increasingly over the years to the point where they have successfully deceived even Christians into believing that books of the Bible like Genesis are just not literal, but merely allegorical myth stories borrowed from other cultures.
But such a position is too convenient for the skeptics and atheists who love to tear the Bible to pieces. (a spiritual explanation for this reality is that Satan is the driving force behind atheism, but that's a different topic for another day). It is too neatly bowed up to say that a book like Genesis was just a compiled hodgepodge of stories either thought up or borrowed from those Jewish sheep herders on a starry night. Rather even from a purely non religious unbiased fair evaluation, the text of a book like Genesis contains far more differences than similarities with other ancient myth writings in that region or time period. If you are going to unyielding hold the Bible is myth belief, here are a few problems for ya:
Problems for non-literalist Christians -
Well one problem is that Jesus himself often referred to the Old Testament events. Jesus talks about Adam and Eve in Matthew 19:4–5 . He talks about Noah in Matthew 24:37–39. He even refers to himself as the God of Abraham in Matthew 22:32. Now why would Jesus do that if He believed that these characters were just old Hebrew myths? There is absolutely no indication in these scriptures that Jesus did not believe in the events of Genesis. So if you are joining the skeptic crowd and believing that Genesis never happened then you are essentially calling Jesus a liar. Also, where do you draw the line between what parts of the Bible do you accept as truth and which parts are fiction?
Problems for atheists and skeptics -
Archaeology always supports the Bible, not disprove it - My position is that if the Bible is false then there should be hundreds of archaeological finds that poke huge holes into the narrative. Yet the opposite is true. The thing I find remarkable about the first books of the Bible is the narrative unflinchingly intersects with other ancient cultures like Egypt and it gets the details a lot more correct than wrong. Skeptic's biggest defense is not contradicting archaeology, but rather the lack of archaeology for events like Exodus. But that doesn't take away from the fact that countless artifacts discovered so far support the Bible's details. If someone would truly invest the time to lay everything out on the table, the evidence would be overwhelmingly in favor of the Bible. Unfortunately, there are too many enemies of God's word out there that seek the opposite.
Details, Details Details - If I am to believe that the writings of Genesis are nothing more than oral mythology tradition handed down from generation to generation then those Hebrews were incredible story tellers. Even more remarkable, the details didn't get watered down, glossed over or changed. It's easy to preserve the basic narrative of something like a Greek mythology story of the Titans, but the Bible contains specific names, rituals and events with other cultures. One of the best examples is the story of Joseph which drastically intersects with the culture of Egypt. If I am to believe that this story is fiction, how did the Hebrews get so many details correct about Egypt much less preserve them? For example:
When Joseph is released from prison, he is clean shaved and given new clothes. This would be Egyptian custom and Hebrew custom was not to shave facial hair.
More details in Genesis 41:
The rewards shown here fit with Egyptian culture of that time period particularly with the chariot which would have been reserved for only the elite and not a common war vehicle just yet. The rewarding of a gold chain would have been accurate as well with this culture. Joseph's wife name is Egyptian sounding, and the reference to On is spot on as On is a real city known as Heliopolis to the Greeks. It was the center of religious worship so Joseph's wife was a carefully selected high born elite member of society.. All details that accurate fit in the narrative that Joseph's reward was great.
If the Genesis story of Joseph was simply made up and handed down from generation to generation, why even have such details and why are they accurate? I would expect to see something more glossed over like "and Joseph was greatly rewarded and lived out his days in the land of Egypt".
Here is another problem I discovered. The Bible narrative reads as recorded history which doesn't match other historical accounts from other cultures of that time period. More on this here:
It's truly sad that the skeptics have successfully rooted the notation of the Bible as myth that it would take a scholar of grit and boldness to go against the grain and examine the evidence from a fresh and unbiased perspective.
We are told, by believers, that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. These are aspects of God that MUST be true, for God to be God. Genesis tells us that:
Genesis 6:
[6] And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
[7] And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
These depictions of God are incompatible with each other. The God depicted in Genesis FAILS to achieve the result He intended. Either Genesis is a myth, representing nothing more than the musings of the ancient superstitious people that conceived of it. Or God is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent at all, but is fallible. The third possibility of course is that the entire shooting match was never anything more than the musings of ancient iron age sheep herders right from the start.
they have successfully deceived even Christians into believing that books of the Bible like Genesis are just not literal, but merely allegorical myth stories borrowed from other cultures.
Is this some kind of joke???????
Of course Genesis is just allegorical myth stories borrowed from other cultures.
Oh, this post is 3 years old I just noticed. I think jeff is gone with the wind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess my Tanakh is fraudulent, then. *double checks table of contents*
). He didn't want the Israelites to adopt the Canaanites unclean ways. DNA has nothing to do with anything, because we are basically the same (though there are a few important distinctions 
