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.
The Old Testament makes very clear why God was smiting the Jewish people. They did not honor God in anyway, and that is why God said of the Jewish people. They polluted my name where ever they went. So I have no idea why you would say this is unclear. And the New Testament only expands on this.
And to suggest that the new Testament is filled with ficticious characters, what on earth do you base that on? Please, could you give us more details on your belief here?
You are saying here that God is an anti Semite. Are you one as well? It seems so from many of your posts denigrating Jewish people....By the way regarding your many many posts on the Red sea crossing, and other so called biblical discoveries we all know that your hero, Ron Wyatt was a hoaxster of the highest order.
And to suggest that the new Testament is filled with ficticious characters, what on earth do you base that on? Please, could you give us more details on your belief here?
Probably based on the fact that the character of Jesus was directly plagiarized off of earlier mythological god-men characters.
I know this is your view. And mine is that the OT prophets looked upon Jewish misfortunes as God punishing them for shortcomings. It was not hard to find something to complain about. If there was nothing obvious, then one can always criticize the Kings for not listening to the prophets enough or 'whoring' with the heathen kingdoms. Trouble is, that it was getting tough with foreign kinsdoms in the expectation that God would protect them that so often got their butts kicked in the first place.
If you are going to criticize what I post, at least relate it to what I post, not some strawman of your own. I did not say the NT is is full of ficticious characters. I said it was written like a novel of that kind. A historical setting in which characters - who may or may not have been based on real ones - caried out the plot. The point I was making is that a historical setting need not be a guarantee of historical accuracy in what happens.
First I would point out, that when I said God was smiting the Jewish people because they did not honor HIM. (THIS IS NOT MY VIEW.)
(IT'S GOD'S VIEW.) For I was not the one who said. They (POLLUTED) my name wherever they went. That statement came from the God of the Old Testament, and not me. I just happen to agree with (HIS VIEW).
Second, when you said the New Testament is rather like a novel, and then talk about ficticious characters in the same breath. What other conclusion could one draw? Especially when you give an example of a story of fiction, and speak of how the story falls apart when you consider the details of that story. I would suggest, if your going to speak of the Bible in that manner, you should present a case for such an opinion, rather than making some kind on general statement that lacks any substance. The Bible is nothing like your story of fiction, and historical accuracy would not be required if the Bible was a Book of fiction, however this is not the case.
Probably based on the fact that the character of Jesus was directly plagiarized off of earlier mythological god-men characters.
Long before the Titanic sank in the North Atlantic, there was a book published titled the "Futility". It was a story of fiction that spoke about a large 3 propeller passanger ship named the Titan. The story said the ship was crossing from New York on it's way to Liverpool. It was traveling at an excessive speed, with too few life boats. It was sailing on an April night, and it was considered the Largest ship afloat. It was also considered the wonder of the age. And in the story, they said this ship was unsinkable. In the story, the ship struck an iceberg and sank. This book was published in the year 1898, which of course, was 14 years before the Titanic sank.
Now, do you really believe the story of the Titanic was plagiarized from this earlier mythology of the Titan?
Numerous historical accounts mentioned in the Biblical account have been uncovered, which only leads us to believe the Biblical account was not plagiarized, but was a factual event.
Long before the Titanic sank in the North Atlantic, there was a book published titled the "Futility". It was a story of fiction that spoke about a large 3 propeller passanger ship named the Titan. The story said the ship was crossing from New York on it's way to Liverpool. It was traveling at an excessive speed, with too few life boats. It was sailing on an April night, and it was considered the Largest ship afloat. It was also considered the wonder of the age. And in the story, they said this ship was unsinkable. In the story, the ship struck an iceberg and sank. This book was published in the year 1898, which of course, was 14 years before the Titanic sank.
Now, do you really believe the story of the Titanic was plagiarized from this earlier mythology of the Titan?
Numerous historical accounts mentioned in the Biblical account have been uncovered, which only leads us to believe the Biblical account was not plagiarized, but was a factual event.
Morgan Robertson republished Futility after the sinking of the Titanic with some notable changes suggesting that he was trying to cash in on the Titanic disaster.
Actually all religions have been plagiarized from earlier ones. The original ones all worshiped the sun as the main god, and other natural things as minor gods.
Archeology is based on what is discovered in excavations:
1) Most stuff is lost forever and never found.
2) What is found is random and not necessary a good indication of reality. For example - the grave of king Tut was discovered in 1922. The gold and riches mesmerized the public and he was thought to be the greatest king. It took many decades to figure out that he was just a kid who ruled briefly and didn't have much impact on Egypt's history. On the other hand, the tombs of the greatest pharaohs were never recovered.
3) Many essential things cannot be acknowledged - did Jesus drink from a holy grail? Did Moses tell pharaoh "let my people go"?
4) What proof will archeologists digging Manhattan 2000 years into the future have on the twin towers? Some people will say that they were just myth.
There are all sorts of things verified by archaeology.
Now your turn. Name some contradictions.
"Contemporary" commentary (contemporary to biblical authors) of course would turn out to be accurate. However, the myths in the bible are all proven wrong by archeological and archival evidences, or lack thereof, and/or simple scientific investigation.
There is no fossil evidence of a Great Flood, for example, ignoring the simple scientific fact that there isn't enough water on the planet to compeltely inundate the surface. The universe doesn't revolve around this flat planet. No one can live for 600 years, nor build a wooden craft large enough to hold well over 10 million creatures. Every water creature would've died as their habitate became corrupted, and every plant would've drowned as well.
Evolution also disproves Creationism as well. While there are, of course, certain breaks in the fossil record, though we have found examples of transitory species, what we do have combined with DNA/RNA and carbon dating, proves Evolution a solid and valid scientific theory.
Archeology is based on what is discovered in excavations:
1) Most stuff is lost forever and never found.
2) What is found is random and not necessary a good indication of reality. For example - the grave of king Tut was discovered in 1922. The gold and riches mesmerized the public and he was thought to be the greatest king. It took many decades to figure out that he was just a kid who ruled briefly and didn't have much impact on Egypt's history. On the other hand, the tombs of the greatest pharaohs were never recovered.
3) Many essential things cannot be acknowledged - did Jesus drink from a holy grail? Did Moses tell pharaoh "let my people go"?
4) What proof will archeologists digging Manhattan 2000 years into the future have on the twin towers? Some people will say that they were just myth.
Well the Bible has a great deal of unearth archeology which confirms a number of important stories. As I have stated before, in recent days skeptics who use to say that the Story of King David and Israels two Kingdoms were just Bible myths, have been silenced. Evidence recovered fom a place called Tel Dan now proves that there was a King David, Israel did have two Kingdoms. And king David did fight against the Aramaean king which confirmed the Biblical account. So here again, this is just one more Biblical story that agrees with Archeology. Consider the link below.
"Contemporary" commentary (contemporary to biblical authors) of course would turn out to be accurate. However, the myths in the bible are all proven wrong by archeological and archival evidences, or lack thereof, and/or simple scientific investigation.
There is no fossil evidence of a Great Flood, for example, ignoring the simple scientific fact that there isn't enough water on the planet to compeltely inundate the surface. The universe doesn't revolve around this flat planet. No one can live for 600 years, nor build a wooden craft large enough to hold well over 10 million creatures. Every water creature would've died as their habitate became corrupted, and every plant would've drowned as well.
Evolution also disproves Creationism as well. While there are, of course, certain breaks in the fossil record, though we have found examples of transitory species, what we do have combined with DNA/RNA and carbon dating, proves Evolution a solid and valid scientific theory.
The belief that all archeological evidence proves the Bible wrong is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. Just in recent years, the discovery at a place called Tel Dan has silenced numerous skeptics of the Bible. And for years, they use to say that the story of King David and Israels two Kingdoms were nothing but Bible myths. Yet today, facts and archeological evidence has revealed, that it was the skeptics beliefs, (THAT WERE THE REAL MYTHS). Consider the link below.
You are saying here that God is an anti Semite. Are you one as well? It seems so from many of your posts denigrating Jewish people....By the way regarding your many many posts on the Red sea crossing, and other so called biblical discoveries we all know that your hero, Ron Wyatt was a hoaxster of the highest order.
The God of the Bible tells us in the last days he will allow the Jewish people to rebuild their ancient cities, and return to the land of Israel. He will do this, not for their sakes, but for HIS holy name. God tells us, the Jewish people went into exile for (THEIR SIN), because they were unfaithful to God. Don't blame me for what the Jewish Bible states about the Jewish people. The Bible, and God could care less about your political correctness.
And Ron Wyatt's discovery of the Red Sea crossing, and Mt. Sinai was confirmed by others. So it appears you keep forgetting to mention that.
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.
