| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2005 04:46:04 PM |
| Object: |
The Bible myth |
I keep seeing people quoting from the Bible as though it was proof or a
fact.
There is NO objective evidence that any of the Bibles are the word of
ANY God.
There are no originals still in existence. They are all copies with
alterations, additions and deletions to suite the transcribers. Remember the
printing press was not even invented until the 5 Th. Century and the Bibles
date back over 4,000 years.
Here is a list of ENGLISH translations of the Bible. Which are the correct
ones? And were the copies they translated from accurate translations of the
originals?
The evidence is that these Bibles, written by over forty men over a period
of some 2500 years are nothing but a combination of history, myths, folklore
and legends. There is NO
objective evidence that they are accurate history or the words of any God.
New American Standard
New International Version
Amplified Bible
New Living Translation
King James Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
21 St. Century King James Version
New International Version
American Standard Version
Holman Christian Version
New Life Version
Darby Translation
Young's Literal Translation
New International Readers Version
World English Bible
--
Bill
.
|
|
| User: "SoT" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
30 Jan 2005 05:23:25 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
I keep seeing people quoting from the Bible as though it was proof or a
fact.
There is NO objective evidence that any of the Bibles are the word of
ANY God.
There are no originals still in existence. They are all copies with
alterations, additions and deletions to suite the transcribers. Remember the
printing press was not even invented until the 5 Th. Century and the Bibles
date back over 4,000 years.
You might be surprised how accurate the were from copy to copy.
They used a method similar to the checksum method used by computers
these days when transferring files. They weren't dummies way back
then, contrary to popular belief.
Have a look at these sites for a better explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checksum
http://www.bibleevidences.com/transmission.htm
http://www.pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/word-04.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
31 Jan 2005 12:22:22 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:23:25 +0000 (UTC), SoT <sot@tioat.ath.cx> said
in alt.atheism:
You might be surprised how accurate the were from copy to copy.
But they still managed to mistranslate the word 'alma'.
--
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
31 Jan 2005 03:57:54 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:23:25 +0000 (UTC), SoT <sot@tioat.ath.cx> said
in alt.atheism:
You might be surprised how accurate the were from copy to copy.
But they still managed to mistranslate the word 'alma'.
Hmm?
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
31 Jan 2005 06:57:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:57:54 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:23:25 +0000 (UTC), SoT <sot@tioat.ath.cx> said
in alt.atheism:
You might be surprised how accurate the were from copy to copy.
But they still managed to mistranslate the word 'alma'.
Hmm?
It means 'young woman' or 'woman of marriageable age'. They
translated it as 'virgin'.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
02 Feb 2005 09:05:50 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:57:54 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:23:25 +0000 (UTC), SoT <sot@tioat.ath.cx> said
in alt.atheism:
You might be surprised how accurate the were from copy to copy.
But they still managed to mistranslate the word 'alma'.
Hmm?
It means 'young woman' or 'woman of marriageable age'. They
translated it as 'virgin'.
Ah. Thank you.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
03 Feb 2005 11:53:55 AM |
|
|
In article <36c8ieF4uv0elU2@individual.net>,
Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:57:54 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:23:25 +0000 (UTC), SoT <sot@tioat.ath.cx> said
in alt.atheism:
You might be surprised how accurate the were from copy to copy.
But they still managed to mistranslate the word 'alma'.
Hmm?
It means 'young woman' or 'woman of marriageable age'. They
translated it as 'virgin'.
Ah. Thank you.
"and this is the story of Alma who knew how to receive and to give, the
body that reached her embalmer, was one that had known how to live."T.
Lehrer.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
30 Jan 2005 06:20:49 PM |
|
|
Sure, and that's why we have 16 different English translations alone. And
there are no originals to verify the accuracy of the early copies.
Even if the copies were pretty good there is NO evidence for the veracity of
the documents and certainly NO evidence that they are the word of any God.
--
Bill
"SoT" <sot@tioat.ath.cx> wrote in message news:ctjq9d$p4s$1@sir.thumper...
Bill wrote:
I keep seeing people quoting from the Bible as though it was proof or a
fact.
There is NO objective evidence that any of the Bibles are the word of
ANY God.
There are no originals still in existence. They are all copies with
alterations, additions and deletions to suite the transcribers. Remember
the
printing press was not even invented until the 5 Th. Century and the
Bibles
date back over 4,000 years.
You might be surprised how accurate the were from copy to copy.
They used a method similar to the checksum method used by computers
these days when transferring files. They weren't dummies way back
then, contrary to popular belief.
Have a look at these sites for a better explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checksum
http://www.bibleevidences.com/transmission.htm
http://www.pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/word-04.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
31 Jan 2005 07:46:06 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net>
Date written: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:20:49 GMT
MsgID:<BReLd.120775$w62.59481@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Sure, and that's why we have 16 different English translations alone. And
there are no originals to verify the accuracy of the early copies.
Just in comparing the gospel geneologies alone, there are tens of copyist
errors. For example, the extra "Cainan" that Luke inserted, the extra Perez that
both Matthew and Luke inserted, the confusion of Zerubbabel as the son of both
Shealtiel and Pedaiah, the confusion of Shealtiel as the son of both Jechoniah
and Neri, Matthew's screw up of "three groups of fourteen" when there are
actually two groups of fourteen followed by one of thirteen, etc, etc, etc.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
30 Jan 2005 06:27:14 PM |
|
|
Sure, and that's why we have 16 different English translations alone. And
there are no originals to verify the accuracy of the early copies.
Actually, I believe there are. Don't the original Dead Sea scrolls still
exist somewhere and are being preserved?
--
Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he
repent, forgive him.
Luk 17:4 And if he sin against thee seven times in the day, and seven times
turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
www.live365.com/stations/bgamelson?play
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
30 Jan 2005 08:30:10 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in
news:_XeLd.14434$8Q.236@okepread06:
Sure, and that's why we have 16 different English translations alone.
And there are no originals to verify the accuracy of the early
copies.
Actually, I believe there are. Don't the original Dead Sea scrolls
still exist somewhere and are being preserved?
Yes they do and are. Some are in perfect(almost) shape but many others
are nothing but bits of fabric. They are currently using UV light to see
what is written on them but since so much is completely missing it's
doubtful that anything will come from it. BTW from what I understand,
most of the 'books'in the scrolls are not included in the bible.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Responsible for brain damage everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
31 Jan 2005 05:36:48 AM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in
news:Xns95EF75E2526F6GaryBohn@130.133.1.4:
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in
news:_XeLd.14434$8Q.236@okepread06:
Sure, and that's why we have 16 different English translations alone.
And there are no originals to verify the accuracy of the early
copies.
Actually, I believe there are. Don't the original Dead Sea scrolls
still exist somewhere and are being preserved?
Yes they do and are. Some are in perfect(almost) shape but many others
are nothing but bits of fabric. They are currently using UV light to see
what is written on them but since so much is completely missing it's
doubtful that anything will come from it. BTW from what I understand,
most of the 'books'in the scrolls are not included in the bible.
Don't confuse the DSS with the Nag Hammadi papers. I think the Nag
Hammadi papers included gospels by Mary, Philip, and others.
rj
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Based Life Form" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
30 Jan 2005 08:00:02 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in message
news:_XeLd.14434$8Q.236@okepread06...
Sure, and that's why we have 16 different English translations alone.
And
there are no originals to verify the accuracy of the early copies.
Actually, I believe there are. Don't the original Dead Sea scrolls still
exist somewhere and are being preserved?
The Dead Sea Scrolls aren't the gospels...and while old, there's no 100% way
to guage if they were the originals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
31 Jan 2005 06:01:41 AM |
|
|
The Dead Sea Scrolls aren't the gospels...and while old, there's no 100%
way
to guage if they were the originals.
So the fact is, anything that I or anyone else says to support God's
existance and the Bible's validity you would would quickly deny it so there
is no sense in debating this subject any longer.
God bless you brother!
--
Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he
repent, forgive him.
Luk 17:4 And if he sin against thee seven times in the day, and seven times
turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
www.live365.com/stations/bgamelson?play
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Based Life Form" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
31 Jan 2005 04:55:19 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in message
news:87pLd.14982$8Q.14176@okepread06...
The Dead Sea Scrolls aren't the gospels...and while old, there's no 100%
way
to guage if they were the originals.
So the fact is, anything that I or anyone else says to support God's
existance and the Bible's validity you would would quickly deny it so
there
is no sense in debating this subject any longer.
There is nothing to support God's existence! Never was, never will be!
God bless you brother!
Groucho Marx sniff you, brother!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
31 Jan 2005 05:11:34 PM |
|
|
There is nothing to support God's existence! Never was, never will be!
Yes there is. I support God's existance.
--
Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he
repent, forgive him.
Luk 17:4 And if he sin against thee seven times in the day, and seven times
turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
www.live365.com/stations/bgamelson?play
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Based Life Form" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
01 Feb 2005 01:14:12 AM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MWyLd.15773$8Q.14756@okepread06...
There is nothing to support God's existence! Never was, never will be!
Yes there is. I support God's existance.
*pauses*
No...when they paint targets on themselves like that there's just no fun in
it! Like shooting fish in a barrel!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
01 Feb 2005 09:56:17 AM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MWyLd.15773$8Q.14756@okepread06...
There is nothing to support God's existence! Never was, never will be!
Yes there is. I support God's existance.
Where is your objective EVIDENCE. The Bible is made up of books written by
errant men over a period of 2500 or more years. It is full of falsehoods,
myths and other nonsense. It is NOT PROOF of anything.
--
Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if
he
repent, forgive him.
Luk 17:4 And if he sin against thee seven times in the day, and seven
times
turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
www.live365.com/stations/bgamelson?play
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
01 Feb 2005 05:03:18 PM |
|
|
Yes there is. I support God's existance.
Where is your objective EVIDENCE.
The fact that the Holy Bible has stood up to attack after attack after
attack by atheists and is still there. That is all the evidence I need.
The Bible is made up of books written by
errant men over a period of 2500 or more years. It is full of falsehoods,
myths and other nonsense. It is NOT PROOF of anything.
Where is your evidence of that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
02 Feb 2005 05:03:59 AM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1VTLd.17126$8Q.5630@okepread06...
Yes there is. I support God's existance.
Where is your objective EVIDENCE.
The fact that the Holy Bible has stood up to attack after attack after
attack by atheists and is still there. That is all the evidence I need.
What makes you think your bible has "stood up to attack after attack"?
Frankly, it's been ripped to shreds on several occasions. Do you honestly
put that much stock in a mere book?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
02 Feb 2005 04:51:24 PM |
|
|
What makes you think your bible has "stood up to attack after attack"?
Frankly, it's been ripped to shreds on several occasions.
Name one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
03 Feb 2005 02:00:48 AM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
What makes you think your bible has "stood up to attack after attack"?
Frankly, it's been ripped to shreds on several occasions.
Name one.
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
god derived from ancient Greek concepts, the god
that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.
But we also have the biblical god, the god of
the old testament, Yahweh, El, the god of Genesis
Exodus and the other books of the bible. This god
is a historical god, not a philosphical god.
His nature and existance are said to be found in
the Torah, the old testament.
At the turn of the 19th century archeology saw
the establishment of so called biblical archaeology,
archaeology mostly of an American origin dedicated
optimistically to showing that the bible was true.
Instead, over a century, it showed the opposite.
Biblical archaeology never really existed as a
seperate 'discipline', it was an aspect of Near
Eastern Archaeology.
It is now established that much of the bible is in
no way history nor true. There was no Egyptian
captivity, no exodus, no 40 years wandering, no bloody
invasion of Canaan lead by Moses and Joshua. With
that faux history debunked, so goes the theological
concepts embedded in this this faux history.
God here is understood to have been an entity that
at certain specific times did certain specific things
at certain specific places involving certain specific
persons. But if these places and persons did not exist,
this god likewise does not exist, they are all just
characters in a novel masquerding as history.
Archaeology has found and excavated the cities
supposedly destroyed by Joshua and the Israelites
and found they were ruins long before any Israelite
could have been in the area.
Several excavations have looked for the 36 year
long encampments of the Israelites at Kadesh Barnea
and failed.
Egyptologists find names of numerous foreigners
and their gods attested to in Egyptian literture,
tombs and other sources, but no Israelite names,
no mention of Yahweh can be found. Odd for a people
that supposedly were in Egypt for 430 years starting
70 persons.
Despite that, Israel show little Egyptianisms,
not in language, architecture, pottery, writing systems,
literary traditions, clothing or other things you'd
expect from a people who starting with 70 people
spent 430 years in Egypt, growing to a massive presence
there from biblical accounts.
And these bible tall tales are replete with errors,
anachronisms and other signs it is not history.
Thus archaeology and historians and bible scholars
have concluded that from Genesis to Judges, the bible
is most certainly not history.
Rather in recent decades, archaeologists have discovered
the true facts about Israel. They were typical Canaanites
who peacefully spread throught the hill country as peaceful
farmers in unfortified hilltop farms. This population of
farmers later developed into Israel, Judah, Moab, Ammon,
Edom andother similar states in that area of the world.
There was no invasion as per Joshua. No Moses on the mount,
no god leading the Israelites as a pillar of smoke or fire,
no plagues of Egypt, no genocides ordered by god.
This god and all these happenings are fantasies. The god
attached to these tall tales did not and does not exist
anymore than did Winnie the Pooh in his Hundred Acre Woods.
Both are mere characters in novels, the only difference is
most people don't realize the bible is just a bad novel
pieced together from ancient myths long ago. They have
no idea archaeologists and historians have abandoned
all of this as being in any way history or being true.
But this god, that did certain things in certain places
at certain times with certain people is in fact, dead
and gone. Disproven, debunked and gone.
Because these places and times and people have been
disproven as having never existed and god disappears with
these now debunked tales.
A few quotes from the experts:
"The Rise of Ancient Israel"
A Symposium at the Smithsonian Institute
October 26, 1991
Biblical Archaeology Society 1992
Herschel Schanks
"Well archaeology is no longer a crutch in
this classic sense of a conquest model. We
simply can no longer posit a series of destructions
in Canann that can be rationally identified as the
result of the Israelite conquest. Recently our
archaeological methodology has improved, we can date
levels more securely, and more sites have been excavated.
As a result we can no longer say that archeology
supports what we call the conquest model of Israel's
emergence in Canaan."
William G. Dever
"The conquest model is not subsribed to by most
biblical scholars today - certainly no one in the
mainstream of scholarship - and that's been true
for some time. Moreover, there isn't a single
reputable professional archaeologist in the world
whoespouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe,
or America. We don't need to say anymore about
the conquest model. That's that. (Laughter)
Not to be dogmatic about it or anything, but..
(Laughter)"
"From Nomadism to Monarchy
- Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel"
Edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman.
Biblical Archaeology Society 1994
Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman
Introduction Page 13
"Combination of archeological and historical
research demonstrates that the biblical account
of the conquest and occupation of Canaan is
entirely divorced from historical reality.
Instead, it proves the correctness of the
literary-critical approach to the biblical text.
The biblical descriptions of the origin and early
history of the people of Israel are not disimilar
from narratives on the origins of other peoples,
which likewise do not withstand the test of
historical criticism."
Nadav Na'aman Page 249
"It is commonly accepted today that the majority
of conquest stories in the book of Joshua are devoid
of historical reality."
"What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When
Did They Know It?"
- William G. Dever
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
2001
Page 121
"Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look
at the biblical texts describing the the origins
of Israel, we see at once that the traditional
account contained from Genesis to Joshua cannot be
reconciled with the picture derived from
archaeological investigation.The whole
"Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set
aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense
of the word myth: perhaps "historical fiction"
but tales told primarily to validate religous
beliefs."
Page 282
"Here we must confront squarely the essential
dilemma of the modern reader of the Hebrew Bible.
a dilemma that nearly all writers of today acknowledge.
Does critical study of the bible undermine religous
faith, perhaps more importantly diminish the value
of the Bible as a basis for cultural and moral
values? For the fundamentalists, or for many
conservative Christians, Jews an others, the answer
is: Yes. These folk must then reject modern literary
other critical methods, although I have assumed here
that such methods are to be taken for granted by any
well-informed reader in the modern world. There is
irony here. In North America and in places in Europe
archaeology is accepted, even enthusiastically embraced,
because it is mistakenly thought it will after all,
"prove the Bible is true".
**************************************************
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
02 Feb 2005 07:35:20 PM |
|
|
What makes you think your bible has "stood up to attack after attack"?
Frankly, it's been ripped to shreds on several occasions.
Name one.
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
[snip]
That is not ripped. That is atacked. The Bible is still alive and well as
we can all see, so it has survived this attack.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
03 Feb 2005 03:19:08 PM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
What makes you think your bible has "stood up to attack after attack"?
Frankly, it's been ripped to shreds on several occasions.
Name one.
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
[snip]
That is not ripped. That is atacked. The Bible is still alive and well as
we can all see, so it has survived this attack.
So now an inanimate object is alive and well? Mercy Be! ;>) (times
infinity).
James
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
03 Feb 2005 05:45:03 AM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
What makes you think your bible has "stood up to attack after attack"?
Frankly, it's been ripped to shreds on several occasions.
Name one.
**************************************************
God Disproven - Part 2
There are several concepts of god that are meant
when that word is used. One is the philosophers'
[snip]
That is not ripped. That is atacked. The Bible is still alive and well
as we can all see, so it has survived this attack.
The bible is dead. Only morons belive it is true.
It isn't.
But then foolsThe outrageous failed prophecy of Jesus
that he'd preside over the end of the world
and judgment day itself 1930 years ago.
Jesus prophecied he'd preside over the end of
the world (Matthew 24:3) and judgment day itself,
(Matthew 16:27-8), he claims he will "come in his
kingdom"and "reward all men according to their
acts".
This is expanded on in Matthew 25:31-45.
He will come in the glory of his angels,
he will be "the King". He will ascend to his
"throne of glory" and gather the nations.
He will sort the "sheep" from the "goats" the
good from the evil. Good will be rewarded with
eternal life in heaven, evil will depart into
"everlasting fire prepared for the devil and
his apostles".
When? Matthew 16:27-8 has Jesus assuring his
lsteners that "some standing here" will live
to see this all happen. See also Mark 13:30.
Matthew 24-5 is one long pericope. A narrative.
Here we are assured that this will happen in
"this generation", Matthew 24:36, see also Luke
21, and Mark 13.
This generation will see the sun and moon fail, the
stars fall from heaven. Then Jesus will descend with
his fathers angels and "clouds of heaven".
This generation is to see this. Again, Matthew 24,
Mark 13, Luke 21.
He tells the high priest at Jerusalem that he
too will see Jesus descend with "clouds of heaven"
the same phrase he tells us "this generation"
is to see in Matthew 24:36. See also Mark 14:62.
The "high priest", "this generation", "Some standing
here did not see these things happen as prophecied.
No religion has ever failed as spectacularly in its
'prophecies' as has Christianity.
This also puts an end to Revelations, all of that
too was to have taken place some 1930 years ago.
Christianity thus is incredibly irrelevant to anything,
having utterly failed in the main claim of Jesus,
when none of this happened as prophecied, by Jesus,
alledged god himself according to many trinitarian
Christians. still believe in the Book of Moron, Elron Hubbard's Dianetics,
the Quran, and other feeble minded religous books.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
03 Feb 2005 06:08:41 AM |
|
|
The bible is dead. Only morons belive it is true.
You have a cite for that?
It isn't
Prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
03 Feb 2005 06:36:37 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 06:08:41 -0600 in alt.atheism, Bill Gamelson
("Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
The bible is dead. Only morons belive it is true.
You have a cite for that?
Well as a matter of fact, religion and IQ ... Well doubtless others
will provide links that indicate that
It isn't
Prove it.
In what sense? Before one could address that issue one would have to
understand how you understand the Bible. Do you think it's absolutely
accurate in all respects? Is it a "handbook of salvation" where
historical items are, ah, incidental? Is it an edited document that
reflects the times, circumstances and situations under which it was
assembled?
How do you regard the Bible? And why?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
Market Your DVD to The World For Almost Nothing: www.instantdvd.tv
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
04 Feb 2005 03:30:37 PM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
The bible is dead. Only morons belive it is true.
You have a cite for that?
It isn't
Prove it.
Simple proof that the Bible is not true:
What does it mean to say that a book contains the truth? It means the
book describes reality correctly.
So the only way to determine if the Bible is true, is to study reality,
compare it with what the Bible says, and see if they match.
They don't.
The Bible talks about dragons, unicorns, and satyrs as if they were
real. Do you believe in dragons, unicorns, and satyrs?
Isaiah 43:20 The beasts of the field shall honor me, the dragons and
the ostriches: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in
the desert, to give to drink to my people, my chosen.
Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the
bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made
fat with fatness.
Isaiah 13:21
But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall
be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs
shall dance there.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
03 Feb 2005 06:46:40 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 06:08:41 -0600, "Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net>
wrote:
The bible is dead. Only morons belive it is true.
You have a cite for that?
It isn't
Prove it.
Ah, definitely a troll, sorry, a follower of "Dr." Gastrich.
He's also very eager to ask for proof. And not willing to submit any.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
02 Feb 2005 03:26:07 PM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
Yes there is. I support God's existance.
Where is your objective EVIDENCE.
The fact that the Holy Bible has stood up to attack after attack after
attack by atheists and is still there. That is all the evidence I need.
The bible still "stands" because it has a large support system to
maintain it fallacious beliefs.
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Bible myth |
02 Feb 2005 05:17:54 PM |
|
|
The bible still "stands" because it has a large support system to maintain
it fallacious beliefs.
You have proof of this?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
