| Alistair 2008-01-30, 6:56 pm |
| On 29 Jan, 23:42, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Where was Sargon II's palace before 1930? Just because they
> haven't found it, doesn't mean it never existed. Duh!
>
There is only one mention of Sargon in the bible. Hardly a glowing
commendation; Isaiah 20:1, which records the Assyrian capture of
Ashdod in 711 BC.
For the record, I do not doubt that Sodom and Gommorah existed and
were destroyed by natural processes (slipping either under sea or in
to liquid mud).
>
>
>
> You're confusing the decline of faith in a secular population with
> actual proof.
I suspect that the number of non-believers or atheists in the UK
during the early 1900s would not constitute a secular population but
rather a non-religious minority. Faith in the bible in the early 20th
century was high with most people believing in the bible 100%.
> In this particular case, I'm speaking of verification
> of Biblical historial accuracy and authenticity, not whether or not
> you actually believe what it says about God.
I didn't say whether I believed in god. In the 1900s virtually
everyone in the UK believed in god and the bible so faith would have
been absolute. Since then the readiness of people to believe in the
word of the bible has declined and some of the blame for that belongs
to the various religious groups espousing different doctrines and
interpretations of the bible.
The bible is not historically accurate.
> You do not believe
> that God created the workd in six days, but you have no proof
> that He did not.
Outside of the bible all proof points to a duration of 4.5 - 5 billion
years. Only the bible says 6 days and some groups argue that a day can
be as long as you want it to be. With faith so malleable, what price
is truth?
> For example, in the Biblical account of the Exodus,
> the Bible says the Jews had to make brick without straw. They have
> found archeological evidence of that. This is the kind of verification
> I'm referring to here.
Couldn't your god have put those bricks there just to provide
corroboration for a poorly written book?
>
>
>
> Incredibly broad, absolutely false statement. Such a pitifully false
> statement implies you're either joking, abysmally mis-informed
> and uninformed, or obtuse.
Please list all parts of the bible which have been irrefutably proven
to be true. I would be particularly interested in knowing where Lot's
wife, in the form of a pillar of salt, can be found.
>
>
>
> Names are wrong by whose taxonomy?
By the only means of verifying the truth of the bible: outside
sources. If a number of disparate sources disagree with the bible and
have some corroboration within themselves then the bible must, in the
absence of any verifying source, be deemed to be wrong.
>
>
>
> Mohammed is dead, and the location of his remains are known. Jesus
> Christ rose from the dead, and over 500 people saw Him at once. You
> should read "The Testimony of the Evangelists" by Simon Greenleaf.
> Greenleaf, who did, indeed write "The Book" on legal evidence (every
> law student in the Western Hemisphere knows Simon Greenleaf was
> and may have had to study his "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence"),
> insists that the Gospel accounts of Jesus could be proven in a court
> of law. Check out Greenleaf's credentials as an authority on legal
> evidence, then read the book. ISBN 0-8254-2747-9
Greenleaf's standard of proof leaves a lot to be desired. Only a court
of canonical law would find in favour of the accounts of the gospels.
Two of the gospels would be thrown out for being blatant plagiarism of
another manuscript and no gospel would be admitted as evidence because
they have multiple authors and were not contemporary to the incidents
that they purport to be eye-witness to.
|