Bigwhammy, am trying to figure out what is your point with this thread.

I don't think that is anybody here be atheist or not that can not see the major importance of the old testament of the bible and ancient history.

I don't think the issue is how much the bible is true, but rather how much of the bible can be trusted as divinely inspired.

What kind of answer are you seeking with this thread?

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Nice thread BW. Much of the bible historical references have indeed been shown to be true through archeological findings. I think some of the problem may lie in the fact that the different writers of the Bible all had different writing styles, just as all authors do today.

Yep. Also, people are still arguing whether the Bible is the actual word of God.

How can a Bible that has been edited by the Vatican, by Roman emperors, written by multiple authors and translated many times, be the word of God? If it WERE the word of God it has been irreparably damaged.

If it's a true historical account (likely) and the spiritual lessons are ancient AND true (likely) we would still be in the same situation... people still do not care what bits of knowledge are in the Bible, they are trained to despise anything related to organized religion etc. People would still be 'godless' etc... even if the Bible were absolutely true.

Originally posted by idle_rocker
There are also prophecies written in the Bible that are confirmed in great number. The Old Testament was largely a historical record of the Israeli people and prophecy about the future messiah.

Did the greeks prophecy the coming of a savior? No. Did they prophecy anything that was written later and then later proven true? No. The Greeks were pagan, so what they believed and what archeology has shown as far as their existence has no bearing on whether the Bible is true. If anything, it proves that archeology is a good source for proving the existence of ancient civilizations...which would then also support the Bible.

Well that's all well and good, assuming you can prove to me that Jesus was a Messiah. The logic in this argument is so inherently flawed that it blows my mind. You expect to sway us skeptics with claims of prophecy which are only verified if you believe the myths in the first place.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
How can a Bible that has been edited by the Vatican, by Roman emperors, written by multiple authors and translated many times, be the word of God? If it WERE the word of God it has been irreparably damaged.

That's a good question, NWO. If you ask me, I do believe the Papacy was responsible for rewriting many things. The way they redid the Ten Commandments is a huge example. And don't get me started on the KJV.

But the Greek texts of the NT that precede all of these things still exist. There's something like 5-25 thousands manuscripts still in existence from the 1st and 2nd centuries. This is before the councils, canonization, KJV, the church sanctioned by Rome, and Constantine.

Just food for thought.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
...if you know how to interpret it correctly.

I'm surprised you brought this up; it's usually the argument of non-Christians why we shouldn't take the Bible as the Word of God. The whole volume of books, as with all dogmas and structured doctrines, is completely open to interpretation. You may interpret this book as completely literal, (which I doubt), and somebody else, such as I, may see it as a book of fables meant to teach a set of morals. Personally, I think anyone who claims to be able to discern between what's fable and what's literal in the Bible is crazy. How do you know for certain that the story of Adam and Eve is literal, and not just a parable? And I would say the same for every other story in the Bible, from Creation to Armageddon. Interpretation is the enemy of dogma, and justifiably so. Interpret away...

[edit on 7/3/08 by an3rkist]

Thay say the first part of the bible is false as in adam and eve if the first part is fake then what makes the rest any better?. This is the thing to me its all a myth its anciant civilisations writing books , myths storys on what thay saw that thay dont know what it was so thay explained it wierd.

what happens wene i wisper something into your ear and u wisper abit the same into another but change the story abit this is what exactly happend.

bible = not needed in todays sociaty it potrays things not needed and false things and also hate towards things and ppl and types of ppl?

As in if u commit a bad crime i nthe 10 commandments with is commen sense god says he will punish u put u i nfire were u wil lburn till the end of time? and then he says but he loves u?

?

Peace Out

SaadAdam

[edit on 7-3-2008 by SaadAdam]

Originally posted by an3rkist

Originally posted by idle_rocker
There are also prophecies written in the Bible that are confirmed in great number. The Old Testament was largely a historical record of the Israeli people and prophecy about the future messiah.

Did the greeks prophecy the coming of a savior? No. Did they prophecy anything that was written later and then later proven true? No. The Greeks were pagan, so what they believed and what archeology has shown as far as their existence has no bearing on whether the Bible is true. If anything, it proves that archeology is a good source for proving the existence of ancient civilizations...which would then also support the Bible.

Well that's all well and good, assuming you can prove to me that Jesus was a Messiah. The logic in this argument is so inherently flawed that it blows my mind. You expect to sway us skeptics with claims of prophecy which are only verified if you believe the myths in the first place.

Well, let me just answer by saying that there is ample evidence in the New Testament that Christ fulfilled ALL, not just a few, prophecies about him from the Old Testament. And you're right about swaying the skeptics that don't believe myths in the first place. But you are the one that brought up the Greek mythology, so actually your logic is flawed.

It takes reading and studying the Bible, compared with multiple other sources of material to come to a conclusion that the Bible is not a myth. But it's much easier to just assume it's a myth than it is to study to find the truth.

I haven't been a Christian all my life. I was raised in a Christian home, but rebelled to find my own answers, hoping to find the opposite of what I actually found. So you're speaking to someone who understands where you're coming from. So, trust me, I'm not attacking you.

It's not for me to judge or sway you...that is up to you and God. Everyone is responsible for their own decisions. All I can do is say what I believe and why.

Originally posted by marg6043
One question, are you Israeli or Jew? because as you know the old testament is the historical accounts of the Iraeli people from the time line of their place in earth to their blood line and relationship with their God.

No, I'm neither Jewish or Israeli. And I hear what you are saying but it goes back to why the Jews got 'in trouble' in the first place. They were supposed to 'evangelize' to the world but they refused to do so. To them, the gentiles were 'unclean' compared to the standards of their law and they refused to associate with us. So, the gentiles became 'the light of the world' until the 'age of the gentiles' comes to a close. The prodigal son is also a prophetic parable. The 'gentiles' are doing all the work, so to speak, but the Jews will return to God in the near future and accept Jesus as the Messiah. Gentile Christians are also told not to be conceited because God has not 'tossed the Jews aside' in favor of us.

And yes, I know the OT is basically a Jewish account but it was supposed to be for the whole world. Remember what I was talking about on the other thread when I answered this. There was no Jew/Gentile prior to Abraham. God made the convent ant with Abraham not to play favorites but because Abraham and his clan had remained faithful to God while the rest of the postdiluvian population had turned away. Even still, again, it was not a 'you're my favorite' thing but a 'you go and and be a light to the world.' They refused so it is our turn until the end of this age.

So for the Israelis is ok to believe this stories, but for people like me that I have nothing to do with the Jews and Israel their stories are as good to me as the Chicken with the six toes that preceded some Africans versions of the their Genesis.

The Bible is for everyone and, yes, the OT is their history but it was available to all of us. The reason Christianity didn't through out the OT is because of the Messianic prophecies, spiritual foreshadowing, end time prophecy, and to show how the law had been fulfilled. The OT is predominately Jewish but it holds the history and plan of all of mankind.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
My opinion on the Genesis creation account is about the preparation of the Garden not the creation of the universe.

(emphasis added by me)

I rest my case.

Originally posted by idle_rocker
And you're right about swaying the skeptics that don't believe myths in the first place. But you are the one that brought up the Greek mythology, so actually your logic is flawed.

How is my logic flawed? I merely stated that in order for your argument to hold any ground the people you were trying to convince would have to have your same beliefs to start off with. I brought up Greek mythology to prove the point that archaeological evidence of civilizations in no way proves or even lends remote credence to the mystical/mythical aspects of scripture. I fail to see how that logic is flawed, especially in the context of your sentence.

It takes reading and studying the Bible, compared with multiple other sources of material to come to a conclusion that the Bible is not a myth. But it's much easier to just assume it's a myth than it is to study to find the truth.

I hope you're not assuming I haven't read the Bible thoroughly. I haven't been critical of religion my whole life, or even the greater part of it.

Originally posted by an3rkist

[

How is my logic flawed? I merely stated that in order for your argument to hold any ground the people you were trying to convince would have to have your same beliefs to start off with. I brought up Greek mythology to prove the point that archaeological evidence of civilizations in no way proves or even lends remote credence to the mystical/mythical aspects of scripture. I fail to see how that logic is flawed, especially in the context of your sentence.

Okay, here is what I based that answer on. Your original quote was:
Originally posted by an3rkist
"Archaeological evidence also supports the existence of ancient Greece, but their myths are not widely accepted. By your logic, their myths should be believed as much as those of the Bible's."

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by that. I took that to mean that if we believe the Bible, we should also believe greek mythology. I don't see how greek mythology is germaine to a document (the Bible) that has not been proven mythological, but greek mythology is always taken as such.

It takes reading and studying the Bible, compared with multiple other sources of material to come to a conclusion that the Bible is not a myth. But it's much easier to just assume it's a myth than it is to study to find the truth.

I hope you're not assuming I haven't read the Bible thoroughly. I haven't been critical of religion my whole life, or even the greater part of it.

Certainly since I don't know you, I can't even assume you haven't read the Bible or studied it. But there are many who don't study anything, and still hold to the accusation that the Bible is myth. I am not judging you, my friend.

Originally posted by idle_rocker
I took that to mean that if we believe the Bible, we should also believe greek mythology. I don't see how greek mythology is germaine to a document (the Bible) that has not been proven mythological, but greek mythology is always taken as such.

Haha, no, I didn't mean that you should believe Greek mythology if you believe the Bible. I meant that the archaeological evidence proves nothing in the way of God or the divinity of Jesus. I personally think Greek mythology has just as much validity as Christian dogma: they're great stories that teach us great things, but they are nothing more than stories.