This is similar to my response. I could go look into this, I'm no scholar and it would be interesting to see. Before I do so though, I'm curious what the point is? Let's say there is no specific proof, what's the point being made? There are lots of historically very accurate documents that are incomplete. What's the point?
crazy christians:Interracial Couples Banned From Kentucky Church
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
More manipulative clearly unreasonable illogical garbage. There is ZERO proof that Santa Claus exists, there is ZERO relation to any known historical events. The complete opposite is true for scripture. Again, not just contradictions but explanations!
Quote from Lucrum:
If I had $10 for every time RCG has gotten body slammed like this in this forum alone I could retire tomorrow.
You're a cabbie, you will never retire
The point is that you built some kind a fairy tale to assuage your fears of mortality based on an incomplete document written over several hundred years with nary a shred of proof to anything in this document.
That would be the point.
so you believe the adam and eve story? that says a lot.
Beliefs should be a search for truth and understanding, not denying reality so you can have faith in a compendium of books written by unknown authors over hundreds and hundreds of years complied much later by other fallible men, as 100% literally correct. That is a faith that is truly blind
Yeah, that's the illogical place I thought it would lead to, so let's address the fundamental instead of some wild goose chase? (See, I've been through this, therefore I'm not psychic, I just know where most roads lead since I've travelled them)
1. I didn't build it and it's no more a fairy tale than anything else you believe in history as I will explain, if one accepts standards of evidence and scientifically applies them (i.e. objectively) instead of picking and choosing (subjectively). Also, the fears of mortality issue is like a needle in a haystack. I'm talking about the whole haystack and you keep talking about the needle. There is a much bigger pictures. Another ****phor is forest and trees. All point to same thing I'm trying to say.
2. Almost all historical documents are incomplete to some degree. So the question comes down to corroborating evidence and other well recognized methods of determining historical accuracy.
3. Which brings us to proof. This is one of the curious claims. If you do even the tiniest bit of investigating, like looking just once, like asking anyone who might know just once, you will find this is a complete lie (that there is no proof to anything in scripture). In fact, compared to other texts which are accepted without question there is MORE proof IF you use scientifically accepted methods, for scripture than some/many other texts. Look it up, it is true. It may sound strange but that is because the above is based on ASSUMPTIONS that are NEVER QUESTIONED. It fits pre-conceived beliefs so why question it? You don't because you're not taught to. Blame the school, not yourself. Don't get trapped where you feel stupid IF you MIGHT be wrong, so you don't look. Do the questions and objective research (i.e. look at experts on both sides, compare different proofs using standards of logic and reason and science) and you'll find what I am saying is true.
I know I didn't believe it until I did this exactly this. I know you have not done this exact thing, you may have gone to look for evidence to fit pre-conceived ideas, but you have not done the objective look at both sides thing. You have to find it for yourself, you will never believe me, I can only tip your interest by providing well reasoned, logical replies, solid proof, and whatever else you ask that fits any university standard.
All you do is LIE and TWIST and MANIPULATE. Here is the proof:
This started out about who married Cain and who really cares. You quoted Jem and said on page 9 "you are right, nobody should care, adam and eve is a primitive myth, do we care about santa claus". Just above I showed you were being unreasonble (if mistaken) or manipulative (if on purpose) since you were comparing santa claus to adam and eve; comparing a man made creation with zero relation to historical events with the opposite (there is statistical scientific proof that the bible could not be man made, for starters, to those reading this and doubting i haven't done research).
*What says a lot* is your insistence that you must be right and will resort to anything to avoid admitting the possibility of being wrong. Even if that means saying it is your "right" to be uncooperative, well then that implies you are here to propagandize! Why is this true? Some things are mutually exclusive, you choose sides but you can't have it both ways. That's just reality. That's an explanation not a contradiction!
So now above you LIE and TWIST and MANIPULATE by trying to turn this into something about adam and eve and think I won't BUST YOU on it!?!? Are you really that silly that you are fooling yourself OR are you really doing this on purpose? Please answer this specifically. I really am curious. Thank you. Also, please stop distracting, avoiding, being dishonest, detracting, unproductive, unhelpful, petulant, spiteful, childish, disgenuine and turd like. Oh forgot arrogant, deceitful and spastic. Maybe obtuse. Definitely.
Tell me this, when I'm a bit insulting does that make easier or harder for you to accept what I say? How do you act on here? This and the other question about doing it on purpose in the last message. Please answer these two. Or demonstrate that I'm right about everything by ignoring them. You choose, mutually exclusive right?
Cheerio(s).
I confess, I am not fully convinced I know what side you're taking in this discussion, and statements like the following do NOT help:
"Just above I showed you were being unreasonble (if mistaken) or manipulative (if on purpose) since you were comparing santa claus to adam and eve; comparing a man made creation with zero relation to historical events with the opposite (there is statistical scientific proof that the bible could not be man made, for starters, to those reading this and doubting i haven't done research)."
"Just above I showed you were being unreasonble (if mistaken) or manipulative (if on purpose) since you were comparing santa claus to adam and eve; comparing a man made creation with zero relation to historical events with the opposite (there is statistical scientific proof that the bible could not be man made, for starters, to those reading this and doubting i haven't done research)."
Fair enuf, thank you for your position on the subject
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ricter I think the poster is talking about bible code for the proof of god made the bible. But in math class before, they show the bible code statistics is wrong. I will look for the paper to give the link if I can find.