No, because ...
The Bible has been disproven several times, no need to attempt another.
Curious, in what way has the bible been disproven?
Indeed he doesn't, he's disputing faith.Maybe I heard that wrong, but it sounded to me like he was saying that : There was a level of fabrication in the story, but not that the individual was not real.
To that I would just say that it's somewhat excessive to believe the bible stories litterally, but more to take in the messages contained within those stories.
Kinda like the story of 'the boy who cried wolf'... it's probably never really happened, but that doesn't take away the importance of the message.
Don't take me wrong, that vid seems to show someone that's studied the issue deeply, and I'm not disputing his research... but rather just pointing out that he's not fully disputing the bible.
There's no evidence of the Exodus, The city of Jericho didn't exist at the time it supposedly crumbled, etc.Curious, in what way has the bible been disproven?
There's no evidence of the Exodus, The city of Jericho didn't exist at the time it supposedly crumbled, etc.
It existed, just not at the time the trumpets were supposedly blown to knock down the walls.I thought they had found that 'Jericho' did exist just by another name, and they just named Pre-Jericho as Jericho. Seems to me that if that's true it'd be an honest mistake or foul-up of ancient authors.
Now I'm going to have to go google this....
It existed, just not at the time the trumpets were supposedly blown to knock down the walls.
This does assume that the timeline of the bible is the sequence of the bible. In my reading, it seems quite difficult to determine dates...
It's possible that the biblical stories are not in any real sequence chronologically, except where chronologies depend on the sequence.
So in Genesis when it says "day one" through "day seven" then that isn't chronological, its arbitrary?
When the lineage of people starting from noah is given that isn't chronological?
There are more clues beyond lineages and explicit chronology. You seem to wish to dismiss any attempt out of hand.
So in Genesis when it says "day one" through "day seven" then that isn't chronological, its arbitrary?
When the lineage of people starting from noah is given that isn't chronological?
There are more clues beyond lineages and explicit chronology. You seem to wish to dismiss any attempt out of hand.
Then show where I did such. Merely presenting an accusation does not make it true.It's always convenient to take the Bible in or out of context, especially ignoring differences in terminology and things that may have been lost in translation when trying to disprove parts of it.
A claim or accusation presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Not that I'm defending the 7-day theory or the chronology or family trees in the Bible, but you really ought to find something more concrete to swing at before you go charging around in your mystery machine looking to unmask a phantom.
Then show where I did such. Merely presenting an accusation does not make it true.
A claim or accusation presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I am dismissing your accusation.
god never said he never maid another planet inhabited
I don't remember claiming anything about Lot coming before or after Noah.No, I don't mean in a retarded sense... I mean in the sense that the story of Lot comes after the story of Noah, but not necessarily that the flood story happened first
well luckily we have people know as scholars, archeologists, and historians who figure these things out using VERFIABLE EVIDENCE.I'm saying that the bible is a composition of several 'books', and that the 'order' of these events may be somewhat scrambled over the last several thousand years.
I'm not 'dismissing' anything... I'm simply stating that except in cases where a certain biblical event MUST have preceded a different one, that the overal 'history' may have been somewhat scrambled... it's just an 'assumed' sequence...
I don't remember claiming anything about Lot coming before or after Noah.
Strawman?
well luckily we have people know as scholars, archeologists, and historians who figure these things out using VERFIABLE EVIDENCE.
You should be agnostic towards the dates until presented with evidence otherwise. Instead you are rejecting claims out of hand. Being uninquisitive and dismissive. You appear to have an irrational bias, based on the reasoning you have presented thus far.
Are you sure about that? Have you looked into why people believe the sequence is as they say?
No! You are being dismissive out of hand!
god never said he never maid another planet inhabited
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?