Deathscyth Hell

To say that it couldn't have happened is described in two words.

Close
minded

Quatermass

Since it appears that you are open minded with regard to the miraculous, do you distinguish between biblical miracles like the resurrection of dead saints at the time of Jesus’ resurrection and non-biblical miracles such as the sighting of angels and armies in the clouds above Jerusalem in 70 AD, described by Josephus; or the lighting of Caesar’s funeral pyre by heavenly beings, described by Suetonius? There are lots of miraculous stories from antiquity. How do you decide what is historical versus legendary if you are not using what we observe today as a comparison?

emotional

Wrong. It could have happened; most probably it didn't.

Bree

Quotes from Deathscyth Hell:

You say the Bible is not mythology. Prove it.

So Genesis, which is part of the Torah and obviously in the OT is now deemed somewhat not true? Why? Because you decided it wasn't? Last time I checked in with the Fundies, everything in the Bible was true (in their minds, at least).

And please get your archaeology straight. The tale of Jericho was "proven" - they found the archaeological site of the ancient city and determined that it was indeed shaken from it's very foundations...however, cracks in the earth surrounding the ruins led scientists to believe it was because of an earthquake, not a trumpet blast.

The history of Israel seems to be accurate with the Bible because, my friend, most histories of Israel are either based on the Bible, or come straight out of the Bible. The Old Testament is the definitive history of Israel for two reasons - one, because another, 'better' history doesn't exist (one that was written in that time period, mind you) and two, because it is written from a 'good' point of view (Israel is persecuted, God helps them defeat their persecuters, they are now the children of God, we are the most honoured, yada yada yada). Modern pennings of the history of Israel tell a different story...and isn't as popular, either.

Your lack of the aforementioned knowledge also shows. Think for yourself, read your Bible and come up with your own conclusions, instead of spitting out what has been spoon-fed to you by priests.

You don't sound too open-minded to me, either. True knowledge is born from the willingness and in fact the insistance that one questions EVERYTHING. Even if it shakes the very foundations of your faith - question! Then try to find answers, but find them out for yourself, don't listen to people dishing up your supposed knowledge for you!

God gave you a brain - use it!

Daggah

As does your arrogance.

ex-preacher

Actually, I think close-minded is one word. But I could be wrong.

Wizardry

It's hyphenated. Do hyphenated words count as one word, two words or some intermediate?

Peace out.

Deathscyth Hell

Greenbean51 said:
And please get your archaeology straight. The tale of Jericho was "proven" - they found the archaeological site of the ancient city and determined that it was indeed shaken from it's very foundations...however, cracks in the earth surrounding the ruins led scientists to believe it was because of an earthquake, not a trumpet blast.
___________________________________________

Actually, you are the one that needs to get the archaeology straight. The Destruction of Jericho is dated in the Early Bronze age, Joshua Didn't show up until the late bronze age. According to current Archaeology Joshua didn't show up at jericho until about a thousand years after it was destroyed.

Deathscyth Hell

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Deathscyth Hell:
Your lack of Biblical Knowledge shows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As does your arrogance.
----_________________---------------_________

I guess somepeople just dont understand me, ah well. I don't consider myself arrogant, although I should have gently corrected you, so here goes.

If God exists he could change a snake into anything he wanted to right? Well, the God described in the bible could anyway.

Many people think that it was satan who possessed the snake, talking through it. It was not actually talking. I think that this is somewhat accurate.

Deathscyth Hell

Quartermass said the following:
--------------------------------------------
Since it appears that you are open minded with regard to the miraculous, do you distinguish between biblical miracles like the resurrection of dead saints at the time of Jesus’ resurrection and non-biblical miracles such as the sighting of angels and armies in the clouds above Jerusalem in 70 AD, described by Josephus; or the lighting of Caesar’s funeral pyre by heavenly beings, described by Suetonius? There are lots of miraculous stories from antiquity. How do you decide what is historical versus legendary if you are not using what we observe today as a comparison?
-------------------------------------------------

First of all, I would look at their account of the story compared to other accounts. If their account matched up with others then there would be much more of a chance that what he said did happen, or a lot of people thought it happened.

I also try to find the earliest copies available (or the origional) to see if the evidence has been tampered with.

I would also study the culture in the place and time where it happened. If such happening where frequent, then it would not be considered so important. I would also look for any motives that the writer might have for writing what he wrote that seems unlikely.

In history, no idea is autimatically incorrect 100% or fact. There is not proof, just historical probability. You have to look at the facts and decide which is the most likely, and be willing to change your answer if and when new evidence comes up. And some things you just take on faith.

I'm sure that there are other things that I would do, but I can't think of all of them off the top of my head now.