Jack the Bodiless

...Except that these civilizations are actually OLDER THAN THE "FLOOD".

Therefore the Bible is WRONG.

(Yes, just spelling it out for the hard-of-thinking...)

Sheshonq

Maybe not in the bible there isn't.
But in archaeology and science we know that plenty of nations existed before that time period.

It was? Prove it.

You've read incorrectly, then.

But we already know that Genesis is wrong about many other things; why would we rely on Genesis for our knowledge of human history and archaeology? We wouldn't.

Withered

Fair enough statement. The bile makes no claims as to the existence of nations or the like before it mentions the flood.

It is very much an established fact that the flood, as described in the bible, could not have happened. Couple that with archeological evidence that shows nations, kingdoms, and cultures, lands, etc did in fact exist prior to the time the flood was supposed to have taken place, and you have pointed out one of the massive contradictions between the bible and reality. A massive contradiction of the very sort that the quote in my OP claims does not exist.
I have never heard such a thing, having never read about the founding of egypt. I was under the impression that sciences of archeology and geology, and several other disciplines all showed that egypt already existed both before and during the given estimated time frame of the creationsist flood. So good call there SugarHitman, pointing out the bibles failure yet again.
You can read Chinese? Cool. I'm jealous.
Again, awesome of you to point out the differences between the bible and reality. With ridiculous claims like these, and all the available evidence contradciting them, this list is growing pretty fast.

Glad to have you on board SugarHitman. We should be able to build a pretty good battery of responses to silly christian claims, eh?

@Keith&Co thanks for the link.

Minimalist

I just posted this in another forum. It fits here, even better.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...34/ai_n6147831

JEST2ASK

GENESIS 2:10 -14
Mentions The river Pishon which skirts the whole land of Havilah ...
The river Gihon which goes around the whole land of Cush ...
The river Hiddekel ( Tigris) which goes toward the east of Assyria ...

GENESIS 4:16 - 17 Mentions the land of NOD and the city Enoch
GENESIS 4: 20 - 22 Mentions the father of all that dwell in tents and have livestock, the father of all who play the harp ... an instructor of every craftsmen in bronze and iron (interestingly all descendants of Cain ... Noah was a descendant of A&E 3rd son Seth)...

JEST2ASK

The sons of Ham and their descendants Genesis10: 6 - 20 ( Cush, Mizraim PUT (or Phut) & Canaan .... there is mention of various cities e.g. Nineveh & Calah the lands (nations) of Babel, Erech. Accad & Shinar some peoples (tribes) Arvadite, Philisrines, Jebusites, Hivite etc etc ... could you please give your scriptural reference to Egypt being one of those

JEST2ASK

Excellant point IMO some of the most valuable lessons we can learn from the Bible are lost because (again IMO) real study is discouraged, by both extremes of the spectrum the inerrant - literalist and those who discount it as worthless primitive supersittion.

Minimalist

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9018600/Calah

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/nineveh.htm


The inclusion of Calah and Nineveh are anachronisms which point to a 7-8th century BC writing of the OT. It does nothing to support the patriarchal stories.

mountainman

What about evidence that discounts the authenticity
of the entire new testament, such as the words of Arius
of Alexandria, the words of Emperor Julian and the words
of Nestorius of Constantinople, who each considered that
there were those who thought the entire thing a
fabrication and best described as a fiction.

The christians and the biblical historians use the
euphemism docetic, which means the same
as the word fiction, but said in a different manner
to as to emphasise the "seeming nature was not real"
aspect of the ancient opinion.

Arius was famous for his agenda of encouraging an
utter disbelief in the new testament. Why?
FOr the same reason that Julian was convinced it
was a fiction of wicked men. FOr the same reason
that the fair-minded cataloguer of ancient opinion,
and systematic reporter of various "herecies"
Nestorius reported ---

I see many who strongly insist
on these [theories of fiction]
as something [based] on
the truth and ancient opinion.

Constantine first bound the NT to the Hebrew Texts
c.331 CE in the city of Constantine. We only have
his word that the new testament has any authenticity.

We have believed everything up until now.
The planet is now in its 21st century after the year dot.
Is'nt it about time to ask some mature questions?
Such as: "Are we dealing with a fiction book"?

The mutilated bible texts need to be added
to the rest of the known christian literature (often
called the non canonical). We then need to ask
questions about the entire set.

There's my opinion on your question.
Best wishes,


Pete Brown

JayW

If written texts were evidence, the Bible would verify itself. The trut is that there has never been any evidence that falsifies the Bible. There have been a lot of archeologists that make that claim,but not one that has claimed there is evidence that makes the Bible false or even unlikely. Bible critics seem to want physical evidence that proves something in the Bible is correct, yet try to pawn ancient personal opinions off as evidence. No one source can prove anything. In Reality Constantine is not the only one who claimed the Bible is genuine. It isn't uncommon for a critic to use one or two sources of information written by other critics. It's common ,but it isn't evidence.
Would an ancient text written by a Jew be sufficient evidence that Jesus existed? Why wouldn't the writings of Flavius Josephus be evidence the Bible is credible? Why not the writings of Saint Thomas? Why not Pope Pius? If texts written by biased people are sufficient evidence, you have enough now to remove any doubt about the Bible being genuine.