Originally Posted by Atheos

Then one should easily be able to go to the Euphrates river, trace it back to its source, and eventually run into a flaming sword that bars entry into the garden of Eden.



Then why is it that real history shows that Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son Amel-Marduk, who was succeeded by Neriglissar, who was succeeded by Labashi-Marduk who was followed by the last kind of Babylon, Nabonidus. Belshazzar was not Nebuchadnezzar's son and he was never king of Babylon, although someone writing hundreds of years later might make that mistake as he presided over the kingdom as crown prince during Nabonidus's absence. But history shows that Nabonidus was actually in Babylon and occupying the throne when Babylon fell to the Persians. Not the Medes, as the book of Daniel claims.

History demonstrates that there was never a "kingdom of Israel" that was so great that the Queen of Sheba would have been so impressed that she would have made the statement "The half was not told" (I Kings 10:7). The kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon have long since been relegated to the same level of credibility as the kingdom of King Arthur by students of history.

There was never a series of disasters that befell the kingdom of Egypt such as those described by the myth of the "10 Plagues". Such a series of disasters would have left abundant evidence, including records of the commerce necessary to re-supply Egypt with livestock, food and other resources that would have been devasted if these things had really happened. The mass migration of upwards of 2 million people from that region would have left abundant evidence as well. The fact that apologist archaeologists have endeavored to find this evidence for decades and found nothing has to mean something.

It's also interesting to note that during the time Noah's flood was happening the kingdoms of Egypt and China never noticed. They just kept chugging along.

Cyrenius was not governor of Syria at the same time Herod the Great was alive (but this would have to be the case if Jesus was born when both were rulers). Herod never ordered a mass murder of male infants. Augustus Ceaser never ordered people to "return to the land of their ancestors" for a census. Have you ever considered how absurd that would be? Which ancestor were they to pick?

In short, while there are some historical facts contained in the Judaeo-Christian bible that have been confirmed by archaeology, there are a great many that are in stark contrast to what archaeology has revealed.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

When we read the text starting from v 1, we can see that the challenge put to Jesus was to go to Judea and show Himself openly by doing many miracles with which to challenge the Jews with His power. Thus, Jesus declines to go to the feast to confront the Jews but goes secretly (without raising a stir) and teaches in the temple.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

He said that He would not do the one thing and instead did something different.

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Why yes, I see that you agree that he lied when he said that he would not attend a particular feast. Even though he apparently at the time he said it (since he knows all the future) knew it was a lie.

That deceit is not always wrong might be a reasonable conclusion. He apparently disagrees with "thou shalt not lie" and has modified it to "thou shalt not lie when that deceit is harmful in some way."

Not the first time he abrogated and corrected (amazing isn't it, to correct the very Word of God) the Old Testament.

Only God, the theory goes, could change His Perfect Word (hmmm) and update it to The More Perfect Word.

How is the Perfect Word of God changeable? God changes his mind from time to time? You mean he made a perfect decision at one time that he regrets and changes to a more perfect decision later? This denies that the first decision was perfect, doesn't it?

Scripture both claims that the Word of God is perfect absolute truth for all time and then goes and changes it as well. This is contradictory, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Robert Byers

Ok you make a few points. Yet there should be zillions of points that should show a invented history.
The Eurprates river and eden is a pre-flood geography issue.
In facy it makes our case that the authors wee saying indeed the rivers out of eden were not like the present world.
Assyrian/Persian kings is beyond me but if the bible and other sources conflict then presume the bible is more accurate and the others screwed up or distored things for human motives.
Rob Byers

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

That deceit is not always wrong might be a reasonable conclusion. He apparently disagrees with "thou shalt not lie" and has modified it to "thou shalt not lie when that deceit is harmful in some way."

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

The "yet" is not in the original according to the textual analysts it was added later.