>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Did you know that Cyrus freeing of the slaves confirms the bible is true?

[sarcasm]
[PROPHESY] I'm going to eat pickles while writing this post [/PROPHESY]
Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.
[/sarcasm]
>> ^shinyblurry:
Titus Flavius Josephus. The same historian who confirms that Jesus was a historical figure and affirms His life death and resurrection.

Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.
Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
This agrees with modern historians, almost none of which make the ridiculous claim that Jesus never existed.

Some do make this "ridiculous" claim, and those who are left still have not provided the slightest shred of evidence that someone of that name did anything like what is stated in the gospels.
There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist, and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.
P.S. I ate pickles

+1 for the pickles...

I had Antelope.

Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.

hilarious. So, the bible is only good for the claims you wish to prove. Again, you show your lack of research..the prophecy and the fufillment of the prophecy are in seperate books written 1 or 2 hundred years apart. I'm stating to get the idea that you don't actually know anything and I'm arguing with a search engine.

Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.

Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.

It's not "widely considered forged". Again you don't know what you're talking about.

Educate yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cQgqbXYN0

I'm avoiding nothing; yes, there are other sources for Cyrus, but the only sources concerning freeing the jews are from the bible and Josephus. You can't have it both ways..you can't claim the bible for evidence when the entire evidence you're claiming was about what Cyrus was doing for God, let alone it was the fulfillment of prophecy from the book of Jeremiah. You can't say Josephus is discredited yet claim it for evidence about the jews either. If the bible is evidence, then the credit goes to God for freeing the slaves.

If you say Josephus is accurate, you have to admit Jesus is a historical figure. Either way, your evidence is firmly in my territory. I'll happily admit that you have one example in the whole of human history of slaves being freed if you'll admit that Jesus was a historical figure.

There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist,
and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors
clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical
authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much
chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his
motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.

Doesn't seem like many people agree with you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth

>> ^shinyblurry:
Did you know that Cyrus freeing of the slaves confirms the bible is true?


[sarcasm]
[PROPHESY] I'm going to eat pickles while writing this post [/PROPHESY]

Clearly, since text can not be edited, all text which precedes a statement must, of necessity, predate it. Therefore if a claim is made in a text, and then said to be fulfilled in the same text, the author must be a true profit.
[/sarcasm]

>> ^shinyblurry:
Titus Flavius Josephus. The same historian who confirms that Jesus was a historical figure and affirms His life death and resurrection.


Josephus's testimony is widely considered forged, and few, excepting christian ideologues, claim that it has not been at least altered. The older Arabic translation does not contain a profession of faith, just an account of the claims of the followers, and saying that christians exist, is not the same as saying that they have their facts straight.

Josephus, of course, is not the only source on Cyrus, he ruled a fucking empire, he was not some two bit sheep herd. Yet you avoid the issue, you made a claim, Cyrus refutes it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

This agrees with modern historians, almost none of which make the ridiculous claim that Jesus never existed.


Some do make this "ridiculous" claim, and those who are left still have not provided the slightest shred of evidence that someone of that name did anything like what is stated in the gospels.

There is no historical reason to believe that such a person did exist, and the gospels are so glaringly contradictory that the authors clearly cared nothing about historical accuracy. Absent any historical authority in the gospels, or the forgeries, there is just as much chance that some guy named meatloaf was tearing around Galilee on his motorcycle at or around 30CE, but I don't believe it.

P.S. I ate pickles

Wow. You're so ridiculously stubborn that you are actually going to defend your indefensible viewpoint. Fine, it's your funeral. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Did you know that Cyrus freeing of the slaves confirms the bible is true? It was prophecied that the jews would go into exile and be freed at the exact time Cyrus freed them:

"Jeremiah predicted Israel’s second captivity would last 70 years for every year they had not observed the Sabbath year rest of the land. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years." (Jer 25:11) The Babylonian army conquered Israel in the spring of 606 B.C. Confirmed by history as well as the Bible, Israel’s captivity in Babylon ended exactly 70 years later in the spring of 536 B.C., in the Jewish month Nisan. As was predicted, the Persian King Cyrus freed the Jews to return to their land (Ezra 1:1-3)."

You're right, there is also historical confirmation outside of the bible of what Cyrus did: it comes from the 1st century roman historian Titus Flavius Josephus. The same historian who confirms that Jesus was a historical figure and affirms His life death and resurrection. This agrees with modern historians, almost none of which make the ridiculous claim that Jesus never existed.

So lets review..so far your position confirms the accuracy of bible prophecy and the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. I really couldn't have said it better myself. So yeah..any other evidence you'd like to present to prove my case?
>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
lol!! wow this is truly classic.
Maybe you should actually read the articles you're providing as evidence from your desperate google search to disprove me.
Do you know what slaves he freed? The Jews. That's right, Gods chosen people.

Sooo...that means he was a Christian? Do you understand the concept of moving the goal posts?
>> ^shinyblurry:
How do we know this? The bible. Getting a sinking feeling yet?

I have never claimed that the bible does not reference historical events/places/people, but it can not by any objective measure be considered historically accurate itself. Cyrus, unlike Moses and Jesus, is not a construction of the biblical authors, if the bible had never existed we would still know of Cyrus and have a general understanding of what he did.

Ok you're doing it again. You're leaping from one thing to another with no real connection. So maybe a figure called Jesus existed. All that statement means is, a man lived at a period and had a name Jesus. It doesn't mean everything in a book written by a load of people who conspired to create a religious following about him is fact. You think everything in the Bible is fact, I don't. The bible has no evidence for its miracles and supposed preaching about God. It might have details about towns, people, nations, gatherings, that are also reported by other sources. But that doesn't in anyway confirm that supernatural beliefs held in the Bible. Like I said earlier, it would be a strange for them to write a book that tried to both introduce supernatural answers for the world in a made-up setting. They obviously set the Bible's story in a realistic background. You can not just then verify everything in the Bible because of that.

Do you know why? Because a) anything like those miracle situations hasn't had any evidence found since then to collude with the Bible's miracles, if it did all the scientists of the world would be in agreement that the miracles of the Bible were possible b) the story setting of the Bible is extremely similar to many stories that have been found and verified as being created before the Bible, ergo the Bible is a copy-work of those other stories, which diminishes its validity. c) It's obvious to anyone not brainwashed and not weak minded, what religions aim is; to prey on fear of death and to masquerade as a good force when in fact it's wasting your life and causing a massive amount of problems in the world whilst making a few people in the religion some of the richest people in the world.

Religion is a perfect example of the weakness of mankind, Religion and Greed are two of the worst things in the world, and until they are solved in our society we're stuck being fucked over in a cycle of retarded behaviour.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, so Jesus did exist..that wasn't made up, which means the bible is an eyewitness account of his life....and now, his disciples weren't brainwashed, we just don't know what they did..well, we do, not only from the bible but from many external sources External sources verify at least 50 people from the NT were historical figures..engravings and statues even tell us what 18 of them looked like. There are 39 sources outside the bible which verify 100 facts about Jesus' life, teachings crucifixion and ressurection..some good examples are Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus and Gaius Suetonius.
Flavius Josephus, a roman historian wrote:
“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive."
As far as what I pasted is concerned, yes some of them could be interperted either way..but not all of them. Many of them are quite precise in making statements about the nature of the Universe..which certainly critics would use to try to prove the bible isn't true if they weren't. Such as that the stars are innumerable to man, yet finite..that there are as many as there are grains of sand. At the time there were no telescopes so they could only see around 5000..no one suspected the trillions and trillions of stars we know about today. Or the fact that God hangs the earth on nothing, when at the time everyone thought it was supported by something..or that there are springs in the sea, mountains in the sea, that the Universe had a beginning..etc. Pretty good for made up, I think..

Okay, so Jesus did exist..that wasn't made up, which means the bible is an eyewitness account of his life....and now, his disciples weren't brainwashed, we just don't know what they did..well, we do, not only from the bible but from many external sources External sources verify at least 50 people from the NT were historical figures..engravings and statues even tell us what 18 of them looked like. There are 39 sources outside the bible which verify 100 facts about Jesus' life, teachings crucifixion and ressurection..some good examples are Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus and Gaius Suetonius.

Flavius Josephus, a roman historian wrote:

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive."

As far as what I pasted is concerned, yes some of them could be interperted either way..but not all of them. Many of them are quite precise in making statements about the nature of the Universe..which certainly critics would use to try to prove the bible isn't true if they weren't. Such as that the stars are innumerable to man, yet finite..that there are as many as there are grains of sand. At the time there were no telescopes so they could only see around 5000..no one suspected the trillions and trillions of stars we know about today. Or the fact that God hangs the earth on nothing, when at the time everyone thought it was supported by something..or that there are springs in the sea, mountains in the sea, that the Universe had a beginning..etc. Pretty good for made up, I think..

>> ^Mazex:
Lol don't just copy paste a load of convoluted statements that you got off some website and flout it as fact...
There might of been a guy called Jesus, but I don't for a second believe he was born from a virgin, managed to perform miracles and managed to be resurrected. All those things are part of the bible too, and they have nothing to do with the archaeological record, which is why you citing it, is pointless.
Its obvious that the problems people have with believing the Bible is that it cites a load of miracles and preaching about a God that has never been proven. And you expect everyone to believe it, and believe they are going to Hell if they commit sins and don't repent.
His resurrection being true or not has nothing to do with being brainwashed, it has to do with it being a lie, its a story, its made up, its not real. What his disciples did isn't fact either, you don't know what happened. Because all that's left is a book they all wrote. If you experienced it, and thousands of others experienced it and lived to this day, then I'd say there might be more people that could believe it. But just writing a story down, and then expecting everyone to hold it as truth forever, isn't necessarily truth.
With all these scientific facts that are supposedly revealed in the Bible, you are missing the real truth completely. None of them are scientific claims, they are all you interpreting scientific facts from words. You can pretty much interpret anything that's happened with any piece of literature. Especially with the Bible which has been translated and revised so many times over the years, the actual form of it, is nothing like what it was originally. So your little world of the Bible pre-determining scientific discoveries is a complete farce, please actually think constructively and again don't just copy paste a load of crap from the internet.

@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:


1. Assuming that your belief in Adam and Eve as historical figures implicitly includes your acceptance of the ridiculous notion that all humankind descends from two individuals and their incestuous offspring, can you explain why a supposedly all-benevolent being would not only punish the two who disobeyed him, but all their children for generations on end? What did they do wrong?

You say: Well how can you judge God? No sinner could and I include myself in that. How could an immoral being judge a moral one?
Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?


2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

You say: In regard to the unforgivable sin, the reason it is unforgivable is because when you become a Christian you receive Gods Spirit. His Spirit is what transforms us, makes us a new creation. If you reject His Spirit, you cannot be transformed, so therefore you cannot be forgiven.

But you also say: anyone who is saved is always saved. If you reject the Holy Spirit you are not saved, therefore you were never a Christian in the first place.

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").


3. You say:Though Adam and Eve did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil, they were informed by God directly that it was bad to disobey him and there would be consequences. God imparted his knowledge of good and evil to them, on that circumstance, so they had the free choice.

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.



Does the irony escape you?


I am looking forward to your next copy-pasted patchwork of apologetic gymnastics.

@hpqp

Fine fine, you're the big bad intellectual and I am the intellectual cripple. Yet, if you're wrong, I would say the situation is more the reverse. But you're entitled to your wild conjecture, fevered ego and primitive stereotypes. I'll answer your questions:

1. Yes, I do believe that Adam and Eve are historical figures.

2. Special Revelation and no, you didn't understand. It states that all those He was given by the Father He will not lose. Therefore, anyone who is saved is always saved. If you reject the Holy Spirit you are not saved, therefore you were never a Christian in the first place.

3 If you're so much more intelligent than I am, why is it you're having trouble grasping this simple concept? Though Adam and Eve did not yet have the knowledge of good and evil, they were informed by God directly that it was bad to disobey him and there would be consequences. God imparted his knowledge of good and evil to them, on that circumstance, so they had the free choice.

God didn't seperate himself from man, man seperated himself from God. Instead of starting over, God went through all of this, even sent His Son to die for us, to reconcile us back to Him so we could again live together in paradise. All of this is for our benefit, and if some people prefer death to life, God isn't going to reprogram them to change their minds. He doesn't coerce love, He doesn't do evil. He gives man the choice to seek Him out or not. He shows them plainly that He is there. If they want to ignore Him and break all His rules and be seperated from Him forever, that's their choice. That's what hell actually is. Seperation from God. It's the worst punishment anyone could ever receive.

Oh boy, you have been "educated" on the bible, havent you. Too bad its all wrong.


Atheist error #1Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said
The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.

This isnt really relevant, the bible could be the most accurately translated book of all time, and I'd still be an atheist.(its not, but I dont really care)

Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification
The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.


Again, not really relevant. The bible, along with the outside sources, were all written by superstitious desertdwellers some 2000 years ago, who gives a shit if these sources confirm eachother. Most of it confirms things like historical facts (Names of kings, major events , who lived where, and so on) None of it confirms the truth of any of the metaphysical claims, so at best, the bible is historically accurate(again, its not, but this is a long discussion)

Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific
The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:
Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.
This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.
Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.
Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”
Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.

Oh boy.. Where to start here... Only a really religiously distorted mind could write this nonsense.

And nonsense like it has been written to "confirm" the accuracy of other holy texts as well. I was hit with a list of "facts" from the Quran much like this in a discussion once, one such "fact" was some nonsense about the "mountains securing the firmaments of the earth" was somehow confirmed by modern Plate-tectonics. I wonder whether you religious nuts can see through eachothers claims, can you see for instance, whats wrong with that Quran-argument, or does that seem reasonable to you? If not, why do the above arguments from the bible about god "hanging the earth in its place" seem like good decriptions of astronomical fact?

Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology
The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate.

Wow, thats almost 100% inaccurate. Israeli archiologists have, with great religious entusiasm and eagerness, for decades tried to document the 40-year travel through the desert from Egypt that the Jews are said to have done. One of the most famous bible stories, and, one would think, one of the best candidates to be proven true by archeology, yet they have all come up empty handed. It is, for all intends and purposes, as if it never happened.

Well written, but still factually biased. I don't dispute it takes a certain amount of faith to believe in something, but saying it takes more faith to believe in science over a religion is laughable, seeing as how most scientific processes can be duplicated in a lab, and the only time people see the immaculately concepted Jesus is in stale bread.

Calling them "errors" is an error, if you cant prove it so...

I don't even want to get started with your "#2" ...but I will touch on it:

"It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round."
You mean to tell me that it wasn't the sun he probably was referring to? It is a very vague statement, loosely translated. I mean, wasn't the voyage of Christopher Columbus nearly defunded by the Queen of Spain due to the fact most of the Catholics believed the earth was flat? How could they possibly misinterpret such a factual document as the Bible then but not now, or at any other time?

#3 is also a gross interpretation of the bibles factuality, the closest thing people had to a science was alchemy if I'm mistaken, and there is a reason we don't teach Alchemy 101 these days. It was full of holes where we as a species didn't have an understanding of our own surroundings. Take beer brewing for example, even the German purity laws had to be amended to allow yeast as a viable and lawful ingredient to beer because the humans of the past flat out didn't understand or fathom its use/need in the brewing process because it had been introduced naturally to the unaware brewers since beer has been around. <-Thank you science, not the all knowing bible. External sources are just as unreliable then as they are now, if not more so, smart people expect some credibility, and aren't the type to blindly accept.
#4 "The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology"
Most people don't dispute the correlation of events in the bible to that of actual history, its just obvious that either initially or over the years, the truth was embellished to that of an Aesop fable. The bible was meant to instill fear into the hearts of what are supposed to be "god fearing" people, what better way then writing about a hellish environment and 30 ft tall giants? (wait, was that part real, or no?) Oh and Nelson Glueck wrote that quote? Impressive... unless you consider the thousands of other scientists that have a slightly different opinion on the matter...

But I guess you can laugh at me while I burn in hell (decompose) and you are in heaven (decomposing) It would make much more sense if people would accept the fact that "God" no matter how you look at it, is just a manifestation of our own self righteousness as a species? That being said, please think "peace" and I to wish all of us a hearty blessing from "God."



>> ^shinyblurry:

It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. I'll point out some common errors and misconceptions that atheists have.
Atheist error #1 Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said
The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.

Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification
The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.
Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific
The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:
Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.
This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.
Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.
Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”
Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.
Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology
The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.
Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible.
So there are just some of the common misconceptions atheists have concerning the bible. If you had any of these misconceptions then I venture that you must re-evaluate your position. God bless.


*Edited punctuation at 23:40 5/2/2011

It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. I'll point out some common errors and misconceptions that atheists have.

Atheist error #1 Translation upon translation has corrupted the original bible so now we don't know what it actually said

The truth: Today there survives more than 25,000 partial and complete, ancient handwritten manuscript copies of the New Testament alone, not to mention hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts that survive today dating back to as early as the third century B.C. These hand written manuscripts have allowed scholars and textual critics to go back and verify that the Bible we have in our possession today is the same Bible that the early church possessed 2,000 years ago.


Atheist error #2 The bible is only confirmed by the bible, there is no outside external verification

The truth: There are over 39 sources outside of the Bible that attest to more than 100 facts regarding Jesus’ life, teachings, crucifixion, and resurrection. External sources verify that at least 80 persons from the bible were actual historical figures, 50 people from the Old Testament and 30 people from the New Testament. This includes Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High priest, and King David.

Atheist error #3 The bible is unscientific

The truth: The bible contains no scientific errors. In fact, it reveals a number of facts about the Universe that simply were not known at the time. For instance, the bible states that the Sun is on a circuit through space, yet scientists at the time thought it was stationary. Even more amazing, the bible states the Earth is round when everyone else thought it was flat:

Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He [God] who sits above the circle of the Earth." Job also talked about the earth being round.

This was 300 years before aristotle. The bible was over 2000 years ahead of its time. It was also widely thought at the time that the Earth was carried on the back of something else, like a turtle or the greek god Atlas. The bible taught the truth: Job 26:7 “He [God] hangs the Earth on nothing.” Scientists did not discover that the Earth hangs on nothing until 1650.

Another amazing fact that the bible uncovered far before man discovered the facts is that the number of stars is as the sand in sea.

Jeremiah 33:22 “The host of heaven [a reference to the stars] cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured.”

Before the telescope was invented, man was able to number the stars. The count was usually just over 1000. That was the prevailing scientific knowledge until the telescope was invented. The bible revealed though that there were more stars than anyone could count.

Atheist error #4 The history of the bible is made up, it is just mythology

The truth: In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”

The fact is there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible.

So there are just some of the common misconceptions atheists have concerning the bible. If you had any of these misconceptions then I venture that you must re-evaluate your position. God bless.

>> ^spaceisbig:

I don't really want to get into this discussion but it bothers me when people bring up the party of historical figures. In the time of Andrew Jackson I do believe the Whig party was actually still around. Yes Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, but his ideology reads as a Democrat's would nowadays. Also, many people consider the time period of Civil Rights in the U.S. a time when the political ideology of the two parties actually swapped.


Too late! You're in the discussion now, pal! No backing out! (<-- winkey smiley face means I kid)

I agree that a lot of what defined Lincoln is what also currently defines a modern Democratic politician. But mostly in terms of a large, centralized federal government versus a union of states with their own individual and self-defined rights. He did, however, suspend habeas corpus and locked up US citizens without trial for sedition. Mainly people in the free press he deemed 'Confederate Sympathizers'.

I don't really want to get into this discussion but it bothers me when people bring up the party of historical figures. In the time of Andrew Jackson I do believe the Whig party was actually still around. Yes Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, but his ideology reads as a Democrat's would nowadays. Also, many people consider the time period of Civil Rights in the U.S. a time when the political ideology of the two parties actually swapped.

I don't get it. When I moved to NYC people acted like Columbus day was a big deal. I even got the day off work for it. I thought that was the weirdest thing ever. Aside from elementary school (which is completely full of shit about almost everything) I didn't think people even paid attention to Columbus day. Anybody with half a brain knows about Erik the Red and his son. And anyone with any book lurnin' knows the Basques were probably here before that. Not to mention it doesn't really take ANY deductive power at all to know who was here first(Jesus and the Mormons).

That said, name an important historical figure from around 1492 that wasn't a monster. Shit, the natives would've happily killed us all if it got us off our land.

Seams like this is a pretty weak statement to make that a lot of people will probably never care about.

EDIT: ...oh wait, ok, I wasn't done watching the video. I'm all for a day to remember the indigenous people that were here first. Whatever.

The statistics are such that you even share at least a few atoms with almost any historical figure you can think of. Not Elvis, too recent. Not enough time to spread around. But you all probably share a few atoms with say, Joan of Arc, a T-Rex and even, dare I say... Mr. Christ?