Originally posted by HandyAndywhich one, i have only made two. Pilate was real and his actions were corroborated by secular historian Tacitus. Shall we look at your claims.
Substantiate this one.
1. the Bible is fictional.
2. the book of Genesis is myth
3. the events recorded in it are unreasonable
evidence, nil.
19 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePilates actions were also corroborated by robbie carrobie on RHP. But neither he nor Tacitus were doing anything more than reporting claims that originated in the Biblical books whose veracity is being discussed. Tacitus, just like you, did not have an independent source of information, and thus is no more useful as a corroborator than you.
which one, i have only made two. Pilate was real and his actions were corroborated by secular historian Tacitus. Shall we look at your claims.
1. the Bible is fictional.
2. the book of Genesis is myth
3. the events recorded in it are unreasonable
evidence, nil.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you really this stupid, or just pretending? Substantiate this one:
which one, i have only made two. Pilate was real and his actions were corroborated by secular historian Tacitus. Shall we look at your claims.
1. the Bible is fictional.
2. the book of Genesis is myth
3. the events recorded in it are unreasonable
evidence, nil.
I haven't made a truth claim that I cannot substantiate.
19 Aug 14
Originally posted by HandyAndyI just popped in to substantiate my substantiation claim. Give it up you slobbery drooler and get with the groove.
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending? Substantiate this one:
I haven't made a truth claim that I cannot substantiate.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
20 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobie{Dancing uncontrollably, singing: I just dropped in to see what cond...}
I just popped in to substantiate my substantiation claim. Give it up you slobbery drooler and get with the groove.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhTVSatyN90
Wait a minute! You just killed my thread, didn't you!? Oh, it's on! You're going down zen master. You do not kill my threads, dammit!
{...ition my condition was in! Yeaaaah...}
Is it true that song was meant to deter LSD use? Because it kinda makes me want to get high. Not that I ever do that sort of thing, of course. I mean, life!
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by C Hess"Or what say ye?"
...is a source consisting of numerous incomplete, badly translated, now largely missing sources?
Ancient Bibles: http://youtu.be/tmVY1Az5ij4
I found this most enlightening. I always doubted that the bible was a reliable source, mainly because it was compiled by a group of men with their own agenda (choosing what goes in and what is left out) long after the events took place, but apparently the problem is even bigger than that. Or what say ye?
I'd say you are blind to the truth. If there be a God that communicated His word to man, would He not then preserve it? Of course He would! It's the only rational conclusion on the matter.
The only way that it could be said that the Word of God isn't intact and 100% reliable is if God didn't exist.
You don't know that for a fact, do you?
21 Aug 14
Originally posted by C HessMaybe it would cause wonderment for you if you would consider this. The catholic monks who compiled the bible did not have axis to the Dead Sea scrolls. Yet the Dead Sea scrolls confirm most of what was in the bible.
...is a source consisting of numerous incomplete, badly translated, now largely missing sources?
Ancient Bibles: http://youtu.be/tmVY1Az5ij4
I found this most enlightening. I always doubted that the bible was a reliable source, mainly because it was compiled by a group of men with their own agenda (choosing what goes in and what is left out) long after the events took place, but apparently the problem is even bigger than that. Or what say ye?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by josephwNo, but how the bible was put together makes it a very real and likely possibility that it doesn't represent god's word, should she actually exist. Let me ask you this. We know for a fact that certain parts of the english translations (like the aforementioned word virgin) are mistranslations. Would your god allow mistranslations to pass for his uncorrupted word?
"Or what say ye?"
I'd say you are blind to the truth. If there be a God that communicated His word to man, would He not then preserve it? Of course He would! It's the only rational conclusion on the matter.
The only way that it could be said that the Word of God isn't intact and 100% reliable is if God didn't exist.
You don't know that for a fact, do you?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by PudgenikIt's not what they confirm that's interesting, but that these 22% of the original writings already reveal mistakes made in the bible. Who knows how many mistakes exist in the whole of the bible?
Maybe it would cause wonderment for you if you would consider this. The catholic monks who compiled the bible did not have axis to the Dead Sea scrolls. Yet the Dead Sea scrolls confirm most of what was in the bible.
23 Aug 14
Originally posted by C HessI don't know where you came up with this nonsense, but it is wrong. We don't even have the original writings to compare with the copies. The King James Version uses the majority texts to determine the original text. Portions are also verified by what the early church fathers wrote when they quoted from it.
It's not what they confirm that's interesting, but that these 22% of the original writings already reveal mistakes made in the bible. Who knows how many mistakes exist in the whole of the bible?
24 Aug 14
Originally posted by C HessI looked at the video and did not hear or see that 22% of the original writings already reveal mistakes made in the bible. Perhaps that was in the wikipedia article, but you apparently forgot to give that link.
Video in the OP and the wikipedia link I gave earlier in this thread.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
24 Aug 14
Originally posted by RJHindsPage 7 of this very thread.
I looked at the video and did not hear or see that 22% of the original writings already reveal mistakes made in the bible. Perhaps that was in the wikipedia article, but you apparently forgot to give that link.