Originally posted by DarfiusAnd while you're at it Omnislash: Are you now are have you even been a member of Communist Party? Christ, Darfius, is this an inquisition? Let's be up front, Darfius, have you ever looked at a woman with lust in your heart, or touched yourself innappropriately? Also, have you fed any homeless people recently?
Let's be up front, Omni, are you a Christian in your heart and soul as well, or just your mind?
Originally posted by DarfiusIn regards to presenting King David as a historical figure, you and I both know that this was the pretense, the fallacious premise upon which you would make your arguement for the supernatural premises in the scripture. If you have something to say, be clear about it. The deception is unnecessary and unbecoming.
Presenting King David as a historical figure is preaching?
Well, when you say you doubt the veracity of the Bible enough to search for truth elsewhere, it's a logical inference to say that you doubt Jesus to some degree.
Let's be up ...[text shortened]... you a Christian in your heart and soul as well, or just your mind?
In regards to the veracity of the Bible, what I have said is that there is truth to be learned which is not covered in the Bible. If you dispute that, then I do not know how you function in day to day life. That is what I said, and nothing more. If you attempted to comprehend my statements (and this one was from about a week ago I would note), you would be better equipped to dispute them, for whatever asinine reason you desire. What any of my personal views have to do with the topic of King David or my rebuke of your deception, I have no idea.
In regards to being upfront, am I a Christian? Whatever I call myself does not change what I am in all truth. If I call myself a servant of the light, a Christian, Deus Ex Machina, or the Great Poobah of Universal Theistic Wisdom, I am the same. By any name, I am the same. Whether I tell you I am or not does nothing to diminish the truth.
Thusly, judge me as you please. Your judgement does nothing to alter the truth. Only god may truly judge me, and I would thank you restrict your comments about to me that which I have actually said.
Pax Vobiscum, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide
Originally posted by spodaiosYou don't know? Truth is correspondence to reality. To claim that a proposition is true is to claim that the proposition accurately characterizes a state of affairs that obtains in the world. The proposition 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white.
What is truth?
Originally posted by DarfiusArchaeology has shown that Yaweh had a companion called Asherah. Yet Asherah has completely disappeared from the theological record. So we have a Bible that is inaccurate once again...
Tell me, why is it that even though archeology has never proven the Bible wrong, you all don't respect it?[/b]
And you ask me to respect your stories?
Originally posted by MaustrauserWhich people said that about Yahweh?
Archaeology has shown that Yaweh had a companion called Asherah. Yet Asherah has completely disappeared from the theological record. So we have a Bible that is inaccurate once again...
And you ask me to respect your stories?
Originally posted by DarfiusHow does an article that says this:
Wrong answer.
http://www.thecityline.com/html/city/city.htm
Scholars also wanted to say that the Israelites never fought with the kingdom of Edom, but archeological finds have put those lies to rest as well.
Tell me, why is it that even though archeology has never proven the Bible wrong, you all don't respect it?
The inscription is the earliest known mention of the House of David, and possibly of King David, outside of Biblical text.
PROVE the existence of King David? Are you aware of the meaning of the word "possibly"? Does the existence of the Illiad "prove" the existence of Achilles and the Trojan Horse?
Quote 1:
In the essay, Herzog laid out many of the theories Finkelstein and Silberman present in their book: "the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom." The new theories envision this modest chiefdom as based in a Jerusalem that was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire.
Although, as Herzog notes, some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, they are just now making a dent in the awareness of the Israeli public -- a very painful dent. They challenge many of the Old Testament stories central to Israeli beliefs about their own national character and destiny, stories that have influenced much of Western culture as well. The tales of the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others -- were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).
Originally posted by no1marauderThis article was boring. It is trying to discredit the Bible because of a lack of archeological evidence in some areas. We lacked evidence of dinosaurs until a couple centuries ago, does that mean they didn't exist?
As for your claim that archeology has "proven" the Bible "100% correct" see http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html.
I'll have some quotes from that article in a bit.
Oh, and the site lacks credibility since it's primary purpose is to bash Bush.