24 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePresumably because you are incapable of thinking rationally about anything to do with your religion.
I dispute the last charge that archaeological evidence in support of scripture no way leads to the rational conclusion that the Bible is a trustworthy document, my goodness man, the dead sea scrolls were found in Qumran, encased for almost a thousand years and were identical with the book of Isaiah that we have in our bibles today, why this is not evidence of trustworthiness and textual integrity, i do not know.
How exactly, in your opinion do the dead sea scrolls as described by you provide even a shred of evidence that the Bible is trustworthy? After looking it up, the dead sea scrolls are actually twice as old as you suggest and according to Wikipedia:
....some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content.
But even if they were identical to other copies today, all it would tell us is that the scribes who copied our other copies were fairly accurate. It doesn't tell us anything about the trustworthiness of the original. I think you will find that a 2010 print of The Lord of the Rings is virtually identical to the very first edition.
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou have very strong opinion about the matter, without even knowing why?
why it matters that it did not exist at the time of writing i have no idea
There are two alternatives:
(1) If it backs your own religious views, then it must be right.
(2) If it doesn't back your own religious views, then it must be wrong.
Meaning that the real truth is not interesting, only if the truth coincides with yours, then you believe in it and call it a Truth.
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatPlease be more specific about important facts! The brand and type of whisky, please.
The specific instances being "the fall of Tyre, The destruction of Jerusalem, the fall of Babylon, the existence of Pilate, the existence of Christ", right? Well I haven't checked the data myself, and while I suspect that archaeology doesn't provide direct evidence for the existence of Pilate or Jesus I don't doubt that these fellas existed, ...[text shortened]... yping.
edit: And why 'bad' old putty cat? I'm one of the good guys, honest I am.
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhen you are able to communicate your thoughts in a more mature way, other than resorting to the now mandatory, your lying, your incapable of rational thought etc etc , then we shall have something to discuss. If someone spoke to me like that face to face i would not tolerate the company for a moment and would be gone faster than a firework on Guy Fox day. So when you are ready let me know, we can have something to discuss.
Presumably because you are incapable of thinking rationally about anything to do with your religion.
How exactly, in your opinion do the dead sea scrolls as described by you provide even a shred of evidence that the Bible is trustworthy? After looking it up, the dead sea scrolls are actually twice as old as you suggest and according to Wikipedia:
[quot ...[text shortened]... nd that a 2010 print of The Lord of the Rings is virtually identical to the very first edition.
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasyou made the statement Fabian not me, you stated that the book of genesis and the book of revelation were written at different times, so what? you have failed to state why this is significant and i fail to see any reason for it myself.
You have very strong opinion about the matter, without even knowing why?
There are two alternatives:
(1) If it backs your own religious views, then it must be right.
(2) If it doesn't back your own religious views, then it must be wrong.
Meaning that the real truth is not interesting, only if the truth coincides with yours, then you believe in it and call it a Truth.
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieit is the most polite way to communicate his ideas though. and his ideas ARE that you are uncapable of rational thought and sometimes lying. i don't think you are lying though, i believe you fully believe what you say.
when you are able to communicate your thoughts in a more mature way, other than resorting to the now mandatory, your lying, your incapable of rational thought etc etc , then we shall have something to discuss. If someone spoke to me like that face to face i would not tolerate the company for a moment and would be gone faster than a firework on Guy Fox day. So when you are ready let me know, we can have something to discuss.
and there is an odd phenomenon at times happening with you. whenever someone presents and argument so well built that you cannot find anything wrong with it, not even the pseudoscientist nonsense you present, your mind somehow short-circuits to protect your belief system, reboots and erases the last session. so when you come out of reboot, you don't remember anything that was said lately and you change the subject. or simply act like the last argument never happened. this is a rather funny phenomenon though and could be the thing he mistakes for lying..
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by Zahlanziyes i understand that the manner in which an argument is delivered is different from the actual content and is a secondary issue, never the less, i am under no duress to answer such an argument on the basis of its content alone, any more than i must retort to someone who has insulted me no matter how sound their logic is. It is not a strange phenomena at all. Whether he construes that its lying is his business, infact, you yourself are doing the very same thing, for the argument is about the textual integrity of scripture and here you are focusing on something entirely different, which you term a phenomena. I presented an instance of this integrity, the dead sea scrolls, which to my mind, having been preserved for over a thousand years in its original form a comparison has been made with the text in our hands today and it is found that indeed it has remained unchanged almost to the letter. are you saying that is not evidence of a textual integrity? If so on what basis are you saying that it is not, for as yet, you have produced no evidence to the contrary.
it is the most polite way to communicate his ideas though. and his ideas ARE that you are uncapable of rational thought and sometimes lying. i don't think you are lying though, i believe you fully believe what you say.
and there is an odd phenomenon at times happening with you. whenever someone presents and argument so well built that you cannot find any ...[text shortened]... pened. this is a rather funny phenomenon though and could be the thing he mistakes for lying..
24 Nov 10
Adam & Eve.
An easy one this.
An advanced civilisation landed, genetically tampered with the more advanced apes
to make them slaves with a bit of intelligence and then did a bit of cloning
by removing it's 3rd rib to give it a mate.
Story passed down hand to mouth after a virus (the common cold) wiped
out the advanced civilisation leaving these freak apes (us) to take over.
God invented to stop people asking stupid questions about where we came from.
Next Question?
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI can assure you that you insult me directly more often on these forums than I insult you. In fact, in this instance I wasn't trying to be insulting at all, whereas you quite frequently go for direct insults.
when you are able to communicate your thoughts in a more mature way, other than resorting to the now mandatory, your lying, your incapable of rational thought etc etc , then we shall have something to discuss. If someone spoke to me like that face to face i would not tolerate the company for a moment and would be gone faster than a firework on Guy Fox day. So when you are ready let me know, we can have something to discuss.
And I probably wouldn't tolerate you very long face to face either. When you first joined this forum, you were so rude that I didn't tolerate you for very long even on the forum.
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have already pointed out that this is not true. Would you care to back up this claim with a reference?
I presented an instance of this integrity, the dead sea scrolls, which to my mind, having been preserved for over a thousand years in its original form a comparison has been made with the text in our hands today and it is found that indeed it has remained unchanged almost to the letter.
are you saying that is not evidence of a textual integrity? If so on what basis are you saying that it is not, for as yet, you have produced no evidence to the contrary.
Are we discussing textual integrity? If so, why? It has nothing to do with the original topic of whether or not the actual content is supported by archeology.
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis coming from the man who yesterday called Mr Booth a 'tosser'.
when you are able to communicate your thoughts in a more mature way, other than resorting to the now mandatory, your lying, your incapable of rational thought etc etc , then we shall have something to discuss. If someone spoke to me like that face to face i would not tolerate the company for a moment and would be gone faster than a firework on Guy Fox day. So when you are ready let me know, we can have something to discuss.
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by greenpawn34Evidence Mr Chandler, evidence.
Adam & Eve.
An easy one this.
An advanced civilisation landed, genetically tampered with the more advanced apes
to make them slaves with a bit of intelligence and then did a bit of cloning
by removing it's 3rd rib to give it a mate.
Story passed down hand to mouth after a virus (the common cold) wiped
out the advanced civilisation leaving t ...[text shortened]... God invented to stop people asking stupid questions about where we came from.
Next Question?
24 Nov 10
Evidence?
The Christians have been hood winking everyone for over
2,000 years without a shred of evidence. Just continual U-turns.
(for 1,600 of those years the Sun was meant to orbit the Earth.)
At least have the curtesy of giving me the same 2,000 years.
I'll supply evidence in 4010 when these space travellers appear again.
Resurrect their own dead and take off again.
(It's all in the Bible - read between the lines.)
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieit has remained unchanged almost to the letter.
yes i understand that the manner in which an argument is delivered is different from the actual content and is a secondary issue, never the less, i am under no duress to answer such an argument on the basis of its content alone, any more than i must retort to someone who has insulted me no matter how sound their logic is. It is not a strange phenome ...[text shortened]... basis are you saying that it is not, for as yet, you have produced no evidence to the contrary.
That's not true.