Extra-biblical evidence that confirms the Biblical Exodus/Conquest narrative.AV1611 said:What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Extra-biblical evidence that confirms the Biblical Exodus/Conquest narrative.AV1611 said:What kind of evidence are you looking for?
Exactly my point: Jesus get more negative publicity than all other persons in history combined.Fascist Christ said:I don't see how that is something to be proud of. Due to our brains' negative bias, we tend to pay the most attention to the most negative things. That's why most of the news is negative. That's why politicians spend so much of their campaigns insulting their opponents. And that's (part of) why a religion that glorifies the murder (crucifixion) of an innocent man (Jesus the Nazarene) is so highly debated.
It certainly looked like you were claiming to be able to play chess blindfolded in an earlier post and I remember it mentioned that Ken Ham does as well. Just checked and found out that Jonathan Sarfati plays chess blindfolded. I was wondering if "you" were "he". An amusing misunderstanding.AV1611 said:Oh, did I say that?
LOL
What I meant to say is that I play Chess as well as a blindfolded person. )(
And also, that I know 20 different pies ... not Pi. )(
You answered your own question then:Deut. 32.8 said:Extra-biblical evidence that confirms the Biblical Exodus/Conquest narrative.
Deut. 32.8 said:It got a lot of press in the Torah.
I confess ... I did say that ... but I am neither Ken Hamm nor Jonathan Sarfati.cmotdibbler said:It certainly looked like you were claiming to be able to play chess blindfolded in an earlier post and I remember it mentioned that Ken Ham does as well. Just checked and found out that Jonathan Sarfati plays chess blindfolded. I was wondering if "you" were "he". An amusing misunderstanding.
So how about those cattle and the shadows then?
I should have clarified. When I say Bible, I mean the 1611 King James Bible. I personally don't call anyting else a "bible", out of respect for the aforementioned.Mr_Spinkles said:The Torah is not extra-biblical, AV1611.
Just as valid - or - At least as valid?Ceridwen018 said:Your religion is just as valid as any other.
As you wish. Now, again, do you have any extra-biblical evidence that confirms the Biblical Exodus/Conquest narrative?AV1611 said:I should have clarified. When I say Bible, I mean the 1611 King James Bible. I personally don't call anyting else a "bible", out of respect for the aforementioned.
Not on me, no.Deut. 32.8 said:As you wish. Now, again, do you have any extra-biblical evidence that confirms the Biblical Exodus/Conquest narrative?
I am not talking about negative publicity, but publicity of the negative.AV1611 said:Exactly my point: Jesus get more negative publicity than all other persons in history combined.
As Paul put it in Philippians 1:18 ---
WHAT THEN? NOTWITHSTANDING, EVERY WAY, WHETHER IN PRETENSE, OR IN TRUTH, CHRIST IS PREACHED; AND I THEREIN DO REJOICE, YEA, AND WILL REJOICE.
How delightfully convenient.AV1611 said:Not on me, no.
Oooookay ... thanks for clearing that up!Fascist Christ said:I am not talking about negative publicity, but publicity of the negative.
So the first six "errors" of the bible are lame you say? So you are saying that for one the fact that there is no evidance of a bunch of slaves ever leaving the egyptains as lame? I'll give you the fact that most of these "lame" examples use logic, and as I've found not alot of people like logic. Lets put it this way. Lets say that EVERYONE in the world believes that the stars hang up in the sky a few miles above the earth. Then lets say that everyone thinks its very feasable for the stars to just fall out of the sky at the end of the world. Then you have a "messiah" coming saying that when the end of the world happens the stars will fall out of the sky. Do you really think, logically, that he is just using colerful language and that he doesn't believe the current times science?NetDoc said:Ryan,
I went throught the first six references (I have to pick up my son) and your "errors" are anything BUT!
First, In Matthew he is refering to his own death on the cross. Go read what happened.
Secondly, do you EVER refer to the "rising and setting of the sun"??? If you do you must not know ANYTHING about astronomy dude. EVERYONE KNOWS that the sun stays put and the earth turns. So sue them for writing in the vernacular of the time.
Are all of your "errors" as lame as these? Just because you don't understand the context of what you read, does not make them errors.
Here are my two...AV1611 said:Wow, Ryan; that's quite a list.
I'm reminded of the scene in Jaws when Quint challenges Hooper to prove his Seamanship. He throws Hooper a rope and tells Hooper to tie him a Sheepshank. Hooper ties it and throws it back to Quint, and I'll never forget what Quint does: He just catches the rope and, without even looking at it, throws it on the floor.
Give me two off that list, Ryan; and, depending on your reaction to my Hermeneutics, I may explain the rest.
Like I said before ... it wouldn't do me a lick of good. I know from experience that if I start dragging authors and websites into my posts, then for every author or website I produce, they produce just as much.Ceridwen018 said:How delightfully convenient.
I suggest you find some.
No, your religious philosophy is: if you don't accept the inerrancy of the KJV, it's not worth debating. You have immunized yourself from any responsibility to discuss rationally or ethically.AV1611 said:My religious philosophy is: if it's not in the Bible, it's not worth debating.
I guess I need to clarify further. You claim that the things that are being said are negative. I am saying that the negative things are in the religion.AV1611 said:Oooookay ... thanks for clearing that up!
Ooooookay ... thanks for clearing THAT up!Fascist Christ said:I guess I need to clarify further. You claim that the things that are being said are negative. I am saying that the negative things are in the religion.
You might say that my view of the crucifixion is negative, but I say that the crucifixion itself is negative. The difference is your use of the word "negative" is showing disagreement, whereas my use of the word conscerns the moral issues of capital punishment.
In other words, you like the attention resulting from disagreements in debate, but I say that the attention is due to the evil within the book, and those evils it has aided or caused.
I was wondering what I meant when I said what I said. Thanks for the clarification!Deut. 32.8 said:No, your religious philosophy is: if you don't accept the inerrancy of the KJV, it's not worth debating. You have immunized yourself from any responsibility to discuss rationally or ethically.