Phil Wrote:Wait a fucking second. Let me see if I understand you here. You seem to be saying that in this case an absence of the originals (evidence) is evidence that there were originals. To say that in more concise terms, you're saying an absence of evidence is evidence. That can't be what your saying otherwise I must insist you're retarded.

no you do not understand what i'm saying. i'm saying just because we don't have the originals doesn't mean the remakes are less valid. if we lost the constitution of the US would that mean it never existed?

KichigaiNeko Wrote:Ummm I don't think you really understood the meaning of the word texts here chippy. You really have no idea what you are talking about and AIG, Conservapedia, and any other religious site is not a very good reference.

did i use any of those? i don't think so i've mostly been using Wikipedia. correct me if i'm wrong of course. and i don't recall saying they confirm the bible but it does talk about "Yahweh" which confirms the religion is at least that old.

and btw scratch that silver amulets thing there were some older ones found.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...183037.htm

(January 22, 2012 at 4:36 am)chipan Wrote:

KichigaiNeko Wrote:Ummm I don't think you really understood the meaning of the word texts here chippy. You really have no idea what you are talking about and AIG, Conservapedia, and any other religious site is not a very good reference.

did i use any of those? i don't think so i've mostly been using Wikipedia. correct me if i'm wrong of course. and i don't recall saying they confirm the bible but it does talk about "Yahweh" which confirms the religion is at least that old.

and btw scratch that silver amulets thing there were some older ones found.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...183037.htm

Yes you have chippy..in the past. And AGAIN you have no understanding of what you are posting about. The amusing thing here is that you are trying to use these amulets to confirm YOUR belief nothing more. Wonderful as they are they prove nothing. Many religious cults were active in the time frame you are trying to attribute to your Yahweh and have nothing to do with your later 4th centuryAD "god-boy"

KichigaiNeko Wrote:Yes you have chippy..in the past. And AGAIN you have no understanding of what you are posting about. The amusing thing here is that you are trying to use these amulets to confirm YOUR belief nothing more. Wonderful as they are they prove nothing. Many religious cults were active in the time frame you are trying to attribute to your Yahweh and have nothing to do with your later 4th centuryAD "god-boy"

omg stop trying to change the arguement. i'm saying the old testament books of the bible were originally jewish texts written in hebrew. not written in greek. nothing more.

(January 22, 2012 at 4:59 am)chipan Wrote:

KichigaiNeko Wrote:Yes you have chippy..in the past. And AGAIN you have no understanding of what you are posting about. The amusing thing here is that you are trying to use these amulets to confirm YOUR belief nothing more. Wonderful as they are they prove nothing. Many religious cults were active in the time frame you are trying to attribute to your Yahweh and have nothing to do with your later 4th centuryAD "god-boy"

omg stop trying to change the arguement. i'm saying the old testament books of the bible were originally jewish texts written in hebrew. not written in greek. nothing more.

Moi?? change the argument?? That is something YOU are guilty of chippy.

As I have stated before ...you have no idea what you are posting about. Your views are sooo limited you are incapable (so it seems) to think beyond your "holy text"

What a total illiterate!! You are still of the era where words on a page are magic!!

me? who posted this thread? and who brought up references i possibly used on another thread but not this one? i'm not changing anything. i was argueing with Minimalist's point when he or she said the bible was written in greek trying to discredit my hebrew references on my first post. u just jumped in and tried argueing something different.

(January 22, 2012 at 5:07 am)chipan Wrote: me? who posted this thread? and who brought up references i possibly used on another thread but not this one? i'm not changing anything. i was argueing with Minimalist's point when he or she said the bible was written in greek trying to discredit my hebrew references on my first post. u just jumped in and tried argueing something different.

You still don't understand do you??

wow do i really have to argue this point? fine.

Quote: The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.

this is from my last reference that you say i don't understand and doesn't support the the bible in any way.

You have no reference there chippy...

FAIL

that's because it's already referenced jeez do i have to do it again?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...183037.htm

(January 22, 2012 at 5:23 am)chipan Wrote: that's because it's already referenced jeez do i have to do it again?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...183037.htm

One more try but this time use a link that works.