RE: Bible way to Heaven
October 10, 2015 at 1:49 pm
(This post was last modified: October 10, 2015 at 1:52 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
(October 10, 2015 at 1:29 pm)Randys brother Wrote: Yes Archaeology backs up the Bible,I will have to disagree with you.
No, it doesn't.
No,
Here is Christian archaeology website, which debunks the claim (by Wood) that fundamentalists use to "show" that Jericho was a walled city at the time of the alleged conquest of Canaan by Joshua. It wasn't, and not even close. Wood's 1990 information was a good guess based on bad data (a bad calibration at the British Museum), and was debunked strongly in 1995.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answ...ntwood.php
it
Here is a lecture from the top Biblical Archaeologist in Israel, an expert on the Davidic Kingdom period, Dr. Israel Finkelstein (Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University), the man who has the most to gain on earth from proving that there was a real Kingdom of David in history.
doesn't.
Below is one of the top Jewish Rabbis on the question of whether the Hebrews were even slaves in Egypt at all, and whether the Exodus could possibly have happened in the way described in the second book of the Bible. Again, if there is anyone who would benefit from the story being true, it would be these guys. I pointed out whom I am citing because I know if I cite atheists to you, you'll just ignore it. But seriously, the only people who are still saying the Bible stories are true history are fundamentalists who admit that they refuse to even consider the possibility that the authors of the Bible didn't know the true history, but were instead making up a legendary history by which they could help keep the Israelite/Judean people together after the conquests by Assyria and Babylon (when we think most of the Old Testament was put into its current form).
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/...n.aspx?p=1
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.