(February 20, 2014 at 7:35 pm)rasetsu Wrote:(February 20, 2014 at 7:06 pm)Lek Wrote: I didn't change my criteria for revelation from God. There is direct revelation, but normally he reveals himself in less outward ways. Probably the most common revelation comes from reading of his word.
You changed your criteria from first-hand revelation to third-hand revelation with support. Yes, you did change your criteria.
And since you're going to repeat it, I'll point out that archeology doesn't in fact support the bible. A fact still unknown to most Christians for some reason.
I said that I would kill a baby if I was certain that it was a direct revelation from God. I didn't say that I didn't accept any other type of revelation. I wouldn't normally kill a baby now because the bible tells me not to murder. Killing is acceptable in situations in which you may be saving a life or in a justified war in which you're protecting a nation. If God were telling me to kill a baby, I woud asssume it was for a justifiable reason. Again, I'm too tired to get into it here, but there many places on the web that will point out numerous archeological discoveries that support the bible. One of the most recent is the verification of the Hittite nation which was earlier dismissed by critics. Most of what I've heard from the other side refers to the fact that archeological discoveries haven't been made supporting parts of the bible, not that things have been found that disprove it. We don't have artifacts supporting most of human history. Stimbo, from what I've read, camels were around at the time of Abraham, although there's not solid evidence that they were used as beasts of burden at that time. That doesn't prove that they weren't.
