sure why not, if you're gonna cry ill stop...
sure why not, if you're gonna cry ill stop...
maybe if you weren't such a pussy America wouldn't pick on you so much.
well im greek so we werent involed with the crusades, the crusaders invade and enslaved us you moron, read some history.
I would have to agree. Not that I haven't been involved in of that filth.
*bursts out in enormous laughter*
This place exploded quickly. It's amazing how something as quaint as religious beliefs turned all of us metalheads against each other. We're just like America now.
I just mean stuff like people and civilizations and stuff that were mentioned in the Bible that maybe were not mentioned elsewhere. Not that lack of proof = disproof, but with that type of thing if there is never any discovery of evidence of them, then it leaves a questionmark on that part of the Bible. Just an unknown. So with that type of stuff, if something is then discovered, it adds credibility to the historical/geographical/whatever accuracy of the bible. So maybe I used the wrong term. It doesn't prove it, it just adds to its credibility. And to the contrary, discoveries that contradict what is written in the Bible take away credibility. That's all I mean.
That some of the persons, places and events in the bible were/are real is no proof of the divine inspiration of the bible. Look at it this way, my history book contains some accurate information about historical persons, places and events but that does not mean my history book is the divinely inspired word of God.
The bible has however been shown to contradict itself and known facts of science and history in many places. This website is a good place to start though it is far from exhaustive and I do not vouche for the accuracy of every statement or argument... http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/
Sodom was never a real perosn(are at least I dont belive he was).
You're right, and I understand that. But the more reliable the Bible is in historcal, geographical, scientific, etc ways, the more credibility it takes on. The more credible it is in other ways, the more reassured I am in my faith. Now obviously faith has to do with the unprovable, so that is different. On the other hand (and probably more important to my faith) if you start digging up things that clearly show that the Bible is historically, geographically, scientifically wrong, then you (I) have a problem. So I didn't mean to imply historical accuracy = proof of everything in the Bible.
I started reading that site when you posted that before. So far the problem I have is that it seems to come at the whole issue assuming Christianity is false, and talking about how ridiculous it is. If Christianity were assumed true, the statements there would be ridiculous. But I have only read the intro and one other page, and I haven't got to too much "proof" yet.