A sling can be an incredibly powerful weapon when wielded by skilled hands.

Indeed. In the last part of Judges, it talks about how the tribe of Benjamin takes on the rest of Israel in battle. The Benjamites were deadly with the sling.

There is also a suggestion by some scholars that the passage is mistranslated and that according to the story, Goliath was struck in the leg

I would be interested in knowing how they came to the conclusion that the passage was mistranslated. Doesn't seem likely at all.

Yet know one, not ONE writer or educated person of time thought it worth mentioning? NOT ONE?

If that were true, then it wouldn't be in the Bible. You assume without evidence that the writer was uneducated. In fact, your entire comment is unfounded speculation, especially the remarks about the Vatican vault.

Carlo, NO other cultures of the time mentioned Troy but the Greeks, but they found the ruins of the city. I'm also sorry to inform you that they have found stella commemorating a victory over the "Sons of David"confirming a Hebrew king by that name. You will also find that if you follow the course mentioned in the Torah and in Exodus, you will find an underwater ridge the runs across the southern Red Sea the rises from the sea floor hundreds of feet on either side. You will then find all the springs listed in Exodus as you travel east finally reaching a mountain in Suadi Arabia that has a blackened top and is completely surrounded by a fence with armed Suadi guards.

I guess the Vatican and the Jews built all these geographic features to confuse earnest scientists that would live generations later.

Carlo the article was about archaeological facts, not Biblical theology or mythology. When one is engaged in archeology in the Holy Land naturally one will look for possible relationships with Biblical accounts. Some Biblical accounts may be factual, some may contain a grain of fact and others are without doubt just tall tales and tribal myths. One uses a bit of reason and evidence to tell the difference.

You say, "Ok, so when you want to explain away something its a "mistranslation" but you still want to keep the "literal word of God" crap?"

I don't want to explain away anything and the Bible is hardly the "literal word of God" to anyone with any wits and certainly not to me since I am what most people would call an atheist. There can't be a "literal word of God" if there is no God. How about if you actually read and digest what I said rather that what you think I said or would like to believe what I said. Jump to conclusions much dude?

This is an article on archeology, so how about if we talk facts and not bizarre speculation about secret documents in the vaults of the Vatican. Really now, how can you discuss secret documents that cannot be proved to exist? You begin to sound like theists who insist their "God" exists even though the existence of this "God" cannot be proved.

While you are at it, you might want to calm down and untwist your knickers too. That must pinch really badly after a while.

The assertion that Jesus was not mentioned outside of the Bible is patently false. Josephus, a non-Christian historian at the time when the Romans sacked Jewish rebels Masada writes as a matter of recent history that Jesus was a leader of a sect that the Romans crucified. It doesn't mean that he was some kind of deity, just that he was a historical figure.

In the Quran, Solomon is a Prophet, known as Sulaiman.

In the Quran, Solomon is a Prophet, known as Sulaiman.

And the knowledge of Sulaiman is taken from the Bible, same as he Quran mentions Jesus as a Prohet.

Suggestion that there was a mistranslation of "forehead" from "shin" is pretty farfetched and is not being made by any one other that a few obsure professors.

The word was "forehead" for the last 2600 years, I'll go with that.

i will never get on the blind faith wagon. you act like human error doesnt exist because its the bible. just take into consideration that the bible was written when man had NO understanding of the world. i take it for its lessons but not as actually truth. but i also believe live and let live. thanks for the entertaining debate.

DonnyL ...agreed

The bible created by Bronze Age people in the Bronze Age era. {not scientifically oriented at all}.

The World is meant for everyone. That doesn't mean everyone has to like it.

It just is!

There is no Scripture that talks about "Blind Faith".... That is a common miscomception by non Christians or those who "Their Faith Shaken"....

Just what the world needs -- something else for religious people to fight over.

@Flame77

Faith is blind.

It's the belief in something that is not tangible. Belief that is not based on proof.

That is why it is called Faith and not Scientific Evidences or Facts!

The article is about archeology.

Why do so many hate Christians on Newsvine?

thanks cathee. just what i was about to say.

just look at it like this. your not a true religious anything if you dont follow your books teaching 100%. not one religious person can say they do this. live your life. be nice to people. what more could you ask.

Carlo, what implications are you talking about? The article said finding the temple was interesting. In fact, I would say the article goes on to imply that the Sampson story is manufactured.

Archaeology is interesting for a host of reasons, but a few things are always unearthed that proves people are people the world over and always have been, both good and bad.

Evidence of banding together, of social gathering places, of community is always found. Evidence of walls, of weapons, of war and of greed and treasures also always found.

For archaeologists, it's very intersting to find out how ancient cultures survived, what knowledge and technologies existed, and things of this nature. And that does interest me as well. But, the one thing I've come to believe fully is that it's inherent to our nature to war, to want, and to fight against other humans for things of value and for control... be it political control or power over others. Land.

Many would like to believe we've come a long ways in changing our basic nature, but deep down it's inherent to us.... we may do things more politely, but the end result's the same and while there's always some exceptions to the rules, we are what we are.

The Bible has NOTHING to do with real history.

If the Bible has nothing to do with real history, why is it that the events in the Bible are always being proven? some people want to disbelieve the truth so much that even when it's literally thrown in their face, they come up with some excuse. The only misinterpretations of the Bible are by those not open to or willing to see the truth. As I study the Old Testament more, I am amazed (even though I've been a Christian over 30 years) at the prophesies told then that happened during New Testament times. I'm not here to preach, but really, if you ask God to open your mind, you will see the truth. I did, and I can honestly tell you that if not for my faith I would have been dead years ago- or living in a gutter.

rocky - because they take these stories and fairy tales from thousands of years ago and project them on all of us sane people, then present them as real and actual then tell us this is what we should believe and how we should live our lives ,it gives them an excuse to make valid their own hates , fears ,and narrow mindedness, its makes them think they know more and are superior because they have a supernatural being on their side - no matter how made up it may be- that is just a start of the nonsense , then they become involved in politics- yeah i want a president who is going to use prayer to solve problems - like down in texas - hows that drought praying going mr perry - morons

Matti Friedman is not, in my opinion, a competent journalist, and should go back to school to understand the difference between news writing and opinion.

Jhereck Carnelian, the original poster of this thread, caught the same nonsense in the original article that I did... use of words like "improbable," "one-sided version" in the "Hebrew Bible" (Judaism has never called their Torah and Talmud a "bible"), "if such a kingdom existed as described in the Bible," represents Friedman's personal biases much too strongly.

I find it offensive that his "aside" comments detract from the remarkable facts of the archaeological findings and the origins of the Philistine tribes. (Most of you probably know that we use that word, "philistine" to insult another as being barbaric and invasive... that is the etymological meaning of this early Roman label of the presumed remnants of those tribes.)

It is irrelevant, it seems to me, whether any of us see the Bible as metaphor, objective fact, or fairy tale. These posts can certainly reflect the personal beliefs of each of us, but NOT by way of contemptuous put-downs of others as Carlos indulged in.

However one regards the Bible, it should be respected as a remarkable insight to events, beliefs, and wisdom taking place in ancient times. One can question the accounts as literal facts, but that, too, is only personal opinion. To use that question as a weapon of contempt for others' beliefs is unconscionable.

Personally, for me it is the wisdom still applicable to today's world that intrigues me. And the narrative of peculiar customs we abjure today are lessons to examine... not necessarily emulate (the story of Lot is an example).

Don't forget, the early centuries before Jesus, down through the "Dark Ages" for centuries after his era, that the ability to write was limited to very few and most of the events passed down was oral tradition, not written. That suggests the stories reflect the character of the bard... the wanderers who were valued as tellers of tales.

I have no problem respecting atheists; I have a big problem if they attack the beliefs of others with insults and denigration. (I feel the same for religionists like anti-Semites and anti-Catholics.)

For me, what we called "God" does exist... and I believe each human being will actually define that image differently, including folks devout to their religion, and others may even reject the name... but not the concept. And the concept is the knowledge between right and wrong, decency and lack of it.

It seems to me that contempt for others' beliefs simply shows a primary inner fear of one's own inferiority..

@second sight

Well put.

Diane-- Are you studying the Bible in its original script and languages? The problems come during translation and copying when the words were getting too faint and pages getting too tattered to read. When the copyists were at work, they added in notes and their own words that they couldn't make out from the original text. The Bible you read in English is NOT the Bible as it was written. Mary Magdalen was not a hooker in the original version, but simply a wealthy woman.

Did you also know that the books in the Bible are not ALL the books available for inclusion at the time of the Canonization? There were many letters and books left out when the group of MEN decided what to include.

"Not sure how the literal word of God can be so badly mistranslated"

Try Greek into Latin, they didn’t even try to get it accurate.

They had popes and bishops to interpret things as to sound good, and thus their power was maintained.

Accuracy was not an option for the sheep.

The assertion that Jesus was not mentioned outside of the Bible is patently false. Josephus, a non-Christian historian at the time when the Romans sacked Jewish rebels Masada writes as a matter of recent history that Jesus was a leader of a sect that the Romans crucified. It doesn't mean that he was some kind of deity, just that he was a historical figure.

This is patently false. Every scholar worth his salt recognizes the Josephus passage as an 'obvious' forgery. Even if this was not the case, Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, making this statement (if it 'was' real, which it is not) nothing more than hearsay.

http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

(And this is fairly balanced.)

But do go on... point out just 'one' contemporary source. I'll wait.

And, let's not forget: There 'were' Roman and Jewish historians alive and writing during the time. Considering zombies were walking the earth after the crucifixion (see Matthew 27). That... would have made a few headlines, don't you think?

Good points but their are many common errors you stated.... Unrest you read Hebrew Arab AND Greek Your not studying it in the original either. The Old testament is 90% translated correctly. in the English (KJV) version the New testament was mostly (not all) in Greek... Greek and Hebrew(Strong's Concordance) are freely available you mention Mary Mag. as an example...No where in the Bible does it says she was a prostitute... That is a tradition because ""devils/demons where cast out of her". in any event she possessed "costly ointments" and "Priceless perfumes" wich accurately describes your "Wealthy".... I've read the Whole Bible and study with a Concordance.

" The Old testament is 90% translated correctly"

Translinear and translate are not even close.

"Cosmos" and "Earth" are some how the same, or "gene" and "JC" are the same?

Yeah right.

They don't try anything but bias.

Those who hate people merely due to their religious beliefs are no better than, and just as ignorant as, bigots and racists.

Second sight,

Thank you not only for your own wisdom, but also your tolerance for other's views, and especially your gentle chastisement of those who nmake unwarranted attacks on the beliefs of others.

Did you also know that the books in the Bible are not ALL the books available for inclusion at the time of the Canonization? There were many letters and books left out....

And if you bother to read them, it's not hard to see why they were left out.

The process and rationale of canonization is a fascinating study, no matter which canon you apply it to (Catholic, Jewish, Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, etc.), and well worth digging into no matter which canon you ascribe to, or even if you reject them all.

what I find interesting is the default position of the author, and many on here, that the Bible is false, even though now their archeological dig of Gath reveals consistency with the Bible, or at worst, doesn't discount the Bible. Once again, if all you look for in the Bible is error and inconsistency, God will make sure that is all you find, even as others who are open to the truth marvel at it's validation.

As always, History is written by the conquerors, not by the conquered. Not trying to argue for or against the bible, but the jews were conquered, the christians were persecuted for hundreds of years, Egypt "kicked" the children of Israel out. If the events from the bible happened (like Moses and the Red Sea), why would there be a record of them in the egyptian history? Why would the romans have kept the jewish records? Why don't we have records of the tribes of the new world? Possibly because they were mostly destroyed when the conquerors came in.

Ok, so this is funny. When I clicked on the comments there were 666 of them.

Hilarious

Danny-

Regarding the Bible being written back when people "knew nothing of the world", just don't forget that there are many references to things in the bible that "modern science" has only caught up with in the last few hundred years. things like the earth being round (Isaiah 40:22); the hydrologic cycle (Job 36:27-28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Job 37:16); ocean currents (Job 38:16); as well as many of the "sanitary practices" mentioned in the Old Testament (like quarantines, burning of clothing, etc. in the event of diseases, washing in running water, etc.); and "healthy diet" (more vegetables and grain, and less meat) have in the past couple hundred years been "backed up" by "modern science", and many ancient weapons, though obsolete, are still considered "engineering marvels". so whether or not you "buy into" the whole "God" thing, I think a very good case can be made, that the people living in those times were far from "knowing nothing about the world". I think it's fairly plain to see that they were more "knowledgeable" than we like to give them credit for (maybe because it makes us "modern folk" feel so much smarter, I don't know). The more I read about ancient civilizations, the more I'm impressed by what they appear to have known about, that so many seem to not want to acknowledge.

Also, the Bible has a real good track record regarding historical accuracy (archaeology has vindicated the Bible on numerous occasions - the Hittites, and Pontius Pilate come immediately to mind).

Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

-Then there are the "Gnostic writings" (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of john, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, most of the gospel can be reconstructed just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

In reference to accounts of first & second century historians that referred to Jesus and his followers, the "Christians", the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.” In 2002, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal stated: “Most scholars, barring the stray atheist, have already accepted Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person.”

Carlo-

Id like to mention something about that "genocide". In the early 30´s the Jews in Germany we NOT being prosecuted by the Nazis. In 1932 the World Jewish Council DECLARED WAR on Germany and the Nazi Party. The acted as insurgents and troublemakers, even committing acts of terrorism against the government.

Are you referencing this article? Which states that Jews declared war on Germany in 1933 not 1932?

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html

If so,you apparently either took it at surface value or did not recognize the headline for what it was - a blatant attempt to sell papers! The "war" was a boycott. There is no mention of "trouble making" there is mention of protests, but apparently peaceful.

You are so obviously anti-Semitic. Perhaps you should try reading something other than anti-Semitic tabloid fodder, such as:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263

The first concentration camps in Germany were established soon after Hitler's appointment as chancellor in January 1933.

And:

http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/timeline/camps.htm

Dachau , one of the first Nazi concentration camps, opened in March 1933

The following is a great example of an opinion piece with not one footnote or piece of supporting documentation:

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html

And it is either where you obtained your "facts" or it was quoted in an alternate article that used it to support their "facts" as it is quoted almost verbatim in the first 5 articles of the same theme. It puts on a great show,though, with the screaming headlines (though not the body of the article that informs that the "war" is a boycott of German goods!).

Your hatred of the Jewish people is evident in your perfect willingness to accept anti-Semitic rhetoric and propaganda.

Kosmonot...well written. FR sent.

If Goliath was as big as they say in the Old Testament, then yeah, it's unlikely. If you doubt it, go into the nearest gorilla enclosure at your zoo and hit a silverback with your sling. If you survive, you can tell me how wrong I am. I'll be watching this thread in a few months, because that's the bare minimum time you will spend in the hospital after your mauling.

Twisted, it's not that unlikely that in all of history there wouldn't be seven foot tall men and other genetic abberations. And silverback gorillas have mass, not so much height, so it wouldn't really compare. Besides, I think God supernaturally gave that stone an extra push as it flew through the air. Never know what can be accomplished by someone who is standing for God!

There are so many well reasoned, cited, and sourced posts in this thread... plus courtesy ... and perhaps most of all I learn so much I am ignorant about, clearly explained especially by Kosmonat, Levi, and many more... for that I am grateful, this is an incredibly worth-while keeper. I'm sending the link to my family and friends.

And thanks for taking the trouble to respond with the logic and facts that you have.

Fascinating information.

Accuracy was not an option for the sheep.

This is interesting as the entire book of Isiah, as unearthed as part of the Qumran find in Aramaic is pretty much in word for word correspondence with the modern translations.

The 1600 year old complete three new testaments (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrianicus), are close enough to all modern translations as to have no significant variations worth noting.

Try this same exercise with the writings of Budda.

Was Bush's name on there next to Hitlers?

why is it that the events in the Bible are always being proven?

Because the bible is a collection of oral traditions, and these were the means of recording history before writing. Oral tradition tends to be highly edited to prove a point or reinforce a belief, but at their root is usually a core of historical accuracy. Same is true for King Arthur. There is mounting historical evidence that this person was in fact a Roman soldier who brought civil peace to a kingdom. A root of fact in the farie tales.

As I study the Old Testament more, I am amazed (even though I've been a Christian over 30 years) at the prophesies told then that happened during New Testament times.

Its called editing.

what I find interesting is the default position of the author, and many on here, that the Bible is false, even though now their archeological dig of Gath reveals consistency with the Bible, or at worst, doesn't discount the Bible.

jesus h nipple. your EPIC FAIL at logic is amazing! you will literally convince yourself of anything just to make your cult and cult book seem "for real".

Let me ask you THIS question -- sicne this is the EXACT SAME application of logic you use...

Say I go visit the UK. And I find that the UK has a Prime Minister (oh my!). And I discover there are two cities there called London and Surrey (oh my!). And I discover, in the phone books, that there are families there with the last name Dursley (oh my!). And, I find that nearby Surrey there is a Zoo that has, among other things, Sankes on display (oh my!)

These are provable, factual things, among many others, that are documented in the Harry Potter stories.

So, I therefore conclude that all the outrageous claims of Withcraft, Wizardry, invisible castles used as schools for young wizards/witches, and so on -- must therefore ALSO be true.

Because all of the historic and geographic references in the Harry Potter novels can be researched and verified, THEREFORE all of the stories and claims in the Harry Potter compilation must be true, too.

THAT is the F-ED UP logic that religious whack-jobs use with the BuyBull constantly.

And that kind of logic is called one thing and one thing only: EPIC FAIL

Please, do us all a favor. Learn to read more than JUST ONE BOOK -- and, better yet, GROW THE HELL UP!

Why are comments collapsed?

1.1 and 1.4 Carlo Caraluzzo.

He has a valid argument.

Is this vine bent? One way thinking?

Unbelievable!

"Learn to read more than JUST ONE BOOK"

Wow, such ignorance, yet you display it so proudly. I've learned that a fool speaks to display his wisdom, yet shows his ignorance; while a wise man listens and learns.

The Bible is not just one book. It is a collection of 66 books written over a period of about 4000 years by many authors ranging from slaves to kings. It's authenticity has been proven time and again from all scholars that have looked into the issue.

I assure you, if solid proof of the non-authenticity of the Bible was ever found, it would be paraded through the streets by all who hate Christians while trumpeted from the highest rooftops.

@steve3003;

Some people abuse the Report button to try and censor things they don't want other people to know. Eventually, this will probably lead to a policy change on Newsvine to take action against such abusers.

Usually, what I do in such a case is copy and paste it anew. Then they realise that by abusing the 'report' button, they just end up with it being seen even more.

I don't think I've had my 'unpopular' postings collapsed more than twice before they give up.

I once saw an unpopular posting collapsed that had over 100+ positive votes.

lol Another Battle Religionnist of Science Vs Religionnists ahh the " Never ending Story" :-))

In my opinion...

1st, not sure why Carlo Caraluzzo was "collapsed by the community". What he stated may, and in my opinion, seems true for the most part. Hell, even a friend of mine that is Jewish has stated on many occasions that what you read, hear and see are not necessarily the truth because there are many liars and deceivers out there. He was implying that the people running the media and business were the ones deceiving the population. When you look at the media, legal, financial and medical systems, you may think, "Wow, there are a lot of Jewish people here." In fact, how does less than 2 % of the total population (by born religion) end up running most of the media outlets, and much of the legal, financial and medical systems? Answer, it may be the same thing many groups are guilty of...profile hiring and promotion. If you are Jewish, and you are working for a Jewish run company, you will likely get promoted, hired, etc, just because. BS a Jew may say? How do you explain the dominance in the aforementioned industries? 98% of the population sucks when compared to a few percent of Jews? BS! I'm not fooled and even my Jews for Jesus friend and his family are not fooled. While hiding behind slavery from the Egyptian times and the holocaust from WWII, many Jewish people are committing crimes of racism and religious discrimination against the same people whose families saved many from the holocaust. So now the US is friends with terrorist Israel and we all have to watch what the Jews want us to watch and believe what the Jews want us to believe.

You people need to wake up and smell the coffee! The reason that over a billion people pretty much hate us is not because we are for freedom or we are Americans...it is because we are Jewish...in my opinion<---for legal purposes. I can't tell you how many times I've listened to Jewish bosses say to another Jew on the phone or even in person, "I'm Jewish" or "I'm Jewish too". I've never heard a person that was some form of Christian voluntarily give that information, especially in a business situation.

Anything that comes out of "Israel" and is stated or written by a Jew should be taken with a grain of salt...in my opinion, of course. And watch out, credit just may be taken away from you if you are not Jewish. Yes, I've noticed an excessive amount of thievery by Jews in business...you come up with a better way of doing business, or invent something and the next thing you know, you get a pat on the back, but Somebody Goldberg, or Somebody Einstein is getting the promotion or the credit...very frustrating. But when you think of it, it makes sense...if you are Jewish.

All my statemnents in this commentary/blog are my opinion and not representative of the beliefs or views of Newsvine or any other social media. I have not performed any studies and my statements above may not be true or false, for that matter, or based on any fact at all.

Do your research and judge for yourself! Additionally, I swear, I am not a tribal Jew and never have been!

Lets say for argument sake your r correct Bloggerich. Of all the people America could be aligned with I'm glad its the Jewish community... You have one point that is Why the Arabs call us "Zionist" and lay much blame in the world at our feet because of it.. but this is still America... They simply lived and succeeded under the American system and like it or Not Israel is a sovergn nation... I rather support them and befriend their power and infuence than distance the ones you admit have much control and wealth, Never mind the Bible makes clear who we should support.. The UK is our ally, The Canadians are (at least) commerce allies, Some former Warsaw PAC are our allies.... why not Israel our only true ally in the middle east. Do you actually belied If We sided with Palestine they would be a stronger ally?... Hamas which really is a terrorist oragnization recognized by the world would not let that peace even start (Palestine said they would deal but Hamas has blocked any deal that does not include the West bank. You say what the "media" and other problems are but you offer no solutions.... You need to wake up and smell the now... you mention a present "problem" with no solution to it so I f I was "king" so to speak I would be the Ally to Him who would be my Ally.. also your statement do sound a bit Antisemitic... I don't think that was your intent but there was nothing positive you had to say about Jewish Business.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer!

What does that make us Flame? Are we sort of friends with Israel or are we Israel's best friend? We sure do get caught up in a lot of their problems, don't we. We sure are the number one contributor, aren't we?

Less than 1.7% of the US population by religion controls a considerable amount of all of our major industries...control of the media, control of the financial market and a strong hand in both medical and legal. Everything needed to control a population.

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." The art of war.

I guess my bottom line is that the other 98% needs to start acting Jewish...follow Jewish business practices and stop worrying about being what Jews refer to as the "Good Christian", or else you are going to find yourself being dug up 3,000 years from now by Mr. Goldman while, in an article, Mrs. Finkelstein refers to your skeleton as a Philistinian who had his gluteus kicked by a rock throwing Jew.

So they found rocks, and this proves the bible is more than a just collection of stories and fables, how?

I'm just thinking of how much money I am going to save on rent when I move into a whale now that I know it can be done. I always wanted a house boat. I guess I should get started on my witch burning while I'm at it.

The author writes like this somehow adds proof that the stories in the bible were real, and that is disingenuous. Did I click on fox.com by mistake?

Too much to reply to each so here's a compilation:

Jherek Carnelian: The story isn't about a guy getting hit with a sling it's about a smaller guy getting help from God to defeat a bigger guy.

Carlo Caraluzzo: *"Yet no one", not Know one.

Anilof: As already pointed out, the Josephus passage is a well know fraud.

Rockyroad-531554: It's not Christians that are hated, it's the pervasive "knowledge" that the Bible is correct and there is a God we just have to find him. This outlook, held by MANY Christians, is very pervasive and is very condescending. Atheists are given no respect and have gotten to a point of knee-jerk back-lash even before the Christians start crowing about the "proof of the Bible".

Diane-777259:Fair enough, parts of the Bible did come from real experiences. But, as mentioned elsewhere, the Bible is many books and just because one of those books is true doesn't mean the entire tome is valid. Also, since most of it was written from at least 6-10 A.D. it's not hard to "prophesy". - And please don't preach to people that are proclaimed atheists. It's very condescending. They do have minds, maybe try appealing to their human nature.

Second Sight: Does your problem with Atheists attacking Christians extend to Christians attacking Atheists too? Just because you believe them doesn't make them right.

Flame77_7: 90% correct? You do realize that King James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. (Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300099304)

Kozmonot: I have trouble taking your text seriously when the first thing you say, you get wrong (as well as repeat the Josephus fraud, which doesn't help your case). Eratosthenes not only knew the Earth was round he calculated the circumference AND the tilt of the Earth on it's axis. How's that for knowing nothing of the world? As well as being able to create works that still mystify modern engineers, I think you could do with a little agist modesty.

space guy: "No significant variations worth noting"? Are you serious? What about Mark 16? What about John 21? The Pericope Adulterae? How about the fact that the Gospel of John was not written by John? No variations? You need to read more.

Steve S-828431: I refer you to some of the same points of interest I gave to Space Guy. There is plenty of question regarding several aspects of the Bible. It's "authenticity" is most definitely not a foregone conclusion.

Henry-

First, Could you explain in more detail what about the "first thing" I said was "wrong"? instead of just stating it as a foregone conclusion? (it may just be a simple case of not stating my point clearly enough to avoid misunderstanding).

Second, could you explain more clearly what you claim to be "Fraudulent" about Josephus?

Third, I didn't mention people like Eratosthenes, because my point was simply that contrary to claims made earlier, the Bible does indeed show that people knew more about the world than some people claim.

Fourth, I wasn't claiming anything like "mystifying" modern engineers. Only that many examples of ancient engineering are still "respected", as it were, by modern engineers as being impressive - especially considering the more primitive tools, etc.

Danny- Regarding the Bible being written back when people "knew nothing of the world", just don't forget that there are many references to things in the bible that "modern science" has only caught up with in the last few hundred years. things like the earth being round (Isaiah 40:22);

Modern Science hasn't just caught up to that. It was known for thousands of years. I believe this is a case of you being sarcastic rather than wrong.

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”

That has been proven to be a forgery.

There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says...

It's not "controversial", it's fake. There's a difference.

And my point about mystifying modern engineers was in response to the misunderstanding that you were attacking the ancients as not knowing more than the "modern world". Sorry for the confusion.

Henry -

I'm also curious about your response to space guy. What exactly is the nature of your problem with Mark 16? There are a number historical "unknowns" to deal with, and many different schools of thought regarding the Gospel of Mark, so if you're referring to the "short/long ending" issue, there isn't much to make definitive arguments about (most modern versions of the Bible are honest enough to point out where such "questions" or "differing schools of thought" exist). It's not even a foregone conclusion that the other gospels "copied" Mark (that's just one school of thought). It's also, not really a doctrinal problem, since Jesus' resurrection is mentioned in Paul's writings that are widely held as pre-dating the gospel accounts.

Also, What, specifically, are your questions/problems with John 21?

Regarding the Gospel of John not being written by the Apostle John - So what? The book was anonymously written, and was only "traditionally" assumed to be written by the Apostle John, whether or not the Apostle John actually wrote it doesn't change the content of the writing, and doesn't really do any real "damage" to the Bible. Many books of the Bible cannot be attributed to a particular author with 100% certainty - the authorship is often based on a "best guess based on available information" (much like science often uses with hypotheses). But whether the Gospel of John was actually written by the Apostle John himself, or was just his teachings written by someone else, does little to alter the contents of the book.

As for the Pericope Adulterae, while there are questions about the wording of the passage compared to "other similar stories", as well as questions about it's origin and authorship (as with the entire Gospel of John), and the fact that most (but not all) manuscripts contain the passage, there are two points I'd like to make.

1. The number of manuscripts and the age differences between them allow for a number of possible explanations for "variations".

2. Even if it were a case of "not original", it still does not change the essential doctrines of the book, or the Bible as a whole. The fact that the main themes of the passage (sin, mercy, repentance, forgiveness, etc.) are found throughout the the Gospel of John, and the Bible as a whole means that regardless of that passage being included or not, it really doesn't change the essential message of either the book, or the Bible as a whole. It is another one of those passages, that is often listed as one of those "questions or differing opinions exist" passages.

Steve-564412: I would be interested in knowing how they came to the conclusion that the passage was mistranslated. Doesn't seem likely at all.

Well, the Hebew word "meitzach" is usually translated "forehead". But the Philistines had helmets that protected their heads (as well as the fact that the human skull is pretty thick).

However earlier in the passage they made a big deal of describing the leg greaves or "mitzchat" that Goliath wore. So there are some that argue one was transposed for the other. given their lexigraphic similarities, not nearly as far-fetched as one might think.

Snowdragon-1863859: Suggestion that there was a mistranslation of "forehead" from "shin" is pretty farfetched and is not being made by any one other that a few obsure professors.

I don't mean to push one theory over another but British rabbi Jonathan Magonet is not an "obscure professor". It's not like there's only three people that think this might be believable. It is a valid argument for the passage.

Kozmonot: Space Guy's assertion was "No significant variations worth noting". The list you brought up is significant variations worth noting. These are not slight misspellings in name or pluralization. These are significant discrepancies in content, point of view, nuance, authorship, validity, etc.

How can you defend inerrancy, or at least "No significant variations worth noting" while admitting that one of the books was a forgery? I'm sorry but missing twelve verses is a significant variation. Trading between long, short, and no ending is a significant variation.

And if you're going to bring up Markan priority, that is one manner of thinking but so is the Farrer hypothesis and the two-source hypothesis. All of which point, linguistically and syntactically, to collusion between the three gospels. And you know as well as I we're not talking about telling the same stories. We're talking about telling the same stories using the same words, grammar, spelling, and punctuation. And don't bother bringing up Q, dismissing Q was Farrer's whole argument.

As to your points:

1) I have no problem with this as an apologetic stand. But then you have to drop inerrancy. Can't have inerrancy and discrepancies, doesn't work.

2) But since Space Guy is basing his argument on the simple statement that there are "No significant variations worth noting" the fact that there are versions of this gospel that are missing this (and other) parables is significant. Sure, if you want to change what the point of the discussions is you are bound to find a defensible position. But since we have but to look above and see what his words were, you're stuck with his proclamation, which is patently false.

OK. So I guess we need to begin with definitions of terms. For instance, while I don't know what his "intent was", I was trying to look at the possibility that maybe, "what he said" wasn't really "what he meant", as there are also a few different schools of thought regarding the "definition" of what is meant by "inerrant". I was just exploring different possible trains of thought, such as "the message, themes, etc. are inerrant" (eg. Relationship between God & man, sin, redemption, etc.) versus "there are no misspellings, questions about any words, passages, authors, etc."

I've never placed a ton of weight with Q, since it is basically as, yet, a hypothetical document.

Regarding forgery, let's be somewhat fair and say, "possible forgery" or "alleged forgery", as there are many historical unknowns, and possible explanations that wouldn't necessarily demand a verdict of "forgery". Even when we go with "the most likely explanation", there's still a chance we could be wrong (as with the authorship of John - we really don't know for sure).

Well, even thematic inerrancy is a loosing argument. Just take a look at "Drunk With Blood: God's killings in the Bible" by Steve Wells.Or simple questions like "Is it wrong to lie?"

No - Exodus 1:18-20
Joshua 2:4-6
1 Samuel 21:2
1 Kings 22:21-22
2 Kings 8:10
James 2:25

Yes - Exodus 20:16
Exodus 23:1
Exodus 23:7
Leviticus 6:2-4
Leviticus 19:11
Deuteronomy 5:20
Proverbs 12:22
Proverbs 13:5
Proverbs 24:28
Luke 3:14
Ephesians 4:25
Colossians 3:9
James 3:14
Revelation 21:8
Revelation 21:27

Now, yes, there are more for "lying is wrong" than for "lying is right" but the discrepancy is there, no question about it. So, again, "no significant variations worth noting" doesn't quite make it.

P.S. If "alleged forgery" helps you sleep better than "alleged forgery" it is.

What's funny here is that most of the hateful pissed off remarks are the bible bashers, not the bible thumpers. If you go back and read, you have to look around to find a bible thumper being verbally abusive. Those of you bible bashers are just beatn the hell out of everyone else for simply having a belief. What's even better is those that are bashing are the same people that say that they are fighting for everyone's rights and freedoms. Don't these people have the right to believe what they want? The first religious comment was that from a bible basher that couldn't seem to hold back.

Whew! I didn't think I'd ever get to the end of that thread.

What a lot of baloney is being sliced here today. YEOW!

I enjoyed the article and found it very interesting. I did not take anything away from it questioning the Bible. Nor did I take anything away from it confirming anything in the Bible.

What I did get from it (among other things) was the knowledge that SOME things in the Bible may have actually be based on actual Philistine culture and practices of the time when David and Solomon (if actual historical persons) would have been alive.

Very interesting.

The rest of you need to get a life.

" Jumping into a hornet nest"

Any one bother to look at the angle of Trajectory between a " shepherd boy and a sling" the angle of release from the sling would be at the LOWEST point being the Point of the greater momentum, Taking the " Giant" to be about 8 foot tall, would mean that even IF the giant wore a helmet with a Protection normally assumed to extend over the nose, the Trajectory of a Stone could well still do damage to the Point lust above the eye, being named " forehead" is that right?

Regarding forgery, I was only pointing out that if it's wrong for one person to "assume" no forgery without allowing for the possibility of being wrong, then it's just as wrong for another person to "assume" forgery without allowing for the possibility of being wrong. Even if we go with the "most likely explanation", there's still a possibility we could be wrong (since we don't have all the evidence).

Exodus 1:18-20 - It is only mentioned that they lied, not that it was "ok", or that they would not be accountable for their actions. They certainly had the option of telling the truth. It may be inferred that they did so out of fear of Pharoah, but it is not stated, so this is only an inference.

Joshua 2:4-6 - again, it is only recorded that Rahab lied, not that it was "ok", or that she would not be accountable for her action. She also had the option of telling the truth, and again, it may be inferred that she lied out of fear, but it is not specifically mentioned.

1 Samuel 21:2 - I'm assuming you meant 1 Samuel 21:12 (as that is more relevant to dishonesty). Again, no commentary that what David did was "ok", or that he wouldn't have to account for his actions, only a statement that he did it. Fear also seems to be implied as a reason here (though, again, not specifically mentioned).

1 Kings 22:21-22 - This is an interesting passage, though again, reading the entire chapter gives better insight on what is happening. It actually concerns God's judgement of Aram, the King of Israel at the time. Since Aram refused to listen to what God was telling him through the prophet Micaiah (whom Aram says he hates for not telling him what he wants to hear), and was trying to convince Jeoshaphat, King of Judah to follow him into battle going against what God was saying through Micaiah, God pronounced judgement and in effect, said "Ok, you want to listen to lies, instead of me? I'll let you do just that, and get yourself killed in the process." God let him do what he was going to do anyway - listen to "lies" from others, instead of the "truth" the God was trying to tell him. Also of note is the biblical concept that God makes "all things" work to further his plans. Even "evil" people and spirits. It appears that since God knows what these people and spirits "do anyway", he is able to "strategize" in such a way that He accounts for human weakness, and the "evil" that men and spirits do.

2 Kings 8:10 - Let's include the whole section - 2 Kings 8:7-15. Again, just a mention that it was done, not that it was "ok", or that it would not have to be accounted for. Also, there is more than one possible interpretation of Elisha's statement, given the context of the rest of the passage. Elisha knew the "evil" that Hazael would do, and what he would become - hence the part about "staring" at Hazael until he was ashamed, and his weeping. Even though stating that God said that Hazael's father, Ben-Hadad would die, Elisha may have been telling Hazael to "do what he (Hazael) was going to do anyway". Since the passage ends with what seems to be Hazael "smothering" his father and becoming king, this may be the case. Whatever the case, the "lie" is not "condoned", and no mention that it would not be accounted for (for Elisha, a lie would mean thereafter known as a "false prophet" - which could result in his death).

James 2:25 - Rahab is "commended" for helping the spies, but again, nowhere is it mentioned that her deception was "good" or "ok", or that it wouldn't have to be accounted for.

Like I said earlier, it appears that in most of these cases, people did what we all so often do - lie when we're afraid. Does the Bible say that God does not like lying - of course. Does that mean that people (even so-called "good" people) don't do it? Of course not. The Bible only mentions that these people have the same "weaknesses" and fell into the same kinds of "bad behavior" as is common to all men. It doesn't say that it was "ok" that they lied, or that God "didn't care" if they lied or deceived people, and it doesn't say that they were (or would be) not held accountable. It just portrays a bit of "honesty" about these people - that they were just as "human" as the rest of us.

Of for heaven's sake.

The sling is an ancient weapon, short ranged and very deadly in the hands of an experienced slinger. While David is supposed to have used smoothed stones from a nearby river, actually sling projectiles were cast in lead and were even inscribed with words like "Ouch" (in the appropriate language of course) and "Take That" and so on. Slingshots have even been known to pierce armor.

So, while the Biblical tale of David and Goliath may be mythology it is "possible" that an experienced combatant could fell a much larger adversary with a sling from a safe distance.

Just sayin'

Kozmonot: You're going to make me do this, aren't you? Fine.

In Genesis 12:17 the LORD plagues Pharaoh for believing Abraham's lie about his wife.

In Genesis 20:3 rather than condemn Abraham (for the same "wife is my sister" lie) he threatens to kill Abimelech for messing around with another mans wife. Even though he KNOWS Abimelech has been lied to.

As for Joshua 2:4-6 was simply the lie. She was rewarded by being sparred the destruction of Jericho in Joshua 6:25. And she is praised in James 2:24 for "doing works". Those "works" would be lying to hide the men. If being "commended" for lying is not enough for you to see the duality of the situation then I can't go any further.

Why was no effort made on your part to reconcile these passages with the ones about not lying? The Bible doesn't say it can't be done, That's not the point being made. The point being made is that people are being asked to lie AND being told not to. It's contradictory. The book contradicts itself.

OK, what about things like Gen 2:22 "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac..." but in Gen 16:15 Hagar bare Abraham a son, Ishmael. So, was Issac an only son or not?

These kinds of inconsistencies are replete throughout the Bible.

seems he does not understand what the modern world calls " war propaganda" Interesting how we accept " truth" as being " what one needs to know" it times where ones life is in danger, but when it comes to a particular book " Truth is absolute" wonders what is the word mitigating? why is it used in court cases? so when one is in fear of their Lives and knows that a " Husband will be Killed" but a Brother might be spared, is it " wise" for one to use " diplomacy to save ones life"?

Amazing the Multiplicity of standards, it is ok for an evolutionist to go against evolution, by accepting " unnatural sexual acts" but not ok for someone to use " half truths to save ones life".

"This is interesting as the entire book of Isiah, as unearthed as part of the Qumran find in Aramaic is pretty much in word for word correspondence with the modern translations"

Thats funny, right up there with "mono gene" is "JC", exactly?

Try the translation for your self, the words don't match unless thats what your looking for. Then anything will do.

Henry-

I didn't bother with the passages that condemned lying because it seemed a foregone conclusion that we probably agreed that those passages indeed said lying was wrong. Our difference seemed to be regarding the "problem passages" so I focused on those. After all, it seemed to make more sense to start with the fact that the larger number of references said that lying was bad and then interpret the apparent "argument from silence" in the "problem passages" from the more often stated "lying is bad" idea. I reasoned that if lying is elsewhere repeatedly, explicitly condemned, then the assumption should be that unless it is specifically and explicitly named as a "good thing" in a "problem passage", that one probably should not infer from silence that is is treated as such, and look for other possible explanations, such as the idea that (in modern language) "Rahab was praised for putting her beliefs into action by showing kindness and mercy to the spies by helping them" - "However, since it is a 'given' that lying is 'bad', she should not be praised for lying, since she certainly had other options."

Also, I still don't see anywhere in any of those passages, where anyone is actually told or instructed to lie - perhaps you could point out where they are specifically told to lie.

One of the recurring ideas in the Bible is that God works His plans (and sometimes blesses people) in spite of people's actions, not just because of them. Romans Chapter 9 says some things about this. There are also many "realistic" examples in the Bible, of people that God uses for a purpose, despite their "screwed up attempts" to "do what seems best to them at the time". Abraham and David are some examples. David was referred to as "a man after God's own heart" - but that did not mean his "sins" were in any way considered "good" - it just referred to his overall attitude and heart in general (including admitting his sins and his humble acceptance of punishment for them).

In the case of Rahab, she was praised for receiving the spies and sending them off in a safe direction - never praised for lying (that is by inference only). She appears to have had a "changed heart" out of her fear of God and His "people" - that could be the real cause for praise. Besides, the fact that the spies agreement to her request of safety does not specifically mention it was because she lied, only that she helped them. What we have to go on is (that she is later praised for), is that she 1.Took them in, 2.Sent them off in a safe direction. James 2:25 literally says: "In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?" It says nothing about her "lying", and since what James seems to be doing in this passage is giving examples of his statement, "faith without works is dead" (the point being, if beliefs do not affect your actions - your "beliefs" are worthless), It is most likely that what he is "praising" was her willingness to put her belief into action - not every single thing she did. Considering that a few verses up in James 2:8-13, while naming some of the commandments, he seems to be focusing on mercy towards others, he is most likely praising her for showing mercy towards the spies - not praising her for the act of lying. It is certainly a likely possibility that all she is praised and allowed safety for is her willingness to help - despite the fact that she "did wrong in the process" (which is never "praised explicitly" and the act (of lying) is soundly condemned numerous places elsewhere in the Bible).

The fact that the Bible says that every single one of us is "sinful", means that God has to deal with and work with and through "sinful people". The real wonder is that there is any "mercy" towards any of us at all. When the Bible speaks in terms of the "big picture", it doesn't "condone" people's "screw ups" - it focuses on the larger success of God's plans in the "big picture".

As for Abraham's "son"? It appears to be a simple issue of "legitimacy" - it is not uncommon for an "illegitimate son" to not be considered a "true" son. God showed some mercy towards Hagar and Ishmael, but they clearly were not "part of His plan for Abraham" (just an instance of Abraham and Sarah "screwing things up", by trying to carry out "God's plan" their own way).

Just because some things are explicitly mentioned and others aren't, doesn't mean automatically that there is a necessary contradiction, or that one was "guilty" and another wasn't, after all the Bible is clearly states that all will be judged by God and have to give an account for their deeds, words,etc. There are also laments about "the wicked" prospering while "the righteous" seemingly do not. When the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel went into captivity (Isaiah, Jeremiah), God used the "ungodly" to punish "His people". Apparently God can use even those who "oppose Him" to accomplish His plans. This seems to give credence to the biblical idea of His complete sovereignty, and that we (of "finite" minds) cannot fully comprehend the ("infinite") mind of God, and that we often make incorrect assumptions about Him based on our limited reasoning ability (it doesn't make sense to me, therefore it must be wrong). No, we're not expected to "check our brains at the door", but simply to consider that there is a mind greater than our understanding at work and that it is possible that because we only see a small part of the "big picture" that we may be making erroneous assumptions based on that. An example being, when looking at these passages under discussion. There appears to be contradictory ideas at work. One attitude is to stop there and decide that there must be a mistake, or falsehood, etc. based on our limited knowledge and understanding. Another is to think along the lines of, "OK, there appears to be a problem here. Is there a possibility that both passages could be true? If so, what would that entail, and would that 'violate' the integrity of the overall claims of the Bible (regardless of my personal opinions)?" The route we take would seem to indicate something of our "predispositions" Are we "looking for a reason" to fortify our already held beliefs? If we've already decided "it's not true", or something along those lines, we won't bother spending much time trying to ask "is this truly a "problem", or am I just missing something? Is it reconcilable - even if it's in a way that I personally don't agree with, or understand?" If we're trying to give the Bible at least a "fair chance", we have to admit that there is a possibility that the previously mentioned questions might actually have merit (note that this same line of reasoning works with all kinds of issues outside the Bible as well - seemingly contradictory court testimonies, historical accounts, news reports, etc.) I'm also willing (if you so desire) to delve into the whole issue of "sin as an accepted fact in the Bible" and "God sees and knows people's hearts better than we do", so He is in a better position to make decisions on timing and severity of consequences of "sin" based on individuals, and His plans. There are many things in the Bible that my "personal opinions" do not agree with, but that doesn't rule out the point that many of those "problem areas" can indeed be reconciled with other biblical ideas and themes without "violating" the integrity of the Bible - even if I don't think it's fair, logical, etc.).

Eagle-

Using the concept of "war" is interesting. It is quite understandable that the further down the chain of command they are, soldiers are given less information about the "whole plan" and mostly information specific to their "role" in the plan - they are still informed (or are supposed to be anyway) of what is known as "the commander's intent" - or what the intended objective is, so that in the event they run into a situation not covered explicitly in their orders, they will have a way of "judging the value of their actions" (i.e. - will this action bring us closer to our objective without violating other specific orders, rules or goals?). A soldier has the freedom to make certain decisions. A soldier may make a decision that wins the skirmish or battle, but also violates other explicit orders, or rules and can wind up being both praised and punished for his actions. Yes, he showed initiative and quick thinking, and perhaps saved many lives; but he also disobeyed direct orders that may have had negative consequences he had not foreseen (but the commander had, which is why the order was given in the first place). These sort of ideas show up in the Bible as well. People can't see the "whole plan", but are given information like the "commanders intent", and specific rules, orders, etc. When we're not sure what to do, we're supposed to use those specific rules and orders and "commander's intent" to guide our decisions. We also may make decisions and take actions that are partly praiseworthy and partly shameful (sort of like, "your intentions were good, but you still did wrong"). The idea that "Since I don't know the 'whole plan' must mean that there isn't one, or that nobody is actually in charge of this battle", while a tempting thought at times for a soldier, is rarely a serious consideration. Also, as a soldier spends more time in the military, and moves up through the chain of command, he tends to gain a newer, better understanding of "the other side" - (the leader's side), and often realizes how little he understood it and how often he made incorrect assumptions on what it was like for the leaders.

Abraham, did not lie. Sarah was his half sister. But I am sure even that is going to open up a can of worms to the "cavemen" mentality of some people.

Anyways, When you read the "whole" bible. First of all. The Almighty has put "all" into the light. The good and bad. From his people to those outside. From the beginning to the end. Yes, even today. I think I am done. I don't want to go out like "Samson" Although I deserve it. It's all yours. Grow mighty in spirit and truth that comes from above. FOREVER.

Kozmonot

As you say, this is simply an exercise in deciding how much we wish to fortify our already held beliefs. Or how much we are willing to ignore in the pursuit of our beliefs.

To think that these are the few inconsistencies held in the Bible is folly. This is a small sampling of the inconsistencies within a single version of the Bible. This does not even begin to address the staggering inconsistencies across the varied versions and, indeed, numerous canons of scripture. It is apparently well within your ability to ignore and/or rationalize these discrepancies to the justification that you are committing a greater good. Be well in that pursuit. I wish you all the luck in the world and hope you find your road easy.

I, on the other hand, simply cannot reconcile the vast differences, discrepancies, and variances within a cogent framework of belief. I can't reconcile passages like Matt 9:18 with Mark 5:22-23. In one the daughter is "now dead" and in the other she "lieth at the point of death". So is she dead or not? There's things like Matt 8:5-8 where a centurion approaches Jesus. But when Luke tells the story (Luke 7:1-7) it's the centurion's servant that approaches Jesus, not the centurion himself. That's not an oversight or slip of the pen. That's actually stating two different things.

And these are but a few of the thousands of problems I have with the scripture, the dogma, the attitude, the entire concept in a modern scientific world.

With that in mind, I again wish you well and hope you have all the luck you could want. I, unfortunately for some, cannot follow. I simply don't have it in me.

Kozmo.... you rock man... you are nailing those scriptures... I can see you'v read the Whole Bible while those who pick and choose to make a point never have (The Whole thing)

"2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.".

@Henry... My 90.% statement is speaking of the OLD Testament... The Talmud and other Hebrew text are readily available for comparison and There is Found "little" variation (some words/Precepts are not directly translatable." So let me clarify for you again and any one else. THE OLD TESTAMENT IS 90% Translated CORRECTLY in the KJV You run into larger error with these newer translation. The largest point of Contention IS NOT THE OLD among the translators... it was and always shall be the NEW...Why because JESUS has that type of effect on people. I could mention Moses, Mohammed, Buddha... No prob. Mention Jesus and then we get a instant argument.....

One last thing about the article above. I KNOW that the find doesn't PROVE That the Bible accounts are true. IT does show that MANY of the descriptions in the Bible are ACCURATE.. construction of buildings, locations, Kings and Lands etc. However be it known I am a Believer and a Jesus deciple.... so I Believe The whole Bible.

One more thing Henry... The inconsistencies of the Bible...Name Any Historical Book....let say High school text book.... you would not be able to count the inconsistencies....never mind scientific "fact" inconsistencies.... Their is enough "consistencies" to convict you of sin.... "Jesus came and to preach.... live as an example... died for your sins... if you do not accept Him..." There is no inconsistencies in Jesus message...not one. As for Josephus...... Every modern Historian (except you maybe) agree to these three facts: There was a man named Jesus.... He put to death for His beliefs.... He had many followers...... His body was never found." Which one of these do you disagree with

Look, Kosmonot, Flame77_7, I never claimed to be able to prove the Bible was a fake. I never claimed to be able to prove Christianity was an abomination. I don't really care. I was simply refuting the statement that there were "No significant variations worth noting". Anyone that has bothered to look at a list of apostles can tell you there are inconsistencies worth noting. Heck, anyone that's gotten to Genesis chapter 2 can tell you there are two different creation accounts. One has man before the animals, the other has man created after. One has woman created from man the other has man and woman created together. Those are significant inconsistencies.

As for the statement "THE OLD TESTAMENT IS 90% Translated CORRECTLY in the KJV..." it is simply ridiculous to make a statement like that. Anyone that knows more than one language knows there is no such thing as being "translated correctly". Yes, you can translate it wrong, burro (in Spanish) does not mean foot. But to present an idea, a complex and nuanced idea, as being translated correctly first you'd have to have the original document, and none exist. Oh, there are old copies. The Dead Sea Scrolls are thousands of years old, but they are not original texts. Second you run into simple syntactic problems. For example, in Spanish there is no word for "toe". That's not to say they have no way to communicate the idea, in fact it is said "dedo de pie". But that is translated as "finger of the foot". The idea is understandable but it's not the same as having a word for it. They cannot, for example create the structure "toe-head". I'm sure they could come close to the idea, maybe some sort of derogatory phrase regarding intelligence. But it's not quite the same. It doesn't have the same flavor the same nuance as "toe-head". Try and translate the phrase "beggars can't be choosers" into German. What you will get is a phrase that more closely resembles "In a pinch, even the Devil will eat flies". And that's with modern languages and known context. Now imagine trying to figure out similes and metaphors that are over two thousand years old in over five dead languages. How you can have the temerity to suggest that can be translated "90% correctly" is beyond me.

For instance, at creation(Gen 1:2), is רוח אלהים (ruwach 'elohiym) the "wind of god", "spirit of god"(i.e., the Holy Spirit in Christianity), or a "mighty wind" over the primordial deep? In Hebrew, רוח(ruwach) can mean "wind","breath" or "spirit".

Unless, of course, you are simply talking out of the side of your mouth (a phrase they don't have in Japanese, by the way). Since you have the unmitigated gall to cast aspersions my way, I feel justified in casting a few of my own. You don't know Aramaic, do you? How about ancient Greek? Sanskrit? Ancient Hebrew? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess, "no".

And even if the translations are correct there are inconsistencies and variances and incongruities abound... in the OLD TESTAMENT. Let's start with the first book, Genesis. Not only do we have the two conflicting accounts of the creation myth, we also have Gen 2:17 where God tells Adam that of the Tree of Knowledge "thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." But when Adam does eat of it in Gen 3:6 he does not die. What happened? In fact, according to the Bible he lived another 930 years! (Gen 5:5) That's not just missing by a couple of days. God was off by 930 years!

But, you know what, I'm sure you and other apologetics have a reason for that. I'm sure there's some way you can look at errors like this and rationalize them away. and you know what? Be my guest. You are more than welcome to make up whatever story you need to, if it makes you happy. I'm not here to convert anyone. I couldn't convert you if I wanted to. You are on your own when it comes to what you believe.

I only meant to post that there are inconsistencies in the Bible. Old and New Testament. Despite your particular translation. There are missing passages from one version of canon to the next. There are different definitions of canonical scripture depending on the needs of the religion. There are scriptural texts the various Counsels didn't see fit to canonize back when man decided what was and was not "The Bible". These are facts that cannot be ignored. Rationalized away in favor of "faith" sure. But not ignored.

Flame77_7, I wish you the same as I wished Kosmonot, good health and happy journey. I hope you find all the comfort you need in your beliefs. Hold them strong and dear. I would counsel not to besmirch the character of those you don't know. If I had been one of my many, more scholastic, friends the crack about never having read the whole Bible would have been met quite differently. But I don't happen to bridle at ad homenim attacks like that. I recognize them for the wild flailing they are and move on. I wish you all the luck in the world and may your faith sustain you in the days to come.

Well actually I wish the same for you as well... no attacks... To clarify My complete statement is "They Obviously have not read the whole bible OR simply do not believe in its contents... you said a lot in your post and you make an intelligent, well thought out argument... If God will we could sit down at a coffee shop and continue the discussion but ill try to answer in brief.

1. 90% statement. your logic is flawed about translation because the original text is all that is available... there are no "original" text save the Hebrew... wind, breath, spirit in the old.... The Holy Ghost in the new IS called the "Pneuma" or Breath of God.... When God spoke in the Old and said "Let us make Man" Who was US?

Translate the word GOD and you get the "Plural" You see God, Son, Holy Spirit in Genesis and in the New Testament.... There is no other translation... If any one should know It be The Jews... It is one of the most common errors people of Great intelligence make.... "How can it be "original?" There was only the OLD testament IN HEBREW and ARAMAIC, Oral traditions before Jesus.... When Jesus said "IT IS WRITTEN" He quoted was from the OLD... There was NO OTHER source, secret scriptures. Unknown "mysterious" books. If there is any "mis-interpretations" in the KJV... Ask a RABBI"

2, Contradiction of "surely you will die" When God made Adam, Eve there was never any "time limit" on his life. After he "ate" the fruit the clock was ticking on his life.... It was part of the Punishment. No contradiction.

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Further proof keep reading...

Gen 3:22-23 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (23) Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

There is more but.... the rest doesn't matter.... My point is you can go to three different schools and They will have "inconsistencies" in the same historical events backed up by the "facts"... I submit that the Bible is no more inconsistent, or "unbelievable" than any other "History Book". The Bible is the most studied book in History... Countless scholars (smarter than you and me) may doubt its veracity, God's involvement, and even it's accounts . They called them stories, fairy tails, even deceptions but What it says They by in large agree. For a Christian... God will only judge on What you have and know... not what translation you think you should have.

God WILL NOT say... BECAUSE YOU DON"T KNOW THE ANCIENT LANGUAGE "ORIGINAL" YOU ARE JUDGED!!!" But he will say (according to the Bible) DO YOU KNOW MY SON?...DID YOU DO AS HE SAID? What will be your answer? IF I'm wrong... all I did was give up drinking, cursing, sin in general for a happy marriage, Decent Children and A better life than I deserve then I Die...with a smile on my face. But if I'm right...then I still enjoy all the things I just mentioned.... then life ever after Heaven..... If your wrong...... you have lost it all I wish you the same as you wished me.

And that's what made them evil. The "ultimate other". Same old, same old, "You're different, therefore you are not worthy according to my religious beliefs!" Lol.

Back then the dog was likened to a reference of the wolf that Leonidas fought and killed as a man child. The Greeks ate the dog's because one ferrel dogs would have been plenty in the region and would have provided a source of protein. Pigs can be raised anywhere and only rely on being fed scraps from the evening meal's as a form of nourishment.

Life was not as convienant back then as it is today. Back then hardly would you ever see an obsese person. Everyone would have been slim and very muscular as the necessity of survival did not rely on getting into a car and driving to McDonalds for your food but rather the hardy people's of the era, all included, would needed to have been able to use various weapons such as slingshots, spears, traps and other types of ranged weapon's in order to catch their prey. These types of people often ran many hours a day hunting their prey which made them very healthy.

So before you look upon these groups of people as being nasty for eating such food look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself this question. You think that you are better than they but could you really survive in the era that they lived in without the conviences you have today?

Look the article didn't condemn anyone for eating dogs or pigs, It simply said that the Hebrew considered those animals "unclean" and wouldn't eat them.

Lots of cultures eat dogs to this day. They are meat and are edible.

Strangely, Jews considered these animals unclean, and pigs do carry parasites as well as diseases that can be transmitted to man. The Jewish laws dealing with food preparation, storage, and what animals could be eaten are strictly designed to avoid food poisoning and transmission of disease causing bacteria and viruses which peoples of that time didn't even know existed.

You've never had a hot dog, skilife?

Woof Woof!!!!! Munch Munch.... MMMMMMmmmmm

Snowdragon-1863859:... avoid food poisoning and transmission of disease causing bacteria and viruses which peoples of that time didn't even know existed.

When I was young my dad told me why Catholics do not eat meat and dairy products on Wednesday and Fridays. It is intended to balance the diet of followers through rigorous rules. Because given opportunity followers would consume meat and dairy products everyday that will make them fat. If they got fat Rome would be in trouble as it had so much to build and fight for.

Rome wasn't Catholic, not in those glory days...

Your dad was wrong.

I was raised Catholic. Meat on Friday's was a definite rule at one time, now it's just during lent.

There were no rules regarding restriction of dairy products, or Wednesdays. Except Ash Wednesday. Being the first day in lent, the "no meat rule" is observed.

Eating fish on Fridays was designed to support the fishing industry. It had nothing to do with Roman physical fitness.

. . . and the Lord spaketh unto Porkulus and sayeth "Thou shalt go unto the land of the Baconites and seek out Ribulus and Hamm and together thou shalt fatten thy loins and thy bellies . . .

. . . and the Lord spaketh unto Phideaux and sayeth "Thou shalt go forth unto the land of the Canineites and fetch out Bowserus and thou shalt feast at the temple of Frisbus . . .

I'm a Bible believer and Christian... but what you said Is SOOOO FUNNY...Im still laughing (MORE CLEAN Humor Please)

tbone ... I think you meant "No meat..." (on Fridays) as the first word in that sentence in your second paragraph.

In Catholicism, fast and abstinence were established in early times as health demands, some sources say ... and frankly even today they make sense. Studies are finding an abnormally high percentage of Americans are literally obese from just plain excessive eating the wrong kinds of food. Obesity promotes earlier death than if one remained healthy.

It is allied to the original seven deadly sins: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth. In fact the downside of these behaviors is very self-destructive.

A pity that in today's world these "religious" constraints are not ubiquitous standards for us all. Today's culture seems to show each of these seven kinds of behaviors are to be strongly resisted.

We have the kind of Pride that is ego-tripping in all walks of life. The Me First attitudes... the me, me, me in solutions.

We Covet others' accomplishments to a degree of trying to destroy those achievements, or trying to discredit the achiever in one way or another. It could be called greed for material things owned by others.

Lust impels bed-hopping to a degree and disregard for how public it becomes or who knows it and/or any possible consequences ... it has become a "who cares" activity. It is not to be confused with Love in any sense of that word.

We have Anger seen in rages that escalate to beatings and killings if we are to believe the news.

Ah yes, Gluttony... we are becoming if not Fat Cats, definitely Fat A$$es

Envy is not the same as coveting something. Envy is also resentment of others but takes a different turn. It's a fierce resentment to a degree it promotes harming another person with things like gossip, false accusations of wrong doing, and worse.

Sloth has become an uncommon word, not because it has been eliminated, but because a sizable portion of humanity thinks the world owes them a living...

How is this relevant to the archaeological finds in Israel?

We are discussing the impact primarily of dating the artifacts just discovered, and revealing the much earlier origin of those tribes than most of us realized.

The mind sets of any group in the ages archaeologists examine will affect those of us living today... and include their impact on human development or lessons of survival. The Philistines became extinct we learned. Perhaps these findings will allow us to learn why.

The seven deadly sins are, frankly, originally extrapolated from sections in the Judaic Talmud. The Philistines figure importantly even in the Christian Bible. That, alone, must be of interest to us historically, if not substantively to today's culture and, in my opinion, our survival. And if it were any or all of the effect of ancient behaviors we call the Seven Deadlies as we know them today.

Treating others with respect and forgiving them as we would be forgiven. Doesn't seem so evil to me.

Here's a bit of reality for you. The Jews see pigs as unclean because they eat their own feces. As a farmer I can tell you first hand that is fact.

Hot Dog anyone?

Sure dwighthuth, people were slim muscular and beautiful back then. They could have posed for pictures for our modern health clubs and gyms.

They were so healthy the average life span 2500 years ago was between 25-30 years old. People today live to nearly 80 years old. I think you have it backwards.

Most people barely eked out an existence back then. Healthy, I think not.

Actually, if anyone had taken the time to read the Bible, they would know that David did not kill Goliath with the stone from the sling. The stone knocked Goliath down then David cut off his head.

Second Sight -

You are a breath of fresh air on the Vine! Like you I find that people who denigrate other beliefs and faiths to be the belligerent bullies that they accuse those of faith to be. They argue acceptance and loudly proclaim to one and all that religion is forced by the ignorant upon those who are too intelligent to believe in fairy tales.

And yet, these same people will try to shove their belief (or lack thereof) down the throats of those of who take comfort in their religion, even as they accuse those of faith of doing the exact same thing!

Personally, I think that they are projecting their own callous disregard for others onto those that they attack.

I also agree with your assessment of today's society an the narcissic attitude of all importance that many entertain. Seriously, take a look at some of the posts on Facebook. Is anyone so important that everyone needs to know that they bought new boots or had their nails done or that they laid around at home doing absolutely nothing?

Not me, that's for sure!

The biblical pigs from the new testament that drowned themselves did not do so because of demon possession as claimed. Fact is, they committed suicide due to the hideous conditions of the whole general area around them. To the poster who said "hogs eat their own feces": I too, grew up on a farm. Hogs, when treated right (allowed to grass range) are probably the cleanest of all farm animals. Most all animals will eat their own feces when hungry enough, or when feces is mixed with their conventional feed. Most Bedouins of that area ate dogs regularly, when they could find one with enough meat on its bones to justify the efforts of preperation, even into the 20th century. Hell, they may continue to today. I'm not sure. People, like animals, need food, they'll grab whatever is available.

The biblical pigs from the new testament that drowned themselves did not do so because of demon possession as claimed. Fact is, they committed suicide due to the hideous conditions of the whole general area around them.

So, either you were there and are intimately acquainted with the facts, or you don't believe in spirits, like demons, angels, even God, so therefore, it could not have happened as described. Interesting. You are stating an opinion. Just wanted to make that clear.

Levi777: In answer to your reply to that part of my post about the demon possessed pigs drowning themselves, I was in fact being facetious. No. I wasn't there. Yes. Your assumptions of my beliefs concerning such matters are correct. The remainder of my post is factually and historically accurate.

The biblical pigs from the new testament that drowned themselves did not do so because of demon possession as claimed. Fact is, they committed suicide due to the hideous conditions of the whole general area around them

Ironic, when I consider the Jews of Massada...

tnx for the post

Skilife

Inuits ate Dogs and ?

Not for anything, but Americans, even the fat unhealthy ones, outlive most of the best Rome and Greece had to offer. There is something to be said about AC and food anytime you want it. In any case, it has zero to do with this article.

If you want to see some really unhealthy people, go to a Jewish deli. I've seen some of the fatest, unhealthiest people at these places. Many of them want "kosher" food...like that matters when your stuffing your face with 12 Hebrew Nationals or 3 pounds of fried derma. Kosher is another way of saying buy Jewish and nothing else. Of course, these same people are likely to pull out of the parking lot of a kosher Jewish deli in their brand new Mercedes Benz...Get back at the Germans by buying one of their finest automobiles...I get it...not! These are the same people who will do business with the Arabs while killing their brethren in Palestine.

Have you ever believed a two faced back stabber? I did, once...once. Never again.

I did, once...once.

Is that a Johnny Dangerously reference?! Too funny! (Although I'm not sanctioning the rest of your comment, but at least you have a sense of humor!)

Kuddos on sneaking obscure Micheal Keaton comedy into religious debate! That's quite impressive.

I would have to agree as well. Put a Greek presence in Gaza to stabilize the dispute between the Isrealis and Palestinians.

gg1947:... seems to me that Greece has some claim to the Gaza Strip...

Not really! The Philistines came from an island of Cypress which partly fell in to the hands of Ottoman Turks (Turkey). Greece has fought many wars with Turkey to get their land back. So, Philistines should go back to that part of the island which is befitting of their root. GAZA belongs to Israel.

Don't forget the Philistines. A smart lawyer could find some modern day ancestors and launch a civil claim for 3000 years of rent plus interest.

This is why Herodotus, the father of all historians, called the area "Palestina". Everything ever found there was in relation to the Philistines and the Canaanites. Cities like Jerusalem, Meggido, Ashkelon, Jericho, etc. were all founded by the Canaanites and the Philistines at least 800 years before any Jews set foot on them. The vast majority of pottery and tools dug by archeological excavatioons were also made by the Canaanites and the Philistines. The only way to tell if a settlement was Jewish is not by the findings of any buildings or any particular type of pottery or furniture but by the lack of pig bones. In fact, all those castles and buildings described in the Hebrew Bible said to have been built by King David and King Solomon have never been found, most probably because they were only part of a story and mythology the Hebrews told themselves and not part of reality. Palestina was and always shall be.

That's not true, there are archeological digs in Jerusalem that unearthed the wall. Part of which is a sacred monument today.

King David's name is literally written in STONE in the 9th century. There ARE many external references to him... just google it.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/9/King%20David%20and%20Jerusalem-%20Myth%20and%20Reality

OK, julio... and who would be the beneficiaries... Greece? I don't think so. The Philistines are extinct.

You are a philistine yourself, but only by inclination and attitude! ROFL

Olias -

This is why Herodotus, the father of all historians, called the area "Palestina".

Not true. This article contains Herodotus map and nowhere is Palestina marked on the map. The area became known as Palestina in 135 AD when Haridan renamed it in an effort to wipe out all traces of Jews.

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-ancient-geographers-herodotus-maps-450bc.jpg

Definitely greek land. if only Israel hadn't taken it the Greeks wouldn't be having the financial problems they are having today.

:)

The ancient Philistines and modern-day Palestinians are NOT the same group of people.

@Chris "Cosmos" and "Earth" are some how the same, or "gene" and "JC" are the same?

Wow... You really need to read your Bible... that was a new testament Greek translation not the old Hebrew.... 2nd that word Cosmos (Kosmos) is translated as World.... referring to the people, lands, social system. all Earth references are: Old Test: firm New: Soil, globe... as I said the KJV (used with a Greek and Hebrew concordance) Old testament is 90% accurate... especially the Pentateuch .

There is only one way to bring peace to the Gaza: turn the whole thing over to the Disney Corporation so it can be turned into a massive theme park and resort area. Everyone would be employed, plus they would have to smile and be nice to each other all the time.

Lol except the Jews. (j/k)

So much for the arab muslim palestinians having been in Israel since time immemorial.

Evidence discovered by international group of largely volunteer excavators ices the cake.

Dee Dee, Herodotus called the area "Palestine" in all his writings and that, once again, happened around 400BC.
It doesn't take much to understand that by the time the Muslims came to Palestine in 638AD and invited the Jews back to Palestine after the Jews were kicked out of the area by the Christians, and that by the time the Crusaders came to Palestine from Europe, Palestine was established as an indepedent entity with a unique narrative and a population that understood its historical value and was more than happy to be part of it.
When Zionism was created by a small group of European Jews in the late 1800's it was an ideology that came to be at the height of European colonialism, when European countries were trying to take as much real state as possible around the world for purely racist reasons.
It's as if Europeans, including some of the Jewish faith, were trying to build their own "Disneyland" around the world.
It amazes me how this "Disneyland" mentality still exist among Israel supporters who want to recreate a mythological past on the backs of Palestinians regardless of how much they make the Palestinians suffer for it.
The whole thing is so bizarre it's nothing short of insanity.

Olias ..... you kindof left out of your "history" WWII As you stated the Jews did migrate to many parts of Europe and around the Globe LEAVING Israel . But they also was "forced" to congregate "somewhere" after an "Extermination" of 5million+ Jews.

Where would you have them Build their "disneyland" after that?

Also The Bible record Mount Zion and the New Testament A New Zion..... They Zionist label nowadays is used just as much as a "Slur" as a title of a "Sect"

Gaza may be occupied by Israel, but it is Palestinian territory and it is Palestine. In fact, "Israel" is Palestine. The only reason it is called Israel today is because of the British. Starting in the early 20th century, a British mandate provided Jews with Palestinian land so they could have a homeland which they were able to occupy after WWII. If it wasn't for that single event, Jews would have been without a homeland and would have been considered, virtually, the same as Gypsies. In fact the mandate was called "The British Mandate of Palestine". Look it up some time so you can actually see what really happened and how the Palestinians are not only victims of Western politics, but Jewish/Israeli occupation. If it weren't for the Jordanian's, when the Jews took over Palestinian lands, the Jews may have gotten the Jordan River, a fresh water river. As it stands, fortunately, the lake is split between Israel and Jordan. Israel has repeatedly tried to draw Islamic countries into battle so they could turn around and "legally" occupy non-Jewish lands. Fortunately, Jordan knew how to play the game and recognized Israel as a legitamate country, even though they didn't and don't really believe it.

Good point Olias. Additionally, many people don't know this, but Jews, many if not most are not descendants of Israelites, were all over the world for centuries before WWII. People act like Jews only moved when they were freed from German prison camps. Some companies in the US were started by Jewish immigrants hundreds of years ago. In fact, Jews in other parts of the world have for centuries outnumbered Jews in the Middle East. Most Jews are actually Caucasian European decent. True Israelites are actually the same race/nationality as the Islamic/Arabic groups around them, ie., the Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians. Eliminating the European mix, you wouldn't even be able top tell an Israeli from a Syrian. And in fact, when you say someone is anti-semitic, that can mean they are against Jews or Muslims or both. They are all semites. Many of the ancient peoples of this areaare considered semitic peoples.

Your hypothesis is bizarre and anachronistic. If you actually READ the article and digest the material therein, you will discover that while it does contain some supposition, it offers no "proof" whatsoever of "the historicity of bible accounts" (sic), nor does it pretend too.

If you mean a modern-day town, then yes yes yes. How much money do you have? I'll bet all of it, if you please. You can just mail me the check, we don't actually have to meet in person.

ANDROLOMA:...The Jews are no more entitled to Zion than Canaanites ...

You are simply hateful, raciest and antisemitic person with very limited history. Zion empire had its days when it had a large tract of territories under control or protectorate states in its responsibilities just like Roman Empire. Just like the US protects S.Korea and Taiwan because of our friendship with them. Israel has been very compromising and peace seeking since its reemergence. It has shown such to be the case by returning a very valuable territory back to Egypt. But Gaza, Jerusalem and West bank has always been a part of Israel.

the religious nut's will have ahay-day with their love hate....they have for others belief's...a bunch of loser's....

Loser's put apostrophe's everywhere'....especially in plural word's.

i really liked the article, doesn't everyone like archaeology?

I liked the article. I think archeology is fascinating, especially when it reveals that we as humans do the same things over and over and over, and it produces the same results.

Yeah, over all these centuries, we've chosen to believe in over 3000 different cults, cult-gods and cult books... And we show, each time, how unbeleivably stupid that is, and how much warring and killing it causes. And many of us keep doing it anyway, with the same insipid, hateful, discriminatory, misguided, mindless results!

Bernitch, kind of like warlords, and atheists, and people like Idi Amin, and so on.

Yellow Dog

Sit back read and enjoy the Modern Day Colosseum Battle " Blind Faithful Science Vs Any Religion" that is the Program here for the time being!!!

If you are referring to Bishop Usher's calculation of the age of the Earth, base on Biblical accounts, he actually place the supposed date of creation by a supposed Biblical god on 23 October 4004 BC. That would make the age of the Earth, per Usher's calculations, about 6,015 years.

If you are going to refer to something, even nonsensical theological determinations of the age of the planet, you may wish to check your facts first and at least get the fact of the fiction right.

It was clearly in jest.

Twofat,

I thin you got your math wrong on the days of Creation. In fact I think most Christians have their dates confused. If you look at the actual Hebrew word used in Genisis, it has three possible meanings, a period from sun up to sun down, a full 24 hour period, or a long extended time period. If you apply this last meaning and take the Big Bang as the point where God said,"Let there be light." you will find that science and religion come together nicely on the following formation of stars, then planets, oceans and land, animals and fishes, only when you get to the creation of man do they differ on the path history has followed

Snowdragon is right about the meaning of the Hebrew word in Genesis.

One HUGE mistake made by monotheists is thinking the world is 5000 years old.

Someone added up all the begats etc. and decided that would determine the age of the world. If we realize that the "week of Creation" was actually a series of "ages" then that leaves us thinking, by the monotheists, that humanity is 5000 years old. But that is a wrong also.

It was part of the Hebrew tradition in ancient times when detailing family histories to sometimes skip generations. If for example the last person in your family tree that was "significant" was your great, great, great, grandfather, by the old Hebrew tradition you would say he begat you. So begat didn't mean "parented" directly but that they were in the same family line. In reality if the begats of the Bible are accurate, we still wouldn't really know how long the lineage is for humanity.

There is a quote from the bible that loosely translates "a day unto god is as 1000 years unto man". So reading Genesis as literally 7 days as we know a day is a little absurd.

Uh, the world was created millions of years ago, not thousands. You want to check with a fact checker, read a science book.

billions actually, not millions

I couldn't help but thinking that this topic is based on archaeology and that archaeologists have dug up fossils dating back in the tens of millions of years ago. And those fossils weren't even the beginning of the earths true age.

I'll just add that fossils abound from 500 million years ago, and that stromatolites in Australia (3.5 billion years old) contain crystals as old as 4.4 billion years.

Science rules, religion drools.

No mistake.. Christians actually believe there is more "age" than that... I've read the Whole Book. I'm a "monotheist" and there is more in Genesis that is "missed" . All of your points miss very important parts. and is the most common of errors...(usually made by those who don't read the Bible and/or believe none of it's contents.)

Genesis: v1:In the beginning God Created Heaven and Earth

v2: The earth was without form and Void....

The verse clearly illustrates That the earth was There ALREADY in This portion. The Hebrew word "Void" literally means to empty or evacuate.

More proof: 1:28 "replenish" the Earth. You only replenish what has been "depleted"

More proof: Jesus in the new states Satan was "cast Down" to earth....

If all of the Bible "history" started at Genesis.... When was the devil "Cast Down" he was already there to "tempt" Adam and Eve" That event then "Must" have taken place a lot earlier than the Genesis story... The earth is much older than you think... and much younger than you believe... or don't believe.

No Flame, I didn't miss anything. I've read the Bible also and I am not critizing believers unlike the rampant atheistic enthusiasm on this site.

I am just pointing out a fallacy that is a common misconception among many fundamentalist and evangelicals as well as other monotheist religions around the world. Certain sects of both Islam, Judaism and even Hinduism have a version of the 5000 year old earth belief.

Actualy John that is a good point.... like to also point out that all the ones you just mentioned including the Aztecs , and American Indians all record a time of
"Great water".... More Bible accuracy maybe? The True age will not ever be known but every time th Scientist "revise" their age for the earth and universe it gets younger and younger... I Follow science very closely and try my best to keep up the the latest finds and discoveries.... I do keep an open mind... Yet the more the "scientist', realist speak... the more my faith increases I believe real science point to a real God. Heres a article that makes my point. It does not mention "God" but I'll give my "interpretation" of it then will post the link...

For his pleasure....Creation sings..

Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100621101420.htm

Actually most wars are started over resources. The alternative beliefs merely lays the groundwork and excuse for the war instead of the parties blatantly admitting that they're fighting over resources. And the term resources is intended to include natural resources like oil and mineral wealth as well as monetary resources.

Dwight,what point are you aiming at?

Historically a king wars against other kingdoms for whatever he has decided is a reason, mostly over land or wealth, but sometimes for simple dislike of the other people.

Almost NO wars in history have been based on religion. Even the Crusades were originally about Christian pilgrims from Europe being robbed and killed by Muslims as they were on their way to Jeruselum.

Please demonstrate where and when in history that atheism has made the world a better place for all.

December 15, 1791. The day our nation adopted the Bill of Rights, which codified the separation of church and state in our constitution.

That's absolutely right.

How is the bill of rights an Atheist document when over half of its signers were Christians with seminary degrees? All, yes count them, All of our most prestigious universities were founded by Christians for the purpose of creating a strong moral citizenry. Several of them were founders of Bible societies as well. There were only a couple who could be considered "other than Christian" but they considered themselves deists as well. If you knew your history you would find that these same men put a seperation clause in the consitution to protect religious belief and expression (The first of the bill of rights) from the power of the state, not to protect the state from the influence of religion. They had enough of the state telling them they couldn't worship as their conscience dictated or how they were suppossed to worship. You all can wish all you want to be rid of the christian influence, but you might want to ask those who were living under the most athiestic regimes in the world, which society they would prefer to live in.... Mao tse tung, pol pot, joe stallin etc? or under the likes of George Washington or John Adams and 90% of the rest of the original signers who all had a deeply held belief in the Almighty. You can have your atheistic regimes and their 100 million dead in the 20th centurty alone.

It's a secular document thanks to the very first clause in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

And while I'm considering how life was under the atheistic Joesph Stalin, perhaps you would consider how life was under the christian Adolph Hitler.

I, for one, like scientific advancement. And fact is the more advanced education one has the less likely one is to be religious. Thank an atheist next time you pop your heart meds.

How is the bill of rights an Atheist document when over half of its signers were Christians with seminary degrees?

Sorry - not sure which dummy stated this -- but nobody intelligent here said this was an ATHEIST document.

It is a SECULAR document.

There is a HUGE difference in what those two words convey.

Wow, Snowdragon.

Are you really claiming that wars over religion are scarce or non-existent?

Just read your Bible. There are tons of religious wars in the Bible. What about the Crusades? What about the attacks in America, Britain and Spain in the last few years? Are they not over religion? Hitler was a right-wing christian who waged an extermination campaign against Jews.

I submit that most of the evil atrocities throughout bloody human history have been committed for religious reasons. What about the bombing of clinics and the murders of doctors committed by christians over abortion?

And for Freedom 1st - you cannot name a single war that was fought for atheistic reasons. Some of the most moral people in history were devout atheists. The list includes D'Alembert, Albert Einstein and Abraham Lincoln. The Magna Carta is essentially a secular document, since the rights it itemizes exist outside the influence of religion, like all good things in human history. (And like our Constitution and Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence)

And FYI, Smacback, There were many secular universities established in the infancy of America. The University of Virginia, Washington College, Pennsylvania State, etc. In fact, when Thomas Jefferson helped establish the University of Virginia, he said "A department of theology should have no place in our institutions [of higher learning]". Why? According to Jefferson, "What has no meaning admits no explanation."

Two of my favorite atheists were Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken.

You make the point that "atrocities" have been committed in religion but find one "major" civilization that is "Secular"... all of the ones that you can name have a "national religion" Also their has been much good that has been done in the name of Christianity as well. In your diatribe you admit that there was secular colleges but Yale, Princeton, etc started as missionary and Preacher training schools.

Jefferson is the favorite example of a "AGNOSTIC" founder used by the some and their are a few more but by in large You know that there was "many more" men of faith that would not let the Declaration of Independence go forth without "God". To this day a Chaplin prays over congress..

"...The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." Thomas Jefferson...

He was not a "believer" but.. he had more reverence than you.

Your statement reflect The most common error when referring to the Bible as compared to other religions.... The Bible States: Jesus died once and for all... This is all inclusive Which other religions do not have.... "God so love the world that He gave his Son Jesus" So famous is that portion of scripture don't have to put chapter and verse... also all inclusive... Where is the "separation" in that.... more: The two greatest commandments love thy God with all heart, mind, strength, might, soul and the second is like the first... Love thy neighbor as yourself... again all inclusive "on these two hang all the profits and the law".... Jesus worded it so careful that He even took out all of the "Old testament Laws' that usually people like you use to verify your "There are tons of religious wars in the Bible." statement

One major civilization that is secular - The United States of America.

It's an article on archeology, not supposed evidence to support your religious fantasies.

I guess it's predictable that an article about archaeological finds in the Holy Land would bring out the religious crowd. How unfortunate that the subject cannot be discussed on the basis of facts, without getting into idiotic superstitions, since it is quite and interesting subject.

Jherek, I guess you are labeling me the "religious crowd". I'm not superstitious, I was pointing out that there was intentional avoidance in the article that the Bible and Torah have actual historical facts in their pages.

Snowdragon-1863859:... they do have proof that there was a Hebrew king named David, by the way, so there was no need to do an end around acting as if he too was only a legend.

That mentality is born from liberalism, atheism and fascism. We already found Jerusalem that belongs to Jews and all Israelite generations. Also we have found Bethlehem that belongs to Christians which should be kept under Israeli care. We also have found Mecca that belongs to Muslims. So everyone has their own place.

The story of David and Jonathan reveals the first gay union in the bible. It's also the central love story in that text, recorded in the Song of Songs.

Bullpucky, skrekk That is a real stretch.

I wonder which version of the Bible you read. And, btw, let's see the cite of the Biblical Books you think support your contentions, and the Chapters, and Verses to which you refer. From the King James version, please... which was written by a group of scholars, whose research is memorable.

They were contemporaneous to Shakespeare. The writings themselves are awesome literature... beautiful to read with quotable segments like

1 Corinthians 13, from which even I can remember the words... "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."

And you do not think that the wisdom of this cannot inspire us today? Silly of you.

The other great gay love story in the bible is between Ruth and Naomi, but the David and Jonathan story is more famous.

This doesn't make the bible any less of a fairy tale, it just shows a village that we've just now uncovered.

Land of the Giants? Wasn't that a TV show in the 60s?

Second sight#8.5: Good try there. Actually, Paul was exhorting the somewhat stingy "Corinthians" to turn loose of some money to him and the church. They were content to prophesy and speak in tongues but were tight as "dicks hat band" with their wealth.

book fulll of "errors" that is repeatedly proven accuate

Its interesting, I just read an article in the tech section showing the historical connection of Pinocchio to an actual Italian village. A number of the people, and places in that faerie tale have historical roots as well.

What was your point again?

One of the other posters on here brought up a really good point. Jesus said, "Do not give what is holy to dogs lest they devour it then turn and tear you up."

The testimony has been well given, and indeed the commentary is like dogs devouring what is given, then turning on the giver. Time to move on. May all your words be a testimony against you on that day when God judges the earth by generations. As for me, I'm done with this seed, trying to reason with the unreasonable. At least I got some new friends out of it.

As for me, I'm done with this seed, trying to reason with the unreasonable

10 to 1 that Levi777 will be back posting with in 10 min.

Any takers?

Snowdragon

YOU are being Unfair, youa re using Logic,Fact and reason this thread has Nothing to do with that it is all about " Ignorance Vs Belief" lol

There is some fact and also a lot of crap. So baseing ones life on a myth is foolhardy at best. The bible is useful as a wonderful price of folklore, but therein ends its utility.

Well said, EngEsq

Engesq~ And you believe that you have all the answers, all of the knowledge and have the sanction to dictate to people what they should or should not believe? How about instead of calling those who choose to believe foolhardy, you learn to accept people are different from you?

I'm not saying it in malice. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with looking down on people who have a different view point.

Neither do many others. Unfortunately, in the US, that's what the religious do constantly. They're not happy with their cult beliefs unless they're forcing them upon others, legislating them -- and usually only the obscure ones -- never the ones that would inconvenience their own lives. THAT is the reason the religious are claiming to be on the defensive, when in fact, they're the ones on the offensive. People will continue to fight back until the cultists lay down their weapons and keep their cult nonsense inside their tax free churches.

Ah, but to suggest that all religious persons act and do the same, is like saying all Atheists do the same. It's a narrow minded perspective at best. Both sides have their individuals that spit venom at each other and they are no better off for it. So when a person who says they don't believe, insists on calling those that do foolhardy, cowardly, and other names....how is that different from a religious person calling them the same? Saying that 'cultists' need to lay down their weapons....well...when are you going to lay down your own? If you run around and call their beliefs 'cult nonsense' or even a book of faith 'buy-bull' how are you doing anything other then what you despise from them? You are still spitting venom and pushing your belief (or lack of), you are just doing it under a different guise.

At least one famous atheist may have seen the light..

John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

In new documentary Beatles Stories, Seaman tells filmmaker Seth Swirsky Lennon wasn't the peace-loving militant fans thought he was while he was his assistant.

He says, "John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.

"He'd met Reagan back, I think, in the 70s at some sporting event... Reagan was the guy who had ordered the National Guard, I believe, to go after the young (peace) demonstrators in Berkeley, so I think that John maybe forgot about that... He did express support for Reagan, which shocked me.

"I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who's an old-time communist... He enjoyed really provoking my uncle... Maybe he was being provocative... but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.

"He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he'd been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy's naivete."

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/28/lennon-was-a-closet-republican-assistant

Lyrica

You Pain me to NO end, another logical statement, another point of Fact, please stop it ;-) you are a spoilsport!!! how can one " Teach a pig not to love Mud"?

LOL so sorry so sorry. I haven't heard of the "teach a pig not to love Mud", I imagine it's similar to "Never try to teach a pig to sing"?

Retired Coast Guard -

That was so funny. I have no doubt that Seaman said those things and they were quoted in a newspaper.

But Seaman is known for notoriously inventing things, especially about Mr. Lennon. The drivel coming from this guy contains enough BS to power a flotilla for years.

If John had suddenly become religious, or embraced the Republican party, none of his ex-bandmates nor his wife knew anything at all about it.

Lyrica, I never claimed to know everything, and I do accept others for who they are/what they believe. I still think basing your life on a fallible book is foolish.

The bible is filled with inconsistency and parable (try reading 'Holy writ as oral lit', by Prof Dunges, its very enlightening). It may have some truth to the bible, but parts are obviously false/exaggerations and it's a cobbling together of oral traditions (stealing from previous religions toboot). It is thus not a "perfect" document and should be treated as such. Basing your life on it is your prerogative, however.

Lyrica - #10.5 is a false equivalency. But nice try. Keep on truckin'.

ivanho~

Explain how. If you are going to suggest a comparison between the actions of some non-religious and religious on both sides is a false equivalency, I would like to know why. Just because you don't like what is said isn't an answer either.

Lyrica: I don't know what false equivalency ivanho75 was talking about but I can tell you a big difference is that Atheists don't try to legislate their beliefs onto others. I feel pretty safe saying that since Atheists don't have a particular set of beliefs so...

For example, I have yet to hear a compelling secular reason for banning same sex marriage. All the arguments are faith-based and that's forcing your beliefs on others.

I can give you example of what I am referring to with some Atheists pushing their belief or lack of on others.

Go to a site where there has been a tragedy, you'll find multiple times where a person simply states "I'll pray for the family" or "my thoughts and prayers go to..." that is their way of offering comfort. It's not pushing their belief it is simply suggesting that prayer is the only way they can provide comfort. It's to those affected and up to them to decide if they would like to take comfort. I can pretty much guarantee at least 60% of the time there is at least one person almost immediately after that who will attack the person for their offered comfort, who will degrade, speak poorly off, personally bash, and mock religion. That self-proclaimed Atheist will do nothing to offer their own comfort or even mention what had happened unless it's to say "they don't want your prayer" in which case they would have no idea what is wanted or not. They believe that God doesn't exist, they believe that someone offering a prayer is something to be sneered upon, they believe that someone offering a prayer is 'pushing' a religion. Even if they don't believe in a God, they still believe that they are right and feel perfectly find in spewing just as much venom as extreme religious people.

Now I would like to mention again, not all Atheists are like that, just like not all religious people push their religion. If you want to sneer at someone believes in something different, try not to be a hypocrite. (not speaking to you personally) So again:

If you run around and call their beliefs 'cult nonsense' or even a book of faith 'buy-bull' how are you doing anything other then what you despise from them? You are still spitting venom and pushing your belief (or lack of), you are just doing it under a different guise.

In terms of same sex marriage, I'm for it. No one has a right to tell others who they can and can't fall in love with, if you are going to claim that the God you worship teaches love, then show it by not hating those different from you.

So, in your mind a blog post or vine comment has the same weight as constitutional law? I'm not saying I agree with the blog remarks, in fact I've told many a person "my thoughts are with you/your family". But there is a significant difference between that and passing an amendment to a state constitution that bans a practice based solely on religious belief.

I do, however, agree that attacks like this put Atheists in a hypocritical light and it should stop. It doesn't help anyway. No one is getting talked out of their point of view on NewsVine (no offense 'Vine).

No no, I was using it as an example of how the two are comparatively similiar in many instances. To suggest it's the same as constitutional law is silly. And yes I do agree there is a difference. Gays should have every right to be in the military, and have every right to marry. I would wager with the way divorce rates are these day they may do a damn sight better then straight couples....at least I can hope.

Who are the Ones Pushing to Change the " Law" about " Freedom of speech when it comes to Faith"? Who are the ones that do not want " Equal Time in teaching Theories of evolution Vs Creation"?

"Some Sanity Please" - You have got to be kidding.

The Facts: They found ruins, pots, evidence of worshiping Greek gods, some lentils, bones indicating they ate pork and other animals and evidence of the city's destruction. The pillars where a common accent/support mechanism to structures back then. The pillars are far from proof that Samson died there in a structural collapse.

The truth is that a lot of what is in the bible was stories told during various times of history. Nobody (in their right mind) is saying that the bible is fiction. What the site proves is that the telling of stories where based somewhat in fact. Understand that very few people could read or write in the day and each parchment had to be hand written. History has always changed over time (it is said that history is written by the victor) as a result the stories always would change based on who was doing the writing.

Then the question is did each and every person who copied a previous text do it with the original at their side or did they mentally recall the story that they heard so many times in a temple or elsewhere. Unless it was copied word for word with extreme diligence it would most definitely change over time.

Realistically, we will most likely find that in a thousand more years that the bible will ultimately fall into the same category as other artifacts of ancient religions, with a comment that it was proliferated more than most. This does not invalidate 90% of the wisdom contained inside it. Know that if you live a life based on its concepts you will have lived a good caring life. Just don't go sacrificing your child because you think god is speaking to you. Honestly, if god is speaking to you seek psychiatric help. If he really is speaking to you we all would be interested in having it properly documented and if not then they can help you get better.

Human beings want to believe that there is someone watching after them and that evil will ultimately pay a price. The truth is that most likely we are here on this planet for a few short years and then that is the end. Live your life and try to be the best person you can, not because you are afraid of some punishment in the afterlife but because it is the right thing to do. Care about others, give to the needy and spread love not hate!

Sanity, I composed this response before seeing how wise you indeed are. I had to repost and then searching on your name I found you to be an intelligent person in contrast to the statement that i was replying to. Forgive me for not recognizing the quotes... However I stand behind what I said for the general population. This is the classic example of something being taken out of context!

Kevin R ... Your post is excellent. Logical and well written. Good on you!!

Dido Kevin... very well written..... I'm a believer... Jesus follower... I read the whole Bible and lived it now for sometime but you must admit that as you have come to your conclusion and you live the best life you can as a good person... Have you ever asked yourself or others the big question: What is Good?...Who makes that determination. If one says no one but self then the result is evident... but if "Good" can be referenced. studied, followed, then "which Book? Who's Opinion? What Example? I'm not trying to really otherwise but even can't deny that every Major Civilization had a Belief system that goverend its laws and commerce. The most secular societies, coupled with the most "Polytheistic" soscietied have all faded or are shadows of their former selves But all those base on a Theocracy or "Monotheist" have survived. Why does that seem to be the case? The great Voltaire said the exact same statement:

Kevin "Human beings want to believe that there is someone watching after them and that evil will ultimately pay a price. The truth is that most likely we are here on this planet for a few short years and then that is the end. Live your life and try to be the best person you can, not because you are afraid of some punishment in the afterlife but because it is the right thing to do. Care about others, give to the needy and spread love not hate!"

Voltaire: ".the safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience. With this secret, we can enjoy life and have no fear from death."

Jesus is the Example that has never steered me wrong...Even if we follow self ... we have let ourselves down. Nothing I found in the Bible "promotes" evil doings or thinking... Even if others "USE" it to base evil things or endeavors" Some will pont to the "Crusades" Every major Civiliztioins has had one.. not just Christianity. This country "Undeniably" was started by those fleeing religious persecution if if the same also commited "Unspeakable" acts. Yet all our laws are based in this "Archaic", outdated system. MMM maybe... just maybe it is not so "Outdated after all".

Three laws, Flame. Three laws on our Code are based on ones found in the bible. They are also the same three found in EVERY CIVILIZATION THAT HAS EVER EXISTED. No killing, no stealing, and no lying under oath.

That being said, I really like your Voltaire quote, Flame.

Flame77_7,

"The most secular societies, coupled with the most "Polytheistic" soscietied have all faded or are shadows of their former selves But all those base on a Theocracy or "Monotheist" have survived."

While polytheistic societies are fading, secular societies are becoming more common and many more countries are basing their laws and governments on logic and reason, leaving churches with only the power to influence, not to rule over the people. Theocracies, however, are the cause of so many attrocities and wars. The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch Hunts, the KKK, the Nazis and the Holocaust; The HUAC/McCarthyist anti-Communist blacklisting attacks on liberal leaning (rarely proven to be actual Communists) government workers and those in the film industry (actors, directors, etc.); book burnings, mass censorship, the attempted and successful anti-gay rights legislations, the terrorists bombings and the attrocities happening in the Middle East...

*Please note that Christian theology -- however misconstrued -- is sole basis of the KKK and Nazi (both origional and neo) movements because the White/Aryan people consider themselves to be the only true Christians and such groups have their own legally recognized churches. Even Communism is a theology in its own way: Their diety is their chosen leader, power and the collective made with other countries that make/made up their own union. It seemed to have also seperated whole countries into two. Like West and East Germany, we can hope that North and South Korea will join as one once communism has been abolished after the fall of Kim Jong Il and his followers. It's only a matter of time.

**Martin Dies, an early chairman of the HUAC was an active member of the KKK and the HUAC rarely, if ever, investigated members of extremist right wing organizations or members of the KKK or Nazi Party that was a bigger problem in the US than any real local follower of the Communist Party. Not surprising considering that many of those blacklisted were Jewish. Even today, Conservatives call Liberals and non-religious people Communists or Socalists.

Regardless how faithful you may be, understand if the Christian Right Republican/Teaparty top runners (especially Michele Bachmann) actually gets full control and absolute power of our government, the bible some of you praise as absolute truth will become our new Constitution and theocracy will rule at the expense of people's rights. Good bye gay rights, reproductive rights, the teaching of evolution and entertainment that is considered profane or violent by them. Never mind the posiblity that we'll ever get our economy back in shape as they spend all they can enforcing their new laws and engaging in holy wars against our former allies that doesn't support the "christian nation's" agendas.

You make Good points... Augur... Toasti However you make my points EVERY major civilizations had thes type of histories and extremisms... Secularism always find it roots in Religion....The "moral" law of Moses was the basis of the "American" law system.... That is why high offices are sworn in on the Bible because there was no higher authority... You mentioned all the "Black eyes" Christianity has in history.... As you both noted All religions (including secularism) has it black eyes. But it was through Christianity that the Greats works of Peace was done in this world it The black community was steeped in polytheism in slavery but we ditched the "dead" gods for a Living one... A preacher (ML K) took his faith to the for front. Mother Teresa work is legendary... Take a Closer look at History and see the men of Faith

Washington, William Penn, ML K.... Not saying they was morally flawless... But the were driven to pray and seek God for the greatest work....

LMFAO - what a twist to history. I bet you write all of the BuyBull-Home-School history texts?

The reason secularism has its roots in religion is because societies have gotten tired of having it shoved down their throats and those nations, once Christian-Catholic, are now only traditionally observant (like swearing on the bible) and since, they are a little more stable than they once were. History has shown us when one religion rules, the beliefs of others are swept under the carpet and the lump is stomped down, hoping no one will notice. The "black eyes" I was refering to is to basically any and all religions, especially when they rule at the expense of people's most basic freedoms. I won't deny that Christianity hasn't played a role in positively shaping our societies -- I rather see people in a Christian church rather than in some basement in a trance, talking in tongues while their priest drips dove blood on them -- it's the black and white fundalmentalism that is the issue. Do you think that if the Middle East has converted officially to Christianity from Islam, Mosques to Churches, Quran to Bible, Mohammad to Jesus, that those countries will stop fighting... that human rights will increase? They are now what the Church controlled nations used to be 500 years ago. Nothing will really change until a wall is place between their religion and government.

Considering how slow it took for equal human rights to accrue over the last 100 years, imagine if the US had no Constitutionally amended Seperation of Church and State and the Christian church had control on all our laws.

Some African nations have become officially Christian like Uganda, with no real seperation between religion and government, and they haven't gotten much better than the Islamic ones near them: Aside once being a brutal police state in the hands of Idi Amin, there are still serious human rights abuses in Uganda even today from the government and police. Homosexuality, is so illegal in Uganda that publications (with a yellow banner that says "hang them!") have published names and addresses of known homosexuals and US Evangelical Christian ministers, with links to the Fellowship Foundation, or The Family -- whose members includes senators and congressmen -- have gone to Uganda to support a still proposed bill, influenced by American conservative evangelical dogma, that would extend punishment to known and active homosexuals with the death pentalty. It also extends to Ugandans who engage in same-sex relations outside the country to be extradited back for punishment and those who know and are friendly to gays and supports them (known as "fag enablers" by Westboro) would also be punished if they don't turn them in. Evangelicals here in the US have been pushing for laws like this for 30 years and while their agendas have had little impact even in conservative states, they have been successful in Africa. Is this what Jesus wants?

Augure

SO you say Evolution accepts sexual " perversions" and just continues on?

Can you show me where any species where the gender is not " fixed" is viable even in hermaphrodites a " gender" is set by a dual so Two different genders are needed for copulation, so what is you Point in Bringing up a gender issue with " tolerance"?

@Augure666 U lay out your argument while making my point... There is no 100% secular government... The wall of the Church and Government in America so that The Government can't tell the Church and viceversa.... But Moral-ism is still faith based. You say that Civil Rights was a slow process.

America is 230+ years old... the youngest nation on the planet.... (S. Sudan just split from N. Sudan as a result of religious intolerance toward Christianity and war) It didn't take America "Thousand" of years like other nations in the World

But Moral-ism is still faith based

Incorrect, there are plenty of non-faith based moral codes that existed pre-christianity, such as 1) Sumerian eye for an eye, 2) Ancient Babalons Golden Rule (embraced by later christianity), 3) Utilitarianism, 4) Consequentialism 5) Objectivism 6) Biological Moralism, etc. Sorry, but you are incorrect.

Further, our laws more accurately reflect the golden rule, consequentialism and biological moralism more than christian morality. Sorry about that.

SO you say Evolution accepts sexual " perversions" and just continues on?

You are really off topic. Civil rights were being argued, not evolution or gay peoples ability to procreate.

Further, having a small portion of the population gay was positive in an evolutionary perspective. These individuals did not compete for mates or make offspring that competed for resources. This increased the likelihood that related offspring (nieces/nephews) would grow to sexual maturity. Not a big benefit when resources are plenty, but during periods of resource scarcity this provided the "edge" to make sure your family bloodlines continued.

lol So YOU say that encouraging sexual perversion is good for evolution?

Tell me what Cost to the community the spread of disseases that come about because of misuse of the anatomy? Or will you now tell me that Sperm causes no Damage when it is in the wrong part in the Body?

"You are really off topic. Civil rights were being argued, not evolution or gay peoples ability to procreate." is this a Civil Right forum?? i would have never thought that, and even IF it is, which i am sure it is NOT do not people have the RIGHT to know about the Dangers from Misuse of THEIR Bodies, or allowing any one ELSE to misuse Their Bodies?

Flame77_7

"U lay out your argument while making my point... There is no 100% secular government... The wall of the Church and Government in America so that The Government can't tell the Church and viceversa.... But Moral-ism is still faith based. You say that Civil Rights was a slow process."

Where did I say that a country has an 100% secular government? I'm saying that other countries have adopted a constitution simular to the US that keeps government and religion seperate and at the very most are traditionally observant.

"America is 230+ years old... the youngest nation on the planet.... (S. Sudan just split from N. Sudan as a result of religious intolerance toward Christianity and war) It didn't take America 'Thousand' of years like other nations in the World"

Most of the other nations have just learned from their mistakes in the last 60+ years. The fall of facism, the fall of communism, the fall of religious domination in Europe and now most of these countries have a better civil rights record than we do, and it didn't take them 230 years. The United Nations have been speaking out on violations of civil rights in other countries and tribunals have been set up to convict war criminals, while in the good ole USA, most of those who speaks out are the liberal activists that have no real government power. Most of those in office here really doesn't give a @!$%# unless the terrorism or attrocities are directed on us. Would we have gotten involved in World War II if Japan haven't sky bombed Pearl Harbor, even so many in high office knew what was happening in Europe in the hands of the Nazis at the time? Do note that there were quite a few Americans who were wearing the swastika in their support of Hitler (Silver Shirts) and would have rather our soldiers fight with the Germans, not against them. This was largly because of the increase of immigration of people prior to the war that would have faced persecution if they stayed in Europe and Jews were not well liked by conservative Christians Americans. Even today, Holocaust denial isn't limited just to known hate groups.

As EngEsq pointed out, one doesn't need to be god fearing to be moral and there are alot of known religious people who thought they had a monopoly on morality, including your beloved Christian leaders (like Jim Baker) who lost it all because they weren't as moral as they made themselves out to be. There are dangerous men and women in our prison system that have become born-again, but I would not feel comfortable if they were freed and allowed to walk among us, especially when they commited crimes heinous enough for them to spend the rest of their life behind bars or be sentenced to death.

Overwhelming faith and moral superiority has a tendency to turn people irrational and sanctimonious, and thus, they lose their morality when they hurt others in their hatred for them. Eagle Averro has just made my point when I mentioned what's happening in Uganda as an example of a civil rights issue based on religious based bigotry and he justifies their intolerance because homosexuality is nothing more than a "perversion and misuse of our bodies that spreads disease" -- AIDS is more common among hetrosexual females in Africa than the homosexual males being used as scape-goats.

Whats Lies IT spreads no wonder it has no " Social Morality" ;-) On My Photo Album is a Photo showing some Data about HIV/AIDS, your ignorance is showing again by not knowing that AIDS is not a disease it is as the Acronym point out AID(S) Syndrome, Ignorance aside HIV Infections in Africa 90% Are due to ANAL Sex Oral Sex and wait for it Drug injections so why the LIES from you? HVI2 in Africa is spreading to Females by Infected Anal Deviant Males, why do YOU fear the truth so badly?

"In the absence of education about HIV and how high-risk behaviour can increase the risk of becoming infected, gay men in Africa are often unaware that having many partners and not practicing sex safely consistently can lead to a higher risk of HIV transmission. A study of 142 MSM in Cameroon found 57 percent had engaged in unprotected anal intercourse with a male partner in the last 6 months, 44 percent of men reported sex with 2 to 4 partners in the last 6 months and 21 percent reported 5 or more partners in the last six months. "http://www.avert.org/gay-africa-hiv-aids.htm

One and the Key reason that HIV/AIDS is now a PANDEMIC is because of LIES spread about Anal Sex what do YOU know about Sperm being classified as " super antigen"? Please educate me.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Publications/docs/2006_Disease_Profile_508_FINAL.pdf 2006

"From 2005 through 2006, the rate of fluoroquinolone-resistant gonorrhea nearly doubled (from nearly 4% to 7%) among heterosexual men; the rate increased from 29% to 39% among men who have sex with men (MSM).

From 2005 through 2006, the rate of fluoroquinolone-resistant gonorrhea nearly doubled (from nearly 4% to 7%) among heterosexual men; the rate increased from 29% to 39% among men who have sex with men (MSM).

Surveillance data reveal that the overall increase in P&S syphilis rates between 2005 and 2006 primarily reflects an increase in the number of cases reported among males, although the P&S syphilis rate for females also increased during this period. The 2006 P&S syphilis rate among men was 5.7 cases per 100,000, whereas the rate among women was 1.0 case, representing an 11%–12% increase over 2005 rates for both groups. The elevated rates of P&S syphilis in men can be largely attributed to increases in the number of cases reported among MSM. The factors contributing to increased rates among women remain unclear.

After reaching a low in 2000, the numbers of case reports of P&S syphilis are again on the increase; currently, more than 60% of new infections are estimated to occur among MSM.

Public health surveillance activities have revealed disease patterns that affect specific population groups, which create additional opportunities for targeted public health intervention. For instance, injection drug users (IDUs) are at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C, all of which can be transmitted through the sharing of needles and syringes; outbreaks of hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection also occur among IDUs. Likewise, because hepatitis B and HIV are transmitted through high-risk sexual practices, MSM are at increased risk for both of these diseases."

TRUTH Has its Own Power LIES on the other hand!!!!

"

Men who have sex with men (MSM) and persons exposed to HIV through high-risk heterosexual contact (i.e., heterosexual contact with someone known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection) accounted for 82% of all cases of HIV/AIDS diagnosed in 2006.

Infants and fetuses of HIV-infected mothers are also at increased risk for HIV/AIDS. In 2006, more than 90% of children diagnosed with HIV/AIDS were exposed to the disease by their infected mothers in utero, at birth, or through breastfeeding. "

"Whats Lies IT spreads no wonder it has no " Social Morality" ;-) On My Photo Album is a Photo showing some Data about HIV/AIDS, your ignorance is showing again by not knowing that AIDS is not a disease it is as the Acronym point out AID(S) Syndrome, Ignorance aside HIV Infections in Africa 90% Are due to ANAL Sex Oral Sex and wait for it Drug injections so why the LIES from you? HVI2 in Africa is spreading to Females by Infected Anal Deviant Males, why do YOU fear the truth so badly?"

Is homosexuality all about AIDS with you? More people would rather log on and see pictures of your cute cats and dogs than AIDS stats that you have on your photo album. Thank you for the website, but it doesn't tell me what I already know. I know AIDS is a deficiency of the immune system and people with it suffers from of a myriad of diseases they may not have gotten without, but it is in itself an infection. Considering that HIV/AIDS is often associated with homosexuality, which is highly illegal in most of Africa, it's not truely known how many men -- gay or straight -- are infected, but regardless of their sexual orientation, men with AIDS tend to be lumped together, leaving the gays with AIDS statistics exaggerated and used for the wrong reasons.

Women can get HIV from exclusively straight men who got it from a previous relationship with a HIV-positive woman and anal sex and oral sex (HIV transmision through this is very rare, by the way) is not exclusive to same-sex relationships. Women who have the disease aren't as afraid to get tested and/or treated as it is as common for them to get the disease from infected men or IV drug use as gay men, and there is less social stigma than man-to-man infections. It is the ultra-conservative attitudes in this still primitive continent that is the reason why STDs are running rampent. Conservatives in the US still frown upon the discussion of safe sex, it's even more taboo in Muslim or Christian dominated countries. STDs knows no bounds and infects people equally.

Anyway, why are we going on about sexually transmited diseases... this page was about the Bible's bad guys, wasn't it? If there is anyone that needs to be addressed as the Bible's bad guys, it's the very ones who use it to justify their hatred of others, and that is what I was really addressing in my previous posts. Seeing how you responded straight to the mere mention of homosexuality -- which was a small example in my post, not the the center of my post -- I can see that you're not worth reasoning with.

My, preacherdude, arent WE ignorant ?

What you dont seem to realize, is that the Bible IS a history book of the region.

You seem to take issue with modern society linking present discoveries to the texts of that era IN that geographical locale.

Even if you believe that the "miracles" of the past are not miracles, you cant deny that the people of that time DID believe in those and, SURPRISE !, there are actually WRITINGS about them.

shhhhh ! here's a secret - there was ACTUALLY a Temple in Jerusalem ! (and I guess you're angry that the Wailing (Western) Wall is actually referred to as the remnant of that old Temple...I mean, GEE, if you CALL it that, then one might believe that it actually existed ! OMG..THAT might mean that there is SOME truth to the Bible, and you CANT have THAT, can you ?

Jeff, are you sure you aren't a writer for Glenn Beck? The tone and structure almost exactly follow one of his rants.

Funny.

Preacherdude - AGREED. Fascinating historical / archaeological report with a heavy bias courtesy of the author. Friedman is obviously not a Bible fan. I was appalled at the writer's comments peppered throughout the the article. Fortunately, the importance of these finds far outweigh these "opinions" offered.

I'm sorry, I just don't see what there is to be upset about. The Bible is one of the best and only records we have for this period. Comparing and contrasting archaeological evidence with the stories and accounts of the Bible is a necessary and implied part of performing this research. If some people take exception with the idea that the Philistines weren't just thugs and that the Israelites sometimes acted wrongly then those people are simply living in a fantasy.

If some people also take offense that some of the accounts of the Bible are not taken at face value until proven, well then they have a very mis-informed view of archeology. They are not saying the legends aren't true, they are simply saying what there is hard evidence for. The scientists are digging for what can be considered a holistic view of these cultures, not just an allegorical and one-sided story taken at face value from an ancient book of hand-me-down legends. They must consider all angles and evidence to paint a picture that is accurate. Their job is not to prove the legends true, it is to replace the legends with truth in order to give these cultures and stories more validity in reality.

Forming a picture from the evidence that doesn't jive with the legends is innevitable. Those of you who are uncomfortable with that are simply not interested in history, but clearly favor only what helps you sleep at night.

The Bible does not own human history. Our history lies beneath our feet. We can learn from digging down, but instead we look upwards as if our history can be found in the heavens.

You are questioning his questiong of biblical records, looks like two peas in a pod to me. But then you did discern his non-christian approach to his article (i suppose) so you are to be congratulated for reading through journalistic opinion in order to gather the most factual interpretation.

Then again, I imagine if you had written the article it would, too, contain your own opinions vs. plain fact.

Ezbenson:

funny ?

hmmm, seems to me that you guys also disparage Beck, calling him names - funny thing is, what I DONT hear about criticisms of Beck, (OR in your post disparaging ME, for that matter), are the words "you're WRONG".

hmmm, wonder why that is ? (Me thinx it's because you and those like you, want to concentrate on what's politically correct, as opposed to what's "true".)

SO - is there ONE thing in my post that is not "true"?

I think Friedman's really bad journalism is anti-Israel. Seems odd, with his name.

A trained Journalist knows... (and it happens to be my Master's degree as well as internship, then a job with Newsweek some years ago)... will know that a News report does NOT include opinion. It sets forth sourced facts and quotes.

Feature articles can be Opinion, and are always signed (News may or may not credit the writer). Opinion makes the issue and the writer's stand on it in the first paragraph... so the reader knows what to expect.

The writer then develops the whys and hows of his opinion... by the use of logic (syllogistic usually) and sources (links) of his/her assertions. The most interesting to me may include colorful language (no, nothing obscene lol) that is really metaphor. Ditto, a sense of humor. For me, humor (which doesn't rely on put-downs) is fun to read.

You might want to Google Charles Krauthammer's articles on Israel (not his exclusive subject matter btw). He writes feature articles as I describe printed in one of the most liberally oriented international newspaper in the U.S.A... the Washington Post. Actually, in the Opinion & Commentary section, the Post runs top writers that are liberal or conservative and half way between.

You may not agree with what Krauthammer says, but I think you will enjoy how he says it.

And in my take on him... he really cannot be labeled, as he will write a recognizably liberal view on an debatable issue, and the next week what many would call the conservative approach on a different issue. And he is, I think persuasive either way.

The kind of writing Matti Friedman offers us is, pure and simple, tabloid writing for readers not really represented by the thoughtful posts, on both sides of the issue, whom I am reading here. He insults us.

Second Sight, I fear that the majority of journalists and news writers today slant the news according to their beliefs. The goal is to gain readership, not promote the truth. For example: This headline came out last year;

"Godzilla like monster captured on California street."

Click on the link, read the article, and it was a 5 foot monitor lizard that escaped from it's cage at a private residence.

Would anyone have clicked on the link had it read;

"Five foot monitor lizard captured on a street in California."

Of course not. That's ho-hum. Now, take the reporting by Al-Jazeerah, and other news organizations that are anti-Israel. One glaring example is the Mohammed Al-Dura hoax which was largely responsible for starting the third intifadah against Israel. And regularly here on Newsvine we find articles that are seeded in which the seeder misrepresents the substance of the article. That was not done here, but I see it frequently.

I do not wish to paint all journalists with the brush of belief first, truth second. Our local paper does a pretty fair job of being straight and up front with the news. "This happened, and this is the result". And you know what? They do not lack for readership. But even though the seeder did not misrepresent the substance of the article in the initial post, he did carry on the position of the author by his initial comment, which he's allowed to do. Fact is, the days of simply putting forth the truth, I fear, are behind us. Journalists are not reporters, they have transmogrified into some kind of a third reporter/a third commentator/ and a third opinion columnist.

I'm sorry Radagast, but the bible is FAR from the only document we have from the Bronze Age, and it's by far one of the least accurate accounts ever written.

Ah Toasty, something you heard at watering hole? Never mind backing up the "least accurate" with valid evidence.

Absolutely, but the article was written by a professional JOURNALIST. This is someone who was a flunked-out English major that salvaged a college career by making a strategic change of majors to compensate for their genetic and conditioned shortcomings.

JOURNALIST: someone who can't write who interviews people who can't talk for people who can't read

Well Levi, the bible directly contradicts known physical laws for a start. Not to mention the talking snaked and the man who lived in a fish. And how can anyone forget the fact that not a single other verified historical document has ever substantiated the events found in the bible.

the bible directly contradicts known physical laws

Mmmm...look at your word "known". Do you suppose science has discovered all there is to discover? How absolutely silly it is to say that throughout the history of the world all is as it is today, and those good Americans in the Garden of Eden couldn't have been talking to a snake. No way.

And how can anyone forget the fact that not a single other verified historical document has ever substantiated the events found in the bible.

I'll tell ya how "anyone" can forget that "fact". It's not true. Straight up. It's not true.

Like I"ve said before, and I'll say it again. If all you do is look for the error, God will make sure that is all you find.

I'm sorry Levi, but reality doesn't work that way.

All should read or reread "Innocents Abroad". It's a light and amusing take on all this by "Mark Twain". Easy reading. I read it in the 8th grade. You'll gain some valuable insights and understanding of what "Toasty" and others are saying here. By the way "Toasty", appreciate your comments.

Heh, a fellow Clemens fan, I see.

Toasty, I can tell you're getting tired. That's okay. We can stop here. My response to your post above is "what doesn't work what way?" but obviously that feeble swat at contradiction means you're worn out. So have a great evening, and I'll see you around Newsvine!

I'll say it straight out:

Levi777 is an ignorant ass.

No Levi, reality doesn't allow for Gardens of Eden, talking snakes, and people living inside giant fishes. If something is impossible, it's impossible.

Matthew 19:26

King James Version (KJV)

²⁶But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Anything is possible. A great many scientific achievements were at one point thought to be impossible but now are possible. Improbable maybe, but impossible just means we haven't found a way yet....doesn't mean we won't. ;D

But without evidence, there's absolutely no reason to believe that. I mean, I have just as much evidence to believe that Star Wars happened.

What toasty means is it is HIGHLY improbable. An at some point believing something so incredibly improbable is fact is foolish.

For example, it is possible to toss a coin heads-up 5000 times in a row, but if someone told me they had just done it I'd call him a liar... maybe if he wrote it down in a 2000 year old book I'd be more inclined to believe him... See how ridiculous this is.

Exactly. You know what else is highly improbable? The existence of fairies and dragons. Theoretically it is possible that they exist, but there's zero evidence suggesting that they do. Thus, there is no reason to even consider it.

I mean, if I were to believe as fact ANYTHING that was theoretically possible, but had no evidence, I'd also have to believe in Darth Vader. And Zeus. And Osiris. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And I would not, at that point, be a rational adult.

When you read Aesop's Fables (and I'm using it as an example, not saying that the bible is one) do you walk away truly thinking that a turtle can outrun a rabbit, or do you walk away with the morals that it teaches? If you suggest that everything, absolutely everything, in the bible truly happened, that a man lived in a whale, that a woman turned to a pillar of salt, then I think you read too much into it and don't see the actual teachings that the bible is trying to convey.

If there is no evidence to disprove it, then maybe there is reason to believe. At one point man thought and had evidence to prove that we could not fly, then someone made a contraption to help us to do so. It's ok to chose if you want to believe or not believe in what there is no proof on but to rule it out completely means you close your eyes to the possibility. But hey, I'm sure I'm stretching it I just enjoy seeing all sides. Like I said, highly improbable, not highly impossible.

Toasty, you're absolutely right, the bible is not the only source of bronze age writings. I simply overstated its importance since so many on this thread give it ultimate importance. I'm certainly not defending the literal truth of the bible, but many of the stories of military conquest in the OT do have a seed of truth to them. But, I wouldn't want anyone to confuse me with a bible thumper! lol

No, Lyrica, logic and rational thinking don't work that way. Like I said, since there's no way to disprove Star Wars, by your thinking we should all believe in Darth Vader.

And yes, Rad, clearly some parts of it have a factual basis. I mean, it makes reference to common knowledge we see referenced in other, legitimate historical sources.

Tim W. 1418 reported as inflammatory. Probably expecting it since it's such a blatant violation of the code of Honor. Never got over the prepubescent angst and doesn't now how to play well with others.

Actually no what I'm saying is, you can believe in what you chose using whatever method you chose (logic, rationality, morality, stories told, lessons learned). If you wish to believe in Darth Vader (using your example) that's your right to, I won't because I chose not to, personally I don't believe he exists, but I'm not going to tell anyone else who truly believes in him that it's a stupid thing to believe in or attack them personally because they are different then I. I won't say it's impossible that there has been life in other solar systems, possibly more advanced then what we have now, but I may think it's improbable.

But I'm saying there's no point in believing in the overwhelmingly improbable. Yet the second you give it a name like religion, suddenly a person no longer looks like a moron for believing it, but instead people call them brave for doing so.

Mac Forrester

All should read or reread "Innocents Abroad". It's a light and amusing take on all this by "Mark Twain". Easy reading. I read it in the 8th grade. You'll gain some valuable insights and understanding of what "Toasty" and others are saying here. By the way "Toasty", appreciate your comments.

#14.15 - Sat Jul 9, 2011 8:17 PM PDT

the parts about Jersusalem asn the Holy land?

I don't know, I guess technically the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could be considered a religion and I don't call them brave for believing in it. :D Anyways, time to head off, nice talking to you.

Toasty

"But I'm saying there's no point in believing in the But I'm saying there's no point in believing in the overwhelmingly improbable.."

Two thousand years ago a woman tells her family she had IVF there was no sexual intercourse and hence she is now " expecting a child" ""But I'm saying there's no point in believing in the overwhelmingly improbable.""

Today it is accepted Fact that IVF is used to get thousands of woman pregnant with the Dr not undertaking any " sexual act" so who is Blind to possibilities?

One of Many examples one can use.

Uh, Eagle? They didn't have in-vitro fertilization 2000 years ago...

Wait, god used a turkey baster on Mary?!

Wow, Eagle, that makes so much more sense! A lot more sense than she was sleeping around with the guy she was traveling with and didn't want the disgrace of a premarital pregnancy and thus she made up a story. Or they were fooling around without penetrating intercourse and some of his stuff got on her and managed to get to the egg (hey it's happened to teens without removal of underwear, albeit rare).

Okay, I'm blonde. But am I the only one that sees the misreading of Preacherdude's comment by all the ranters against him? He said,

"He (Friedman) should not have made insinuations questioning biblical records."

To me, Jeff, et al., that means that Preacherdude does accept the Biblical record as true. I personally was offended by Friedman's questioning the Biblical kingdoms of David and Solomon, and the Biblical account of Samson. And I believe this is what Preacherdude was saying also. Did I miss something?

Thanks for the sane post. There weren't many here today.

Note that it was Samson who supposedly pulled down the temple around his own head. A bad haircut can really piss you off! LOL! :)

That would be wonderful if people weren't using the writings in the "mostly mythical" bible to establish societal and political policy. You and I may agree that it is a "philosophy" book but the movers and shakers - the power brokers are using it as a litmus test for validity. When we hire a president who openly denies it's authority then we'll have something. P.S. without this supposed book written by gawd himself no one would have an authoritative claim to that patch of land by the sea where all the strife is emanating from. So trying to brush of the influence of the bible as some benign book of allegories is either naive or duplicitous.

Well there is proof of the Exodus.If you look at the geography of the regions and follow the places listed in Exodus,springs are found at the appropriate places, you find cemetaries with Jewsish graves in some of the sites that Hebrews were supposed to have died. THey have located the city of Jericho and it's walls were indeed destroyed. There is evidence that Joseph was the overseer of the land of Egypt during an extended famine.

The fact that the history of a small nation in a remote geographic location was not reflected in the histories of surrounding and distant empires that dwarfed it, is not an amazing thing. It also doesn't make the history kept by that small nation a fantasy... The Dalai Lama comes from a now tiny country of Tibet, but they have a history that extends back thousands of years and I bet its considered accurate in most cases.

There is no historical evidence for the Exodus. Even if you decide that the recorded in stone history of Egypt is off by a few hundred years - you still have a hard time squeezing any of the elements of the Moses story into the existing records.

Archaeology

The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."^[21] For this reason, most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit."^[22] A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,^[18] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:^[23][24] the culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.^[25]

Date

Main article: Pharaoh of the Exodus

but Edwin Thiele's widely accepted reconciliation of the reigns of the Israelite and Judahite kings would imply an Exodus around 1450 BCE, during the reign of Pharaoh Thutmose III (1479-1425 BCE).^[36] By the mid-20th century it had become apparent that the archaeological record made this date impossible. The mummy of Thutmoses III had already been discovered in 1881,^[37] and Egyptian records of that period do not mention the expulsion of any group that could be identified with over two million Hebrew slaves, nor any events which could be identified with the Biblical plagues. In addition, digs in the 1930s had failed to find traces of the simultaneous destruction of Canaanite cities c.1400 BCE—in fact many of them, including Jericho, the first Canaanite city to fall to the Israelites according to the Book of Joshua, were uninhabited at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

and for those who question Wiki, you can look up the above in the notes at the bottom of the wikipage.

Egyptian culture does not seem very disposed to record and glorify it's defeats. In fact they most often have been remarkable in their efforts to erase any reference to any defeat in battle or politics. Would you want to record for history that the most powerful nation of it's day was defeated by an unarmed band of slaves? Today we would do it, but I think that Egypt in that time would want it to go away and never bring it up again.

Snowdragon-1863859

The Hebrew slaves would have been about 1/3 of the total population in Egypt at the time of the Exodus, there would have been plenty of evidence to show the departure of such a large portion of the population. There would have been a rapid decline in the whole structure of the Egyptian society who depended on the slaves to maintain the day to day work.

@Snowdragon-1863859 Well then you would think there would be some writing or record keeping about the time when they were 'victorious' in their subjugation of few million Hebrews - but - alas - nothing.

After Joseph died and the next Pharoah enslaved the Hebrews, why would there be an account of a "victory"? The subjects of the Pharoahs were all considered obligated to do his bidding and were under his control. There was no armed resistance, he just simply told the Hebrews to provide certain things to his soldiers.

You people keep wanting to look at an ancient nation, with people every bit as smart as people today, just with less technology, and think that their culture reflected our modern one. If a king said cut my mother into tiny bits the people he ruled sharpened knives and did it.

The Jewish history of the Torah and Bible are almost unique in listing defeats as well as victories. They show their leaders faults and missteps.Other cultures did not do that at all. They weilded power through perceived strength, so any weakness was written out of history. Egypt has no written records of weak, lousy pharoahs. DO you believe that there weren't any?

I also have no idea how you came up with the figure that the Jews made up 1/3 of the population of Egypt, especially since the egyptians kept no census. They had been given the land of Goshen, a fertile farming area, that only occupied a tiny portion of the empire of Egypt. It would be hard to arrive at the coclusion they represented that large a portion of the population.

@Snowdragon-1863859 Gee how convenient - the Egyptians never mention us because - They're embarrassed? Lazy? Not unique?

I also have no idea how you came up with the figure that the Jews made up 1/3 of the population of Egypt, especially since the egyptians kept no census.

I was conservative when I said 1/3 of the population

Numbers and logistics

According to Exodus 12:37-38 NIV, the Israelites numbered "about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children," plus many non-Israelites and livestock.^[9]Numbers 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550.^[10] The 600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites would have numbered some 2 million people,^[11] compared with an entire estimated Egyptian population of around 3 million.^[12] Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long.^[13] No evidence exists that Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe, nor is there evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds,^[14] nor of a massive population increase in Canaan, which is estimated to have had a population of only 50,000 to 100,000 at the time.^[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

mmmm it seem you need to poke around a little further.... God has a way in throwing a monkeyrench.... "My Carma has run over your Dogma."

www.allaboutarchaeology.org/merneptah-stele-faq.htm

Rom 3:3-4 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? (4) God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Curt,

Yes, but you are dropping large parts of history and the Bible in your statement. and Wikipedia did too. They were also wrong on their math.

This large original group would NOT have marched ten abreast but probably in a front from 1/2 to full mile across. If you took them at 1/2 mile and 700 abreast and 10 feet between lines, you would have a column no more than 8 miles long, if you went to three feet between lines, you would be under a mile and a half. People ignore the math that tells us you can give each person 9 square feet to stand in and you can get three MILLION people in a square mile. The entire population of the world could be placed in a 2000 square mile space. Thats only a 200 x 10 mile space

More than half the number of the Hebrews were destroyed for their rebellion at Mount Sinai, and then the ones that wanderd in the desert were fed by manna, not by the local vegetation. Then all the Hebrews that left from Eqypt that were older than 13 died in the 40 years of wandering when they refused to take the land when Moses first led them to it. There was never a claim that their numbers increased or that many children were born in that 40 years. There were at least two instances, once by pestilence, and once from food poisoning from eating day old quail that claimed many thousands of the Hebrews during that 40 years.

There may have only been a couple hundred of thousand Hebrews left when they returned and entered the land of Canaan.

very astute Snowdragon..... Archeologist cannot explain why Egypt began a swift decline in influence around the Exodus time period... After Ramses only a "few" monarchs exercised control most historian agree that it swift decline is "unexplained" I call things of this nature the "God Factor"

www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p34_Oliver.html

Uh, Flame? There is absolutely ZERO evidence whatsoever that suggests there were Hebrews in Egypt as slaves at any time in the Bronze Age. None.

If every person in a nation says that something happened, it is pretty much understood that that thing happened. It is not only a handful of people saying that something happened. We have the yearly tradition of Passover, which started when the Jews left Egypt and continued since then, every family in the nation telling their children about what happened when they left Egypt. That has passed down through the generations without a break. This is something that cannot be made up, as if one person or a small group of people would try to make it up sometime in the middle of the nation's existence, the other people would understandably call them cuckoo. The Jews do take the Bible, their Five Books of Moses, literally, including the history, and you cannot discount the history based on the logic of what I have just written. There has been an unbroken chain of transmission of this tradition from father to children since the Jewish nation started, and just because some don't believe it doesn't mean it is not true. Just because no archeological remains have been found yet doesn't mean it is not true. If you believe in evolution you cannot use that argument to say the Jewish nation never came out of Egypt. Usually people who believe in evolution say they are waiting for proof to corroborate their belief that man evolved from monkeys. But they still believe it even though they have no proof of it. Again, in a different vein: One billion Muslims believe Mohammed rose to Heaven on a horse and received the Koran from G-d. But not one person saw him do it. There is no proof of it whatsoever, and yet billions of people base their entire religious belief on it. However, there were millions of Jews who came out of Egypt and saw G-d give the Torah to themselves (not to Moses, but to the entire nation) and told it to their children, who told it to their children, etc. down to our times. Millions of people saw something with their own eyes. That is something we can base beliefs on.

Toasty... feast your eyes on this.....This Egyptian king said he "conquered" Israel.... except they are still around and Egypt as it was is not... Don't beleive every thing you think

www.allaboutarchaeology.org/merneptah-stele-faq.htm

Most nonfiction is set in an actual country, state, town, whatever. Means nothing.

you been watch'n the anthony trial....they will dig up zanny someday..

I was appalled as well. I just finished submitting my complaint.

It realy is too bad that they did exhist as recorded in extra conical volumes (outside the Bible)

Video The Real St. Nick

http://www.myspace.com/theholybible_7777/videos/video/101094127

Movie Nicholas Of Myra Not yet released

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Nicholas-Of-Myra/142175368664

Nicholas of Myra trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvKg0EwRDSM

Concordia Publishing House Saint Nicholas

by Stiegemeyer, Julie

http://www.cph.org/p-3082-saint-nicholas.aspx

Saint Nicholas Church Demre (Myra), Turkey 8th Century

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w172/mgcover/StNicholasChurchDemreMyraTurkey8thC.jpg

December 6

Nicholas of Myra, Pastor

Of the many saints commemorated by the Christian Church, Nicholas (d. A.D. 342) is one of the best known. Very little is known historically of him, although there was a church of Saint Nicholas in Constantinople as early as the sixth century. Research has affirmed that there was a bishop by the name of Nicholas in the city of Myra in Lycia (part of Turkey today) in the fourth century. From that coastal location, legends about Nicholas have traveled throughout time and space. He is associated with charitable giving in many countries around the world and is portrayed as the rescuer of sailors, the protector of children, and the friend of people in distress or need. In commemoration of “Sinte Klaas” (Dutch for Saint Nicholas, in English “Santa Claus”), December 6 is a day for giving and receiving gifts in many parts of Europe.

Gosh... can any of you define the word "metaphor"????

Google it. It is basic to understanding this whole issue which, actually, I personally don't think it conflicts as much as you... and the estimable but lousy reporter Matti Friedman... allege.

The Temple building that Solomon built still exist in its remnant, and there are people in the world who have kept the records of their ancestry and they come from David and Solomon. In fact, one requirement of the Messiah is that he comes from the line of David, and that is one of the reasons why some other person people think is the Messiah is not.

No Easter Bunny either?? Next thing, they'll be denouncing Sponge Bob!

I have to agree with most of what you say... I'd just change one sentence a bit...

"... peoples of the Middle East love to fight..."

... I think it should read..."global humanity from the dawn of time is primed to fight."

OK, there is controversy on defining the words "dawn of time"... but, really, I think it is just a metaphor for all the beliefs as to what it means.

The archaeology continues to reveal that what the Bible says is true, and if you will read "The Bible Unauthorized" by A. J. Moose, you will never again say that the Bible contains spiritual mumbo jumbo.

Indeed. Perhaps this will shed some light on what REALLY happened back in those days. Relying on a fairy tale for answers has cost us dearly in the realm of knowledge.

Remember sitting next to a nice young chap on a plane and he was telling me about Jesus. When I hinted at the infalibility of the Bible the expression on his face was precious! Like he had just seen his first flying saucer.

Belief systems are foundations and prisons all at the same time.

You will only see an article like that in a church. The facts are simple. The New Testament is riddled with fabricated stories, so is the Old Testament. They were simply an effort to record what they thought at the time were facts but were just a collection of stories told in homes or firesides and then coordinated by what could have been "historians" of the times in book form. A natural progression of an improving species trying to explain their existence.

MMMmmm... cleareye that is a nice theory but most of these men (bible authors) were not contemporaries. They were often separated by Hundreds of years and the new and old testaments by 500+ years all stories if "simply" related like you proposed would not have the concurrence the Word posseses... The Bible is the most studied book in history.. They scholars, pious men, famous athiest, kings, rulers have refered to it's history and again and again found it to be consistant (not ever detail of Bible happenings but every major historical event mention in other Nations of the time is also mentioned in the Bible. It also shows you have not read the Whole Book.

I find skepticism - and doubt that Jesus Christ is what he claimed to be, that is the true prison. People want to do what they want to do, and Christ confronts that - this is the reason he said that he "came to bring a sword"- people reject him due to their own selfish desires.

Yikes. Ok, so I am not infallible.

Remember sitting next to a nice young chap on a plane and he was telling me about Jesus. When I hinted at the infalibility of the Bible the expression on his face was precious! Like he had just seen his first flying saucer.

Belief systems are foundations and prisons all at the same time.

The above should read instead!!!

When I hinted at the FALLIBILITY of the Bible the expression on his face was precious!

The most studied Book in History.... "The Bible" Nuff said.

The most studied Book in History.... "The Bible" Nuff said.

It was the only Book for a very long time

Curt, it was the first book printed, not the only one.

Manuscripts and scrolls were around hundreds of years before print. Clay tablets were around hundreds of years before that. The Bible was studied for its practical and religious value, not because it was the "only" book. That is unless you consider a matter of a month or so a "very long time".

I should rephrase that statement

It was the only Book allowed outside the clergy for a very long time.

Could you provide some details and documentation of that statement, please?

Hal.... don't bother... (nothing personal Curt) His statements are unvarifiable... and He has never read the Whole Bible... I Have an it is not just "A BooK"

It's just a collection of Bronze Age Hebrew fairy tales. Of course there's no accuracy or reliability.

Toasty,

I just wanted you to know that your posts are presenting you to be both ignorant and arrogant. Like Levi said, you keep coming up with empty statements. It's obvious that you have done very little, if any, research on your stance with the bible. Far be it from me to judge anyone and I respect your opinion but it's almost like you don't understand it so you right it off as illegitimate.

Flame77_7 says:

"MMMmmm... cleareye that is a nice theory but most of these men (bible authors) were not contemporaries. They were often separated by Hundreds of years and the new and old testaments by 500+ years all stories if "simply" related like you proposed would not have the concurrence the Word posseses... (sic) The Bible is the most studied book in history.. They scholars, pious men, famous athiest (sic), kings, rulers have refered (sic) to it's history and again and again found it to be consistant (sic) (not ever (sic) detail of Bible happenings but every major historical event mention in other Nations of the time is also mentioned in the Bible. It also shows you have not read the Whole Book."

What utter and complete tripe!

I am consistently astounded by how the religious see what they want to see and then try and pass of the most egregious lies as fact.

Read the last chapters of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and then come back and dare to tell us that the stories are in any way consistent.

(While you are at it, work on your spelling or at least learn to use a spellchecker.)

Now come on Jherlek (your right.. I'm a lousy speeler) I read all the synoptic gospels.... They all show Jesus Crucifixion from different points of View One was eye witness, other was 2nd hand. some was close to HIM as he breathed his last breath... others were far away..... John: "Jesus looked at John and said Behold your mother, and looked at Mary and said behold your son" we can assume that was close where as another place "Peter was afar off and denied association three times" There description would be the equivalent of 3 different people seeing the same event and giving the Testamony on the details... Your would get 3 variation on the same event. Also you made the Classic error of referring to the New Testament when The article and my reference was to the Old (however I do believe the same thing of the New) And the last thing there is enough "likeness" to put a hole in your statement, they have more in common than differences...Jesus was crucified, there was thieves crucified with him.... His followers where scattered... His Body was missing. As far as History goes Jesus Death was the most well documented death in History.... All historians agree to 2 facts.... There was a man called Jesus who died for His Faith.... evidently you need to read those sections again and detail your "differences" you find...

And the last thing there is enough "likeness" to put a hole in your statement, they have more in common than differences

Its called a "variant", which is a telltale sign of oral tradition that has subsequently been recorded. Lastly any differences shows that the bible is not divine or infallible. It can hold special meaning to you, but it is still a work of relatively uneducated and ancient men.

Flame77_7

Typical religious freak! You believe what you want to believe.

You obviously didn't read the last chapters of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The events described are TOTALLY different, not just told from different viewpoints. In one version the Ascension doesn't even happen and describes Jesus Christ as still wandering about the Earth! You're not even honest enough to admit what your "holy" book actually says! Pitiful.

Just more proof that the prerequisite for being religious is utter and complete mind numbing stupidity.

Actually Flame77_7, it's the similarities that make for the "Synoptic Problem". The rate of similarity in the synoptic gospels (John, unfortunately, doesn't count. It's anonymous and hearsay) are: Luke 41%, Matthew 45%, and Mark 76% similar to each other (Triple Tradition). As for Luke and Mattew, they are an additional 23% and 25% similar to each other (Double Tradition).

When all is said and done only about 35% of Luke is unique. About 20% of Matthew. And only 3% of Mark is unique to Mark. And understand, when I say they are similar I mean copied. Not "sound kind of alike", are the same to the extent that the grammar changes from one phrase to another. These are not "the story agrees" likenesses, these are linguistically anomalous similarities that have no defensible cause except simply being copied one from an other.

You are more than welcome to hint at God's hand making sure the similarities are there, but that's gonna be a hard push seeing how some of the differences are staggering. Like the names of the apostles!

Mat 10:2-4 lists Lebbaeus and Judas Iscariot

Mark 3:16-19 lists Thaddeus and Judas Iscariot

Luke 6:14-16 lists Judas (brother of James) and Judas Iscariot

Acts 1:13 lists only Judas (brother of James) [leaving 11 apostles, not 12]

...and John names Nathanael who is not mentioned in any of the other lists.

So, we are left with an enigma: How to defend the sameness of some passages yet leave room for the staggering differences in others.

i'll be glad when the grease heats up.... so i can cook me some egg's...

The Greeks have more relevance in gaza and israel then the "palestinians" aka jordanians, syrians and lebanese settlers do... cough cough.

Cleareye... I think you may have misread the article (though that is easy to do with that really incompetent writer of the article... he vividly displays his own ignorance and bias).

I think that "no evidence at all" might be more accurate to say "no evidence yet."

The Hebrews did not have something called a Bible. The Torah (written evidence indicates the Torah goes back to being contemporaneous with the Philistines) is brief and names God's law and outlines rules of behavior. The Talmud is an extensive explanation of the Torah... many books written and added to down through the ages.

It is actually Christians who originated the word as we regard it today. Etymology suggests it was a Greek word for "book."

Yeah? Who died and made you Bibi Netanyahu?

LaGrande..... Ask me anything you want... Arheology, Bible, God etc.... You see Ive read the whole Bible.... Every archeogist find has only solidified the Bible's accuracy... I m ready... FLAME ON!!!!

Exactly!

Flame on? Are you gay or just a member of the Fantastic 4?

i believe somebody stayed at a holiday inn last night....way too smart today...

Flame77_7, You have read the whole bible? Did you know that even The Almighty's people were put under a " Vail " to expose "Apostate" Christians? If you have read the whole bible, why did you not stop it by using "Scripture?" It seems to me you need to reread "scripture."

( Daniel 4: 34 ) ( Habakkuk 1: 12 )

@TheManGabriel Actually I been using my faith in scripture the whole time.... The reason why Jesus used THE WORD to thwart the attacks of the Devil is because the Devil(s) know God:

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

As a Christian I'm also instructed by the Bible to be careful "slinging" scripture:

Mat 7:5-6 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (6) Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Pearls refer to Wisdom, instruction, scripture. Some times Christians will us the "right" scripture for the wrong purposes...It is not used just to make a point but used to teach, heal, save , instruct and even punish.... The Word is also called The Sword.... one must be careful how and when the use them.

Ohh and on last one...... This is too all:

1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Like I said... I've read the whole Bible... but not just that... I believe in it also and Jesus is my Lord

Flame77_7,

There are over fifty translations of the bible, not including varying versions of the bible. Which one have you read?

Flame77_7, I have read ( Proverbs chapter 24 )