What would it take for you to beleive?

[MorningGlory]

If it comes to that, then I will be. God is the worst being I have ever heard of, nothing would make me want to stay in his house.

I'm sure that will be one thing you won't have to worry about.

[Guest LadyC]

Because raising of the dead proves that the Christian God is real.

i guess i should have mentioned that each resurrection was after having been prayed over. to the Christian God. you don't think that proves anything? wow.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shilo, some of my information could be incorrect (I'll look it up in a bit) but the point still stands, there are many similarities from old stories that relate to Jesus. Also, your argument about historical accuracies in the Bible is a moot point. All it proves is that some authors wrote about real places and events. If I wrote a book about Mars, a real place, it doesn't necessarily mean that everything in that book is true.

No your point does not stand. You can't prove it now and you won't be able to in the future. It is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. I have demonstrated your point. You can bring up Horus or whoever. I have studied many of these comparisons, and they are nothing more fabrications.

As for the accuracies in the Bible, it is not a moot point. The onus is on you to show that writers would be able to be accurate about times, places, people and nonmiraculous events but suddenly be inaccurate about the miracles that they witnessed.

Further since many of them were eyewitnesses, it is up to you to show that their eyewitness account lacks the credibility to be trusted.

In addition to that, many of the writers and main characters of the scripture layed their lives down for what their testimony. They were not dying for a belief or what they thought might be true. The apsostles, for example, were not dying for a belief, but for their testimony that they had indeed witnessed Jesus alive, post resurrection. They saw Him, talked to Him, ate with Him, touched Him and saw Him ascend into heaven. They were willing to be tortured not for a "faith" but for what they knew to be absolutely true. It falls to you to show that there is no way their eyewitness testimony can be trusted.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 22 2009, 06:58 PM)

Well, as was common in that time, Egypitians did not record the defeats of their Pharoahs, only their victories. Since the Exodus from Egypt ended up being a defeat for the Pharoah of that time, it is not surprising that we find no mention of it. It is consistent with what we know about the history of that time. In fact, it was true about a lot of near eastern cultures. We learn about their defeats from their enemies who defeated them.

You would not need the evidence to be in the form of records. Had the events Exodus occurred as written in the bible, Egypt would have suffered the following calamities:

Population decimated, assuming conservatively that 1 in 10 Egyptians was a first-born.

Loss of 1 million slaves

Loss of all cattle - meaning no milk, no (cow) meat and a huge reduction in land transportation ability

Loss of crops due to the locusts

Yet as far as my knowledge goes, Exodus was supposed to occur during the reign of Ramses II, who by and large managed to increase Egyptian power, as well as making lots and lots of monuments to himself. If the above had happened, then not only would you not expect to see an increase in power and lots of new monuments, but you'd expect to see a rapid societal collapse, due to a) the huge population loss, b) the sudden loss of cheap labour, c) the loss of communication abilities and d) famine due to the loss of food sources.

You would also expect to see a huge trail of evidence for a million people wandering around in the desert for 40 years. You can find archaeological evidence for relatively small camps of 100 people who had camped in one place for one night. With a million people over 40 years, you'd expect to find some evidence of camps. Some evidence of the land being completely stripped of all food. Yet there is nothing

Well, first of all, the Pharoah of the Exodus was most likely Amenhotep II not Rameses II. The Exodus is dated to the 18th Dynasty (1540-1070) and Rameses the II belongs to the 19th Dynasty. Furthermore, Amenhotep II was succeded by Thutmose IV who was not his first-born son. The Bible tells us in 1 Kings 6:1 that Solomon began building the Temple in 480th year AFTER the Exodus from Egypt. Now, the Temple construction began around 966 BC. That would place the Exodus at 1446 BC, squarely within the 18th Dynasty. Another biblical evidence to consider is that the Apostle Paul tells us in Acts13:19-20 that it had ben 450 years from the Exodus to the life of Samuel. David, who was a contemporary of Samuel, is considered by scholars to have captured Jerusalem around 995 BC. So if we take the 450 + 995 = 1445. This is again another evidence for why the Exodus occurred during the 18th Dynasty.

Again, given the fact that the Exodus would have been such a major embarrassment to the Pharoah, no record of the Hebrew slaves even exists in Egyptian records at least not in any really significant manner. The idea that the Egyptian empire was defeated by slaves with inferior weapons would have been very humilating. If there was significant problems for the empire as a result of the Exodus, they would have found an alternate explanation if they even mention it at all.

I suppose if anyone ever took it upon themselves to dig up the entire wilderness, we might find some evidence of that. However given the amount of time that has passed and the fact it WAS a wilderness and the children of Israel had to be sustained by means that the ground could not support, any a major physical evidence has been eroded away by time.

QUOTE

Furthermore, over in Saudia Arabia, recent evidence has been uncovered of pertaining to the Exodus. Even the altar to the golden calf (Egyptian Apis Bull) has been identified as well as other indictors. For reasons that should be obvious, the Saudi government will not allow any excavation of the area.

Why would the Saudi government refuse to excavate it when Islam holds both the Old Testament and New Testament as part of their gospel? You'd think they'd be excited about it.

The position of all Arab/Islamic governments is that there was no Jewish presence in Israel. They hold that the Exodus was a made up story. The ruins of Sinai contradict that claim.

Recently, an Egyptian Lawyer had announced a plan to file suit to sue Israel for all of the gold that was taken from Egypt by Israel at the begginning of the Exodus. The lawyer was forced to drop the suit because in order to sue Israel for the gold, it would require an admission that the Exodus did take place.

And a slight correction is also in order as Islam does not consider the OT and NT part of their "gospel." They respect Jesus and Moses, but they have an entirely different view of both Men.

If I said that I was God and that you had to love each other and send me money or you'll go to the bad place when you die, would you believe me on faith, or would you ask for evidence?

God always provides evidence before He asks for faith. The problem is you are deadset against believing God and no amount of evidence if provided can convince someone refuses to be convinced at the get-go. You are prepared to reject anything offered to you, so you really are not in a position to talk about evidence. You are unwilling to be either fair or objective as your posts appear to indicate.

And since Athena jumped fully formed out of Zeus's head (and we have already established the truth of Athena's existence through the existence of Troy - after all that validates all of the supernatural events surrounding the legend of Troy), then Zeus must exist as well.

You are misrepresenting my position. I did not say that the Bible's accuracy of historical events establishes the existence of God. I said that the accuracy of Bible's historical claims lends to credibility of the human authors who wrote it. It means that they cannot be simply written off as crazy or deluded. Their ability to be accurate in matters that we can verify historically and even see for ourselves in the archeological record, give impetus to their credibility. It falls to you to demonstrate that their testimony cannnot and must not be trusted.

You want the bible to be judged by the same standards as any other piece of literature? Fine. I'll judge it by the same standards that I judge Godzilla. Note how I don't consider Godzilla to be real.

Which proves that you are unwilling to be fair and objective. All you can do is brush it aside with a bunch of smart-alek quips but nothing of any intellectual, mature or intelligent merit or substance. You really have demonstrated that you have nothing useful to add to the discussion.

You should have at least as much evidence for your "God" hypothesis as there is for the expanding universe, old earth, etc. You should note that in doing so you will be challenging some of the most well-tested scientific theories in existence. I suggest you start looking.

Except, as I have noted in other threads, an old earth or expanding universe does not disprove or preclude the existence of God. To say that an old eart proves there is no God is like saying, "It's raining so it must be Thursday." One does not necessarily lead to the other.

You could quite easily be mistaken. You said you have no reason to question my honesty or integrity, but it is possible for one to be honestly mistaken.

Yes, but that is beside the point. The point is that a person with a proven track record of either honesty or dishonesty, credibility or the lack thereof will be treaeted accordingly. If you are an honest person, and I have known you long enough to establish that you are honest, then I will not reject your claim out of hand. I might test it. There is nothing wrong with that, nor is it a slight against you. If you really know that you saw what you saw, then questions will not threaten you.

QUOTE

The Bible's accuracy in historical matters has never been found in error. Granted we don't have extrabiblical evidence for every historical event mentioned in the Bible, but that is not evidence against the Bible.

So tell me, was man made before the other animals or after the other animals? And were woman and man created together, or was woman created from man's rib?

If you chose the Genesis chapter 1, answers, why is Genesis 2 wrong? If you chose the Genesis 2 answers, why is Genesis 1 wrong? Regardless of which one you choose, how can the bible be "never in error" if it contains conflicting accounts? If two accounts conflict, then one account must necessarily be in error.

Genesis chapter two is not a recounting of the Creation story, but more of a summation of what was presented. You will note that in Chapter 2, God omits he creation of the firmament as well as omits any mention of the stars, sun and moon. Chapter two is not trying to retell the creation account per se, but focuses on man's relationship with the rest of the created order. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Bible was originally written without the chapter and verse breaks and sometimes those breaks give us the impression that a new story or a new line of thought is occurring when in fact, the author is still working off of the same line of thought.

Chapter two is different because the author while continuing in the same vein, has shifted focus.