1
#343547
Papabear
Most historians hate to admit that because it is a huge steaming pile of feces.
With spelling such as yours, how would you know if everything is spelled out?
11/24/2007 9:13:10 PM
#343553
szena
Historians use the Bible the same way they use any other ancient document, as the record of what a culture wanted passed on about itself. They don't take any of it as absolute truth.
11/24/2007 9:18:00 PM
#343556
Mike
Proof?
11/24/2007 9:23:29 PM
#343576
Caustic Gnostic
My imagination has its own entertaining figments, greenyahoo. I don't need yours...that is, the ones that own you.
Do you even know the behind-the-scenes history of how the bible came together? History and accuracy were not as important to the early bishops as was their desire for political leverage. You will notice that Paul managed to steer whole generations of Christians away from Christ, yes?
11/24/2007 10:02:41 PM
#343606
Jake Steel
They also use norse, greek/roman, and celtic myths. What exactly is your point?
11/24/2007 10:32:15 PM
#343622
approximate
Not everything is spelling it out.
Yes, I'm talking about you.
11/24/2007 10:49:18 PM
#343689
flipper
Really, would you like to give the names of these reputable historians who have stated that the Bible is historically accurate? I didn't think so! Come back when you something HONEST to say!
11/25/2007 12:23:15 AM
#343702
ArmandT
Any 'evidence' that contradicts the Bible you throw it out, and anything else that fits even remotely you trumpet, even though there are more plausible reasons for it.
I blame those National Geographic documentaries that dig up archeological evidence then add the question, "Could this be the inspiration behind the Biblical story of _____?" Not that NatGeo is at fault, but the format allows idiots to misinterpret the message easily, turning a "It may be" into a "It Is".
11/25/2007 12:35:12 AM
#343723
Nick
It's like he's trying to get on this site.
11/25/2007 12:49:06 AM
#343735
Lunalelle
Wrong, wrong, wrong. So much wrong. I want to explain why, but I am very tired.
11/25/2007 1:03:11 AM
#343770
Can you give an example or you're just taking it from your ass?. Actually, according to the study of historiography, it's the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire that we're studing history the way it is through documents, not taking the Bible as reference. In fact, how do we know about pre-history, the stone and the metal ages and the Roman and Greek Empire, which the Bible doesn't mention until the NT?. How do we know about Sumerians or the Middle Ages?
11/25/2007 1:34:06 AM
#343783
Ok, I have never seen an archaeologist or historian that has found evidence of a speaking snake, an expulsion of a non-found "Paradise", of the roamings of a man called Abraham in Mesopotamia and there isn't even clear cut evidence of Jewish in Egypt except in the Mereptah rock.
11/25/2007 1:50:56 AM
#343859
APD
Proof or get out.
11/25/2007 5:58:14 AM
#343892
anevilmeme
So you've dug of fossils of 4 legged insects?
11/25/2007 6:52:54 AM
#344300
Lesus H. Christ
Haha I'm so convinced to become Christian now. Thanks greenyahoo for your informative, logical, non-biased and completely factual observation.
11/25/2007 3:16:46 PM
#344321
John
The bible is historically acurate ...
So are many parts of Danielle Steel's romance novels. There's a big difference between being accurate about Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Jerusalem and being accurate about a woman cursed by God for being tricked by a talking snake into eating a piece of magic fruit. And there's plenty of non-confirmation, too. For example, the Mesha Stele confirms that Mesha was king of Moab (2 Kings 3:4), but gives a wholly different account of Moab's war with Israel.
11/25/2007 3:46:31 PM
#344352
Old Viking
Fundies consider greenyahoo a valuable asset in the struggle against unbelief.
11/25/2007 4:32:18 PM
#344457
bloggsy
Where's this proof, then? I'd be interested to see it.
11/25/2007 8:06:17 PM
#344609
Rhys
They keep talking about all this proof that they have, yet they are never able to show any of it. They also keep saying that we have no proof, and when we present it, they just say "that doesn't count because it contradicts 'godidit'" or some rubbish like that.
11/26/2007 3:18:41 AM
#1426026
Quantum Mechanic
Bible's forged.
Deal with it illiterate idiot.
7/20/2012 2:20:20 PM
#1426351
Canadiest
Well, there's some truth in there. From the 1600s up many archeologists went looking for the fabled cities or any evidence of Biblical or church claims. Scholars of ancient writting tried to reconcile the Bible with other works.
The legworks been done and found nothing save the similarities of other cultures fables. Today only pseudo-historians, usually with a heavy bias towards Christianity, do any reports on "finds".
You'll find their work on church pamplets mostly but some have been spotted lieing their asses off or making ridiculous assumptions and connections on the TLC, FoxNews, Discovery and History networks.
7/22/2012 5:59:05 AM
#1426358
Justanotheratheist
You make a lot of bold statements, but you offer fuck all proof to back them up.
In other words, just totally standard and quite boring fundie bollocks.
7/22/2012 6:10:22 AM
#1426505
Nagol
Nope, the bible has been shown to be historically inaccurate. Their is lots of evidence against a global flood and the story of Moses, and there is no evidence for the stories in the rest of the bible.
7/22/2012 9:28:57 AM
1