God's commandment?

[jayleew]

It is the complete thoughts that are important, not specifics. It is like the theory of the origins of life missing vital data. Does that negate the fact of evolution?

Please don't confuse or compare scientific theories with religious fantasy. Specifics are as important, if not more important than the complete thought. If the specifics are false, the complete thought is pointless.

Your rebuttals are as hasty as ever because you miss the points and assume I mean something else. Yes, it has to do with my miscommunication, but that is why you need to digest arguments.

My intention was not to confuse or compare scientific theories with religious fantasy. My statement was an illustration of how a conclusion such as that all life resulted from the device of evolution, as a whole, cannot be refutted on a single controversy...and that the controversy in no way negates the fact of evolution. In that way, if someone were to refute say the fossil record, the theory stands on genetics, astronomy, etc. It is the same way with the concepts and conclusions made in the Bible. They are consistent as a whole, even though tidbits of a part can be refutted and debated. For instance, the Bible says that the righteous shall find heaven. That idea is repeated in scripture in different ways, and if one was to refute an instance, that does not negate the conclusion that the righteous shall find heaven. Do you understand what I mean by specifics not being as important? Maybe specifics is not the right word, but hopefully you get my meaning. Hasty judgement of arguments is a foolish venture because of the medium we use to communicate.

That is why it is equally important to be knowledgable in history, archealogy, and anthropology to truly understand the scriptural meanings accurately and precisely.

If history, archealogy and anthropology are applied, scriptures become meaningless, vacuous myths, which they have already revealed them to be.

The Bible's lineage of characters is historically accurate. We have other evidence which substatiate that those characters existed.

"on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century bce, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period."

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

"The archaeological supports in the case of Jesus’ greatest follower, Paul of Tarsus, are especially impressive. Ruins in Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome and elsewhere all bear out the many references about Paul in the New Testament.

As hard evidence from the past, "the very stones cry out" the reliability of the Biblical record. It is amusing to note that many of the last century’s most trenchant critics of Jesus and the New Testament refused at first even to consider the result of archaeology, so counter to their opinions was its evidence! Today, I can’t imagine anyone, friend or foe of the faith, would be stupid enough to hold so foolish an attitude."

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm

 

[(Q)]

In that way, if someone were to refute say the fossil record, the theory stands on genetics, astronomy, etc. It is the same way with the concepts and conclusions made in the Bible. They are consistent as a whole, even though tidbits of a part can be refutted and debated.

I'll agree they can be debated, but hardly refuted. Perhaps a better example would be that of aether. Once refuted, it was forgotten.

But if we were to debate or attempt to refute religious beliefs, tidbitious or not, we would be left with little more than ones faith, since there is nothing to observe or test. It would be an assertion, like that of the aether, although there would be nothing to test that would allow us to technically refute it.

I would suspect though, like the aether, if testable, those beliefs would yield null results as well.

For instance, the Bible says that the righteous shall find heaven. That idea is repeated in scripture in different ways, and if one was to refute an instance, that does not negate the conclusion that the righteous shall find heaven. Do you understand what I mean by specifics not being as important?

I understand that when something is repeated enough times, you're apt to believe it. I could also make up dozens of ways to explain the aether, none of which would have any validity whatsoever. In other words, the specifics are as vacuous as the end result.

As hard evidence from the past, "the very stones cry out" the reliability of the Biblical record.

So, what you're saying is that a stone points to the fact that a man called David once made his capital Jerusalem, some time ago. And this shows the accuracy of the bible how?

 

[jayleew]

As hard evidence from the past, "the very stones cry out" the reliability of the Biblical record.

So, what you're saying is that a stone points to the fact that a man called David once made his capital Jerusalem, some time ago. And this shows the accuracy of the bible how?

Hmmm. How else can the accounts of the Bible be proven? We have archealogical evidence of the places mentioned in the Bible, we even have a burned mountain top in the Saudi Arabian desert (Jabal al Lawz), the place where God gave his laws to Moses. The blackened top has rocks of granite, burned from without. In fact, we have evidence of every geological formation mentioned in Exodus. That does not prove the accounts, only that the places which exist today, existed in that time period. Now, we have evidence of the characters existence. That does not prove the accounts either. So, what does? The Bible is historically accurate, but at the same time, still is considered a work of fiction. So, what could prove the books as fact? Does it take proving God's existence to prove that the events in the Bible are true, or can they be seperated? Can a Jesus Christ exist and claim he is the Son of God, without there being a God?

 

[KennyJC]

The Bible is historically accurate

If it was historically accurate it would have been able to predict how the universe was created, how mankind came to be and the age of the Earth. These are pretty difficult questions the bible attempted to answer, and as we know today, it failed. And these are just the most obvious things off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many other bible claims that can be proven false.

How can we then trust the rest of the bible (the parts that can not be proven wrong) to be historically accurate ?

 

[(Q)]

The Bible is historically accurate, but at the same time, still is considered a work of fiction.

Of course, given that the bible mentions places and people that may have existed does not quanitify the fantastic stories contained within.

So, what could prove the books as fact? Does it take proving God's existence to prove that the events in the Bible are true, or can they be seperated?

One would have to ask as to why the men who wrote the bible, as ignorant as they were about the world in which they lived, are privy to gods existence and we are not? Why would god show himself to these men and remain completely hidden since?

Can a Jesus Christ exist and claim he is the Son of God, without there being a God?

You see people everyday claiming all kinds of whacky things, why would the so-called Christ be any different?

 

[jayleew]

If it was historically accurate it would have been able to predict how the universe was created, how mankind came to be and the age of the Earth. These are pretty difficult questions the bible attempted to answer, and as we know today, it failed. And these are just the most obvious things off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many other bible claims that can be proven false.

How can we then trust the rest of the bible (the parts that can not be proven wrong) to be historically accurate ?

Good question. That goes back to whether or not you believe in God, because some believe that the accounts of the world's creation found in the Bible is accurate. I assume you don't, so I appreciate your position about trusting the rest of the Bible. You are a reasonable.

However, the Bible was not written by one man, and it has accurate accounts of places and events in the non-philosophical and non-religious portions. I am not so ready to throw a conclusion away when the evidence that supports it being historically accurate outweighs the evidence of its alleged ficticious representations. There are more instances of accurate historical representations than non-accurate. In fact, the creation of the world is the only historical representation that can be refutted by scholars. The rest can be debated, but not refutted. There are many non-biblical documents which contain strikingly similar historical data from a different cultural perspective. For instance, many civilizations have the account of the Great Flood. The Mesopotamian accounts are so similar to the Bible's narrative that some scholars debate that the Bible is a copy made after the author read the accounts. But, there are Sumerian and Akkadian documents of the Great Flood as well. The Sumerian account dates back to the 19th and 18th century. Science was not what it is today, so yesterday's spiritual leaders of many civilizations recorded the accounts, from their own perspective of what they believed to be true about God.

 

[(Q)]

Science was not what it is today, so yesterday's spiritual leaders of many civilizations recorded the accounts, from their own perspective of what they believed to be true about God.

So, from a spiritual perspective from someone who believes in god, the floods were divine intervention - that would stand to reason. However, from a scientific point of view, those floods were merely floods, no more divine than any other natural disaster.

We can conclude that those spiritual leaders were ignorant and delusional.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

[/QUOTE=jayleew]In that way, if someone were to refute say the fossil record, the theory stands on genetics, astronomy, etc. It is the same way with the concepts and conclusions made in the Bible. They are consistent as a whole, even though tidbits of a part can be refutted and debated. For instance, the Bible says that the righteous shall find heaven.[/QUOTE]
*************
M*W: The 'righteous' are people who are right. It doesn't have anything to do with holiness or piety by today's definitions. The people who are rightfully interpreting the bible will recognize biblical cosmology, or what's in the 'heavens' or the sky like the planets, stars and constellations. Otherwise, all you people have missed the boat.
*************
[/QUOTE]That idea is repeated in scripture in different ways, and if one was to refute an instance, that does not negate the conclusion that the righteous shall find heaven. Do you understand what I mean by specifics not being as important? Maybe specifics is not the right word, but hopefully you get my meaning. Hasty judgement of arguments is a foolish venture because of the medium we use to communicate.[/QUOTE]
*************
M*W: jayleew, you've been the one whose judgment has been the most 'hasty!'. You are unwilling to see the forest for the trees. You are unwilling to see heaven for the skies.
*************
[/QUOTE]The Bible's lineage of characters is historically accurate. We have other evidence which substatiate that those characters existed.[/QUOTE]
*************
M*W: "Historically accurate," my ass. That's a matter for interpretation. Your interpretation is based on man's foolishness. You don't have any idea what the bible is about. "Those characters" never existed as humans. They are characters woven into stories ancient humans told about their interpretations of what they thought were sky beings.
*************
[/QUOTE]"on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century bce, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period."[/QUOTE]
*************
M*W: David (probably another astrological being) was said to have ruled Israel around 1000 BC. The "house of David" clearly has an astrological meaning. The 12 tribes of Israel refer to the 12 signs of the zodiac. Beth-le-hem means the "house of bread," usually referring to the Sign of Virgo who holds the shafts of wheat. There are many references to bread in the bible, and all references refer to the Sign of Virgo.
*************
[/QUOTE]"The archaeological supports in the case of Jesus’ greatest follower, Paul of Tarsus, are especially impressive. Ruins in Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome and elsewhere all bear out the many references about Paul in the New Testament.[/QUOTE]
*************
M*W: Paul was probably not a real person either. Tarsus is just too close to "Taurus" and "Alpha Centauri" to be denied. The reference to Paul being blinded by Jesus (or the sunlight) on the "road to Damascus," is easy to interpret. Even though Damascus is a real place today, I believe it has astrological connotations.
*************
[/QUOTE]As hard evidence from the past, "the very stones cry out" the reliability of the Biblical record. It is amusing to note that many of the last century’s most trenchant critics of Jesus and the New Testament refused at first even to consider the result of archaeology, so counter to their opinions was its evidence! Today, I can’t imagine anyone, friend or foe of the faith, would be stupid enough to hold so foolish an attitude."[/QUOTE]
*************
M*W: There is really no "hard evidence" of the biblical past. The only evidence we have pre-dates Israel and even Egypt. I would love to see some true biblical evidence that could be attributed to the Jews that DIDN'T have astrological connotations. I've studied this subject for years, and as has already been determined, the Exodus never took place. (Oh, I almost forgot, you've seen the Egyptian chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea). Well, that just doesn't convince me. The Exodus was most likely the movement of the planets, stars or constellations. Try reading your bible the way it was written -- as an ancient astrological calendar.

 

[c7ityi_]

M*W, the Bible isn't ONLY about "astrology". There are some clear references to the Zodiac, like the first chapter in Ezekiel where the prophet describes the faces of God in a vision. Those faces are the 4 main Zodiac signs: lion, ox, eagle (scorpio), "man" (aquarius) He also talks about wheels, and the Zodiac is a wheel. Think about the Zodiac as a color wheel. There are infinite colors, but it can be divided into, 2, 4 and 12 for example. The more "colors", the more accurate.

The ancients never thought "God" was the sun. Only ignorant people thought so. The ancients also knew that what people called God was the "self". The solar system is a manifestation, a copy, of the "Zodiac", where the sun ("God") is at the center.

If Moses thought that "God" was the sun, then why does he write in the beginning that "God" creates light and the sun? The sun was just a tool for "God" (the "self") And of course, Moses always talked about "God" because it was the word the people understood best.

What do you mean astrological CALENDAR? There are references to astrological signs to show at what time things happened, but it's not a calendar. The Bible is much allegory, so it's understood differently by different people.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

M*W, the Bible isn't ONLY about "astrology". There are some clear references to the Zodiac, like the first chapter in Ezekiel where the prophet describes the faces of God in a vision. Those faces are the 4 main Zodiac signs: lion, ox, eagle (scorpio), "man" (aquarius) He also talks about wheels, and the Zodiac is a wheel. Think about the Zodiac as a color wheel. There are infinite colors, but it can be divided into, 2, 4 and 12 for example. The more "colors", the more accurate.

*************
M*W: c7ityi_, when did you become an expert on the bible? You keep preaching that god is the self blah blah blah. I understand that philosophy, too.
*************

The ancients never thought "God" was the sun. Only ignorant people thought so. The ancients also knew that what people called God was the "self". The solar system is a manifestation, a copy, of the "Zodiac", where the sun ("God") is at the center.

*************
M*W: What kind of IQs do you suppose ancient humans had? Probably lower than a chimpanzee's. The zodiac is a copy of the solar system, not the other way around. The ancients did, in fact, believe the sun, moon, elements, planets, stars and constellations to be supernatural forces with powers over them.
*************

If Moses thought that "God" was the sun, then why does he write in the beginning that "God" creates light and the sun? The sun was just a tool for "God" (the "self") And of course, Moses always talked about "God" because it was the word the people understood best.

*************
M*W: You need to read more about Moses. It's unlikely that he wrote the Torah. I believe Moses, too, was a fictional character based on one of the pharaohs. Being a pharaoh, Moses was written about as if he were god, himself, but he was also said to be a sun worshipper. There are at least three writers' accounts of the Pentateuch.
*************

What do you mean astrological CALENDAR? There are references to astrological signs to show at what time things happened, but it's not a calendar. The Bible is much allegory, so it's understood differently by different people.

*************
M*W: A timetable of events occurring in the skies. Oh, for crying out loud, c7ityi_, what the fuck does it matter about the word "calendar?" Yeah, and the bible being understood differently by different people is the very reason their diverse misintrepretations are all fucked-up.

I tell you what. You stick to your "god is the self" crapola, and I'll continue my 20+ years of research to try and figure out why the bible is so fucked-up.

 

[c7ityi_]

M*W: What kind of IQs do you suppose ancient humans had? Probably lower than a chimpanzee's.

Some were very intelligent (like moses and other prophets), some were very primitive (like goliat). Prophets were infinitely more "intelligent" than people today. Don't you know about the cross-breeding between the "sons of God" and primitive humans...

The ancients did, in fact, believe the sun, moon, elements, planets, stars and constellations to be supernatural forces with powers over them.

Some did, some did not. But you don't know about the initiates. They taught the primitive humans and they misunderstood everything.

Being a pharaoh, Moses was written about as if he were god, himself, but he was also said to be a sun worshipper.

Moses was "God", just like Jesus was. That's why he said: "I am what I am".

There is not other "god" but "i am" (self, existence/being) within us.

 

[jayleew]

Science was not what it is today, so yesterday's spiritual leaders of many civilizations recorded the accounts, from their own perspective of what they believed to be true about God.

So, from a spiritual perspective from someone who believes in god, the floods were divine intervention - that would stand to reason. However, from a scientific point of view, those floods were merely floods, no more divine than any other natural disaster.

We can conclude that those spiritual leaders were ignorant and delusional.

Yes, we can conclude that with what we know about God's non-existence, but we can also concluded that because of the different accounts of the same cataclysmic event that, although they made a myth out of the event because of their beliefs, the event ocurred.

 

[jayleew]

M*W: There is really no "hard evidence" of the biblical past. The only evidence we have pre-dates Israel and even Egypt. I would love to see some true biblical evidence that could be attributed to the Jews that DIDN'T have astrological connotations. I've studied this subject for years, and as has already been determined, the Exodus never took place. (Oh, I almost forgot, you've seen the Egyptian chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea). Well, that just doesn't convince me. The Exodus was most likely the movement of the planets, stars or constellations. Try reading your bible the way it was written -- as an ancient astrological calendar.

The Egyptian chariot wheels are not as convincing as the rest of the geological evidence of the Exodus. Since you are still unwilling to consider any other alternative evidence, and wish to be ignorant of the Bible's accuracy, and watch the video evidence for yourself, here is a condensed recount of the evidence they found by walking the path detailed in the Bible, which leads to the still burnt moutain-top of Mount Sinai; but, these are really just fragments. I am disappointed that they do not give all the details which offer more credible evidence. If only Saudi Arabi was a free nation, we could properly investigate the site without being censored by the Saudi government. You need to watch the video, judge the evidence, then come to me and tell me I am an idiot, at least do me that courtesy.

http://www.baseinstitute.org/Sinai_2.html

It is also unfortunate that we do not have more critiques of Bob Cornuke's findings. The only one I could find is a critique of Paul's shipwreck findings done by Gordon Franz. For that, there is a rebuttal from a gentleman who has lived in Malta and studied the site for the last 15 years, who points out that Gordon inadvertantly helped the case by proving that there is only point where the reef cannot be seen, as detailed in the bible. And that is where the evidence was found.

The only thing I am coming up with as far as opposing viewpoints of the evidence he presents is from people who have never gone to Arabia and examined the evidence. Many traditional scholars, creationists and evolutionists alike, are concerned that because Mr Cornuke doesn't have a degree, that he doesn't know what he's talking about. How arrogant. There have been scholars who look at the pictures and make a judgement without going to the site and investigating and testing the evidence. Some say the burnt rocks are just green limestone crusted granite. Others say that they are volcanic. They shove the evidence under the rug because it doesn't fit their own perspective. Why is that so common? I have never been afraid to go to talkorigins.org or any evidence or information about the origins of life. I actually am becoming more appreciative of the viewpoint of evolutionists because I understand the logic and evidence, but there is not ONE evolutionist here or anywhere (it seems) that is willing to do what Mr Cornuke did and do the investigating and testing.

There is a mental block that is ingrained because they believe so deeply in what they believe. You, MW, are evidence of this mental block that is completely close-minded to any and all evidence that you have not yet watched Cornuke's findings, nor read his book. You discriminate against all evidence if it suggests the proposterous idea that the Bible might be accurate, or that God might exist. It is cultish behavior, to say the least, not to examine all the evidence before making a judgement. Becareful that you are not a lemming jumping off the cliff with the other lemmings, or maybe you don't care.

 

[jayleew]

I tell you what. You stick to your "god is the self" crapola, and I'll continue my 20+ years of research to try and figure out why the bible is so fucked-up.

Wow! Is that the perspective you take when testing all evidence? How unscientific.

That's like me thinking, "God exists, so when I read this books Origin of Species, then I have to remember that God exists and this alternate theory is hogwash."

With that attitude, you have wasted 20+ years of research because it is biased propaganda.

 

[(Q)]

Yes, we can conclude that with what we know about God's non-existence, but we can also concluded that because of the different accounts of the same cataclysmic event that, although they made a myth out of the event because of their beliefs, the event ocurred.

Perhaps an event occured, and most likely did since we see disasters of this kind in various parts of the world, but those who witnessed them back then blew the stories well out of proportion as a result of their ignorance to the world around them and their religious beliefs. unfortunately, we now have people today gobbling up those stories as if they were true.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

jayleew: The Egyptian chariot wheels are not as convincing as the rest of the geological evidence of the Exodus.
*************
M*W: There has been absolutely NO EVIDENCE of the exodus found anywhere by degreed, scientific biblical scholars and archeologists. NONE. NADA. The lack of this evidence has been published in Biblical Archeology Review. There have been many researchers of all kinds of backgrounds who have tried to prove the exodus happened but came up with nothing, not even one little shard of evidence. I believe the "exodus" to be some kind of transit through the Sign of Taurus where the story refers to the 'golden calf.' The Sign of Taurus occurred during the alleged time of Moses.
*************
jayleew: Since you are still unwilling to consider any other alternative evidence, and wish to be ignorant of the Bible's accuracy, and watch the video evidence for yourself, here is a condensed recount of the evidence they found by walking the path detailed in the Bible, which leads to the still burnt moutain-top of Mount Sinai; but, these are really just fragments.
*************
M*W: I am not unwillling to consider alternative evidence. You need to present it. Thus far, you haven't presented any credible evidence.

The "bible's accuracy" is debatable. I don't agree with the way you interpret it, and you don't like the way I interpret it. All that means is that we are both wrong or that one of us might be right. You believe in the christian interpretation. I do not. The christian interpretation has cost the lives of many over the past 2000 years only to result in some 34,000 offshoot cults, one at least of which you are a member. My interpretation hasn't taken one life and no additional man-made religions have been formed to confuse or control humans.

As I recall from one of your earlier posts, the "paths" you refer, published in your KJV, were totally inaccurate. No wonder there is so much dissention in your religion.
*************
jayleew: I am disappointed that they do not give all the details which offer more credible evidence. If only Saudi Arabi was a free nation, we could properly investigate the site without being censored by the Saudi government. You need to watch the video, judge the evidence, then come to me and tell me I am an idiot, at least do me that courtesy.
*************
M*W: I don't have to watch the video to tell you you're an idiot.
*************
jayleew: It is also unfortunate that we do not have more critiques of Bob Cornuke's findings. The only one I could find is a critique of Paul's shipwreck findings done by Gordon Franz. For that, there is a rebuttal from a gentleman who has lived in Malta and studied the site for the last 15 years, who points out that Gordon inadvertantly helped the case by proving that there is only point where the reef cannot be seen, as detailed in the bible. And that is where the evidence was found.
*************
M*W: When a person goes to look for something, everything he finds is going to look like he's found proof. That's wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is not credible evidence. Paul's shipwreck is fiction. You have probably wasted your time reading religious fiction. Have you been in a bookstore lately? In the Religion section are several sub-categories: Bibles, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, yet it is only the section on Christianity that has sub-categories of Inspirational and Religious Fiction. There is no Historical section for Christianity. Why do you think that is?

If I were to claim that the Ark of the Covenant was buried in my backyard, and I set out to digging, I could come up with evidential artifacts to show that I had found the Ark. All you gullible christians would believe me, because you're desperate to believe anything that would prove your religion the one true religion. Undoubtedly, the news media would be over here in a flash wanting to see the evidence, and it would be all over the evening news. I'd probably get rich off of it, write a book or two, build a shrine in my backyard, and you gullible christians would start pushing and shoving in my backyard to get your chance at a healing miracle. Next thing you'd see would be churches of Medicine*Womanism springing up all over the place. And guess what? There'd be more digging in my neighbor's backyard, and he'd become famous, too. Zero from zero leaves zero. Bunk from bunk leaves bunk. All religion is bunk.
*************
jayleew: The only thing I am coming up with as far as opposing viewpoints of the evidence he presents is from people who have never gone to Arabia and examined the evidence. Many traditional scholars, creationists and evolutionists alike, are concerned that because Mr Cornuke doesn't have a degree, that he doesn't know what he's talking about. How arrogant.
*************
M*W: A degree often is not worth the paper it is printed on. All a degree does is hopefully give the bearer the ability to think for himself and pursue his endeavors.
*************
jayleew: There have been scholars who look at the pictures and make a judgement without going to the site and investigating and testing the evidence. Some say the burnt rocks are just green limestone crusted granite. Others say that they are volcanic. They shove the evidence under the rug because it doesn't fit their own perspective. Why is that so common? I have never been afraid to go to talkorigins.org or any evidence or information about the origins of life. I actually am becoming more appreciative of the viewpoint of evolutionists because I understand the logic and evidence, but there is not ONE evolutionist here or anywhere (it seems) that is willing to do what Mr Cornuke did and do the investigating and testing.
*************
M*W: Pictures and evidence are not the same thing.
*************
jayleew: There is a mental block that is ingrained because they believe so deeply in what they believe. You, MW, are evidence of this mental block that is completely close-minded to any and all evidence that you have not yet watched Cornuke's findings, nor read his book. You discriminate against all evidence if it suggests the proposterous idea that the Bible might be accurate, or that God might exist. It is cultish behavior, to say the least, not to examine all the evidence before making a judgement. Becareful that you are not a lemming jumping off the cliff with the other lemmings, or maybe you don't care.
*************
M*W: Honest researchers seeking evidence are impartial to their findings. Yes, I do have a mental block to the bible as it is interpreted and to man-made religions, which they all are. There was a time I searched for truth in the bible and believed it to be true because I was looking for it, so it must really be there. Then I found out it wasn't, and the whole system of christianity had visciously lied to billions of people, myself included. I don't fraterinize with liars. You, however, are in the billions that do.

 

[jayleew]

Yes, we can conclude that with what we know about God's non-existence, but we can also concluded that because of the different accounts of the same cataclysmic event that, although they made a myth out of the event because of their beliefs, the event ocurred.

Perhaps an event occured, and most likely did since we see disasters of this kind in various parts of the world, but those who witnessed them back then blew the stories well out of proportion as a result of their ignorance to the world around them and their religious beliefs. unfortunately, we now have people today gobbling up those stories as if they were true.

Yes, there are those who are gullible enough on both sides of the coin, who read compelling arguments without question, and they become passionate about their beliefs.

Here's where we differ: I had heard that God exists, I weighed the evidence and doubted God's existence, then God proved me wrong. Since I have been shown first that God exists, I believe that the alleged myths in the Bible are precisely true, but maybe not so accurate because of many human fallacies.

 

[(Q)]

Since I have been shown first that God exists, I believe that the alleged myths in the Bible are precisely true, but maybe not so accurate because of many human fallacies.

How have you been shown god exists? What evidence do you have?

 

[jayleew]

jayleew: The Egyptian chariot wheels are not as convincing as the rest of the geological evidence of the Exodus.
*************
M*W: There has been absolutely NO EVIDENCE of the exodus found anywhere by degreed, scientific biblical scholars and archeologists. NONE. NADA. The lack of this evidence has been published in Biblical Archeology Review. There have been many researchers of all kinds of backgrounds who have tried to prove the exodus happened but came up with nothing, not even one little shard of evidence. I believe the "exodus" to be some kind of transit through the Sign of Taurus where the story refers to the 'golden calf.' The Sign of Taurus occurred during the alleged time of Moses.
*************

Why does one have to be degreed to be credible? If they have evidence, it needs to be examined. Not many credible sources are willing to look at the evidence. There is evidence, but the pompous scientific community is not willing to go into Saudi Arabi illegally. If they go in legally (the king will not allow it), they will come back empty handed.

The evidence is all pointed out from Mr Cornuke's investigation, waiting for the scientific community to test.

The ones that did look, all looked in the wrong place, at the traditional Mt. Sinai, where there is nothing. It is barren. There is a ton of evidence following scripture Saudi Arabi. The whole trek can be pieced together by the landmarks described in the Bible. How can that be refutted, especially if one does not examine the evidence first? Who better to know the history of a region than the people who inhabit the region. The people around Jabal al Lawz will tell you that Moses came through there and show you the caves where Moses wrote on the walls, while leading the Isrealites out of Egypt.

jayleew: Since you are still unwilling to consider any other alternative evidence, and wish to be ignorant of the Bible's accuracy, and watch the video evidence for yourself, here is a condensed recount of the evidence they found by walking the path detailed in the Bible, which leads to the still burnt moutain-top of Mount Sinai; but, these are really just fragments.
*************
M*W: I am not unwillling to consider alternative evidence. You need to present it. Thus far, you haven't presented any credible evidence.

The "bible's accuracy" is debatable. I don't agree with the way you interpret it, and you don't like the way I interpret it. All that means is that we are both wrong or that one of us might be right. You believe in the christian interpretation. I do not. The christian interpretation has cost the lives of many over the past 2000 years only to result in some 34,000 offshoot cults, one at least of which you are a member. My interpretation hasn't taken one life and no additional man-made religions have been formed to confuse or control humans.

Your interpretation hasn't taken one life that you are aware of. Some follow a religion called atheism. Don't misunderstand me, you can be an atheist and not follow atheism. My point is that your interpretation has create additional man-made religions. Your interpretation is the cause of many supernatural beliefs from Wicca to Astrology. You are not blameless, you are human like me.

As far as evidence. Watch the video or read the book. I have provided it. It is up to you to examine it. And, you are indeed a gullible lemming if you have that much faith in a piece of paper that says, "PhD". I have been a student for over 10 years, studying at 3 accredited universities and 1 community college. I have entered two different degree programs, but am finally going to finish the first one next year. (And no, I don't think they give refunds to idiots like me)

I have learned that someone always knows more than me, whether they have a degree or not. Education is just as useless as it is invaluable. The best part about it is learning to open your mind and to be wise.

So, it is you who are ignorant of the evidence provided of the Exodus account, and only because the author does not have degree.

As I recall from one of your earlier posts, the "paths" you refer, published in your KJV, were totally inaccurate. No wonder there is so much dissention in your religion.
*************

jayleew: I am disappointed that they do not give all the details which offer more credible evidence. If only Saudi Arabi was a free nation, we could properly investigate the site without being censored by the Saudi government. You need to watch the video, judge the evidence, then come to me and tell me I am an idiot, at least do me that courtesy.
*************
M*W: I don't have to watch the video to tell you you're an idiot.
*************

That's a cop-out answer. You're avoiding the fact that you have a closed mind on the issue. It is unfortunate that you cannot be more scientific and lay aside your religion long enough to look at all the evidence objectively.

M*W: When a person goes to look for something, everything he finds is going to look like he's found proof. That's wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is not credible evidence. Paul's shipwreck is fiction. You have probably wasted your time reading religious fiction.

Sure, if they are biased. I have some compelling arguments and evidence that disprove evidence that supports the Bible's accounts. For instance, Dr. Micael BeHe is known for studying biogenetics to prove a designer is required because of the complexity as well as many other things. But, I also found a rebuttal of Behe's work that I accept. For now, Behe's work is refuted. I also have read compelling information on talkorigins.org and other sites quoted from forum users. I understand how theists look to the scientific community and/or a logical mind. I have weighed all the evidence and speaks for itself. In the face of all logic, God proved himself to me over and over again. Each time I dismissed the infinite number of coincidences became harder, until i reached the breaking point where I had no choice but to conclude that there is a God. But, I am a natural skeptic that I don't even trust myself. When I am presented with new evidence, I must evaluate it and weigh it. All evidence deserves scrutiny. I am sorry you disagree.

If I were to claim that the Ark of the Covenant was buried in my backyard, and I set out to digging, I could come up with evidential artifacts to show that I had found the Ark. All you gullible christians would believe me, because you're desperate to believe anything that would prove your religion the one true religion. Undoubtedly, the news media would be over here in a flash wanting to see the evidence, and it would be all over the evening news. I'd probably get rich off of it, write a book or two, build a shrine in my backyard, and you gullible christians would start pushing and shoving in my backyard to get your chance at a healing miracle. Next thing you'd see would be churches of Medicine*Womanism springing up all over the place. And guess what? There'd be more digging in my neighbor's backyard, and he'd become famous, too. Zero from zero leaves zero. Bunk from bunk leaves bunk. All religion is bunk.
*************

You are right. For a time, you would make money. But, like Ron Wyatt, everything would come out in the wash.

jayleew: The only thing I am coming up with as far as opposing viewpoints of the evidence he presents is from people who have never gone to Arabia and examined the evidence. Many traditional scholars, creationists and evolutionists alike, are concerned that because Mr Cornuke doesn't have a degree, that he doesn't know what he's talking about. How arrogant.
*************
M*W: A degree often is not worth the paper it is printed on. All a degree does is hopefully give the bearer the ability to think for himself and pursue his endeavors.
*************

Yet, you have a double standard because Mr Cornuke does not have a degree. If he only had credibility, you would take a look at his book or video. Will you be the first to expose Mr. Cornuke as a fraud? Won't happen until you examine the evidence.

jayleew: There have been scholars who look at the pictures and make a judgement without going to the site and investigating and testing the evidence. Some say the burnt rocks are just green limestone crusted granite. Others say that they are volcanic. They shove the evidence under the rug because it doesn't fit their own perspective. Why is that so common? I have never been afraid to go to talkorigins.org or any evidence or information about the origins of life. I actually am becoming more appreciative of the viewpoint of evolutionists because I understand the logic and evidence, but there is not ONE evolutionist here or anywhere (it seems) that is willing to do what Mr Cornuke did and do the investigating and testing.
*************
M*W: Pictures and evidence are not the same thing.
*************

They are not necessarily, but they can be. And, unless someone goes over to Saudi Arabia and performs a thorough study of the evidence, it very likely could be evidence. It is like taking a picture of a fossil. The picture is a lead, and the actual fossil is open to scrutiny. Evidence doesn't become such if ignored as you do.

jayleew: There is a mental block that is ingrained because they believe so deeply in what they believe. You, MW, are evidence of this mental block that is completely close-minded to any and all evidence that you have not yet watched Cornuke's findings, nor read his book. You discriminate against all evidence if it suggests the proposterous idea that the Bible might be accurate, or that God might exist. It is cultish behavior, to say the least, not to examine all the evidence before making a judgement. Becareful that you are not a lemming jumping off the cliff with the other lemmings, or maybe you don't care.
*************
M*W: Honest researchers seeking evidence are impartial to their findings. Yes, I do have a mental block to the bible as it is interpreted and to man-made religions, which they all are. There was a time I searched for truth in the bible and believed it to be true because I was looking for it, so it must really be there. Then I found out it wasn't, and the whole system of christianity had visciously lied to billions of people, myself included. I don't fraterinize with liars. You, however, are in the billions that do.

Then, you are as unreasonable as a zealot, and you think you have reached the truth. Until we die, we will never know the truth. And when we're dead it doesn't matter. All we have is today.

If you are unwilling to look at the evidence because of your bias, we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[jayleew]

jayleew: The Egyptian chariot wheels are not as convincing as the rest of the geological evidence of the Exodus.
*************
M*W: There has been absolutely NO EVIDENCE of the exodus found anywhere by degreed, scientific biblical scholars and archeologists. NONE. NADA. The lack of this evidence has been published in Biblical Archeology Review. There have been many researchers of all kinds of backgrounds who have tried to prove the exodus happened but came up with nothing, not even one little shard of evidence. I believe the "exodus" to be some kind of transit through the Sign of Taurus where the story refers to the 'golden calf.' The Sign of Taurus occurred during the alleged time of Moses.
*************

Why does one have to be degreed to be credible? If they have evidence, it needs to be examined. Not many credible sources are willing to look at the evidence. There is evidence, but the pompous scientific community is not willing to go into Saudi Arabi illegally. If they go in legally (the king will not allow it), they will come back empty handed.

The evidence is all pointed out from Mr Cornuke's investigation, waiting for the scientific community to test.

The ones that did look, all looked in the wrong place, at the traditional Mt. Sinai, where there is nothing. It is barren. There is a ton of evidence following scripture Saudi Arabi. The whole trek can be pieced together by the landmarks described in the Bible. How can that be refutted, especially if one does not examine the evidence first? Who better to know the history of a region than the people who inhabit the region. The people around Jabal al Lawz will tell you that Moses came through there and show you the caves where Moses wrote on the walls, while leading the Isrealites out of Egypt.

jayleew: Since you are still unwilling to consider any other alternative evidence, and wish to be ignorant of the Bible's accuracy, and watch the video evidence for yourself, here is a condensed recount of the evidence they found by walking the path detailed in the Bible, which leads to the still burnt moutain-top of Mount Sinai; but, these are really just fragments.
*************
M*W: I am not unwillling to consider alternative evidence. You need to present it. Thus far, you haven't presented any credible evidence.

The "bible's accuracy" is debatable. I don't agree with the way you interpret it, and you don't like the way I interpret it. All that means is that we are both wrong or that one of us might be right. You believe in the christian interpretation. I do not. The christian interpretation has cost the lives of many over the past 2000 years only to result in some 34,000 offshoot cults, one at least of which you are a member. My interpretation hasn't taken one life and no additional man-made religions have been formed to confuse or control humans.

Your interpretation hasn't taken one life that you are aware of. Some follow a religion called atheism. Don't misunderstand me, you can be an atheist and not follow atheism. My point is that your interpretation has create additional man-made religions. Your interpretation is the cause of many supernatural beliefs from Wicca to Astrology. You are not blameless, you are human like me.

As far as evidence. Watch the video or read the book. I have provided it. It is up to you to examine it. And, you are indeed a gullible lemming if you have that much faith in a piece of paper that says, "PhD". I have been a student for over 10 years, studying at 3 accredited universities and 1 community college. I have entered two different degree programs, but am finally going to finish the first one next year. (And no, I don't think they give refunds to idiots like me)

I have learned that someone always knows more than me, whether they have a degree or not. Education is just as useless as it is invaluable. The best part about it is learning to open your mind and to be wise.

So, it is you who are ignorant of the evidence provided of the Exodus account, and only because the author does not have degree.

As I recall from one of your earlier posts, the "paths" you refer, published in your KJV, were totally inaccurate. No wonder there is so much dissention in your religion.
*************

jayleew: I am disappointed that they do not give all the details which offer more credible evidence. If only Saudi Arabi was a free nation, we could properly investigate the site without being censored by the Saudi government. You need to watch the video, judge the evidence, then come to me and tell me I am an idiot, at least do me that courtesy.
*************
M*W: I don't have to watch the video to tell you you're an idiot.
*************

That's a cop-out answer. You're avoiding the fact that you have a closed mind on the issue. It is unfortunate that you cannot be more scientific and lay aside your religion long enough to look at all the evidence objectively.

M*W: When a person goes to look for something, everything he finds is going to look like he's found proof. That's wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is not credible evidence. Paul's shipwreck is fiction. You have probably wasted your time reading religious fiction.

Sure, if they are biased. I have some compelling arguments and evidence that disprove evidence that supports the Bible's accounts. For instance, Dr. Micael BeHe is known for studying biogenetics to prove a designer is required because of the complexity as well as many other things. But, I also found a rebuttal of Behe's work that I accept. For now, Behe's work is refuted. I also have read compelling information on talkorigins.org and other sites quoted from forum users. I understand how theists look to the scientific community and/or a logical mind. I have weighed all the evidence and speaks for itself. In the face of all logic, God proved himself to me over and over again. Each time I dismissed the infinite number of coincidences became harder, until i reached the breaking point where I had no choice but to conclude that there is a God. But, I am a natural skeptic that I don't even trust myself. When I am presented with new evidence, I must evaluate it and weigh it. All evidence deserves scrutiny. I am sorry you disagree.

If I were to claim that the Ark of the Covenant was buried in my backyard, and I set out to digging, I could come up with evidential artifacts to show that I had found the Ark. All you gullible christians would believe me, because you're desperate to believe anything that would prove your religion the one true religion. Undoubtedly, the news media would be over here in a flash wanting to see the evidence, and it would be all over the evening news. I'd probably get rich off of it, write a book or two, build a shrine in my backyard, and you gullible christians would start pushing and shoving in my backyard to get your chance at a healing miracle. Next thing you'd see would be churches of Medicine*Womanism springing up all over the place. And guess what? There'd be more digging in my neighbor's backyard, and he'd become famous, too. Zero from zero leaves zero. Bunk from bunk leaves bunk. All religion is bunk.
*************

You are right. For a time, you would make money. But, like Ron Wyatt, everything would come out in the wash.

jayleew: The only thing I am coming up with as far as opposing viewpoints of the evidence he presents is from people who have never gone to Arabia and examined the evidence. Many traditional scholars, creationists and evolutionists alike, are concerned that because Mr Cornuke doesn't have a degree, that he doesn't know what he's talking about. How arrogant.
*************
M*W: A degree often is not worth the paper it is printed on. All a degree does is hopefully give the bearer the ability to think for himself and pursue his endeavors.
*************

Yet, you have a double standard because Mr Cornuke does not have a degree. If he only had credibility, you would take a look at his book or video. Will you be the first to expose Mr. Cornuke as a fraud? Won't happen until you examine the evidence.

jayleew: There have been scholars who look at the pictures and make a judgement without going to the site and investigating and testing the evidence. Some say the burnt rocks are just green limestone crusted granite. Others say that they are volcanic. They shove the evidence under the rug because it doesn't fit their own perspective. Why is that so common? I have never been afraid to go to talkorigins.org or any evidence or information about the origins of life. I actually am becoming more appreciative of the viewpoint of evolutionists because I understand the logic and evidence, but there is not ONE evolutionist here or anywhere (it seems) that is willing to do what Mr Cornuke did and do the investigating and testing.
*************
M*W: Pictures and evidence are not the same thing.
*************

They are not necessarily, but they can be. And, unless someone goes over to Saudi Arabia and performs a thorough study of the evidence, it very likely could be evidence. It is like taking a picture of a fossil. The picture is a lead, and the actual fossil is open to scrutiny. Evidence doesn't become such if ignored as you do.

jayleew: There is a mental block that is ingrained because they believe so deeply in what they believe. You, MW, are evidence of this mental block that is completely close-minded to any and all evidence that you have not yet watched Cornuke's findings, nor read his book. You discriminate against all evidence if it suggests the proposterous idea that the Bible might be accurate, or that God might exist. It is cultish behavior, to say the least, not to examine all the evidence before making a judgement. Becareful that you are not a lemming jumping off the cliff with the other lemmings, or maybe you don't care.
*************
M*W: Honest researchers seeking evidence are impartial to their findings. Yes, I do have a mental block to the bible as it is interpreted and to man-made religions, which they all are. There was a time I searched for truth in the bible and believed it to be true because I was looking for it, so it must really be there. Then I found out it wasn't, and the whole system of christianity had visciously lied to billions of people, myself included. I don't fraterinize with liars. You, however, are in the billions that do.

Then, you are as unreasonable as a zealot, and you think you have reached the truth. Until we die, we will never know the truth. And when we're dead it doesn't matter. All we have is today.

If you are unwilling to look at the evidence because of your bias, we have nothing further to discuss.