no reason too? Then you must be unaware of all the archeology and geographical evidence supporting events all through the bible- there's some pretty darn compelling reason to beleive aside from faith- Not to mention thousands of eye witnesses that back up Christ's life and death and rising etc. No compelling reason to beleive? sure there is. There's plenty of acheological evidence
42 comments
"Then you must be unaware of all the archeology and geographical evidence supporting events all through the bible-"Just because the Bible mentions Babylon, and there really was a Babylon, and just because the Bible mentions Rome, and there really was a Rome, that doesn't do anything to back up Christian dogma. Remember, your Bible contains many errors including geographical errors, such as Jesus supposedly running a demon-possessed herd of pigs (which wouldn't have been raised in Israel) into the sea at a town some 30 miles from the nearest sea.
"there's some pretty darn compelling reason to beleive aside from faith-"
Name a couple.
"Not to mention thousands of eye witnesses that back up Christ's life and death and rising etc."
Thousands? The Bible mentions a few, not thousands, and, of course, the Bible is a poor source of information. We don't even know who wrote the gospels.
"No compelling reason to beleive?"
None.
"sure there is. There's plenty of acheological evidence"
What? Name a few pieces of acheological evidence that support the biblical stories of Jesus.
It was easy to claim thousands of eye witnesses back in those days. People didn't travel all that much (kinda hard when you need to work each day to get food) so saying that people in some city more than a few days of walking away saw some incredible event, no one was really able to get the actual story from those people.
no reason too? Then you must be unaware of all the archeology and geographical evidence supporting events all through the bible-Please provide this groundbreaking evidence.
there's some pretty darn compelling reason to beleive aside from faith-
Like what? Again you have failed to mention anything in support of whatyou're saying.
Not to mention thousands of eye witnesses that back up Christ's life and death and rising etc.
Really? And where, praytell, are they? Where are those purported thousands of eye-witnesses? Oh, you just made that up. NEXT!
No compelling reason to beleive? sure there is. There's plenty of acheological evidence
You already said that and didn't support it. There is no reason to say it again and look like an even bigger imbecile.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but if you are referring to the 'archeological work' of Ron Wyatt, then you should know that most of it has been debunked. As a matter of fact, the so-called detailed history of the bible has very little archeological data to back it up.
There is no evidence, either of the events in the Genesis, and probably in the Exodus, in archaeology. And the ones who wrote the Gospels admit that they had never met Jesus. Is there any archaeology for the existance of Adam and Eve, Caine and Abel............for a speaking snake or a science tree. It´s something that you can believe but not prove.
Sorry, but "it's true because there's evidence that it's true because there's evidence, so there," isn't terribly convincing; that's just assertions piled on top of more assertions (and/or just the same ones over again).nothing.
~David D.G.
"There's plenty of acheological evidence"
I imagine Paul got to the figure of 500 witnesses because as he went preaching, he discovered that smaller numbers failed to impress anyone. 500 seemed good because it was more than most people could actually count to, and sounded like a large number.
I keep hearing about this archeological evidence, but it's never identified, much less shown. Five hundred witnesses? The earliest gospel
Amazing. There's a vast amount of archaeological evidence supporting evolution, and he's happy to dismiss it all. There's basically NO archaeological evidence for the crucial events of Christianity, and yet THAT is somehow conclusive for him.
I have some Spiderman comics that document thousands of people witnessing Spidey's heroic feats. Surely you wouldn't brush aside thousands of eyewitnesses!
Anyone want to see some of the shit that makes people think this?
Check out the garbage history that has been popping up on Discovery and TLC the last few years. Since that judge decided in a slander case against FoxNews that news programs aren't obligated to tell the truth (travisty of justice as the news media is enshrined as one of the safeguards of democracy) the floodgates opened up for bullshit science and history programs.
The The Naked Archaeologist is the latest bullshit, hot on the heels of other shows pretending Biblical events and battles actual happened without ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER.
I watched about four episodes of The Naked Archaeologist and I've never seen any show trying so hard to wedge Biblical ideals into any carving or symbol dug out or up. Roman coins in a well in the middle East? Proof of a major Biblical city despite no other signs of buildings in the area. It's not like Romans weren't fucking all over that area in the day, oh no. The leaps that fraud makes are equal to the shit that discredited Wyatt claimed years ago.
The pseudo-history machine is at full steam now, this garbage has largely replaced real science and historical documentries and has been becoming more common.
The Nostradamus Effect is another shit propagandic program. In the past documentaries over the years we learned Nostradamus made many predictions close to histories actual events, he also wrote a ton of shit that could mean anything and many predictions that failed completely. But is that mentioned in the Nostradamus Effect show?
Please America, get on top of this shit, free speech is one thing but history can't be taught by unqualified nuts making shit up!
"There's plenty of acheological evidence"
Unfortunately, it's all in unmarked crates in that vast government warehouse seen in the Indiana Jones movies
Uh...no...an eyewitness is someone who can be questioned about the events. "I read that somebody once wrote that there were many eyewitnesses" is an "eyewitness" many iterations (and many decades) removed, in other words, NOT an eyewitness.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
