@amoxtlacatl You cannot understand because you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
Some prophecies were "fulfilled" by the simple expedient of inventing and writing a fulfillment that never happened in fact. An example is Matthew 2:13-15, which has Jesus as a child being hauled off to Egypt to escape the "slaughter of the innocents". Neither the move to Egypt nor the slaughter ever took place. Matthew wrote this lie to be able to say "And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." " No other gospel or history records this.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hey guys,peace...if u need the answers of ur debates and arguments,u may find it 100%accurate in the Holy Quran,which clears up any mistranslation or any hidden/removed text...just make sure that u read it while ur body and soul r clean enough to perceive the truth...May Allah swt guide u tot the truth.
@cymonette Secular (non-religious) scholarship has dissected the Quran and found it to be a reworking of current 7th century AD Byzantine Christian and Jewish beliefs and myths and speculation. All religions, including Islam, are man-made speculation.
I hope that the knowledge u aquired along the way to be beneficial to u and others, but I'm worried that is like an ecstasy that gets u astray...u need to remeber that our intelligence is limited and plays tricks on those who separates it from its original source:GOD!
Quran is word from God, not people, call upon all of ur intelliget people to write a verse alike that will be followed and preserved for centuries!!! So easy to criticize, but so hard to believe!!!
Early Christian efforts to convert Jews were unsuccessful because the Jews said the Christians were getting their false ideas from a corrupt bible, the Septuaginta (LXX) of 275 BC! The Christian response? They declared their LXX was the "true" word of God and the Jew's bible (MT) which contradicted the Septuaginta, was the "corrupt" Bible! By the 4th century AD some Christian scholars who could read Hebrew, realized the Jews were right, the LXX was "corrupt"! The KJV follows the MT.
By the way, there exists an "excellent series" on YouTube _debunking the Bible_ as being God's word, do yourself a favor and study them, just key-in profmth into the Youtube search box to see "why" Atheists fault the Bible as being God's word.
Key-in my username, sapiensape for my series on the Bible's pre-biblical origins as reworked Mesopotamian myths.
known to have fables IE the apocrypha...not the king James...which is accurate to the scrolls." Are you "brain-dead"? The _first_ Christians used the Septuaginta because they could not read Hebrew! Christianity is founded on a corrupt Greek translation of the Bible, the Septuaginta says a virgin will conceive. No "virgin" gave birth to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible, so Jesus wasn't born of a Virgin, and is not God, no matter what the KJV of 1611 AD says!
Yawn......Too bad you completely ignored my last post...not suprising. You cant answer it. If Im brain dead you must be illiterate and willfully ignorant.
Too bad this last attempt is nothing more than wishful thinking and you have NO WAY of proving any of the facts of Christ's birth.....like I said....see you on Judgement day my friend.
The bible old and new testatement also clearly states many times born of a virgin.
By the holy spirit....so much for your selective reading of a book you could not possibly understand. God purposfully keeps folks like you unable, since it is what you want to believe. Repent for the time is at hand.
You still don't get it do you? The authors of the New Testament quoted from the Septuaginta to "prove" Christ was god (or gods' son). The Septuaginta is proven to have Greek mistranslations of Hebrew words and sentences. Therefore Christianity bases its claims on mistranslations from the Septuagint, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,. ect. _all_ quoted from the Septuaginta. So whatever the KJV has to say is of no importance.
300 years _before_ Jesus was born the Septuaginta was declared to be a "corrupt" text by the Jews at Jerusalem because it contradicted their Bible! Yet Christ's apostles (Peter, Paul, etc.) cite from the Septuaginta (Jesus' "virgin birth" is from the Septuaginta version). The first Bible of Christianity was the Greek written Septuaginta because most Christians could not read Hebrew. Christianity is founded upon a "corrupt" Bible, the Septuaginta, and its false notion of a virgin birth messiah.
your dates are based on two very differnet calender years first of all. so ok we hav a few years of difference. If you wish to bet your eternal exsistance on a few years of difference, you go ahead and be my guess. Oh, btw, were not the scribes and pharisees of Jesus days the same that crucified Him? Yup there is a credible crowd not isn't it?
Thanks for admitting the contradictions exist and therefore Christianity is founded upon a corrupt text, the Septuaginta. Its a great foundation "stone" for Christianity to be built upon, isn't it, a bible rejected and declared corrupt 300 years before Jesus was born by Jerusalem's Jews! If you want to put your trust in a faith founded upon a corrupt Bible (the Septuaginta) be my guest, but don't say I didn't warn you!
The historical facts are clear and Jesus can not be denied historically. In fact nost of the historians form his time hated him but they wre not foolish enough to deny his exsistance or the surrounding story around Him. But God did give you a choice...excersize it as you wish.
There are two types of CAs (Christian Apologists), (1) Naive ones claiming the Bible is without any errors; (2) Sophisticated ones acknowledging the Bible is full of errors. The "Sophisticated" have a smokescreen: They claim that only the "autographs" the original first writing down by the ancient authors is without error, later generations miscopied these texts and are responsible for the errors. The problem? If true, this suggests the Holy Spirit/God didn't give a damn about this "corruption."
Yup but you still have not presented anything other than your own words
to back up your belief in the corruption
in scripture.
Yet..you openly deny the clear flaws in the theory of evolution. It is loaded with them.
Clearly you have NOT read
the DSS's or the sept... forget the apologist for a second. The Hebrew scolars who have copied it perfectly over the mellenia gravely disagree with you.
Your ignorance on things biblical is amazing. The Septuaginta isn't a "modern" translation error, it was composed in the 3rd century BC by Jews for Jews at Alexandria, Egypt, was was cited from by the authors of the New Testament. Yet, it contradicts the ages found in the KJV (no matter whether its revised KJV or an older version). You have neatly "dodged" the issue: the bible _before_ the rise of Christianity contradicted itself in the ages of the pre-flood patriachs. Its not God's Holy Word!
If the Bible recensions can't get the various ages "right" of the pre-flood patriarchs it isn't God's Holy Word, it is _corrupted_ and full of _errors_! End of argument!
Septuagint age followed by a slash / Massoretic Text's Age (modern Jewish Bible): Genesis 5:1-29: a few contradictions: Adam lived 230/130 years & had Seth Adam lived after Seth 700/800 years Seth lived 205/105 years & had Enos (Enosh) Seth lived after Enos 707/807 years Enos lived after Cainan 715/815 years Cainin lived after Maleleel 740/840 years Jared lived 102/162 years Enoch lived 165/65 years Mathusala lived 167/187 years Lamech lived 188/182 years Lamech lived after Noah 565/595 years
Maybe because you eat thanks to the Biblie, but nobody is going to come to me with that shit telling that shit about hell, I hate religious lideres they are liars
I eat because God suppiles and so do you....inspite of your hatred for Him and his Word. Hey don't be mad at me. Im only the messenger. Psst...let me in on you a little something ...I am not at all religious. It really has nothing to do with God. Yes , religion tends to be based on the idea of God but they never get it right. Now faith, that is another story. I don't want you to be religious. The religious are the same people that killed Jesus if you know anything.
Go to Barnes and Noble and you will find that the Biblie is correct after the year 700, anything before is incorrect, so don't come to me saying that the Bible is completely correct because that is not true.
Radio Carbon Dating says the grain in Jericho's jars is mid 16th century BC
(1550 BC) _not_ 1400 BC as claimed by the archaeologist Dr. Bryant G. Wood, PhD. Moabite Heshbon & Elealeh (Nu 32.3) fell to Israel before Jericho, and they did not exist before 1200 BC according to archaeologists. Moses' 1400 BC Edomite Bosrah (Ge 36.33) did not exist before the late 8th century BC. Archaeology does _not_ "always" support the Biblical account. Click on my username sapiensape for 15 videos.
Radio Carbon dating does not work on non living things. That fact is it does not work PERIOD. It is junk science based on nothing but assumption, just like every other dating method. So much for your archaeological dating methods.
The Bible is "junk science" from beginning to end, one lie stacked on top of another lie, in order to take control of mankind via fear and error of an imaginary god!
Back upi your staements with facts. Other wise it's just postulation which is all you evo-devo's do. And as typical, attacks and insults and ad hom's....none of which are science. But again, there is no sceince to evolution so thre is no suprise there.
Just curious 3gdosrsf, _which_ Bible recension is "authoritive" for you? Are you aware that the various recensions _contradict_ each other? Which "contradicting" recension do you use and how do you know its facts are "correct" and the others facts are "wrong"?
How about the dead sea scrolls which do not contradict the current KJV?
Now out of curiosity which contraditing story of evolution do you buy since it is revised at very least once per decade because it keeps being shown to be completely fraudulant?
The Dead Sea Scrolls do, "in fact," _contradict_ the present-day recensions of the Bible! I don't know what Christian Apologist's site you visited for this Apologetic nonsense. They revealed (1) "missing verses," (2) verses out of order compared to modern Bible's verse order, (3) the ages of the pre-flood patriarchs (Genesis) contradicted each other on how long each lived. Go get an English translation of the Septuaginta Bible and see the age differences for yourself with your modern bible.
The fact is, evolution, a fantasy at best is the most dangerous and controlling indoctrination ever concieved. It has no history nor science and the text books refuse to remove the long agreed upon errors in them. Its only 200 years old and was created by a guy, bitter at God.
In 1931 archaeology PROVED the bible is a lie when they excavated the city of Shuruppak in Mesopotamia, scene of the Gilgamesh Flood story, stolen by the Bible's writers and made into Noah's flood. Bet you NEVER heard of what they found did you? The flood was a flooding Euphrates river embellished to cover the world's mountain tops! Click on my username sapiensape for the Christian _suppressed_ truth that Noah's Flood is a myth.
Since you blocked me I have to respond to you hear, you said you responded to all my claims when in fact you didn't respond to a single one and I have the emails saved to prove it. You did however block me the moment I contradicted you which is typical of creationists. If you would unblock me I could show you how the rest of your copy and paste argument is false.
"No, I contradicted you. You have a foolish belief"
Lets see I posted why the things you listed were not science but vague in which you didn't respond with anything but the phrase "You are wrong" followed by a Hovind copy and paste. Second when I posted on your video and listed and what was wrong you simply deleted what I said and blocked me without refuting anything I said. So how can you state you contradicted me when you aren't man enough to argue against me?
Dont be deluded. There are no contradictions John 10:35, pslams 12:6, the carnal man cannot understand, 1 Cor 2:14. nothing is of any private interpretation 2 Peter 1:20, Fools deny God Psalms 53:1, unbelievers are blinded 2 Cor 4:4, people who dont know scripture are unstable and misinterpret to their own destruction 2 Peter 3:16 The brother of goliath was slain, 1 Chronicles 20:5 said it was Lahmi, the BROTHER of Goliath the GITTITE! David slew Goliath the philistine. No contradiction.
"Where is the archaeological or historical evidence
for the slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt?"
----------------
Since Arab and Hebrew Nations have been at war with one another for centuries. How would one expect to find evidence for something that gives credance to the God of the other? If they can help it. its not going to happen. Thats like the Mob showing you where they burried Jimmy Hoffa.
could tell us what kind of cup Herod drank from, but didn't notice the slaughter of a few thousand babies?"
-------------------------
Hmm..since Josephus was an Historian in the company of Herod and even the Roman Government. His writting could have been overseen by the governing bodies. Both of which would probably not like their rulership stained by an account they themselves would not give an account to. better to let it just go away.
No, God don't have trouble in that respect. Man chose to Govern himself. So now Self Governance is playing itself out. Heck of a job we are doing isn't it?
Lets take WMD in Iraq for example. Do you think that the US or even Sadam at the time could hide, or plant evidence of it in the Modern world? Then why is it so hard for you to believe Governments of Long ago did'nt do the same?
Well I never went to Bible collage. So, if you have had 4 years of it then you should know better than I do that their is a being the bible calls "The God of this world" who through manipulation and deceit rules the minds of men. a possible case in point if I may.- The recient ID vs Evolution court case had a turn of events. A fossil was found the same day the case was going on, that gave evol. a boost. Now, how could a person be lead to an evol treasure such as that. on on the very.
Day the ID vs Evol case was going on? Makes you kind of think about how evidence can be covered and then revealed at the exact time it was needed to give evidence for a Natural - "Just came into being on its own without God creation" - Listen, I don't dought for one second that God is real. and that "their shall not be a thing that is covered, that shall not be un-covered." - And I think the Evidence I just gave you is very strong evidence for the Bible as well.
Yup...he has clearly blinded you as well my friend. God will accomodate you when you want to believe a lie. He however is not a liar. He only oblidges you when you show you want to be lied to. He's just giving you what you want.
I am not a language or Biblical expert. So I must go on the evidence I find written in the Books or translations that I have on hand. And when it comes to the Bible, I have quite a few. Including the Original Hebrew. If only I spoke Hebrew.
James Moffatt translation, copywrite 1954 - Harper and Row - NY, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London. Renders the account after David had become King in Israel as follows,
2 Sam 21;15 "Again the Philistines were at war with Israel. When David went down with his troops to camp at Gob and fought the Philistine upstarting." It continues on to show that 3 other Giants or Goliath's as we would refere to them were also killed. I checked this also in The NIV (Margins) and RSV as well as a number of other translations. and they all agree, Goliath that David killed before becoming king was just one of four BROTHERS. So even though the KJ may have placed..cont, 1
"the brother of" Goliath." in italics. the rendering is correct. As he was just one of 4 known brothers.
I know you want agree with this. But translations are just that a translation from one language into another. There is no way to be sure of what the Author was stating in the Original language, and as many Hebrew to English translaters will tell you. "The meaning of Ancient Hebrew words are hard to translate into Modern Hebrew, let alone english." So we do the best with what we have. :)
"contradictions in the Bible" I don't do private discussion, but here are a few simple ones- Genesis 1 and 2 give contrary sequences of creation. Who prompted David to take a census, God or Satan? Did Judas or priests purchase Potter's field? How did Judas die? Did Jesus suck on a sponge while crucified? What colour robe was out on Jesus? Purple or scarlet? Which of seven choices were Jesus' last words? Who visited the tomb Easter morning? Does God's anger last for ever?
You missunderstand. I don't want to do a private discusion with you. I simply want ALL your known contridictions so I may review them. You said "There are hundreds of more significant contradictions in the Bible" All I want you to do is list them all for me, and post them in a PM to me. I will not PM you back. I may however go through them one at a time and reply to them here on this board. is that OK?
" ALL your known contradictions" Oh, sorry, I didn't realize. Sure, um, I don't have them listed in my computer, they are handwritten in various notebooks going back for decades. I don't expect to type them all up in the foreseeable future. But of course I'm neither the first nor the only person to find lots of these; just Google "Bible Contradictions", you'll get lots of responses. And lots of sites of other folks attempting to explain them all! It's practically an industry :=) Have fun!
I have googled it. however, there are many sites. and some that give answers to them such as "Answers in Genesis" - I want to do my own undertaking of this project. I was hoping that you could give your collection. But, thats fine. Good luck to you. I enjoyed our conversation and sometime in the future I hope to converse with you again. Have a nice day my friend.
Reply to bigwhammyRocks: I repeat again, at no time was Belshazzar the king of Babylonia as the Bible says. Show me a tablet or scroll outside of the Bible that talks about Daniel.
If Daniel held the third highest position in the Babylonian empire, why is there no mention of him trying to free his people from Babylonian bondage and leading them back to the Promised land. He seems to have taken the selfish attitude of, " I'm all right, Jack." Daniel never existed.
Belshazzar was the son of the last ruler of Babylonia, King Nabonidus. Belshazzar was NEVER the king of Babylonia. Prince Belshazzar was defeated and killed in the battle of Opis on the Tigris River in 539 B.C. while trying to stop the invading Persians led by King Cyrus.
Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.
Okay, modernscribe, I've uploaded my four-part series called "Strobel Under Fire". Love to hear your comments. Just click on my name and find part 1 in my vids.
"What archeologists believe about the buybull determines determines their interpretation of what they find on their digs."
What a load of crap.
Check this: Do a search on Nabonidus Cylinder. It contains the name Bel shar usur (Belshazzar) which proves Daniel was right! Belshazzar DID exist. Unfortunately, it says that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son, NOT Nebuchadnezzar's.
The hebrew word used in Daniel 5 is av (transliterated), which can mean father or ancestor. Even though the english translations say father, the original meaning could be referring to Nebuchadnezzar as just being part of the lineage. Ancestor would in this case fit the context perfectly since Nebuchadnezzar was Nabonidus' father.
I just looked up Nabonidus' biography. Apparently Nabonidus married Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, so he wasn't his son, but Nebuchadnezzar would still be in the same lineage of Belshazzar.
Same apologist tactic. Words don't mean what they mean. Son doesn't really mean son. etc.
Belshazzar is depicted as taking the throne after Neb. Unfortunately for you, there were THREE other kings between Neb and Nabonidus/Belshazzar. Whether Belshazzar was related (grandson) doesn't remove the problem.
Plus, Darius the Mede didn't conquer Babylon. It was Cyrus the Great of Persia.
It doesn't say that Belshazzar took the throne right after Nebuchadnezzar. It just starts giving information about him after it finishes giving information on Nebuchadnezzar. As far as changing words, understand that the original writing was in Hebrew. What the hebrew word means and what the english word means are fairly different. Father in english would obviously be biological father. av in hebrew can mean both father and ancestor. The english translation doesn't change the original text.
even if there was 3 kings inbetween Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, it was only over a period of 6 years or so. Which could be why none of the other kings are listed between them, since it was such a short span.
the word "son" in the book of Daniel (both words "bar" and "ben" in the original language) were the same words used of grandson.
The terms father and son in the Bible aren't always a reference to the immediate offspring of a person. In the Old Testament we see many instances where Abraham, for example, is called the father of a person he is not the immediate father of, rather an ancestor of. Genesis 28:13, for example, Abraham is called Jacob's father when in actuality he was his grandfather.
"the word "son" in the book of Daniel (both words "bar" and "ben" in the original language) were the same words used of grandson."
Assuming you are correct, did Belshazzar rule immediately after Nebuchadnezzar? Did Darius the Mede conquer Babylon as Daniel claims?
It's interesting that the author leaves out the other Babylonian kings after Neb and completely ignores Nabonidus (the last king at the time Cyrus the great invaded and conquered Babylon). The bible is not reliable.
Also, you must explain away the word "ab" which means "father". It is never used in the OT to mean "grandfather" or "father" in a mere ancestor way. Your defense of Daniel's historical reliability is slowly sinking.
actually "ab" is used in the verse i gave you, Genesis 28:13, calling Abraham the father (ab) of Jacob. The very definition of the Hebrew word ab also includes "forefather"
Okay, you got me on this one. At least in Genesis it is used in that way. But the problems still exist. Darius did not conquer Babylon. Belshazzar did not actually rule as king but as a co-regent in his father's absence. Nebuchadnezzar did not leave Babylon for 7 years due to insanity but Nabonidus DID leave for an extended period of time. The author is mixing up Nabonidus with Nebuchadnezzar due to writing 400 years later.
Mighty convenient for your explanation! But the BETTER explanation is that the author(s) wrote MUCH later and simply did not know about the intermediate kings such as Awil Marduk and Nabonidus (the true father of Belshazzar).
The claim that Daniel was written after the events actually took place is just another one of those wild claims with zero evidence from people who are in total denial of God/inspiration of Scripture.
The author of Daniel identifies himself many times. A few examples: Daniel 7:15, 7:28, 8:1, 8:15, 8:27, 9:2, 10:2, 10:7, 10:11
There is no doubt that the original author of the book was Daniel. He even identifies himself as interacting with King Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and Cyrus
"The claim that Daniel was written after the events actually took place is just another one of those wild claims with zero evidence from people who are in total denial of God/inspiration of Scripture."
Actually, it's made by scholars who have studied it in far more detail than you or I. Ironically, the ones who do NOT worship the story's main character are usually the ones who are less biased and can see it for what it is. Who to believe? Daniel? Or inscriptions on clay tablets frm Babylon?
Inscriptions show that the author had a VAGUE knowledge of Babylonian details from the 6th century BCE but a very GOOD knowledge of the 2nd century BCE. Getting a clue now?
"Inscriptions show that the author had a VAGUE knowledge of Babylonian details from the 6th century BCE but a very GOOD knowledge of the 2nd century BCE. Getting a clue now?"
No. What inscriptions? What do they say? How do they show that the author had a vague knowledge of Babylonian details?
Daniel probably didn't mention Nabonidus because it was irrelelvant. If you read the book of Daniel you'll see that he didn't write it intending to give us a chronology of the kings who ruled Babylon, but rather he wrote the book with the intention of recording his prophecies and visions and the main points of his life and interactions with the kings.
"Daniel probably didn't mention Nabonidus because it was irrelelvant."
RIGHT! The last king to rule Babylon was irrelevant. The last king, who was ruing DURING the conquest by Persia, was irrelevant.
You really need to wake up.
Another few things to read up on...
Babylonian Chronicles, Nabonidus Cylinder, Nebuchadnezzar Cylinder, and much, much more (physical cuneiform relics from THAT ERA which are housed in the British Museum in London)
Quit defending bronze age supersitions and wake up
"Go learn about why scholars date Daniel in the 2nd century BCE. That's all I have to say. You have access to the net. You're ON it. No excuses."
LOL! I ask you a simple question and you don't even have evidence for your claims. I move to say that you don't even have any knowledge or reason to say that Daniel was written after the already established date of about 530BC
You are what we call "willfully ignorant" of God, the Bible, and the truthes thereof.
Agape010, who is willfully ignorant here? Did you not see the links I gave? I am not going to type a book-length lesson for you if you are unwilling to read up on the dating of Daniel yourself.
Google: daniel dating babylon chronicles etc etc etc
I told you that ONE of the reasons scholars date Daniel to the 2nd century BCE is that the 6th century details (Darius, Belshazzar) are wrong. You are what I call "biased".
In that case, you can't know anything about the Hebrew and you can't know if the Bible is telling us accurate info or not. So, by your own admission, you must dismiss it since you cannot even know if son means son!
By the way, did you also know that Jonah 3 says that Ninevah was so large it took 3 days to walk across it? Archeology has excavated Ninevah and it is about 3 miles in length.
What do you mean we can't know anything about the Hebrew? Do you know what a linguist is? It's a person who studies languages including vocabulary, sentence structure, grammar, etc. We can learn plenty about Hebrew. We aren't translating son in the first place, we are translating av, which means father or ancestor. Part of the translation process to understand the true meaning of a word is to look at the text context and historical contest. With the historical context it would be ancestor.
I never changed the definition at all, just pointed out that av not only means father, but ancestor as well. Now to answer your question, yes I am going to say that the hebrew word there doesn't mean son at all. The word is bar, which means heir. The hebrew word for son is bain which is not used in the text. So bar doesn't have to mean imediate son but goes back to the lineage. You should probably make sure you include these definitions in your new video so everyone knows them.
I am going to upload a new vid I made exposing Lee Strobel for the liar he is and in this vid there is a section on archeology. It contains the Belshazzar stuff and the Nineveh stuff. I might post it tonight.
biology, geology, physics and geophysics, astronomy, astrophysics actually play a big part in many parts of the Bible @_@
God gave us the Bible because it contains some knowledge that we need in every day life and in the future where genetic engineering and nuclearphysics does not find its place.
And by the way, you don't have to be so discriminating just because it's so fashionable now to not believe in the Bible.
I wish I didn't know what is in the Bible. Fortunately, it helps me to disbelieve. It is so ridiculous and violent. Far from my position. I know it is hard for you to understand my position. I don't want to make anyone think my way, only think for themselves and the evidence that is out there to help them see the true fairytale that this book portrays.
Modern science essentially drop-kicks the Bible, Koran, or whatever ancient relic of a book. I find solace in my 42nd yr of atheism.
I stopped watching at about 10 sec. Even the title is an oxymoron. The bible is just an old book of faiytales from a group of sheep-herders that were bored tending their flock. Archeology is a science and has already disproved the bible as was aforementioned. This vid is a crock. Take it from a Bio teacher, not bible-thumping delusionals. This is pure garbage.
Reply to Idfjkg - Also in addition to my comments below, I strongly recommend that you watch " The Bible Unearthed " in ten different parts on Youtube and please read my comments there.
One other important thing to know. Archaeologists always should approach their work with NO preconceptions about anything. They will dig or search, find out what is there, analyze their findings with an open mind and then " let the chips fall where they may."
Reply to Idfjkg - Archaeologist Bryan Wood neglects to point out that Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon's work at Jericho was judged as so excellent she was knighted by the Queen. The vast majority of archaeolgists accept Dame Kathleen Kenyon's findings on Jericho. I urge you to read the books, " The Bible Unearthed " by Israel Finkelstein @ Neil Asher Silberman and " Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times " by Donald Redford. These two books rip the Old Testament to shreds.
Thank you I shell acquire it as soon as I can.. Can I also recommend to you a book that I find beautiful in it's idea "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
I as well hope you enjoy it as much as I will your recommendation.
no evidence has ever been found to support the idea of millions of former hebrew slaves wandering the desert for 40 years. nor has it found any evidence of a hostile takeover of canaan as the israel conquests are described in the old testament.
there is not even any evidence for the purported united kingdom under david and solomon.
A relatively new science, Biblical archaeology has become a major field of study that has turned up some valuable information. And many archaeological finds attest to the Bible's authenticity and accuracy, sometimes down to the smallest detail!
Christian faith depends, not on artifacts, but on the entire, harmonious body of spiritual truth found in the Bible. To be sure, the Bible's internal harmony, candor, fulfilled prophecies, and may other features provide convincing evidence that "All Scripture is inspired of God."--2 Timothy 3:16.
For Bible students, archaeology is useful, since its findings often supplement their knowledge of life, conditions, customs,and languages in Bible times. Archaeology also provides helpful information on the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, such as those predicting the fall of ancient Babylon, Nineveh, and Tyre. (Jeremiah 51:37; Ezekiel 26:4, 12; Zephaniah 2:13-15) Archaeology has its limits, however. Artifacts must be interpreted, and interpretations are subject to human error and modification.
"the Bible is like a lion"
More like a stuffed lion - lifeless, long dead, and believed real only by the unaware gullible who will not take their eyes off it to look at reality.
"The prevailing scholarly view is that Joshua is not a factual account of historical events."
McConville, Gordon, J, "Joshua", Eerdmans.
Please do read the Bible. Cover to cover.
Then compare it to actual history
Believing the Bible to be literally true is misguided at best and delusional and dangerous at worse.
amoxtlacatl 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@amoxtlacatl You cannot understand because you are spiritually dead and love darkness.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Corinthians 2:14
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:19
BereanBeacon1 8 months ago
Comment removed
amoxtlacatl 8 months ago
The study of pots explain all these details of Jerico? This series shows how religious belief defies reason.
JohnnyRock2000 1 year ago
Kurt P. Wise is a liar.
0synesthete0 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey guys,peace...if u need the answers of ur debates and arguments,u may find it 100%accurate in the Holy Quran,which clears up any mistranslation or any hidden/removed text...just make sure that u read it while ur body and soul r clean enough to perceive the truth...May Allah swt guide u tot the truth.
cymonette 2 years ago
@cymonette Secular (non-religious) scholarship has dissected the Quran and found it to be a reworking of current 7th century AD Byzantine Christian and Jewish beliefs and myths and speculation. All religions, including Islam, are man-made speculation.
sapiensape 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
sapiensape Hey guys, relax, don`t take it all so seriously, have a smile:
You can't go to church if your testicles are damaged or your penis has been cut off. (Read Deuteronomy 23:1
lizazoon 2 years ago
sapiensape,
I hope that the knowledge u aquired along the way to be beneficial to u and others, but I'm worried that is like an ecstasy that gets u astray...u need to remeber that our intelligence is limited and plays tricks on those who separates it from its original source:GOD!
Quran is word from God, not people, call upon all of ur intelliget people to write a verse alike that will be followed and preserved for centuries!!! So easy to criticize, but so hard to believe!!!
cymonette 2 years ago
Early Christian efforts to convert Jews were unsuccessful because the Jews said the Christians were getting their false ideas from a corrupt bible, the Septuaginta (LXX) of 275 BC! The Christian response? They declared their LXX was the "true" word of God and the Jew's bible (MT) which contradicted the Septuaginta, was the "corrupt" Bible! By the 4th century AD some Christian scholars who could read Hebrew, realized the Jews were right, the LXX was "corrupt"! The KJV follows the MT.
sapiensape 2 years ago
By the way, there exists an "excellent series" on YouTube _debunking the Bible_ as being God's word, do yourself a favor and study them, just key-in profmth into the Youtube search box to see "why" Atheists fault the Bible as being God's word.
Key-in my username, sapiensape for my series on the Bible's pre-biblical origins as reworked Mesopotamian myths.
sapiensape 2 years ago
Many secular historians disagree with you TODAY.
Who are these 'some christains' in the 4 century? How many are there? Three?
You are using ONE book translated by greeks. This is the catholic translation
known to have fables IE the apocrypha...not the king James...which is accuraet to the scrolls.
Also please show me where I ever said the bible has contradictions.
You can't even get whcih translations are which.
Shame my friend....shame.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
You said: "This is the Catholic translation
known to have fables IE the apocrypha...not the king James...which is accurate to the scrolls." Are you "brain-dead"? The _first_ Christians used the Septuaginta because they could not read Hebrew! Christianity is founded on a corrupt Greek translation of the Bible, the Septuaginta says a virgin will conceive. No "virgin" gave birth to Jesus in the Hebrew Bible, so Jesus wasn't born of a Virgin, and is not God, no matter what the KJV of 1611 AD says!
sapiensape 2 years ago
Yawn......Too bad you completely ignored my last post...not suprising. You cant answer it. If Im brain dead you must be illiterate and willfully ignorant.
Too bad this last attempt is nothing more than wishful thinking and you have NO WAY of proving any of the facts of Christ's birth.....like I said....see you on Judgement day my friend.
:)
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
The bible old and new testatement also clearly states many times born of a virgin.
By the holy spirit....so much for your selective reading of a book you could not possibly understand. God purposfully keeps folks like you unable, since it is what you want to believe. Repent for the time is at hand.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
You still don't get it do you? The authors of the New Testament quoted from the Septuaginta to "prove" Christ was god (or gods' son). The Septuaginta is proven to have Greek mistranslations of Hebrew words and sentences. Therefore Christianity bases its claims on mistranslations from the Septuagint, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,. ect. _all_ quoted from the Septuaginta. So whatever the KJV has to say is of no importance.
sapiensape 2 years ago
No..it is clearly you who do not get it.
You can not dismiss the KJV when it clearly matches a much older
set of documents....the Dead sea scrolls.
So sorry my friend.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
300 years _before_ Jesus was born the Septuaginta was declared to be a "corrupt" text by the Jews at Jerusalem because it contradicted their Bible! Yet Christ's apostles (Peter, Paul, etc.) cite from the Septuaginta (Jesus' "virgin birth" is from the Septuaginta version). The first Bible of Christianity was the Greek written Septuaginta because most Christians could not read Hebrew. Christianity is founded upon a "corrupt" Bible, the Septuaginta, and its false notion of a virgin birth messiah.
sapiensape 2 years ago
your dates are based on two very differnet calender years first of all. so ok we hav a few years of difference. If you wish to bet your eternal exsistance on a few years of difference, you go ahead and be my guess. Oh, btw, were not the scribes and pharisees of Jesus days the same that crucified Him? Yup there is a credible crowd not isn't it?
Peace my friend.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Thanks for admitting the contradictions exist and therefore Christianity is founded upon a corrupt text, the Septuaginta. Its a great foundation "stone" for Christianity to be built upon, isn't it, a bible rejected and declared corrupt 300 years before Jesus was born by Jerusalem's Jews! If you want to put your trust in a faith founded upon a corrupt Bible (the Septuaginta) be my guest, but don't say I didn't warn you!
sapiensape 2 years ago
The historical facts are clear and Jesus can not be denied historically. In fact nost of the historians form his time hated him but they wre not foolish enough to deny his exsistance or the surrounding story around Him. But God did give you a choice...excersize it as you wish.
dont say I or others did not warn you.
Again,
peace my friend.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
There are two types of CAs (Christian Apologists), (1) Naive ones claiming the Bible is without any errors; (2) Sophisticated ones acknowledging the Bible is full of errors. The "Sophisticated" have a smokescreen: They claim that only the "autographs" the original first writing down by the ancient authors is without error, later generations miscopied these texts and are responsible for the errors. The problem? If true, this suggests the Holy Spirit/God didn't give a damn about this "corruption."
sapiensape 2 years ago
Yup but you still have not presented anything other than your own words
to back up your belief in the corruption
in scripture.
Yet..you openly deny the clear flaws in the theory of evolution. It is loaded with them.
Clearly you have NOT read
the DSS's or the sept... forget the apologist for a second. The Hebrew scolars who have copied it perfectly over the mellenia gravely disagree with you.
you are simply closed minded to it
...period.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
I dont blame you though.
It is not you personally I have a problem with. I do not fight flesh and blood. I fight powers and principalites.
Oh...BTW, Im not a fan of religion either.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
And yes there are certainly errors in modern day translations so I;ll certainly give you that much.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Your ignorance on things biblical is amazing. The Septuaginta isn't a "modern" translation error, it was composed in the 3rd century BC by Jews for Jews at Alexandria, Egypt, was was cited from by the authors of the New Testament. Yet, it contradicts the ages found in the KJV (no matter whether its revised KJV or an older version). You have neatly "dodged" the issue: the bible _before_ the rise of Christianity contradicted itself in the ages of the pre-flood patriachs. Its not God's Holy Word!
sapiensape 2 years ago
If the Bible recensions can't get the various ages "right" of the pre-flood patriarchs it isn't God's Holy Word, it is _corrupted_ and full of _errors_! End of argument!
sapiensape 2 years ago
sapiensape 2 years ago
It is BS, the Bible is not the word of god, the hebrew scripture started in the year 700, so you religious people can go to hell
51cacheton 2 years ago
I dont need to worry about hell 51, but you do...
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Maybe because you eat thanks to the Biblie, but nobody is going to come to me with that shit telling that shit about hell, I hate religious lideres they are liars
51cacheton 2 years ago
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Go to Barnes and Noble and you will find that the Biblie is correct after the year 700, anything before is incorrect, so don't come to me saying that the Bible is completely correct because that is not true.
51cacheton 2 years ago
Radio Carbon Dating says the grain in Jericho's jars is mid 16th century BC
(1550 BC) _not_ 1400 BC as claimed by the archaeologist Dr. Bryant G. Wood, PhD. Moabite Heshbon & Elealeh (Nu 32.3) fell to Israel before Jericho, and they did not exist before 1200 BC according to archaeologists. Moses' 1400 BC Edomite Bosrah (Ge 36.33) did not exist before the late 8th century BC. Archaeology does _not_ "always" support the Biblical account. Click on my username sapiensape for 15 videos.
sapiensape 2 years ago
Radio Carbon dating does not work on non living things. That fact is it does not work PERIOD. It is junk science based on nothing but assumption, just like every other dating method. So much for your archaeological dating methods.
History is biblically dead on.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
The Bible is "junk science" from beginning to end, one lie stacked on top of another lie, in order to take control of mankind via fear and error of an imaginary god!
sapiensape 2 years ago
Back upi your staements with facts. Other wise it's just postulation which is all you evo-devo's do. And as typical, attacks and insults and ad hom's....none of which are science. But again, there is no sceince to evolution so thre is no suprise there.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
You want "facts"? Go to Google and key in _failed prophecies_ of the bible, you will get a ton of facts.
sapiensape 2 years ago
Yeah ons of facts from athiest that havenot the foggiest clue of how to read the bible. I suppose all athiests are hebrew scolars now too right?
Please...
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
No, sapiensape...you'll get a lot of athiests who dont have a single clue of how to understand the bible trying to say so.
Error of an imaginary god? Yet you buy into the nonsense of evolution? That's pretty laughable. Talk about a controling
religion. Just ask Hitler, Stalin, Marx and just about every other wicked leader that has ever believed in it's core principals.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Just curious 3gdosrsf, _which_ Bible recension is "authoritive" for you? Are you aware that the various recensions _contradict_ each other? Which "contradicting" recension do you use and how do you know its facts are "correct" and the others facts are "wrong"?
sapiensape 2 years ago
Every time you evos try to show a contradiction, you only show your ignorance in the bible. Then I simply
explain how wrong you are and usually never get a response outside of twisting the clear meaning.
You can not know the bible with out faith.
It is foolishness to you and you do not take it seriously enough to be honest enough to really understand it.
That is not my fault but yours.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
How about the dead sea scrolls which do not contradict the current KJV?
Now out of curiosity which contraditing story of evolution do you buy since it is revised at very least once per decade because it keeps being shown to be completely fraudulant?
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
The Dead Sea Scrolls do, "in fact," _contradict_ the present-day recensions of the Bible! I don't know what Christian Apologist's site you visited for this Apologetic nonsense. They revealed (1) "missing verses," (2) verses out of order compared to modern Bible's verse order, (3) the ages of the pre-flood patriarchs (Genesis) contradicted each other on how long each lived. Go get an English translation of the Septuaginta Bible and see the age differences for yourself with your modern bible.
sapiensape 2 years ago
The fact is, evolution, a fantasy at best is the most dangerous and controlling indoctrination ever concieved. It has no history nor science and the text books refuse to remove the long agreed upon errors in them. Its only 200 years old and was created by a guy, bitter at God.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
In 1931 archaeology PROVED the bible is a lie when they excavated the city of Shuruppak in Mesopotamia, scene of the Gilgamesh Flood story, stolen by the Bible's writers and made into Noah's flood. Bet you NEVER heard of what they found did you? The flood was a flooding Euphrates river embellished to cover the world's mountain tops! Click on my username sapiensape for the Christian _suppressed_ truth that Noah's Flood is a myth.
sapiensape 2 years ago
search "101 cleared up contradictions"
in the bible and you will find a webpage that refutes all the contradictions.
Jesusisthetruevine 2 years ago
Since you blocked me I have to respond to you hear, you said you responded to all my claims when in fact you didn't respond to a single one and I have the emails saved to prove it. You did however block me the moment I contradicted you which is typical of creationists. If you would unblock me I could show you how the rest of your copy and paste argument is false.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
"No, I contradicted you. You have a foolish belief"
Lets see I posted why the things you listed were not science but vague in which you didn't respond with anything but the phrase "You are wrong" followed by a Hovind copy and paste. Second when I posted on your video and listed and what was wrong you simply deleted what I said and blocked me without refuting anything I said. So how can you state you contradicted me when you aren't man enough to argue against me?
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
Hey thanks for that web site info truevine.
More reality to crush the lies of a 200 year old nonsense with no history or science.
Like the imagined geological column.
Hmmmm.. I wonder why the evo-devos are so willing to use falsified illustrations
yet call the accurate and concise truth of God's word, junk science....neer read in the bible were it is caled a science book.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Dont be deluded. There are no contradictions John 10:35, pslams 12:6, the carnal man cannot understand, 1 Cor 2:14. nothing is of any private interpretation 2 Peter 1:20, Fools deny God Psalms 53:1, unbelievers are blinded 2 Cor 4:4, people who dont know scripture are unstable and misinterpret to their own destruction 2 Peter 3:16 The brother of goliath was slain, 1 Chronicles 20:5 said it was Lahmi, the BROTHER of Goliath the GITTITE! David slew Goliath the philistine. No contradiction.
Jesusisthetruevine 2 years ago
Comment removed
Jesusisthetruevine 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Where is the archaeological or historical evidence
for the slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt?
Or for the much more recent slaughter of baby boys
in Judea, under Herod?
Isn't it odd that Josephus and his peers
could tell us what kind of cup Herod drank from,
but didn't notice the slaughter of a few thousand babies?
No, the Bible is a book of myth.
Nothing more.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
"Where is the archaeological or historical evidence
for the slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt?"
----------------
Since Arab and Hebrew Nations have been at war with one another for centuries. How would one expect to find evidence for something that gives credance to the God of the other? If they can help it. its not going to happen. Thats like the Mob showing you where they burried Jimmy Hoffa.
meanmopar426 3 years ago
"Isn't it odd that Josephus and his peers
could tell us what kind of cup Herod drank from, but didn't notice the slaughter of a few thousand babies?"
-------------------------
Hmm..since Josephus was an Historian in the company of Herod and even the Roman Government. His writting could have been overseen by the governing bodies. Both of which would probably not like their rulership stained by an account they themselves would not give an account to. better to let it just go away.
meanmopar426 3 years ago
So the wars prevent archaeological evidence of scripture
and political considerations prevent historical evidence.
So poor old god just has a hell of a time
trying to reveal himself to rational minds, doesn't he?
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
No, God don't have trouble in that respect. Man chose to Govern himself. So now Self Governance is playing itself out. Heck of a job we are doing isn't it?
Lets take WMD in Iraq for example. Do you think that the US or even Sadam at the time could hide, or plant evidence of it in the Modern world? Then why is it so hard for you to believe Governments of Long ago did'nt do the same?
meanmopar426 3 years ago
I simply think it's a bit disingenuous
for people who tout their god as being all powerful
and all wise, etc, etc,
then point to these trivial human interventions
that prevent him from providing evidence of his existence.
It's all just a mite too convenient for a rational mind to swallow.
Having graduated from a 4-year Bible College
I can tell you that a large part of theological training
consists of learning to swallow
large and awkward incongruities without choking.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Well I never went to Bible collage. So, if you have had 4 years of it then you should know better than I do that their is a being the bible calls "The God of this world" who through manipulation and deceit rules the minds of men. a possible case in point if I may.- The recient ID vs Evolution court case had a turn of events. A fossil was found the same day the case was going on, that gave evol. a boost. Now, how could a person be lead to an evol treasure such as that. on on the very.
cont.
meanmopar426 3 years ago
Day the ID vs Evol case was going on? Makes you kind of think about how evidence can be covered and then revealed at the exact time it was needed to give evidence for a Natural - "Just came into being on its own without God creation" - Listen, I don't dought for one second that God is real. and that "their shall not be a thing that is covered, that shall not be un-covered." - And I think the Evidence I just gave you is very strong evidence for the Bible as well.
meanmopar426 3 years ago
Evidence?
You offered evidence?
It must have gotten deleted.
Care to re-post it please?
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
"The God of this world" who through manipulation and deceit rules the minds of men."
The only person who does this in the Bible is YHWH.
He hardened Pharaoh's heart, for example,
he sent a lying spirit into the mouth of a prophet,
he blinds eyes and stops ears at will,
he makes deceptive statements,
he makes people believe lies...
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Yup...he has clearly blinded you as well my friend. God will accomodate you when you want to believe a lie. He however is not a liar. He only oblidges you when you show you want to be lied to. He's just giving you what you want.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Also, not one of these examples is an example of God Himself being the liar.
They are only examples of God granting the choices of those that wished to be decieved.
3gdosrsfs 2 years ago
Which version of the Goliath story do you prefer?
The one in 2 Samuel 21
in which Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim kills Goliath
or the one in 1 Samuel 17
in which David kills Goliath?
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
1Sa 17:4 KJV -"And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath of Gath.
2 Sam 21;19 KJV - "where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath "
You have 2 accounts written. one where David fought and killed Goliath. and one where Elhanan fought the brother of Goliath.
Which version does one believe then?
If in fact they were brothers, then both are true are they not?
meanmopar426 3 years ago
"Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."
It is true that the KJV says "the brother of" Goliath.
If you look closely you'll see that those words,
"the brother of" are in italics,
which means they were added by the translators
and were NOT in the original.
The front of your KJV has editor's notes which explain this.
Any time you see italics in the KJV
it is not in the original.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
I am not a language or Biblical expert. So I must go on the evidence I find written in the Books or translations that I have on hand. And when it comes to the Bible, I have quite a few. Including the Original Hebrew. If only I spoke Hebrew.
James Moffatt translation, copywrite 1954 - Harper and Row - NY, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London. Renders the account after David had become King in Israel as follows,
meanmopar426 3 years ago
2 Sam 21;15 "Again the Philistines were at war with Israel. When David went down with his troops to camp at Gob and fought the Philistine upstarting." It continues on to show that 3 other Giants or Goliath's as we would refere to them were also killed. I checked this also in The NIV (Margins) and RSV as well as a number of other translations. and they all agree, Goliath that David killed before becoming king was just one of four BROTHERS. So even though the KJ may have placed..cont, 1
meanmopar426 3 years ago
"the brother of" Goliath." in italics. the rendering is correct. As he was just one of 4 known brothers.
I know you want agree with this. But translations are just that a translation from one language into another. There is no way to be sure of what the Author was stating in the Original language, and as many Hebrew to English translaters will tell you. "The meaning of Ancient Hebrew words are hard to translate into Modern Hebrew, let alone english." So we do the best with what we have. :)
meanmopar426 3 years ago
"I know you won't agree with this."
Not at all.
I don't mind.
I'm always happy to learn something new,
and there are hundreds of more significant contradictions in the Bible,
so if I want to chase that particular rabbit
there's lots of ammunition available :=)
Thanks for sharing the results of your research.
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
"there are hundreds of more significant contradictions in the Bible,
so if I want to chase that particular rabbit
there's lots of ammunition available :=)"
Care to post a link if possable to the contridictions you may refere to. if possable?
Or maybe take the time to type them out and PM me with them?
meanmopar426 3 years ago
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
"I don't do private discussion"
You missunderstand. I don't want to do a private discusion with you. I simply want ALL your known contridictions so I may review them. You said "There are hundreds of more significant contradictions in the Bible" All I want you to do is list them all for me, and post them in a PM to me. I will not PM you back. I may however go through them one at a time and reply to them here on this board. is that OK?
meanmopar426 3 years ago
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
I have googled it. however, there are many sites. and some that give answers to them such as "Answers in Genesis" - I want to do my own undertaking of this project. I was hoping that you could give your collection. But, thats fine. Good luck to you. I enjoyed our conversation and sometime in the future I hope to converse with you again. Have a nice day my friend.
meanmopar426 3 years ago
Comment removed
Imaginefree69 3 years ago
Thank you for this interesting video. Please post more.
johnny102marvin 3 years ago
hi,
what is the last page for? evolution is a proven fact?
plouuvfra 3 years ago
great stuff. i enjoyed it.
plouuvfra 3 years ago
ALIEN INTERVENTION FACT ! WAKE UP !
sergiorambolt 3 years ago
Reply to bigwhammyRocks: I repeat again, at no time was Belshazzar the king of Babylonia as the Bible says. Show me a tablet or scroll outside of the Bible that talks about Daniel.
If Daniel held the third highest position in the Babylonian empire, why is there no mention of him trying to free his people from Babylonian bondage and leading them back to the Promised land. He seems to have taken the selfish attitude of, " I'm all right, Jack." Daniel never existed.
NECHOII 3 years ago
Belshazzar was the son of the last ruler of Babylonia, King Nabonidus. Belshazzar was NEVER the king of Babylonia. Prince Belshazzar was defeated and killed in the battle of Opis on the Tigris River in 539 B.C. while trying to stop the invading Persians led by King Cyrus.
NECHOII 3 years ago
Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.
bigwhammyRocks 3 years ago
Okay, modernscribe, I've uploaded my four-part series called "Strobel Under Fire". Love to hear your comments. Just click on my name and find part 1 in my vids.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
what a bullshit !
Animatiotron 3 years ago
100% bullshit.
"What archeologists believe about the buybull determines determines their interpretation of what they find on their digs."
What a load of crap.
Check this: Do a search on Nabonidus Cylinder. It contains the name Bel shar usur (Belshazzar) which proves Daniel was right! Belshazzar DID exist. Unfortunately, it says that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son, NOT Nebuchadnezzar's.
Atheists - 1
Christians - 0
TruthSurge 3 years ago
The hebrew word used in Daniel 5 is av (transliterated), which can mean father or ancestor. Even though the english translations say father, the original meaning could be referring to Nebuchadnezzar as just being part of the lineage. Ancestor would in this case fit the context perfectly since Nebuchadnezzar was Nabonidus' father.
modernscribe 3 years ago
I just looked up Nabonidus' biography. Apparently Nabonidus married Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, so he wasn't his son, but Nebuchadnezzar would still be in the same lineage of Belshazzar.
modernscribe 3 years ago
Same apologist tactic. Words don't mean what they mean. Son doesn't really mean son. etc.
Belshazzar is depicted as taking the throne after Neb. Unfortunately for you, there were THREE other kings between Neb and Nabonidus/Belshazzar. Whether Belshazzar was related (grandson) doesn't remove the problem.
Plus, Darius the Mede didn't conquer Babylon. It was Cyrus the Great of Persia.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
It doesn't say that Belshazzar took the throne right after Nebuchadnezzar. It just starts giving information about him after it finishes giving information on Nebuchadnezzar. As far as changing words, understand that the original writing was in Hebrew. What the hebrew word means and what the english word means are fairly different. Father in english would obviously be biological father. av in hebrew can mean both father and ancestor. The english translation doesn't change the original text.
modernscribe 3 years ago
even if there was 3 kings inbetween Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, it was only over a period of 6 years or so. Which could be why none of the other kings are listed between them, since it was such a short span.
modernscribe 3 years ago
Which doesn't fix the problem in Daniel 5 does it? Belshazzar was NOT the son of Nebuchadnezzar any way you slice it! :)
TruthSurge 3 years ago
Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's grandson, if my memory serves me well
AgApE010 3 years ago
Which would mean he wasn't his son as the Bible claims. It's understandable though. Daniel was written about 400 years AFTER the events took place.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
the word "son" in the book of Daniel (both words "bar" and "ben" in the original language) were the same words used of grandson.
The terms father and son in the Bible aren't always a reference to the immediate offspring of a person. In the Old Testament we see many instances where Abraham, for example, is called the father of a person he is not the immediate father of, rather an ancestor of. Genesis 28:13, for example, Abraham is called Jacob's father when in actuality he was his grandfather.
AgApE010 3 years ago
"the word "son" in the book of Daniel (both words "bar" and "ben" in the original language) were the same words used of grandson."
Assuming you are correct, did Belshazzar rule immediately after Nebuchadnezzar? Did Darius the Mede conquer Babylon as Daniel claims?
It's interesting that the author leaves out the other Babylonian kings after Neb and completely ignores Nabonidus (the last king at the time Cyrus the great invaded and conquered Babylon). The bible is not reliable.
Nope.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
Also, you must explain away the word "ab" which means "father". It is never used in the OT to mean "grandfather" or "father" in a mere ancestor way. Your defense of Daniel's historical reliability is slowly sinking.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
actually "ab" is used in the verse i gave you, Genesis 28:13, calling Abraham the father (ab) of Jacob. The very definition of the Hebrew word ab also includes "forefather"
AgApE010 3 years ago
Okay, you got me on this one. At least in Genesis it is used in that way. But the problems still exist. Darius did not conquer Babylon. Belshazzar did not actually rule as king but as a co-regent in his father's absence. Nebuchadnezzar did not leave Babylon for 7 years due to insanity but Nabonidus DID leave for an extended period of time. The author is mixing up Nabonidus with Nebuchadnezzar due to writing 400 years later.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
we also see many instances where the word "ben" (son) is used addressing a people who, again, weren't the immediate offspring, but rather descendants.
Mal 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.
Psalms 77:15 You have with Your arm redeemed Your people, The sons of Jacob and Joseph.
AgApE010 3 years ago
Mighty convenient for your explanation! But the BETTER explanation is that the author(s) wrote MUCH later and simply did not know about the intermediate kings such as Awil Marduk and Nabonidus (the true father of Belshazzar).
TruthSurge 3 years ago
The claim that Daniel was written after the events actually took place is just another one of those wild claims with zero evidence from people who are in total denial of God/inspiration of Scripture.
The author of Daniel identifies himself many times. A few examples: Daniel 7:15, 7:28, 8:1, 8:15, 8:27, 9:2, 10:2, 10:7, 10:11
There is no doubt that the original author of the book was Daniel. He even identifies himself as interacting with King Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and Cyrus
AgApE010 3 years ago
"The claim that Daniel was written after the events actually took place is just another one of those wild claims with zero evidence from people who are in total denial of God/inspiration of Scripture."
Actually, it's made by scholars who have studied it in far more detail than you or I. Ironically, the ones who do NOT worship the story's main character are usually the ones who are less biased and can see it for what it is. Who to believe? Daniel? Or inscriptions on clay tablets frm Babylon?
TruthSurge 3 years ago
what inscriptions prove that the book of Daniel was written hundreds of years after the date given, of about 530BC?
AgApE010 3 years ago
Inscriptions show that the author had a VAGUE knowledge of Babylonian details from the 6th century BCE but a very GOOD knowledge of the 2nd century BCE. Getting a clue now?
TruthSurge 3 years ago
"Inscriptions show that the author had a VAGUE knowledge of Babylonian details from the 6th century BCE but a very GOOD knowledge of the 2nd century BCE. Getting a clue now?"
No. What inscriptions? What do they say? How do they show that the author had a vague knowledge of Babylonian details?
AgApE010 3 years ago
Daniel probably didn't mention Nabonidus because it was irrelelvant. If you read the book of Daniel you'll see that he didn't write it intending to give us a chronology of the kings who ruled Babylon, but rather he wrote the book with the intention of recording his prophecies and visions and the main points of his life and interactions with the kings.
AgApE010 3 years ago
"Daniel probably didn't mention Nabonidus because it was irrelelvant."
RIGHT! The last king to rule Babylon was irrelevant. The last king, who was ruing DURING the conquest by Persia, was irrelevant.
You really need to wake up.
Another few things to read up on...
Babylonian Chronicles, Nabonidus Cylinder, Nebuchadnezzar Cylinder, and much, much more (physical cuneiform relics from THAT ERA which are housed in the British Museum in London)
Quit defending bronze age supersitions and wake up
TruthSurge 3 years ago 2
Daniel not mentioning Nabonidus doesn't equal "vague knowledge of Babylonian details"
AgApE010 3 years ago
Go learn about why scholars date Daniel in the 2nd century BCE. That's all I have to say. You have access to the net. You're ON it. No excuses.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
"Go learn about why scholars date Daniel in the 2nd century BCE. That's all I have to say. You have access to the net. You're ON it. No excuses."
LOL! I ask you a simple question and you don't even have evidence for your claims. I move to say that you don't even have any knowledge or reason to say that Daniel was written after the already established date of about 530BC
You are what we call "willfully ignorant" of God, the Bible, and the truthes thereof.
AgApE010 3 years ago
Agape010, who is willfully ignorant here? Did you not see the links I gave? I am not going to type a book-length lesson for you if you are unwilling to read up on the dating of Daniel yourself.
Google: daniel dating babylon chronicles etc etc etc
I told you that ONE of the reasons scholars date Daniel to the 2nd century BCE is that the 6th century details (Darius, Belshazzar) are wrong. You are what I call "biased".
TruthSurge 3 years ago 2
In that case, you can't know anything about the Hebrew and you can't know if the Bible is telling us accurate info or not. So, by your own admission, you must dismiss it since you cannot even know if son means son!
By the way, did you also know that Jonah 3 says that Ninevah was so large it took 3 days to walk across it? Archeology has excavated Ninevah and it is about 3 miles in length.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
What do you mean we can't know anything about the Hebrew? Do you know what a linguist is? It's a person who studies languages including vocabulary, sentence structure, grammar, etc. We can learn plenty about Hebrew. We aren't translating son in the first place, we are translating av, which means father or ancestor. Part of the translation process to understand the true meaning of a word is to look at the text context and historical contest. With the historical context it would be ancestor.
modernscribe 3 years ago
Daniel 5:22 22`And thou, his son, Belshazzar, hast not humbled thy heart, though all this thou hast known;
oops. Looks as if we are going to need to redefine not only "father" but "son" as well. Right, mom?
TruthSurge 3 years ago
I never changed the definition at all, just pointed out that av not only means father, but ancestor as well. Now to answer your question, yes I am going to say that the hebrew word there doesn't mean son at all. The word is bar, which means heir. The hebrew word for son is bain which is not used in the text. So bar doesn't have to mean imediate son but goes back to the lineage. You should probably make sure you include these definitions in your new video so everyone knows them.
modernscribe 3 years ago
and no I didn't know that about Ninevah, but I will gladly take a look at it.
modernscribe 3 years ago
I am going to upload a new vid I made exposing Lee Strobel for the liar he is and in this vid there is a section on archeology. It contains the Belshazzar stuff and the Nineveh stuff. I might post it tonight.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
Forgot these.
Bacteriology, Marine Biology, Cosmology, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Biomedical Engineering, Genetic Engineering, .....
saxmanchiro 3 years ago
biology, geology, physics and geophysics, astronomy, astrophysics actually play a big part in many parts of the Bible @_@
God gave us the Bible because it contains some knowledge that we need in every day life and in the future where genetic engineering and nuclearphysics does not find its place.
And by the way, you don't have to be so discriminating just because it's so fashionable now to not believe in the Bible.
I bet you don't even know what's in the Bible.
HendrixGirl4270 3 years ago
I wish I didn't know what is in the Bible. Fortunately, it helps me to disbelieve. It is so ridiculous and violent. Far from my position. I know it is hard for you to understand my position. I don't want to make anyone think my way, only think for themselves and the evidence that is out there to help them see the true fairytale that this book portrays.
Modern science essentially drop-kicks the Bible, Koran, or whatever ancient relic of a book. I find solace in my 42nd yr of atheism.
saxmanchiro 3 years ago
I stopped watching at about 10 sec. Even the title is an oxymoron. The bible is just an old book of faiytales from a group of sheep-herders that were bored tending their flock. Archeology is a science and has already disproved the bible as was aforementioned. This vid is a crock. Take it from a Bio teacher, not bible-thumping delusionals. This is pure garbage.
saxmanchiro 3 years ago
What is the science that you think disproved the Bible?
breakerboy129 3 years ago
Geology, Paleontology, Biology(Zoology,Microbiology, Anatomy,Genetics,Epidemiology,Virology, Embryology,etc) Geophysics, Physics, Nuclearphysics, Chemistry, .................
saxmanchiro 3 years ago
Abob Jenkins says: Shut your face!
abobjenkins 3 years ago
Any rational person will vomit after hearing this, i know i did. If you find this inspiring or think you learned something useful,you are truly lost.
04quicksilver 3 years ago
Reply to Idfjkg - Also in addition to my comments below, I strongly recommend that you watch " The Bible Unearthed " in ten different parts on Youtube and please read my comments there.
One other important thing to know. Archaeologists always should approach their work with NO preconceptions about anything. They will dig or search, find out what is there, analyze their findings with an open mind and then " let the chips fall where they may."
NECHOII 3 years ago
Reply to Idfjkg - Archaeologist Bryan Wood neglects to point out that Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon's work at Jericho was judged as so excellent she was knighted by the Queen. The vast majority of archaeolgists accept Dame Kathleen Kenyon's findings on Jericho. I urge you to read the books, " The Bible Unearthed " by Israel Finkelstein @ Neil Asher Silberman and " Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times " by Donald Redford. These two books rip the Old Testament to shreds.
NECHOII 3 years ago
TEST TEST TEST
NECHOII 3 years ago
Thank you I shell acquire it as soon as I can.. Can I also recommend to you a book that I find beautiful in it's idea "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.
I as well hope you enjoy it as much as I will your recommendation.
MihaiBica 4 years ago
I'm sorry to hear that you don't own a Bible!
By all means, get a copy of the Bible--any authentic translation that YOU are comfortable with...
So, you own the complete works of Darwin--ok! May I recommend a modern day companion book to his works?
The book is entitled "DARWIN'S BLACK BOX--The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael J. Behe.
Enjoy!
ldfjkg 4 years ago
5:50 Sir, Jericho is a neolithic site. An archaeologist learns this from freshman year. GET LOST IMPOSTOR!!!
MihaiBica 4 years ago
no evidence has ever been found to support the idea of millions of former hebrew slaves wandering the desert for 40 years. nor has it found any evidence of a hostile takeover of canaan as the israel conquests are described in the old testament.
there is not even any evidence for the purported united kingdom under david and solomon.
ATL45 4 years ago
A relatively new science, Biblical archaeology has become a major field of study that has turned up some valuable information. And many archaeological finds attest to the Bible's authenticity and accuracy, sometimes down to the smallest detail!
ldfjkg 4 years ago 2
Christian faith depends, not on artifacts, but on the entire, harmonious body of spiritual truth found in the Bible. To be sure, the Bible's internal harmony, candor, fulfilled prophecies, and may other features provide convincing evidence that "All Scripture is inspired of God."--2 Timothy 3:16.
ldfjkg 4 years ago 2
For Bible students, archaeology is useful, since its findings often supplement their knowledge of life, conditions, customs,and languages in Bible times. Archaeology also provides helpful information on the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, such as those predicting the fall of ancient Babylon, Nineveh, and Tyre. (Jeremiah 51:37; Ezekiel 26:4, 12; Zephaniah 2:13-15) Archaeology has its limits, however. Artifacts must be interpreted, and interpretations are subject to human error and modification.
ldfjkg 4 years ago 2
Your kidding right?
MihaiBica 4 years ago
Don't take my word for it! Simply compare the archaeological findings with YOUR personal copy of the Bible.
ldfjkg 4 years ago
I don't own one. But I have the complete works of Darwin (Is he any good?).
MihaiBica 4 years ago
I'm sorry to hear that you don't own a Bible!
By all means, get a copy of the Bible--any authentic translation that YOU are comfortable with...
So, you own the complete works of Darwin--ok! May I recommend a modern day companion book to his works?
The book is entitled "DARWIN'S BLACK BOX--The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael J. Behe.
Enjoy!
ldfjkg 4 years ago