what a fucking disgrace. The bible is anything but reliable. Some of these goddamn bible bangers are complete morons, they can't even think for themselves and use the brain god gave them.
@martinslustyjezebel and your foul language is evidence of using your brain that God gave you? The Bible has thousands of manuscripts of evidence out there. It continues to be "confirmed" correct as more and more archeological discovers are made. There is only 1% of all the many manuscripts that are really even debated among scholars as to which best reflects the originals. There is no other ancient piece of literature that comes close to the integrity & reliability of the Bible!
I have never heard ANYONE have the balls to claim that Luke was an eyewitness. I wonder if there is a single statement in this that is true... It claims Moses wrote of his own experiences, that the Bible was copied down 50 years after the events (i.e. 40 years before John wrote his section). That it matches the Dead Sea Scrolls.
It makes me wonder if they were making up the facts about Homer and Cesar as well...
I'm sure there's a certain amount of truth in Greek mythology - but all that stuff about Gods and Goddesses? Come on! Just because the Iliad says it's true doesn't make it so.
And OK, so Achilles MIGHT have been an historical character but do we really believe he was the son of the nymph Thetis?
"There are historians who document events, preferably as they happen and present day historians who study those writings"
Yes, and sometimes 2000 years later. I just find it hard to believe that you actually believe in the existence of someone for which you say "there is no historical support for" It seems we are both men of faith.
@Matthew1944 "Would it clarify for you, bent, if I refer to them as present day biblical scholars"
Yes that would interest me greatly. Hey I'm always ready to learn something new. If you know of atheist Biblical scholars, otherwise known as theologians, & who are the same biblical scholars you cited in the wikipedia article, then by all means, please tell me who they are.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 So much for the claim that the Bible has been edited and corrupted"
You don't "win" at all. Examples: The last 12 verses are an add-on, the beginning of Matthew is an add-on, Matthew 28:19 was originally "in my name" and that's only a start, ray.
@Matthew1944 Saying "The last 12 verses are an add-on, the beginning of Matthew is an add-on, Matthew 28:19 was originally "in my name" " dont make it true, Gotta do more than make claims my friend. Gotta provide some proof, Chop chop!
@RaytownSoClassof2010 In the ""The Demonstratio Evangelica" page 152 "Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you."
Matthew 28:19 The trinitarian formula is missing from the oldest manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - But you make the greatest claim of all! That God exists and the bible is true.
But but in your own words... "you gotta do more than make claims my friend. Gotta provide some proof, Chop chop!" - I could go on and say this is too easy, theists don't stand a chance
@shumble32 And you make the claim that there is no evidence God existsOnly way you can know that is if you know all things. Dont stand a chance against who? Atheist? Bwahahaha that was hilarious, You should be a comedian.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - chop, chop!! You gotta provide some proof! What no proof? Just claims my friend? I'm waiting for your evidence, what no evidence?
And you claim that this somehow means that I know everything? - oh dear, oh dear! You gotta do more than make claims, my friend. Gotta provide some proof (chop, chop!). - still finding this easy? Justifying your claims would be more difficult - is that why you don't try?
@shumble32 Hey your the one that said that there is no evidence of God so in order to know this you would have to know everything, Im not claiming anything so I dont bear any burdens. He is the one that said a verse was added on and didn't prove it, He knew he was lying.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - No I didn't say there was no evidence of God so the rest of your point rather falls on it's face.
And as you are a theist your claim for God's existence is implicit But you don't prove it so, by your logic, doesn't that mean that you know you are lying?
@shumble32 And I never said the Bible is true nor did I said God exist, So you point to falls on it's face. No, As a theist the claim that God exist is not implicit, Theism is a belief not a claim. A theist is a person who believes there is a God or deity. By my logic? I said he was lying not because he didn't prove it but because he knew it wasn't true, That is why he didn't prove it,That is my logic.
So your are a theist you don't claim or say that God exists or that the Bible is true? mmm - interesting...
And you now say that he was lying because he 'knew it wasn't true'? Your mind-reading ability astounds me. Particularly impressive is the way it works across the Internet.
Wouldn't it be more truthful to admit that you are calling him a liar just because he disagrees with you?
@shumble32 I have been saying he was lying because he knew it wasnt true. Nope, Because I already know for a fact that what he said was false (That a verse in the Bible was added on) therefore he was lying, Point blank period.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - It seems unlikely that he would make up a verse of the Bible (or even that he would need to) - so could you be a bit more specific?
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - But lying implies to knowingly falsify - but if that's what he did it means he does believe in your version of the early days of the bible (but, for some reason, decided to misrepresent it). But way would he take this very strange position? It would be like believing in god yet denying his existence
You can't prove that he knowingly falsified and you can't prove your take on the early days of the bible, so your accusation of lying is invalid.
@shumble32 No lying means purposefully saying something that isn't true. He knows the verse wasn't added on and thats why he didn't prove it,Either that or he is just ignorant of the truth.I choose to believe he lied because he has done so before, Yes I can prove my position on the early days of the Bible. The When we compare the earliest writings to the modern ones they say the same thing pretty much, Not verbatim but they say the same stuff. So thats how we know verses weren't added on later.
1. Knowingly falsify = purposefully saying something that isn't true
2. You say he's lying because 'he's done so before' - by that logic if he said 2 + 2 =4 you'd know he was lying then because 'he had done so before'!!!
3. Have you actually 'compared the earliest writings to the modern ones'? No
4. Which verse did he say was added on later - lets get down to specifics
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Actually that's how we know it was altered. You cannot even prove Jesus lived. No one who lived during his lifetime wrote about him,not one word. You would think performing all these miracles, someone would have noticed. But no mention of him or the miracles. Please don't post the same lame proofs, that have been disproved a hundred times.
@wizard970 Aside from all the evidence you are ignoring....where are all the writings of those who "knew" that these things didn't take place. Surely someone would have refuted The writings of the New Testament if they were not true! The NT was not written "during" the life of Christ like other biographies! However they were written shortly afterwards during the lives of Christ's contemporaries that did live during his life, such as the apostles. The Apostles & others did notice!
@kenpca So now you want people to write about things that did not happen??? How silly is that? And the problem is a lot of writers wrote about all kinds of things during that period, it is one of the best documented times in history. Jesus is never mentioned, only in the Bible.
@wizard970 No, you mis represent what I am saying. One of the evidences in history of any event comes not only from those that are in support of the event but also those who are antagonists. There are antagonists who speak about Christians and confirm certain aspects of their beliefs and behavior....although they didn't like christians. What I am saying is simple...where are the critics to dispute what Paul & the NT writers wrote? The Bible IS documentation.
@wizard970 If the same historical tests are applied to the Bible as other pieces of literature...we then have an abundance of evidence Jesus lived! We have literature written by those who lived during the time of Christ such as Peter! The Rest of the NT was also written within the lifetime of Christ's contemporaries! There was ample opportunity for rebuttal of these writings by other contemporaries....but where are they?
@kenpca No historian who lived during Christ's lifetime wrote about him. Including one who lived less than two miles away. The writings of the New
Testament were almost all written by Paul, who never met the living Christ and wrote after his death. Not only is the New Testament not true, the entire book is a fairy tale. Do some research.
@wizard970 All of the new Testament was written after his death my friend. Just as all other biographies are written after the death of the one who they wrote about. That is common practice and does not prove your point at all. So if an official "historian" wrote about Christ would that cause you to believe the Gospel & become a Christian? Many documents that confirm historical events are not written by "historians". The NT is all the documentation needed to confirm the existence of Jesus.
@wizard970 It is expected for non believers to NOT believe the contents of the NT. Its a matter of the heart & faith in the existence of God & his involvement in historical events. Paul lived during the time of the Apostles & the contemporary followers of Christ. The evidence shows they (including Peter) received Paul's writings as scripture. There's no evidence to the contrary. We have ample historical document evidence. The only reason some people reject it is because of its spiritual content.
@kenpca Really?? You seem to be living in a fantasy world. It would seem someone would have noticed all these things, and wrote just a couple of words about it, but nothing. Because they never happened. The entire book is propaganda, written solely to influence people. And in your case it seems to have worked very well.
@shumble32 I advise you to back up your claims, Saying all that has been done doesn't make it true. As the video pointed out, When comparing the old copies to the new ones they were pretty much identical. You can look this up for yourself. This destroys all the claims that the bible has been "corrupted,edited etc. etc.".
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - The old copies of Henry V by Shakespeare are pretty much identical to the new copies - does that make it a reliable historical document?
@shumble32 No one ever said that since they are identical that therefore they are reliable. The video says that since the writers witness allot of the events they recorded that therefore it is reliable and that since it hasn't changed since then it has retained it's reliability.
Unfortunately the witnesses are not available for cross-examination and due to the lack of any supporting evidence it is difficult even to be convinced that the statements were written by or even came from those witnesses. If, indeed those witnesses ever existed in the first place.
When it comes down to it, the evidence for the bible stories is about as compelling as the evidence for the classical Greek myths.
@RaytownSoClassof2010 The bible is a reliable historical account of a man-god born of a virgin who is killed and rises on the third day? Give the head a shake, ray. Then Grimms Fairy Tales is a reliable historical account of the stories in it too?
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Pretty much identical.......This destroys all the claims that the bible has been "corrupted,edited etc. etc."."
The oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum , shows about 14,800 differences from today's Bible. Check it out. So much for your "identical". Even all of today's bibles aren't identical.
The Sumerian's would be like, what the fuck are you talking about? The Annunaki is going to be pissed when they find out someone tried to jack their identities. Lmao
Heaven and earth will pass away but God's word will endure forever. Harry Potter and fairy tales will not save you when the death Angel appears for you as he must for us all one day. My hope and prayer is that you will laid down your pride, humble yourself and call out to Jesus to save you for if you dont then you will live eternaly in regret and torrment.
According to this riduculious framing you state, those who rely on Harry Potter and other "fairy tales" would not be spared from death that effects all Human beings, which is a "natural cause" in which anyone who uses the slightest amount of common sense and based on reason would not doubt it. ( and who does?) Then your hope for those who use such reason and rational thinking should disreguard such "reasons" and ask Jesus ( who is possibly just as fictional as potter )-
to save those from such a "death" and believe his teachings without reason and those who refuse should be punished by living in eternal torment and suffering. Based upon this hope, why would anyone choose to do this? It is purely insane and immoral based upon a "being" who claims to love all Mankind, but chooses to send such "persons" to such a place of torment? There is simply no reason(s) to believe in such nonsense or-
@VirgilB01 if u should break the laws of the land and stand before a good, righteous n just judge then surley punishment would have to be ordered if not the judge wouldnt be good, righteous n just now would he/she? God is good, righteous, n just and His holiness demands punishment for all who break His laws an you can wine n cry saying. thats not fair, as im sure most criminals maintain their own innocense but the facts r the facts the soul that sinneth will die. there is forgivenes only n Jesus
@GreggDuncanMcLean1 - Nonsense, the laws of the land are very different than the laws of a "omnipotent being" ie "God". If I (or anyone else) were to break such a law, I am given counsel for a defense and certain "rights" in which I am granted, in other words you are given a fair trial and a jury for the charges against you. There are no such rights or a defense for the Christain god of the Bible. You are not found guilty until proven innocent, you are charged according to god's law, you are-
found guilty for the crime for which there is no evidence and you are sentence to everlasting punishment by a being who's morals and character that wears the crown of love, righteousness and goodness. Such a being who carries out such a punishment is not a judge of these standards, but a horrible, terrible judge. Jesus is used as a "life preserver" it is similar to the "mafia boss scenario" in which you are charged with a crime your'e not guilty of and forced to make "payments" in order to keep-
from harm and further punishment. The atmosphere of fear and threats are used to assure that payments are made. In this scenario, you are charged with the crime of "sin" and those who disregard or disobey God's laws are sent to eternal punishment (Hell). In order to be spared, you must confess you crimes to Jesus whether you are guilty or not and make "payments" in order to be saved. Such a hypothesis is based on madness, not clear thinking or reason which is not allowed.
A book written in the 7th century in Ireland has moses meeting an Irishman. Not really relevant, but shows, how rephrased, re-written-edited blah blah blah
I think videos such as this are aimed at believers, rather than non-believers. Believers needs their beliefs reaffirmed continuously, and the weakest of proof is sufficient. Non-believers know it's nonsense.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are pseudonyms! They were not written at the time either! The gospel closest to the time of Jesus was Mark which was written over 30 years after his death! Furthermore Matthew and Luke were based on the Mark gospel and another source. Before it was written down, it was passed on by ear, that is problematic.
@kennegun How many secular anthropologist and historians spend years studying fairy tales, and why is this particular fairy tale considered a historical document? Do you think the wall in Jerusalem, the exodus out of Egypt or the person of Jesus Christ was a myth also. If so why would most historians disagree with you? I think these are fair questions.
@benthemiester If they found the remains of the city of Troy, does it mean Achilles was real? If they found the remains of the Prophet Mohammed, does it mean Allah is true? If they found a 3 thousand year old Hindu temple depicted in the Ramayana is that mean the Hindu gods exist?
Mythology often consists of exaggerated real events and real landmarks mixed with fantasy. There is NO evidence for anything supernatural.
@kennegun How many historians believe in the historicity of Achilles? The Divine nature or existence of God whether true or false is beyond the means of the historical sciences. My contention is that the Bible is a historical document and most historians even secular ones concede in the historicity of the person of Jesus as a healer baptize by John the baptist etc. Biblical archeology is a confirmed science. U have not answered question. How many historians and archeologist study fairy tales?
@benthemiester No reputable historian believes in any mythical characters, Achilles or Jesus. Something is considered not to exist until proven to exist. The Bible can be considered a historical document, but it needs independent corroboration and since it has mythology and an agenda, it should be viewed very cautiously. John the baptist and Jesus might of existed, but that doesn't implicate anything supernatural.
@kennegun So you believe archeology is the study of fairytales.....Ah yeah OK. I think your confusing archeology with mythology. These are two separate fields. Critical archeology is a science not the study of mythology or fairy tales.
@benthemiester Archeologist and historians are concerned with uncovering the past. Most often the past, as depicted by human beings are intertwined with mythology (fairy tales). So, to study the past, they must ''study'' mythology.
@kennegun I think that the fact that most ancients and contemporary people alike believe in a God head in itself lends more evidence to the existence of a higher power called God. There is no such thing as proof in the historical sciences, only evidence. We can include Alexander the Great, Socrates, Scipio and every other historical figure of antiquity. The Bible has more self confirming manuscripts, independent sources and documented eyewitness accounts than all of these.
@benthemiester The supernatural is a way of easily explaining the unknown, thats why people believed in it. Why does lighting occur? Zeus. Why does the tides go in and out? Neptune. There is independent sources for the existence of Alexander of Macedonia and Scipio, not Socrates or Jesus. As for your last statement: the Bible is not in question, the mythology claimed in it are.
@kennegun There are also independent sources for the Historicity of Jesus Christ and many more eyewitness testimonials and manuscripts. You are wrong about Socrates. His historicity is still in dispute.
@Matthew1944 "There are no eye witness accounts to support the Jesus bible story and no conteporary historian mentioned him" No eye witnesses? Really, have you ever heard of the Gospels? I know you are quoting someone else. Maybe you mean contemporary historian in Jesus time. There are many historical figures that we teach as fact that did not have contemporary documentation. Among historians, 30 years is actually considered pretty good as well as there being multiple independent sources.
@benthemiester Really, have you ever heard of the Gospels?"
The gospels were written by anonymous authors, the first beingnamed Mark 30 years later up until John 60 years later. John is not the apostle John and most certainly wasn't an eye witness. Luke admits he is passing on hearsay. The average lifespan was less than 40 years at that time and no biblical scholar (ulness it is an apologist) accepts that any of the gospels were written by apostles or eyewitnesses.
OK fair enough, can you prove that no biblical scholar unless he's an apologetic accepts any of the Gospels were written by eyewitness, or that Luke admitted that he is passing on hearsay? Do you deny that most critical historian believe that Jesus was a healer, baptized by John the baptist and crucified in Jerusalem under Pontious Pilate?
Even Wiki reads: According to traditional Christian Church teaching, the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses. However, a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case The consensus is that the canonical gospels were written anonymously.
No, I don't deny that Jesus lived (although there is no historical support for it) but the supernatural events are myth and legend.
@Matthew1944 Even Wiki reads: According to traditional Christian Church teaching, the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses. However, a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case etc.
Your now changing the goal post. You said...... "Luke admits he is passing on hearsay" and that "(no biblical scholar) (ulness it is an apologist) accepts that any of the gospels were written by apostles or eyewitnesses"
Luke admits he is passing on hearsay" - Read Luke, he admits writing down what he is being told only - not that he was an eye witness.
Read again, bent. " However, a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case (that the gospels were written by eye witnesses) The consensus is that the canonical gospels were written anonymously.
Apologists like to shorten the dates in an attempt validate the texts.
@Matthew1944 You now say that ...I don't deny that Jesus lived (although there is no historical support for it)
Yet if you go back to the same Wikipedia that you cited. It says that..."Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire" The myth part is your opinion.
@benthemiester Read again, bent - I said "No, I don't deny that Jesus lived (although there is no historical support for it) but the supernatural events are myth and legend"
And Yes, there is no historical support for Jesus from historians comtemporary to his lifetime, namely: . Philo (20BC-40AD), Pliny the elder (23AD-79AD), Seneca the elder (54BC-39AD), Seneca the younger (4BC-65AD) ESPECIALLY PHILO who had relatives in Jerusalem and was interested in the afterlife.
@Matthew1944 I find it very interesting that your initial gripe concerned the fact that non contemporaneous historians which were only thirty years apart in some cases, as being inaccurate or unreliable. Yet you believe historians that are 2000 years apart, are more accurate. Very interesting indeed.
@kennegun "No reputable historian believes in any mythical characters, Achilles or Jesus"
Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of theRoman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire
Source Wikipedia.... I can provide citations upon request, to large for this thread .
@kennegun 'Something is considered not to exist until proven to exist' Can you prove life came from inanimate matter or that your parents really love you and be able to quantify it in a laboratory? We have no technology for this yet. There is no such thing as proof in the historical sciences. All we have to go by is evidence.
@kennegun You have no way of knowing whether this person who historians regard as a healer is a myth.
This is pure conjecture, and your wrong there are many reputable Christian historians. If you believe that intimate matter at sometime in the past came alive all by itself, then you also believe in something metaphysical and supernatural. Science cant prove this hypothesis, even today with all our technology. Maybe you believe in fairy tales and don't even realize it.
wrong wrong wrong.... Moses did not write the Chumash...... Uneducated idiots! Oh and comparing the new testament to the fictitious books written by homer only hurts its credibility!
Absolute nonsense; portions of the Christians' little magic book were routinely added to and changed over time, to the point where there are today more DIFFERENT portions of the "new testament" than there are WORDS in the "new testament". Only 1 example is the way that passages were added to Mark in order to "juice the sales pitch" of the Cristian cult; the earliest copies we have of Mark end with women arriving at the tomb to find it empty, and everything AFTER that was added later.
In fact the Bible is a compendium different manuscripts by different writers, none of whom lived at the times described. There are no extant Mss of the gospels contemporary with Jesus life, if he existed; the New Testament was compiled 300 years after the events it purports to describe. The Old Testament is even worse, with four distinct Mss from widely varying times which have been edited and redacted to suit political and social conditions.
The NT was not written by eyewitnesses. This has been known for hundreds of years. As a simple example, Matthew describes a dream that Joseph had. How could Matthew be an eyewitness to Joseph's dream?
You are missing the point with Iliad. No one believes the supernatural events recorded there. Unlike the bible with its miracles that are every bit as impossible.
The Bible is just a poorly written fairy tale. Like the Quran, it draws in a bunch of people with all sorts of issues, that then spam its message all over the internet.
All gods are supposed to be ever-present and omnipotent. How come NO RELIGION shows any effect on its followers, in terms of say, how many of them die in earthquakes, floods or diseases?
Today we have statistics for these things, and they show NO effects.
the only good thing coming out of these stupid athiests is there speeding up the time that jesus will come o and remember athiests the largest religon in the world is CHRISTIANITY and thats a fact so do you want to trust you one mind our the mind your people
the only good thing coming out of these stupid athiests is there speeding up the time that jesus will come o and remember athiests the largest religon in the world is CHRISTIANITY and thats a fact so do you want to trust you one mind our the mind your people
the only good thing coming out of these stupid athiests is there speeding up the time that jesus will come o and remember athiests the largest religon in the world is CHRISTIANITY and thats a fact so do you want to trust you one mind our the mind your people
the only good thing coming out of these stupid athiests is there speeding up the time that jesus will come o and remember athiests the largest religon in the world is CHRISTIANITY and thats a fact so do you want to trust you one mind our the mind your people
the only good thing coming out of these stupid athiests is there speeding up the time that jesus will come o and remember athiests the largest religon in the world is CHRISTIANITY and thats a fact so do you want to trust you one mind our the mind your people
the only good thing coming out of these stupid athiests is there speeding up the time that jesus will come o and remember athiests the largest religon in the world is CHRISTIANITY and thats a fact so do you want to trust you one mind our the mind your people
How do you know that air exist? Its invisible, & you can't see it unless you use something to interfere with it like a smoke or chemicals in order to see some evidence right? In those days how would you know that what you breath was called air? You could feel it but u would still wonder what it was and new it did good when inhaling it! Today's technology gives us a clear view of what invisible air is... God is 'Supernatural' , his the 'Super' & you're da 'Naturlar'. The word exist 4 a reason.
and "God breathed into this nostrils the breath of life, and gave him dominion over all the lower creatures" (Gen. 1:26; 2:7) Without Oxygen we would not have life, hence 'death' to all of us!
In those days they would not know what to call it, if they had called it shit, then it would be shit to them.
because it does not matter what you call it..
And sure you say the word supernatural exists for a reason, bad logic my friend. because unicorns have a word yet do not exist, atleast to my knowledge. plz prove them then. just as you have to prove that any supernatural exists aswell
what ever you call air is futile, its what it is that is important, not its name.
Same thing with supernatural, I can prove air exist can you prove the existance of the supernatural??
because you give the word credit by saying it exists for a reason, sure what reason? To protect a idiot and his argument? or is there actually something supernatural? its up to you to tell what and then prove it.
1 Cor 15:3-4 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures
1Cr 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
2Cr 2:15 For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.
2Cr 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
ThThen, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
22It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in
Prov.8:27When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.
At the same time, the Bible neither sets itself up as a scientific textbook. The Bible conveys reality accurately, but within the context of its ancient audience. As such, there is no point in combing the Bible for a periodic chart of the elements, or checking to see if it carries all of its figures out to sixteen decimal places.
The Bible does not set itself up to be understood as a written collection of hand-me-down tales, but to be taken as direct inspirations of the living God. If it is completely true, its truth corroborates its claim of divine inspiration.
"Genesis two is a recap" Wrong. Genesis chapter 1 Verse 21- God made the birds (day 5) V 25- God made the wild animals (day 6) V 27- God created man in his own image.. male and female he created them Now chapter 2 V7- God made man from the dust of the ground V19- God made birds and ALL the beasts (same day!) V22- God made a woman from the man's rib (because he didn't want to marry an aardvark or a zebra) It's a direct contradiction. They cannot both be true.
The Bible is a record of Gods dealings with those He intends to save. The history conained within is irrefutable, it cannot be proven incorrect, (give it a try). Gods Word will never satisfy God-haters(those who refuse to bow to the Lordship of the Creator) Unsubstaniated criticisms will never suffice. Thats right, the efforts of those who think they are wise, can never refute the Bible, because they cannot prove their claims. To be free of the God of the Bible is a HORRIFYING THOUGHT
The rotation of the earth was revealed in Job 38:12, where God asks of Job:
Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
God asks Job if he has ever dictated the time of the morning or the location of the sunrise (dayspring).
As soon as the sun is risen, its light will take hold of the ends of the earth in the sense that it touches all of the landscape, and the wicked are shaken out of it (the earth) in the sense that thieves, drunkards, adulterers, and others who practice their sins in darkness are forced to desist from these activities as they retreat from the light. Also, the beauties of the earth are revealed by the light, and its coloration is made to appear as that of a beautiful garment.
Finally, the text asserts that God's command of the morning derives from His control of the earth, which is turned as clay to the seal. Hence, the suggestion is that God regulates the morning by rotating the earth as a potter rotates the clay. Yet ancient wisdom would have asserted that God regulated the morning by control of the Sun, and indeed, this is the perception of any uninformed mind.
In fact, we use the phrase on all fours in a similar manner. It refers to the action of the creature—walking around—rather than the complete inventory of the creatures feet. In reality, the Bible is very precise in describing locusts and similar insects. Such insects do indeed have four legs with which to creep and another two legs with which to leap"
Look at the absurdity of assuming that the author forgot what a bird looks like or miscounted the legs on a grasshopper. Moses, trained in pharaohs court, was one of the most educated men of his day.
For that reason alone, an unbiased reader of the Bible would assume that the author had good reasons for his chosen words.
Now wouldnt one assume, that a self proclaimed free thinker, would research his unfounded claims before one asserted them for all to see only to be proven wrong. But if one is a "seeker" of the Truth you will not look at only one side of the issue, you should look at all claims ,or else one can look ignorant.
First, linean classification was not available when Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, nor did a specific scientific definition for what a bird was exist. The classification of animals was made by function and form. This can be seen in the definition of words used to describe animals in the Old Testament. For example, the word here that we render "fowl" comes from the Hebrew word owph which means flying creatures, to include birds, winged insects, and any animal that owns a wing.
It comes from a root word that means to cover or to fly. This verse could rightly be interpreted, "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among flying creatures....". The King James Version seems to call the bat a fowl, but when you understand the times in which it was written, and the meaning of the original Hebrew, it's obvious there is no error here.
You have no scientific proof do you. Saying its so doesnt make it so. Refering to usernames doesnt make your point. Evolution has as much evidence as Aesops fables. It takes more "faith" to believe Men came from monkeys, than the Creator of an ass to make it talk
"Men came from monkeys" The basic problem is that the people who attack evolution have not actually studied it. If they did, they would see that there's nothing TO attack. It isn't a Satanic Conspiracy, it's simply the description of a process, providing a very useful taxonomy and a way to understand relationships. I see no way around this problem of ignorance. And it will become far worse if we allow these untutored people to drag our science education back into the bronze age.
By your ignorant answers we can see you have studied neither evolution nor theology, because I could give a better defense of your position than you do. You lack scientific proof,your arguement comes from ignorance, also evident in your biblical arguements.
If you want to know more about Biblical issues, because you are seeking Truth Ill be happy to help.
Come on ,gimmie something good. I was hoping you would be a worthy debater of your position. I gave you a sufficient answer for each of your objections that you didnt expect an answer to, nor do you acknowledge or address the answers. You come back with pithy ,shallow, childish answers. I had always thought athiest were like the stereotype they were cast with, "educated free-thinkers" but I guess you shot that one down. You dont have sufficient knowledge on either side of the issue.
The only thing you have proven is you dont understand the nuances of ancient Hebrew ,yet you persist in arguementation of subjects with the presupposition that they didnt happen. CHECK THE HEBREW on the circle ,you are digging yourself deeper
You well know an event such as the talking animals cant physically be proven.
You have a document in the Bible that is infallible and inerrant in every way.
Its purpose isnt to convince scoffers who refuse the Creator. The Bible Is the record of Gods dealing with His people. His redemptive plan for humanity. Yes, there are those who wil reject it to their doom. But ,for the rest it is our guidebook to the Good News and everything we need for holy living to Gods Glory.
I care about your eterniy, read the Scriptures I posted along with John and Romans. Your proof is in creation all around you . The One who created such intricate design and order is the one who holds it all together, and is calling for you to come to Him.
Rom 1:18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
what a fucking disgrace. The bible is anything but reliable. Some of these goddamn bible bangers are complete morons, they can't even think for themselves and use the brain god gave them.
martinslustyjezebel 2 months ago
@martinslustyjezebel and your foul language is evidence of using your brain that God gave you? The Bible has thousands of manuscripts of evidence out there. It continues to be "confirmed" correct as more and more archeological discovers are made. There is only 1% of all the many manuscripts that are really even debated among scholars as to which best reflects the originals. There is no other ancient piece of literature that comes close to the integrity & reliability of the Bible!
kenpca 1 week ago
Lying for Jesus is still lying, The Bible is no more reliable as historical fact as is any other outdated myths from any religion.
ACCSESS247 3 months ago 2
I have never heard ANYONE have the balls to claim that Luke was an eyewitness. I wonder if there is a single statement in this that is true... It claims Moses wrote of his own experiences, that the Bible was copied down 50 years after the events (i.e. 40 years before John wrote his section). That it matches the Dead Sea Scrolls.
It makes me wonder if they were making up the facts about Homer and Cesar as well...
Keeban3 5 months ago
I'm sure there's a certain amount of truth in Greek mythology - but all that stuff about Gods and Goddesses? Come on! Just because the Iliad says it's true doesn't make it so.
And OK, so Achilles MIGHT have been an historical character but do we really believe he was the son of the nymph Thetis?
shumble32 5 months ago
Would it clarify for you, bent, if I refer to them as present day biblical scholars?
Matthew1944 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Matthew1944
"There are historians who document events, preferably as they happen and present day historians who study those writings"
Yes, and sometimes 2000 years later. I just find it hard to believe that you actually believe in the existence of someone for which you say "there is no historical support for" It seems we are both men of faith.
benthemiester 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Matthew1944 "Would it clarify for you, bent, if I refer to them as present day biblical scholars"
Yes that would interest me greatly. Hey I'm always ready to learn something new. If you know of atheist Biblical scholars, otherwise known as theologians, & who are the same biblical scholars you cited in the wikipedia article, then by all means, please tell me who they are.
benthemiester 5 months ago
Maybe you mean contemporary historian in Jesus time.
I mean exactly that.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
Well, Ray, answer my question - Was Jesus born before 4BC (as in Matthew) or in 6 AD (as in Luke)? Seems like a contradiction of 10 years to me.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
If the bible is a reliable historical document, please explain:
Was Jesus born before 4 BC (when Herod died) as in Matthew, or in 6 AD, during the census of Quirinius, as in Luke?
Matthew1944 6 months ago
The authors of the gospels were NOT contemporaries of Jesus.
jgs1122 7 months ago
@jgs1122 The authors of Matt and John Were.
RaytownSoClassof2010 5 months ago
wwwdotExposingChristianitydotcom
GahdeMalprigi1488x 7 months ago
So much for the claim that the Bible has been edited and corrupted. Oh well. We win .....Again. This is too easy. Atheist dont stand a chance.
RaytownSoClassof2010 7 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 So much for the claim that the Bible has been edited and corrupted"
You don't "win" at all. Examples: The last 12 verses are an add-on, the beginning of Matthew is an add-on, Matthew 28:19 was originally "in my name" and that's only a start, ray.
Matthew1944 6 months ago
@Matthew1944 Saying "The last 12 verses are an add-on, the beginning of Matthew is an add-on, Matthew 28:19 was originally "in my name" " dont make it true, Gotta do more than make claims my friend. Gotta provide some proof, Chop chop!
RaytownSoClassof2010 5 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 In the ""The Demonstratio Evangelica" page 152 "Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you."
Matthew 28:19 The trinitarian formula is missing from the oldest manuscripts of Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and Bobiensis.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - But you make the greatest claim of all! That God exists and the bible is true.
But but in your own words... "you gotta do more than make claims my friend. Gotta provide some proof, Chop chop!" - I could go on and say this is too easy, theists don't stand a chance
shumble32 5 months ago
@shumble32 And you make the claim that there is no evidence God existsOnly way you can know that is if you know all things. Dont stand a chance against who? Atheist? Bwahahaha that was hilarious, You should be a comedian.
RaytownSoClassof2010 5 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - chop, chop!! You gotta provide some proof! What no proof? Just claims my friend? I'm waiting for your evidence, what no evidence?
And you claim that this somehow means that I know everything? - oh dear, oh dear! You gotta do more than make claims, my friend. Gotta provide some proof (chop, chop!). - still finding this easy? Justifying your claims would be more difficult - is that why you don't try?
shumble32 5 months ago
@shumble32 Hey your the one that said that there is no evidence of God so in order to know this you would have to know everything, Im not claiming anything so I dont bear any burdens. He is the one that said a verse was added on and didn't prove it, He knew he was lying.
RaytownSoClassof2010 5 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - No I didn't say there was no evidence of God so the rest of your point rather falls on it's face.
And as you are a theist your claim for God's existence is implicit But you don't prove it so, by your logic, doesn't that mean that you know you are lying?
shumble32 5 months ago
@shumble32 And I never said the Bible is true nor did I said God exist, So you point to falls on it's face. No, As a theist the claim that God exist is not implicit, Theism is a belief not a claim. A theist is a person who believes there is a God or deity. By my logic? I said he was lying not because he didn't prove it but because he knew it wasn't true, That is why he didn't prove it,That is my logic.
RaytownSoClassof2010 5 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010
So your are a theist you don't claim or say that God exists or that the Bible is true? mmm - interesting...
And you now say that he was lying because he 'knew it wasn't true'? Your mind-reading ability astounds me. Particularly impressive is the way it works across the Internet.
Wouldn't it be more truthful to admit that you are calling him a liar just because he disagrees with you?
shumble32 4 months ago
@shumble32 I have been saying he was lying because he knew it wasnt true. Nope, Because I already know for a fact that what he said was false (That a verse in the Bible was added on) therefore he was lying, Point blank period.
RaytownSoClassof2010 4 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - It seems unlikely that he would make up a verse of the Bible (or even that he would need to) - so could you be a bit more specific?
shumble32 4 months ago
@shumble32 Make up a verse? I never said he made up the verse Im just saying he is lying about the verse being added on later and not being original.
RaytownSoClassof2010 4 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - But lying implies to knowingly falsify - but if that's what he did it means he does believe in your version of the early days of the bible (but, for some reason, decided to misrepresent it). But way would he take this very strange position? It would be like believing in god yet denying his existence
You can't prove that he knowingly falsified and you can't prove your take on the early days of the bible, so your accusation of lying is invalid.
shumble32 4 months ago
@shumble32 No lying means purposefully saying something that isn't true. He knows the verse wasn't added on and thats why he didn't prove it,Either that or he is just ignorant of the truth.I choose to believe he lied because he has done so before, Yes I can prove my position on the early days of the Bible. The When we compare the earliest writings to the modern ones they say the same thing pretty much, Not verbatim but they say the same stuff. So thats how we know verses weren't added on later.
RaytownSoClassof2010 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RaytownSoClassof2010
1. Knowingly falsify = purposefully saying something that isn't true
2. You say he's lying because 'he's done so before' - by that logic if he said 2 + 2 =4 you'd know he was lying then because 'he had done so before'!!!
3. Have you actually 'compared the earliest writings to the modern ones'? No
4. Which verse did he say was added on later - lets get down to specifics
shumble32 4 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Actually that's how we know it was altered. You cannot even prove Jesus lived. No one who lived during his lifetime wrote about him,not one word. You would think performing all these miracles, someone would have noticed. But no mention of him or the miracles. Please don't post the same lame proofs, that have been disproved a hundred times.
wizard970 2 months ago
@wizard970 Aside from all the evidence you are ignoring....where are all the writings of those who "knew" that these things didn't take place. Surely someone would have refuted The writings of the New Testament if they were not true! The NT was not written "during" the life of Christ like other biographies! However they were written shortly afterwards during the lives of Christ's contemporaries that did live during his life, such as the apostles. The Apostles & others did notice!
kenpca 1 week ago
@kenpca So now you want people to write about things that did not happen??? How silly is that? And the problem is a lot of writers wrote about all kinds of things during that period, it is one of the best documented times in history. Jesus is never mentioned, only in the Bible.
wizard970 1 week ago
@wizard970 No, you mis represent what I am saying. One of the evidences in history of any event comes not only from those that are in support of the event but also those who are antagonists. There are antagonists who speak about Christians and confirm certain aspects of their beliefs and behavior....although they didn't like christians. What I am saying is simple...where are the critics to dispute what Paul & the NT writers wrote? The Bible IS documentation.
kenpca 1 week ago
@wizard970 If the same historical tests are applied to the Bible as other pieces of literature...we then have an abundance of evidence Jesus lived! We have literature written by those who lived during the time of Christ such as Peter! The Rest of the NT was also written within the lifetime of Christ's contemporaries! There was ample opportunity for rebuttal of these writings by other contemporaries....but where are they?
kenpca 1 week ago
@kenpca No historian who lived during Christ's lifetime wrote about him. Including one who lived less than two miles away. The writings of the New
Testament were almost all written by Paul, who never met the living Christ and wrote after his death. Not only is the New Testament not true, the entire book is a fairy tale. Do some research.
wizard970 1 week ago
@wizard970 All of the new Testament was written after his death my friend. Just as all other biographies are written after the death of the one who they wrote about. That is common practice and does not prove your point at all. So if an official "historian" wrote about Christ would that cause you to believe the Gospel & become a Christian? Many documents that confirm historical events are not written by "historians". The NT is all the documentation needed to confirm the existence of Jesus.
kenpca 1 week ago
@wizard970 It is expected for non believers to NOT believe the contents of the NT. Its a matter of the heart & faith in the existence of God & his involvement in historical events. Paul lived during the time of the Apostles & the contemporary followers of Christ. The evidence shows they (including Peter) received Paul's writings as scripture. There's no evidence to the contrary. We have ample historical document evidence. The only reason some people reject it is because of its spiritual content.
kenpca 1 week ago
@kenpca Things Roman historians seem to have missed, as they did not write one word about them.
Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem, the entire town comes out to greet him.
Harrods slaughter of the baby boys in Bethlehem.
Jesus casts out the money changers. The Temple complex was 35 acres (could fit 34 football fields) and protected by armed guards.
After Jesus' death, 2 earth quakes, darkness covers the entire region,
mass resurrection of holly people in Jerusalem
wizard970 1 week ago
@wizard970 But the Bible does record these events....that is historical documentation!
kenpca 1 week ago
@kenpca Really?? You seem to be living in a fantasy world. It would seem someone would have noticed all these things, and wrote just a couple of words about it, but nothing. Because they never happened. The entire book is propaganda, written solely to influence people. And in your case it seems to have worked very well.
wizard970 1 week ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - you are such a sucker!
shumble32 5 months ago
@shumble32 How?
RaytownSoClassof2010 5 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010: corrupted, edited, decided on by committee, bits left out - the list goes on and on.
I advise you not to check out the history of the King James Bible YouTube videos
shumble32 5 months ago
@shumble32 I advise you to back up your claims, Saying all that has been done doesn't make it true. As the video pointed out, When comparing the old copies to the new ones they were pretty much identical. You can look this up for yourself. This destroys all the claims that the bible has been "corrupted,edited etc. etc.".
RaytownSoClassof2010 5 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 - The old copies of Henry V by Shakespeare are pretty much identical to the new copies - does that make it a reliable historical document?
No.
Look at 'A Brief History of the King James Bible'
shumble32 5 months ago
@shumble32 No one ever said that since they are identical that therefore they are reliable. The video says that since the writers witness allot of the events they recorded that therefore it is reliable and that since it hasn't changed since then it has retained it's reliability.
RaytownSoClassof2010 5 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010
Unfortunately the witnesses are not available for cross-examination and due to the lack of any supporting evidence it is difficult even to be convinced that the statements were written by or even came from those witnesses. If, indeed those witnesses ever existed in the first place.
When it comes down to it, the evidence for the bible stories is about as compelling as the evidence for the classical Greek myths.
The bible is just words in a book
shumble32 5 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 The bible is a reliable historical account of a man-god born of a virgin who is killed and rises on the third day? Give the head a shake, ray. Then Grimms Fairy Tales is a reliable historical account of the stories in it too?
Matthew1944 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Pretty much identical.......This destroys all the claims that the bible has been "corrupted,edited etc. etc."."
The oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum , shows about 14,800 differences from today's Bible. Check it out. So much for your "identical". Even all of today's bibles aren't identical.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
smh people talking off of emotions instead of facts smh
malenursenyc 8 months ago
The Sumerian's would be like, what the fuck are you talking about? The Annunaki is going to be pissed when they find out someone tried to jack their identities. Lmao
Vaultzero 8 months ago
This video is total and complete lie! Anyone who believes this should read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.
colbyj32 9 months ago
Heaven and earth will pass away but God's word will endure forever. Harry Potter and fairy tales will not save you when the death Angel appears for you as he must for us all one day. My hope and prayer is that you will laid down your pride, humble yourself and call out to Jesus to save you for if you dont then you will live eternaly in regret and torrment.
GreggDuncanMcLean1 9 months ago
According to this riduculious framing you state, those who rely on Harry Potter and other "fairy tales" would not be spared from death that effects all Human beings, which is a "natural cause" in which anyone who uses the slightest amount of common sense and based on reason would not doubt it. ( and who does?) Then your hope for those who use such reason and rational thinking should disreguard such "reasons" and ask Jesus ( who is possibly just as fictional as potter )-
VirgilB01 9 months ago
to save those from such a "death" and believe his teachings without reason and those who refuse should be punished by living in eternal torment and suffering. Based upon this hope, why would anyone choose to do this? It is purely insane and immoral based upon a "being" who claims to love all Mankind, but chooses to send such "persons" to such a place of torment? There is simply no reason(s) to believe in such nonsense or-
VirgilB01 9 months ago
@VirgilB01 if u should break the laws of the land and stand before a good, righteous n just judge then surley punishment would have to be ordered if not the judge wouldnt be good, righteous n just now would he/she? God is good, righteous, n just and His holiness demands punishment for all who break His laws an you can wine n cry saying. thats not fair, as im sure most criminals maintain their own innocense but the facts r the facts the soul that sinneth will die. there is forgivenes only n Jesus
GreggDuncanMcLean1 9 months ago
@GreggDuncanMcLean1 - Nonsense, the laws of the land are very different than the laws of a "omnipotent being" ie "God". If I (or anyone else) were to break such a law, I am given counsel for a defense and certain "rights" in which I am granted, in other words you are given a fair trial and a jury for the charges against you. There are no such rights or a defense for the Christain god of the Bible. You are not found guilty until proven innocent, you are charged according to god's law, you are-
VirgilB01 9 months ago
found guilty for the crime for which there is no evidence and you are sentence to everlasting punishment by a being who's morals and character that wears the crown of love, righteousness and goodness. Such a being who carries out such a punishment is not a judge of these standards, but a horrible, terrible judge. Jesus is used as a "life preserver" it is similar to the "mafia boss scenario" in which you are charged with a crime your'e not guilty of and forced to make "payments" in order to keep-
VirgilB01 9 months ago
from harm and further punishment. The atmosphere of fear and threats are used to assure that payments are made. In this scenario, you are charged with the crime of "sin" and those who disregard or disobey God's laws are sent to eternal punishment (Hell). In order to be spared, you must confess you crimes to Jesus whether you are guilty or not and make "payments" in order to be saved. Such a hypothesis is based on madness, not clear thinking or reason which is not allowed.
VirgilB01 9 months ago
worship or follow such a being who delights in such a act. It is truely mad.
VirgilB01 9 months ago
Because Moses wrote that he saw god, its must be true!
alosada 9 months ago
A book written in the 7th century in Ireland has moses meeting an Irishman. Not really relevant, but shows, how rephrased, re-written-edited blah blah blah
ToastedAndy 11 months ago
I think videos such as this are aimed at believers, rather than non-believers. Believers needs their beliefs reaffirmed continuously, and the weakest of proof is sufficient. Non-believers know it's nonsense.
Cihl280777 11 months ago
This video is riddled with so much misinformation.
yourjunk420 1 year ago
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are pseudonyms! They were not written at the time either! The gospel closest to the time of Jesus was Mark which was written over 30 years after his death! Furthermore Matthew and Luke were based on the Mark gospel and another source. Before it was written down, it was passed on by ear, that is problematic.
lionsaregay 1 year ago
An accurately reproduced fairy-tale is still a fairy-tale.
kennegun 1 year ago
@kennegun How many secular anthropologist and historians spend years studying fairy tales, and why is this particular fairy tale considered a historical document? Do you think the wall in Jerusalem, the exodus out of Egypt or the person of Jesus Christ was a myth also. If so why would most historians disagree with you? I think these are fair questions.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester If they found the remains of the city of Troy, does it mean Achilles was real? If they found the remains of the Prophet Mohammed, does it mean Allah is true? If they found a 3 thousand year old Hindu temple depicted in the Ramayana is that mean the Hindu gods exist?
Mythology often consists of exaggerated real events and real landmarks mixed with fantasy. There is NO evidence for anything supernatural.
kennegun 8 months ago
@kennegun How many historians believe in the historicity of Achilles? The Divine nature or existence of God whether true or false is beyond the means of the historical sciences. My contention is that the Bible is a historical document and most historians even secular ones concede in the historicity of the person of Jesus as a healer baptize by John the baptist etc. Biblical archeology is a confirmed science. U have not answered question. How many historians and archeologist study fairy tales?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester No reputable historian believes in any mythical characters, Achilles or Jesus. Something is considered not to exist until proven to exist. The Bible can be considered a historical document, but it needs independent corroboration and since it has mythology and an agenda, it should be viewed very cautiously. John the baptist and Jesus might of existed, but that doesn't implicate anything supernatural.
kennegun 8 months ago
@kennegun So you believe archeology is the study of fairytales.....Ah yeah OK. I think your confusing archeology with mythology. These are two separate fields. Critical archeology is a science not the study of mythology or fairy tales.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Archeologist and historians are concerned with uncovering the past. Most often the past, as depicted by human beings are intertwined with mythology (fairy tales). So, to study the past, they must ''study'' mythology.
kennegun 8 months ago
@kennegun I think that the fact that most ancients and contemporary people alike believe in a God head in itself lends more evidence to the existence of a higher power called God. There is no such thing as proof in the historical sciences, only evidence. We can include Alexander the Great, Socrates, Scipio and every other historical figure of antiquity. The Bible has more self confirming manuscripts, independent sources and documented eyewitness accounts than all of these.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester The supernatural is a way of easily explaining the unknown, thats why people believed in it. Why does lighting occur? Zeus. Why does the tides go in and out? Neptune. There is independent sources for the existence of Alexander of Macedonia and Scipio, not Socrates or Jesus. As for your last statement: the Bible is not in question, the mythology claimed in it are.
kennegun 8 months ago
@kennegun There are also independent sources for the Historicity of Jesus Christ and many more eyewitness testimonials and manuscripts. You are wrong about Socrates. His historicity is still in dispute.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "There are also independent sources for the Historicity of Jesus Christ and many more eyewitness testimonials and manuscripts"
There are no eye witness accounts to support the Jesus bible story and no conteporary historian mentioned him.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 "There are no eye witness accounts to support the Jesus bible story and no conteporary historian mentioned him" No eye witnesses? Really, have you ever heard of the Gospels? I know you are quoting someone else. Maybe you mean contemporary historian in Jesus time. There are many historical figures that we teach as fact that did not have contemporary documentation. Among historians, 30 years is actually considered pretty good as well as there being multiple independent sources.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester 30 years is actually considered pretty good as well as there being multiple independent sources. "
Except that the man-god story doesn't come from Judaism nor the human Jesus who was a practicing Jew.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@benthemiester Really, have you ever heard of the Gospels?"
The gospels were written by anonymous authors, the first beingnamed Mark 30 years later up until John 60 years later. John is not the apostle John and most certainly wasn't an eye witness. Luke admits he is passing on hearsay. The average lifespan was less than 40 years at that time and no biblical scholar (ulness it is an apologist) accepts that any of the gospels were written by apostles or eyewitnesses.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944
"The gospels were written by anonymous authors"
Luke admits he is passing on hearsay.
OK fair enough, can you prove that no biblical scholar unless he's an apologetic accepts any of the Gospels were written by eyewitness, or that Luke admitted that he is passing on hearsay? Do you deny that most critical historian believe that Jesus was a healer, baptized by John the baptist and crucified in Jerusalem under Pontious Pilate?
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester
Re: Luke - Read the first line of Luke.
Even Wiki reads: According to traditional Christian Church teaching, the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses. However, a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case The consensus is that the canonical gospels were written anonymously.
No, I don't deny that Jesus lived (although there is no historical support for it) but the supernatural events are myth and legend.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 Even Wiki reads: According to traditional Christian Church teaching, the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses. However, a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case etc.
Your now changing the goal post. You said...... "Luke admits he is passing on hearsay" and that "(no biblical scholar) (ulness it is an apologist) accepts that any of the gospels were written by apostles or eyewitnesses"
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester
Luke admits he is passing on hearsay" - Read Luke, he admits writing down what he is being told only - not that he was an eye witness.
Read again, bent. " However, a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case (that the gospels were written by eye witnesses) The consensus is that the canonical gospels were written anonymously.
Apologists like to shorten the dates in an attempt validate the texts.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 You now say that ...I don't deny that Jesus lived (although there is no historical support for it)
Yet if you go back to the same Wikipedia that you cited. It says that..."Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire" The myth part is your opinion.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Read again, bent - I said "No, I don't deny that Jesus lived (although there is no historical support for it) but the supernatural events are myth and legend"
And Yes, there is no historical support for Jesus from historians comtemporary to his lifetime, namely: . Philo (20BC-40AD), Pliny the elder (23AD-79AD), Seneca the elder (54BC-39AD), Seneca the younger (4BC-65AD) ESPECIALLY PHILO who had relatives in Jerusalem and was interested in the afterlife.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@Matthew1944 I find it very interesting that your initial gripe concerned the fact that non contemporaneous historians which were only thirty years apart in some cases, as being inaccurate or unreliable. Yet you believe historians that are 2000 years apart, are more accurate. Very interesting indeed.
benthemiester 5 months ago
@benthemiester Yet you believe historians that are 2000 years apart, are more accurate. "
There are historians who document events, preferably as they happen and present day historians who study those writings.
Matthew1944 5 months ago
@kennegun "No reputable historian believes in any mythical characters, Achilles or Jesus"
Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of theRoman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire
Source Wikipedia.... I can provide citations upon request, to large for this thread .
benthemiester 8 months ago
Comment removed
benthemiester 8 months ago
@kennegun 'Something is considered not to exist until proven to exist' Can you prove life came from inanimate matter or that your parents really love you and be able to quantify it in a laboratory? We have no technology for this yet. There is no such thing as proof in the historical sciences. All we have to go by is evidence.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@kennegun You have no way of knowing whether this person who historians regard as a healer is a myth.
This is pure conjecture, and your wrong there are many reputable Christian historians. If you believe that intimate matter at sometime in the past came alive all by itself, then you also believe in something metaphysical and supernatural. Science cant prove this hypothesis, even today with all our technology. Maybe you believe in fairy tales and don't even realize it.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@kennegun And an accurately reproduced fact is still a fact.
RaytownSoClassof2010 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RaytownSoClassof2010 And an accurately reproduced fact is still a fact."
And so?
Matthew1944 5 months ago
wrong wrong wrong.... Moses did not write the Chumash...... Uneducated idiots! Oh and comparing the new testament to the fictitious books written by homer only hurts its credibility!
ronkytown 1 year ago
Absolute nonsense; portions of the Christians' little magic book were routinely added to and changed over time, to the point where there are today more DIFFERENT portions of the "new testament" than there are WORDS in the "new testament". Only 1 example is the way that passages were added to Mark in order to "juice the sales pitch" of the Cristian cult; the earliest copies we have of Mark end with women arriving at the tomb to find it empty, and everything AFTER that was added later.
StaceyC123 1 year ago
In fact the Bible is a compendium different manuscripts by different writers, none of whom lived at the times described. There are no extant Mss of the gospels contemporary with Jesus life, if he existed; the New Testament was compiled 300 years after the events it purports to describe. The Old Testament is even worse, with four distinct Mss from widely varying times which have been edited and redacted to suit political and social conditions.
colourmegone 1 year ago
The NT was not written by eyewitnesses. This has been known for hundreds of years. As a simple example, Matthew describes a dream that Joseph had. How could Matthew be an eyewitness to Joseph's dream?
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
What the devil language is this?
baigandine 1 year ago
You are missing the point with Iliad. No one believes the supernatural events recorded there. Unlike the bible with its miracles that are every bit as impossible.
Nocturnalux 1 year ago
Weak, very weak.
knineu02 1 year ago
Praise the Lord! Jesus will save us! Yeah!
...or not, more likely :)
The Bible is just a poorly written fairy tale. Like the Quran, it draws in a bunch of people with all sorts of issues, that then spam its message all over the internet.
All gods are supposed to be ever-present and omnipotent. How come NO RELIGION shows any effect on its followers, in terms of say, how many of them die in earthquakes, floods or diseases?
Today we have statistics for these things, and they show NO effects.
firuinthehouse 1 year ago
/watch?v=1r0lO5nFEBA
l337pwnage 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the only good thing coming out of these stupid athiests is there speeding up the time that jesus will come o and remember athiests the largest religon in the world is CHRISTIANITY and thats a fact so do you want to trust you one mind our the mind your people
stefolieokc11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the only good thing coming out of these stupid athiests is there speeding up the time that jesus will come o and remember athiests the largest religon in the world is CHRISTIANITY and thats a fact so do you want to trust you one mind our the mind your people
stefolieokc11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the only good thing coming out of these stupid athiests is there speeding up the time that jesus will come o and remember athiests the largest religon in the world is CHRISTIANITY and thats a fact so do you want to trust you one mind our the mind your people
stefolieokc11 1 year ago
the only good thing coming out of these stupid athiests is there speeding up the time that jesus will come o and remember athiests the largest religon in the world is CHRISTIANITY and thats a fact so do you want to trust you one mind our the mind your people
stefolieokc11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the only good thing coming out of these stupid athiests is there speeding up the time that jesus will come o and remember athiests the largest religon in the world is CHRISTIANITY and thats a fact so do you want to trust you one mind our the mind your people
stefolieokc11 1 year ago
the only good thing coming out of these stupid athiests is there speeding up the time that jesus will come o and remember athiests the largest religon in the world is CHRISTIANITY and thats a fact so do you want to trust you one mind our the mind your people
stefolieokc11 1 year ago
As our pastor said in his weekly homily a few months ago: The bible is no science book. The bible is no history book. The bible is a book o FAITH.
lizazoon 1 year ago
I find Harry Potter more believable.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon can you explain where come from the energy or magic in harrypoter?....no?
Then your belive is just your belive there is not a fact who soport your belive...
kiokom2 8 months ago
You hvae to be a fucking moron if this makes you confident that a someone walked on water a load of time ago.
Extrodianry claims require extordinary evidence
AnimusRat 1 year ago
How do you know that air exist? Its invisible, & you can't see it unless you use something to interfere with it like a smoke or chemicals in order to see some evidence right? In those days how would you know that what you breath was called air? You could feel it but u would still wonder what it was and new it did good when inhaling it! Today's technology gives us a clear view of what invisible air is... God is 'Supernatural' , his the 'Super' & you're da 'Naturlar'. The word exist 4 a reason.
LALOMAN18 1 year ago
Air, Oxygen... you know what I mean!
LALOMAN18 1 year ago
and "God breathed into this nostrils the breath of life, and gave him dominion over all the lower creatures" (Gen. 1:26; 2:7) Without Oxygen we would not have life, hence 'death' to all of us!
LALOMAN18 1 year ago
In those days they would not know what to call it, if they had called it shit, then it would be shit to them.
because it does not matter what you call it..
And sure you say the word supernatural exists for a reason, bad logic my friend. because unicorns have a word yet do not exist, atleast to my knowledge. plz prove them then. just as you have to prove that any supernatural exists aswell
AnimusRat 1 year ago
what ever you call air is futile, its what it is that is important, not its name.
Same thing with supernatural, I can prove air exist can you prove the existance of the supernatural??
because you give the word credit by saying it exists for a reason, sure what reason? To protect a idiot and his argument? or is there actually something supernatural? its up to you to tell what and then prove it.
AnimusRat 1 year ago
1 Cor 15:3-4 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures
1Cr 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
2Cr 2:15 For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.
2Cr 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
Cutting and pasting a bunch of scripture is pointless, Wolf.
I could cut and paste a page from the Lord of the Rings
with precisely equal effect.
As we are making no progress here
we had may as well shake hands and leave off.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
ThThen, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
Isaiah 40:22
22It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in
Prov.8:27When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.
How's that for flat?
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
Wolf,
have a look at any dictionary.
You'll find that "circles" are FLAT.
The Bible better NOT claim to be a science book,
as it's filled with obvious nonsense.
It is NOT "accurate" to describe 4-legged insects.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
The Bible is the record of how God has dealt with His elect
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
On circles, check the rendering in the original language. You do know it was written in Hebrew , dont you?
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
"On circles, check the rendering in the original language."
I did, and I showed you.
When Isaiah or any other OT writer wished to indicate a sphere
he used "dure'"
as found in
Isaiah 22:18He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball
Exodus 39:24 Then they made balls like pomegranates
Ezekiel 1:4 a huge ball of fire glowing like bronze
But in Isaiah 40:22 he says the earth is a CIRCLE, חוגm = chuwg.
I'm still waiting for proof of talking beasts.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
At the same time, the Bible neither sets itself up as a scientific textbook. The Bible conveys reality accurately, but within the context of its ancient audience. As such, there is no point in combing the Bible for a periodic chart of the elements, or checking to see if it carries all of its figures out to sixteen decimal places.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
The Bible does not set itself up to be understood as a written collection of hand-me-down tales, but to be taken as direct inspirations of the living God. If it is completely true, its truth corroborates its claim of divine inspiration.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
You are using improper hermaneutics
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
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 wholesale government slaughter of babies?
The Bible is a book of bronze-age myth.
Nothing more.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
The Bible is a record of Gods dealings with those He intends to save. The history conained within is irrefutable, it cannot be proven incorrect, (give it a try). Gods Word will never satisfy God-haters(those who refuse to bow to the Lordship of the Creator) Unsubstaniated criticisms will never suffice. Thats right, the efforts of those who think they are wise, can never refute the Bible, because they cannot prove their claims. To be free of the God of the Bible is a HORRIFYING THOUGHT
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
"those who think they are wise, can never refute the Bible, because they cannot prove their claims."
Nonsense.
The Bible says that humans are made of dirt.
And that snakes and donkeys talk.
And that insects have 4 legs.
And that bats are birds.
And that the earth is flat.
And that the sun revolves around the earth.
And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman.
I am prepared to refute any or all of these Bible "truths."
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
The rotation of the earth was revealed in Job 38:12, where God asks of Job:
Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.
God asks Job if he has ever dictated the time of the morning or the location of the sunrise (dayspring).
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
"The rotation of the earth was revealed in Job 38:12"
Wow.
You're getting a lot more out of that than the words contain.
If anyone tried to make a leap like that to validate evolution
you would (quite rightly) laugh them off the stage.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
The leap is presuming nothing created everything
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
As soon as the sun is risen, its light will take hold of the ends of the earth in the sense that it touches all of the landscape, and the wicked are shaken out of it (the earth) in the sense that thieves, drunkards, adulterers, and others who practice their sins in darkness are forced to desist from these activities as they retreat from the light. Also, the beauties of the earth are revealed by the light, and its coloration is made to appear as that of a beautiful garment.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
Finally, the text asserts that God's command of the morning derives from His control of the earth, which is turned as clay to the seal. Hence, the suggestion is that God regulates the morning by rotating the earth as a potter rotates the clay. Yet ancient wisdom would have asserted that God regulated the morning by control of the Sun, and indeed, this is the perception of any uninformed mind.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
In fact, we use the phrase on all fours in a similar manner. It refers to the action of the creature—walking around—rather than the complete inventory of the creatures feet. In reality, the Bible is very precise in describing locusts and similar insects. Such insects do indeed have four legs with which to creep and another two legs with which to leap"
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"Such insects do indeed have four legs with which to creep and another two legs with which to leap""
Ah, but you still fail,
as the words to which I refer are NOT "creep", but "goeth."
Leaping and creeping are both "going."
And if you've ever watched a grasshopper
you'll see that it uses those big hind legs
to WALK as well as to leap.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Look at the absurdity of assuming that the author forgot what a bird looks like or miscounted the legs on a grasshopper. Moses, trained in pharaohs court, was one of the most educated men of his day.
For that reason alone, an unbiased reader of the Bible would assume that the author had good reasons for his chosen words.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
Now wouldnt one assume, that a self proclaimed free thinker, would research his unfounded claims before one asserted them for all to see only to be proven wrong. But if one is a "seeker" of the Truth you will not look at only one side of the issue, you should look at all claims ,or else one can look ignorant.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
First, linean classification was not available when Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, nor did a specific scientific definition for what a bird was exist. The classification of animals was made by function and form. This can be seen in the definition of words used to describe animals in the Old Testament. For example, the word here that we render "fowl" comes from the Hebrew word owph which means flying creatures, to include birds, winged insects, and any animal that owns a wing.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
It comes from a root word that means to cover or to fly. This verse could rightly be interpreted, "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among flying creatures....". The King James Version seems to call the bat a fowl, but when you understand the times in which it was written, and the meaning of the original Hebrew, it's obvious there is no error here.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
The God who created all from nothing can make a donkey talk. Im proof of that
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God who created all from nothing can make a donkey talk. Im proof of that"
Cute, but irrelevant. And untrue. You are a human being.
Could you provide some EVIDENCE for talking beasts?
What with the flat earth and all
I'm not prepared to accept the unsupported testimony of scripture.
My grandpa once had a pet turtle
that played Edelweiss on the trombone,
but never with witnesses present.
It really frustrated Pops that no one believed him.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
You have no refutation.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
Saying so doesn't make it so, wolf.
Please provide scientific evidence for talking beasts.
I see by your religion and by your username
that fairy tales are very important to you.
Interesting.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
You have no scientific proof do you. Saying its so doesnt make it so. Refering to usernames doesnt make your point. Evolution has as much evidence as Aesops fables. It takes more "faith" to believe Men came from monkeys, than the Creator of an ass to make it talk
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
By your ignorant answers we can see you have studied neither evolution nor theology, because I could give a better defense of your position than you do. You lack scientific proof,your arguement comes from ignorance, also evident in your biblical arguements.
If you want to know more about Biblical issues, because you are seeking Truth Ill be happy to help.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
"I could give a better defense of your position than you do. "
Then why do you post uninformed and foolish statements instead?
I'm still waiting for evidence of talking beasts.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Come on ,gimmie something good. I was hoping you would be a worthy debater of your position. I gave you a sufficient answer for each of your objections that you didnt expect an answer to, nor do you acknowledge or address the answers. You come back with pithy ,shallow, childish answers. I had always thought athiest were like the stereotype they were cast with, "educated free-thinkers" but I guess you shot that one down. You dont have sufficient knowledge on either side of the issue.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
"I gave you a sufficient answer for each of your objections "
No you didn't.
You gave me tired old stock responses.
Your Hebrew was incorrect
and you didn't respond when I corrected you.
Now your Bible says that snakes and donkeys talk.
I asked you to show me some evidence to support that.
You responded with a silly joke,
but have been nimbly dodging it ever since.
Either respond or stop pretending to have something to say.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
The only thing you have proven is you dont understand the nuances of ancient Hebrew ,yet you persist in arguementation of subjects with the presupposition that they didnt happen. CHECK THE HEBREW on the circle ,you are digging yourself deeper
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
Proof not accusation is what is needed from you.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
You well know an event such as the talking animals cant physically be proven.
You have a document in the Bible that is infallible and inerrant in every way.
Its purpose isnt to convince scoffers who refuse the Creator. The Bible Is the record of Gods dealing with His people. His redemptive plan for humanity. Yes, there are those who wil reject it to their doom. But ,for the rest it is our guidebook to the Good News and everything we need for holy living to Gods Glory.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
"You well know an event such as the talking animals cant physically be proven.
You have a document in the Bible that is infallible and inerrant in every way."
Your first sentence is true.
Your second is not.
Aside from the obvious errors in the Bible,
any statement that can not be verified
can not legitimately be said to be infallible.
The two things are mutually exclusive.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord.
I care about your eterniy, read the Scriptures I posted along with John and Romans. Your proof is in creation all around you . The One who created such intricate design and order is the one who holds it all together, and is calling for you to come to Him.
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
"Your proof is in creation all around you "
That's a meaningless statement.
If you want it to mean something,
explain WHY some specific thing constitutes proof.
Even if you were to demonstrate
(which you have not done yet,
you're still dodging the talking animal question)
that the natural world proved a creator,
that would in no way be evidence for your particular god.
There are many, many so-called Creators.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
By definition there can be only one creator
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
By whose definition?
It takes a lot of arrogance to make up your own definitions
and expect everyone else to accept them.
Many, many cultures have invented their own creators.
You just happen to have espoused the one
invented by bronze age nomads in the middle east.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
One thing you have proven, is that fallen humanity rejects Gods law.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
Rom 1:18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
bigbadwolff1 1 year ago