was the "new testament" actually finished around 400 AD?

[rudeguy]

So are you trying to equate aliens to the bible? Nobody has any proof of aliens and is saying they exist. Outside of a few batshit crazy people who think they have been anally probed.

You're free to apply statistics to the bible though. That has been done to the possibility of Alien life. Jury is still out.

Any other examples? Science in some cases has proven something exists by it's affect on it's environment. Black holes for example. We study them by their accretion discs and how they gravitationally affect other bodies.

Can you apply this to the bible?

Hi

I was wondering if you could post the archeologicl evidence that proved the bible wrong.

Thanks!

 

[AViking]

Hi Rudeguy,

Several people above, including me, have mentioned archaeology. You can use the search function. There's also this thing called google. Search words that might come in handy would be archaeology, bible, and exodus.

Best Regards

 

[AViking]

You can also use the keywords Moses, Joshua, Solomon, Abraham, and Canaanites.

 

[rudeguy]

Hi Rudeguy,

Several people above, including me, have mentioned archaeology. You can use the search function. There's also this thing called google. Search words that might come in handy would be archaeology, bible, and exodus.

Best Regards

Thank you AViking.

In a matter of minutes I was able to find hundreds of results of archaeology confirming biblical dates, places and people. I was not able to find a single article that disproved the bible. I have linked to the five articles just for fun:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...rael_n_4297784.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...-gospel-of-mark-sea-of-galilee_n_3940919.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...lem_n_1305355.html#s732483title=Jonah_and_the

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/ancient-bethlehem-seal_n_1538605.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/khirbet-qeiyafa-archaeology_n_1504722.html

 

[Retro Rob]

You can also use the keywords Moses, Joshua, Solomon, Abraham, and Canaanites.

The Internet: allowing you to easily access information that agrees with your beliefs. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Sunburn74]

Hi

I was wondering if you could post the archeologicl evidence that proved the bible wrong.

Thanks!

Dunno...all the stuff about dinosaurs, early mammals, neanderthals and the early stages of man, etc. The whole noah's ark thing (still no evidence of a world wide flood, and how the hell did he get all those animals on a boat anyway?) Also doesn't the bible have a ton of guys living to >1000 years old. There also was a story about david stopping the sun for like a day so he could raze a city, which has yet to be confirmed in any other part of the world despite technically everyone in the world being able to see that "hey the sun has stopped. WTF?". I don't think we've ever recovered a single skeleton that shows a guy living to >1000 years old. Look no one here's an archaeologist; these just seem like pretty big things to completely gloss over.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Thank you AViking.

In a matter of minutes I was able to find hundreds of results of archaeology confirming biblical dates, places and people. I was not able to find a single article that disproved the bible. I have linked to the five articles just for fun:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...rael_n_4297784.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...-gospel-of-mark-sea-of-galilee_n_3940919.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...lem_n_1305355.html#s732483title=Jonah_and_the

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/ancient-bethlehem-seal_n_1538605.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/khirbet-qeiyafa-archaeology_n_1504722.html

If you search Google, you can find hundreds of articles confirming that London and King's Cross Station are, in fact, real places. Does that mean by extension that Hogwarts is real?

 

[OverVolt]

If you search Google, you can find hundreds of articles confirming that London and King's Cross Station are, in fact, real places. Does that mean by extension that Hogwarts is real?

Someone else had him go to google and he didnt't find what he wanted so you guys resort to this shit, okay. Not that surprised the atheists are jerks.

 

[rudeguy]

If you search Google, you can find hundreds of articles confirming that London and King's Cross Station are, in fact, real places. Does that mean by extension that Hogwarts is real?

First: you can go to Higwarts' s so technically it is real.
Second: I wish the Hogwarts' s from the movie was real. That would beyond awesome. But its not

 

[rudeguy]

Someone else had him go to google and he didnt't find what he wanted so you guys resort to this shit, okay. Not that surprised the atheists are jerks.

I am a Christian who has actually taken them time to research and think out my beliefs. Not something most atheists are used to.

Sadly...also not something most Christians are used to either

 

[Retro Rob]

I am a Christian who has actually taken them time to research and think out my beliefs. Not something most atheists are used to.

Sadly...also not something most Christians are used to either

If your Huffpost links don't prove "X" is real, then how can their "google keywords" prove "X" isn't real?

I find it hilariously ironic that they use information from the internet to disprove the Bible, yet your information from the same internet cannot prove the Bible.

Keep up the good work, and thanks for being honest enough to at least provide some sort of evidence, though it wasn't incumbent on you to do so.

 

[rudeguy]

If your Huffpost links don't prove "X" is real, then how can their "google keywords" prove "X" isn't real?

I find it hilariously ironic that they use information from the internet to disprove the Bible, yet your information from the same internet cannot prove the Bible.

Keep up the good work, and thanks for being honest enough to at least provide some sort of evidence, though it wasn't incumbent on you to do so.

I keep waiting to get to use my knowledge of thermodynamics and relativity but atheists always give up before I can

 

[Retro Rob]

I keep waiting to get to use my knowledge of thermodynamics and relativity but atheists always give up before I can

When your only counter-argument to arguments for the existence of God is "there is no evidence" (which has become more of a slogan among atheists instead of a result of actual investigation), then there is nothing more to talk about...its almost a conversation stopper.

It's a perfect answer, really, because they don't have any explaining to do afterwards. So the conversation essentially ends.

EDIT: This is the reason why I personally admire religious people. By assigning meaning to the universe and life, they're brining on themselves the responsibility and intellectual pressure to do some explaining, instead of placing themselves in the easy position of not having to explain anything, like their non-believing counter-parts.

 

[AViking]

Thank you AViking.

In a matter of minutes I was able to find hundreds of results of archaeology confirming biblical dates, places and people. I was not able to find a single article that disproved the bible. I have linked to the five articles just for fun:

I literally handed you the answers on a silver platter and you still can't figure it out.

Take a course at your local university.

 

[rudeguy]

Mr Viking it seems we went from me being able to easily find the answers on google to me needing to take university classes.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Mr Viking it seems we went from me being able to easily find the answers on google to me needing to take university classes.

It's odd that he hasn't come up with any specifics yet. There are a few examples that are indeed legitimate gray areas but you need to look pretty hard to find them.

 

[sourn]

No...the God I believe in has existed forever.

Sorry you God didn't exist till my God Zues decided he wanted to go on a vacation.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...-five-reasons-why-god-exists/?intcmp=features

A Christmas gift for atheists -- five reasons why God exists

For atheists, Christmas is a religious sham. For if God does not exist, then obviously Jesus’ birth cannot represent the incarnation of God in human history, which Christians celebrate at this time of year.

However, most atheists, in my experience, have no good reasons for their disbelief. Rather they’ve learned to simply repeat the slogan, “There’s no good evidence for God’s existence!”

In the case of a Christian who has no good reasons for what he believes, this slogan serves as an effective conversation-stopper. But if we have good reasons for our beliefs, then this slogan serves rather as a conversation-starter.

The atheist who merely repeats this slogan after having been presented with arguments for God’s existence makes an empty assertion.

So what reasons might be given in defense of Christian theism? In my publications and oral debates with some of the world’s most notable atheists, I’ve defended the following five reasons why God exists:

1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe. Given the scientific evidence we have about our universe and its origins, and bolstered by arguments presented by philosophers for centuries, it is highly probable that the universe had an absolute beginning. Since the universe, like everything else, could not have merely popped into being without a cause, there must exist a transcendent reality beyond time and space that brought the universe into existence. This entity must therefore be enormously powerful. Only a transcendent, unembodied mind suitably fits that description.

2. God provides the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. Contemporary physics has established that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent, interactive life. That is to say, in order for intelligent, interactive life to exist, the fundamental constants and quantities of nature must fall into an incomprehensibly narrow life-permitting range. There are three competing explanations of this remarkable fine-tuning: physical necessity, chance, or design. The first two are highly implausible, given the independence of the fundamental constants and quantities from nature's laws and the desperate maneuvers needed to save the hypothesis of chance. That leaves design as the best explanation.

3. God provides the best explanation of objective moral values and duties. Even atheists recognize that some things, for example, the Holocaust, are objectively evil. But if atheism is true, what basis is there for the objectivity of the moral values we affirm? Evolution? Social conditioning? These factors may at best produce in us the subjective feeling that there are objective moral values and duties, but they do nothing to provide a basis for them. If human evolution had taken a different path, a very different set of moral feelings might have evolved. By contrast, God Himself serves as the paradigm of goodness, and His commandments constitute our moral duties. Thus, theism provides a better explanation of objective moral values and duties.

4. God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Historians have reached something of consensus that the historical Jesus thought that in himself God’s Kingdom had broken into human history, and he carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcisms as evidence of that fact. Moreover, most historical scholars agree that after his crucifixion Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty by a group of female disciples, that various individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death, and that the original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection despite their every predisposition to the contrary. I can think of no better explanation of these facts than the one the original disciples gave: God raised Jesus from the dead.

5. God can be personally known and experienced. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Down through history Christians have found through Jesus a personal acquaintance with God that has transformed their lives.

The good thing is that atheists tend to be very passionate people and want to believe in something. If they would only put aside the slogans for a moment and reexamine their worldview in light of the best philosophical, scientific, and historical evidence we have today, then they, too, would find Christmas worth celebrating!

 

[AViking]

I think it's very dishonest to just ignore what I'm posting and then post hogwash links. For example your Jesus Tomb link is a complete load of crap. That tomb was discovered in the early 1980's and Israeli fundamentalists refused to allow any scientific research to do be done. So basically they "claim" it's Jesus's tomb but in fact there is nothing to support it.

Maybe it's because I'm educated and you aren't but in University courses they discuss the evidence. Maybe you studied it in Mythology, History, Theology, etc.

 

[sandorski]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...-five-reasons-why-god-exists/?intcmp=features

A Christmas gift for atheists -- five reasons why God exists

For atheists, Christmas is a religious sham. For if God does not exist, then obviously Jesus’ birth cannot represent the incarnation of God in human history, which Christians celebrate at this time of year.

However, most atheists, in my experience, have no good reasons for their disbelief. Rather they’ve learned to simply repeat the slogan, “There’s no good evidence for God’s existence!”

In the case of a Christian who has no good reasons for what he believes, this slogan serves as an effective conversation-stopper. But if we have good reasons for our beliefs, then this slogan serves rather as a conversation-starter.

The atheist who merely repeats this slogan after having been presented with arguments for God’s existence makes an empty assertion.

So what reasons might be given in defense of Christian theism? In my publications and oral debates with some of the world’s most notable atheists, I’ve defended the following five reasons why God exists:

1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe. Given the scientific evidence we have about our universe and its origins, and bolstered by arguments presented by philosophers for centuries, it is highly probable that the universe had an absolute beginning. Since the universe, like everything else, could not have merely popped into being without a cause, there must exist a transcendent reality beyond time and space that brought the universe into existence. This entity must therefore be enormously powerful. Only a transcendent, unembodied mind suitably fits that description.

2. God provides the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. Contemporary physics has established that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent, interactive life. That is to say, in order for intelligent, interactive life to exist, the fundamental constants and quantities of nature must fall into an incomprehensibly narrow life-permitting range. There are three competing explanations of this remarkable fine-tuning: physical necessity, chance, or design. The first two are highly implausible, given the independence of the fundamental constants and quantities from nature's laws and the desperate maneuvers needed to save the hypothesis of chance. That leaves design as the best explanation.

3. God provides the best explanation of objective moral values and duties. Even atheists recognize that some things, for example, the Holocaust, are objectively evil. But if atheism is true, what basis is there for the objectivity of the moral values we affirm? Evolution? Social conditioning? These factors may at best produce in us the subjective feeling that there are objective moral values and duties, but they do nothing to provide a basis for them. If human evolution had taken a different path, a very different set of moral feelings might have evolved. By contrast, God Himself serves as the paradigm of goodness, and His commandments constitute our moral duties. Thus, theism provides a better explanation of objective moral values and duties.

4. God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Historians have reached something of consensus that the historical Jesus thought that in himself God’s Kingdom had broken into human history, and he carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcisms as evidence of that fact. Moreover, most historical scholars agree that after his crucifixion Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty by a group of female disciples, that various individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death, and that the original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection despite their every predisposition to the contrary. I can think of no better explanation of these facts than the one the original disciples gave: God raised Jesus from the dead.

5. God can be personally known and experienced. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Down through history Christians have found through Jesus a personal acquaintance with God that has transformed their lives.

The good thing is that atheists tend to be very passionate people and want to believe in something. If they would only put aside the slogans for a moment and reexamine their worldview in light of the best philosophical, scientific, and historical evidence we have today, then they, too, would find Christmas worth celebrating!

Ridiculous.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Ridiculous.

You don't have a clue as to what your talking about. If anything is ridiculous....it's this.

At least 1 entry was added in approx 700AD. So, no.

 

[sandorski]

You don't have a clue as to what your talking about. If anything is ridiculous....it's this.

@7 minutes
then end at approx 1 minute

Approx 4 minutes in all. If you want to learn a lot more about Biblical Scholarship, watch all 10 parts of the lecture.

PS: I was wrong, it was actually approx 1000 years. My bad.

 

[Anarchist420]

The authors of the NT books would have been Jews, not Catholics.

i think the authors were probably romans as of which the earliest catholics were.

As regards your question of when the New Testament was "finished", what do you mean by finished?

i asked a stupid question.

 

[Retro Rob]

Start here
then end at approx 1 minute

Approx 4 minutes in all. If you want to learn a lot more about Biblical Scholarship, watch all 10 parts of the lecture.

PS: I was wrong, it was actually approx 1000 years. My bad.

A former fundamentalist turned agnostic believes the Bible is "tainted".

Shocking, groundbreaking, impossible!!! The end of days are nigh!!!

Funny how Craig-Lane's arguments are "ridiculous" yet Bart's are regarded as truth.

Cherry picking again, Sandorski?

EDIT: Erhman seems to have some questionable premises that make his opinions suspect. After doing some reading about his reasons, one of his premises is "the authorship of the Bible has to be questioned". To me, that's really saying "the authorship has to be doubted", and then work from there.

Secondly, change in writing style (particularly with Paul's epistles) automatically means he didn't write it, as if a good author cannot adapt his style to fit his audience. An example of this being that my style and words would change when writing to fellow Christians after writing to a group of atheists.

Writers often change their styles depending on the situation, audience, and purpose. His claims are unfounded.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The OP can't get half a dozen posts in a thread until he posts one on religion.

If I could come up with an aphrodisiac cologne that worked as well I'd be retired and people from this forum could get laid in the real world