21 Mar '05 18:24>
Discuss
Originally posted by lilnicky123Wrong answer.
no
Originally posted by DarfiusYou ask a question.
Wrong answer.
http://www.thecityline.com/html/city/city.htm
Scholars also wanted to say that the Israelites never fought with the kingdom of Edom, but archeological finds have put those lies to rest as well.
Tell me, why is it that even though archeology has never proven the Bible wrong, you all don't respect it?
Originally posted by OmnislashThe point was that no one does research, they simply parrot what they hear.
You ask a question.
You get an answer.
You then reveal that you already have a solid opinion (nothing wrong with that ), AND that you hold no notion of entertaining anything to the contrary.
Bad form sir. Bad form. 😉
Originally posted by DarfiusAgenda? Try the truth. I am a seeker of the truth, nothing more. If that is not Gods agenda, then I do not speak for him. If it is his agenda, then I am a part of it.
Not concerning the veracity of the Bible, no. Who's agenda are you attempting to further, Omni? God's or your own?
Originally posted by OmnislashIf you do not believe Jesus Christ is the Truth, then I need not question your salvation, as you do not have it.
Agenda? Try the truth. I am a seeker of the truth, nothing more. If that is not Gods agenda, then I do not speak for him. If it is his agenda, then I am a part of it.
Back on topic, if that was not the point of the thread, why is that the focus of your attention? Again, the premise by title of this thread is to discuss a posibility. You, however, have ...[text shortened]... y thought process. Otherwise, by all means, continue this adventure in asinity.
Pax Vobiscum
Originally posted by DarfiusI have yet to meet anybody who expresses reasonable doubts about the existence of King David. But as to your question: The Bible makes all sorts of claims. Some are historical claims, some are spiritual claims. There is no reason to think that the accuracy or innaccuracy of the former entail anything about the latter, or the latter about the former. If Joshua did commit genocide in Canaan, that doesn't entail that we ought love our neighbor (and vice-versa) If Noah did not build an ark, that does not entail that we ought love our neighbor (and vice-versa). The reason I do not respect much of the Bible is that I take the Bible to be flat wrong on any number of spiritual and moral matters.
Wrong answer.
http://www.thecityline.com/html/city/city.htm
Scholars also wanted to say that the Israelites never fought with the kingdom of Edom, but archeological finds have put those lies to rest as well.
Tell me, why is it that ...[text shortened]... ology has never proven the Bible wrong, you all don't respect it?
Originally posted by bbarrWhy would men record truth so carefully and then boldly lie about God, bbarr? Does that make sense?
I have yet to meet anybody who expresses reasonable doubts about the existence of King David. But as to your question: The Bible makes all sorts of claims. Some are historical claims, some are spiritual claims. There is no reason to think that the accuracy or innaccuracy of the former entail anything about the latter, or the latter about the former. If Jo ...[text shortened]... he Bible is that I take the Bible to be flat wrong on any number of spiritual and moral matters.
Originally posted by DarfiusOkay lad, lets clarify the obvious.
If you do not believe Jesus Christ is the Truth, then I need not question your salvation, as you do not have it.
I am more than willing to discuss King David. It served a double purpose of pointing out to people that they call the Bible ...[text shortened]... observations and my personal relationship with Him that He is.
Originally posted by OmnislashPresenting King David as a historical figure is preaching?
Okay lad, lets clarify the obvious.
Formost. Where did I question the truth of Christ? I highly question the truth of Darfius, but please, show me where I have said I question the truth of Christ. Please, show me.
On that note, I just want to be clear about this. Your statment infers that you created this thread as a trap for people who simply dism ...[text shortened]... n here when I came, but that does not excuse it.
I reinerate sir. Bad form.
Pax Vobiscum
Originally posted by DarfiusFirst, I didn't claim that anybody was lying (much less boldly lying). Second, I don't agree with you the the Bible contains a careful rendering of historical truth. My point above is that one can fail to respect the Bible despite any archeological evidence consistent with the historical claims of the Bible. For instance, one can fail to respect the Bible because they find its portrayal of the character of God repugnant, or because they think its portrayal of humanity as fallen is silly and demeaning, or because they think its take on human sexuality is outdated and absurd, or...
Why would men record truth so carefully and then boldly lie about God, bbarr? Does that make sense?