Proof - The First Five Biblical Books of the Old Testament Are A Compilation of Eye-Witness Accounts

Happy_Killbot

Talk to me about plutonium. That's how I know the creation myth in the bible is .

Where is it? Pu-244 has a half life of 80.8 million years. It should be everywhere but it's not, meaning it has all decayed away since the earth's formation. Only the much longer lived uranium and Thorium is plentiful, so what gives?

The book of Genesis is supposed to be metaphorical, I don't know why people seem to think it is literally true.

Grafix

Hello Prince of Prevaricators.  Still at it, I see.  Not a single remark which rebuts the content.  Sigh.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Oh, but it does. You see, if the books of the bible are to be considered literal truth, the world is but 6,000 years young, them radioisotopes don't think so.

You see, the most this can prove is that the ancient Hebrews kept records that were roughly the same as those that would later be compiled into the amalgamation known as the book of absurdity Genesis. The hard stuff from nature says it ain't so.

Grafix

Why must it be 6,000 years young?  There is no proof of that.  Who knows how long after God created the earth and the rest of the universe and our rivers, vegetation, creatures and the whole shebang, before he created man?  He might have made a few volcanic eruptions and earthquakes too to create hills and valleys, mountain ranges and all sorts of whatever, waited for the trees to grow naturally and for the springs to flow into great rivers by natural forces and for the core of the earth to heat up, long before he bothered to create man. Don't the geologists and everyone tell us the earth is billions of years old?
 
There is a great deal to distrust about man's humble summations, calculations and hypotheses, just like the one you now advance regarding plutonium.  Man's so-called science has been so wrong on so many counts, including his belief that the Sumerians invented writing.  Before them they thought the Phoenicians had. We now know that the city of Jericho was around 11,000 years old.  We also know from clay tablets unearthed in Iraq, (the original Sumer as in Sumerians), that these tablets show man was recording his own history on clay tablets long before the Sumerians came into existence, since the beginning of man's existence, in fact. ...

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix The bible says 6 days.

You don't even believe your own horse S*** why should we?

Grafix

I think you just exposed how little faith you have in your own "horse S*** ".  LOL!  Don't debate me.  Instead debate D. J. Wiseman's findings.  It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with evidence found on clay tablets.  Why can't you debate what is written on these clay tablets? Are you going to deny their existence.  Do you know whose signature-colophons they've found written on each of these clay tablets?  The ones shown in the column "Owner or Writer" depicted in the table shown in my topic piece.  Look at the names.  Which is the first name?  Adam and look at those which follow,  all in chronological order matching the very order of their generations which is the same order of the books of the Bible. The historical account of generations in order of those generations, authored by the tribal leader of each generation.  Interesting huh? 

How could mythical people sign their authorship to accounts of a mythical people, when they themselves appear in the history being recorded, which record they have signed as being their own authorship?  That must make their existence real.  I'm not sure how a myth can write his name in clay, as you propose they must have done, considering you claim they are mythical people.

Dee

Yet another deeply flawed narritive you’re all over the place yet again. Most Historians accept the Historicity of  Jesus and rightly see him as nothing more than a wandering preacher but no credible Historians accept the claims of divinity or miracle workings 

Historians find parts of the gospels are true regarding basics but very inaccurate and contradictory in other places and rely on other documents regarding such 

Your other claims regarding Archaeological finds are mostly B S as your failed attempt at an Ark proof proved , you also failed to prove Abraham’s , Moses , Elam or others actually existed

Grafix

@Dee - First para is not the object of the topic, so is irrelevant.

2nd para is completely and utterly false.  In the last century, since around the 1950s we have seen a strong and deepening respect by historians for the undeniable historical accuracy of the Biblical text.  You need to catch up.  The attacks on its veracity began back in the 18th and 19th Centuries and have been completely reversed by the stream of archaeological findings in the 20th Century, with not a one disproving a single historical fact cited in the Biblical record.  With every new archaeological finding that respect has strengthened, as per these clay tablets, which soundly discount all previous claims that it is a mythical account or even a metaphorical one, the popular claim by historians for decades.  They no longer claim this, simply because they cannot, unless at risk of being laughed out of their profession, the material evidence just too great, effectively dismissing such claims.

3rd Para - I give you evidence in archaeological finds, including the find of Noah's Ark under Killbot's other topic, all fully authenticated and what do you give?  Flat-out bald statements claiming "B.S." yet with nary a piece of evidence cited in support.  You are a joke, Dee.

How come you and Killbot show up in exactly the same discussions, always defending the other's arguments, one after the other?  Dual I.D. for the same person?  Sure looks like it.
.

Dee

@Grafix

*** First para is not the object of the topic, so is irrelevant.

Oh but it is totally relevant and if it’s not that leaves you with another claim you cannot prove doesn’t it?

****2nd para is completely and utterly false.  

It’s not , what’s false is your as usual....

For more information, see the Skeptic's Annotated Bible article:

Science and History in the Bible

For more information, see the Wikipedia article:

Historicity of the Bible

The Bible with annotations by the reader.

The Bible is not a reliable historical source because it does not meet the standard criteria of source reliability used by historians. The Bible is not, as many believers assume, eye witness testimony. Reliable sources are generally based on authors who were eye witnesses to an event (i.e. it is a primary source). Since any particular source may be fabricating their story, multiple independent sources are usually required for confidence. Establishing the lack of author biases, including religious motivations, is also necessary if a work is to be read at face value. The Bible satisfies none of these requirements.

Based on historical and archaeological research, there are known historical inaccuracies in the Bible. The Bible is considered mythological by most historians. Historians know the Gospels are largely or entirely myths because they share the same characteristics in that they are an apparently normal story except:

• the text is structured to convey an underlying meaning, usually to convey some political or value system,[1]
• using symbols that are familiar the intended audience,[1]
• refers to or retells other myths and stories but often some aspects are changed to make a specific point,[1]
• historical improbabilities, occurrence of miracles or people acting unrealistically,[2]
• lack of corroborating evidence.[2]

****In the last century, since around the 1950s we have seen a strong and deepening respect by historians for the undeniable historical accuracy of the Biblical text.  

No we haven’t read above 

***You  need to catch up.  

You need to catch 

***/The attacks on its veracity began back in the 18th and 19th Centuries and have been completely reversed by the stream of archaeological findings in the 20th Century, with not a one disproving a single historical fact cited in the Biblical record.  

Attacks ? You see there’s the problem you think all criticism of your are “attacks” ......I get you hate being corrected 

***With every new archaeological finding that respect has strengthened, as per these clay tablets, which soundly discount all previous claims that it is a mythical account or even a metaphorical one, the popular claim by historians for decades.  

More nonsense as your latest “Ark Find “ was exposed as the work of a cheap con man 

****They no longer claim this, simply because they cannot, unless at the risk of being laughed out of their profession, the material evidence just too great and effectively dismissing such claims.

Now you’re arguing against actual History itself , no doubt you will “bolster” up your claims by appealing to your Earth creationist sites like last time and claim any counters are a commie plot 

**/I give you evidence in archaeological finds, fully authenticated and what do you give?  Flat-out bald statements claiming "B.S." yet with nary a piece of evidence cited in support.  You are a joke, Dee.

You gave nothing except pure B S so far because yet again you lack the education to do so 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix Here is the thing though- I can completely disqualify all of these discoveries and in fact I already have-

Stone tablets that resemble the bible do not prove that what happened in the bible transpired. It only proves that someone wrote it down a long time ago.

The physical evidence from nature thoroughly refutes the majority of the first five books of the bible, the creation myth, Noah's global flood, talking donkeys, parting the red sea, the sun stopping in the sky, crumbling walls via load noise, food falling from the sky, this list is just off the top of my head and the deeper you go into the insanity that is the bible the harder it is to believe any of it.

I have read the bible in its entirety, cover to cover. (As well as the Quran and some Hindu Vedas)

That is why I am atheist.

It is disappointing just how little most people know about these these texts, even the one they have been raised with since birth. Make no mistake, the reason you believe is not because it is convincing, but because you were raised with it. You stay with the faith because the concept of it being false is scary to you and the prospect of it being true is scarier.



So many people put so much work into defending their faith, maybe it is time to wake up, get over your grief and put away childish things.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Read that which is written in reply and not make up what you wish to pretend was written in reply.  You wrote:

@Grafix The bible says 6 days.
You don't even believe your own horse S*** why should we?

After I had already written:

 Who knows how long after God created the earth .... before he bothered to create man. Don't the geologists and everyone tell us the earth is billions of years old?

You come back with 6 days????  Wha ???  How long God took to create the earth, heavens and universe is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is the time-gap between when God had FINISHED creating the earth until he created man. How do you know he didn't wait for mountains and rivers to be created naturally, for trees and vegetation to grow naturally, for continents to move around and species to populate the world AFTER he created the earth and allowed nature to take its course?  Geology, palaeontology and other "ologies" all support that is exactly what happened.  It is too daffy for words to PRESUME that God made man immediately after he created the earth, for the simple reason that scholars tell us that the earth is billions of years old,  The age of man could be anything, so why confine it to the last 6,000 years?  It makes absolutely no sense at all.  Besides, we already have archaeology dating ancient city sites in the Middle East as old as 11,000 years.  Go back to school.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You have never read the bible have you? That isn't what the bible says and this is all on page 1 mind you! The 6th day was when man was created in accordance with the "good book".

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

You can not have your cake and eat it too, either the bible is false and you agree. The "6,000" years touted by young earth creationists is based on the very scholar: P.J. Wiseman, who you mention in the post. We know who the bible says everyone is and how long they lived based on the bible to come to that figure, the bible says 6,000 years. If you do not think the earth is 6,000 years old, then you can not possibly think that any of the first books are accurate since they say 6 days to make the world.

No matter what, you are wrong.

Grafix

@Dee - You claim that this ...

"The First Five Biblical Books of the Old Testament Are A Compilation of Eye-Witness Accounts"

... is relevant to whether or not Christ is God.   I don't think so. The sentence is totally divorced from any religious concept and merely a matter for archaeology.  Please stay on topic - the reason I ignore your posts.  They are NEVER on topic.  

Worse, they are toxic, full of hate and venom towards those who oppose your arguments, another reason why I do not respond to them.  Further, there is nothing to respond to.  You just repeatedly claim you are right, simply because you SAY you are and that everyone else is wrong, simply because you SAY they are, that professional data, findings and science is , simply because you SAY it is and so on.  What does that leave to discuss?  No it isn't.  Yes it is.  No it isn't.  Yes it is.  No, it isn't because I say it isn't, etc.  How infantile.  LOL! For that reason I don't even bother reading your posts, beyond a quick eye scan in case there is anything relevant, but there rarely is.  I see you are yet again, resorting to that very unauthenticated source of Wiki-Whatever, rather than to the actual source.  I've given you the actual source - the ancient clay tablets.  What bird-brained dolt would think Wiki-Whatever can contest them?

Dee

@Grafix

****** . .  I see you are yet again, resorting to that very unauthenticated source of Wiki-Whatever,

Right , well it beats your last links to several young earth creationist sites and you also said that National Geographic was run by commies , your lack of education has you once again clutching at straws yet again your arguments have been destroyed and I dismissed you earlier but yet you’re back 


 ****rather than to the actual source. 

Actual source  Hilarious 

****I've given you the actual source - the ancient clay tablets.  What bird-brained dolt would think Wiki-Whatever can contest them?


The “bird brained dolts” are all the credible Historians that think you’ve the intelligence of an unwatered pot plant....... I agree 

Dee

@Grafix

****** . .  I see you are yet again, resorting to that very unauthenticated source of Wiki-Whatever,

Right , well it beats your last links to several young earth creationist sites and you also said that National Geographic was run by commies , your lack of education has you once again clutching at straws yet again your arguments have been destroyed and I dismissed you earlier but yet you’re back 

Wiseman is yet another charlatan and certified fruitcake ...... The "Revelation Theory" was developed by Assyriologist P. J. Wiseman in his book Creation Revealed in Six Days (1946). The theory is directly linked to Wiseman's idea that the authors of Genesis were the early patriarchs themselves, who wrote on tablets and passed these down, citing toledothes throughout Genesis as evidences of tablet colophons. Based on this interpretation of the structure of Genesis, Wiseman argues that God directly revealed to Adam through a relevation over six literal 24 hour days the creation (as outlined in Gen. 1: 1 - 2: 4b or "Tablet 1"), but which had occurred millions if not billions of years ago. While Wiseman in his book does not dispute scientific consensus regarding the age of the earth or universe, he denies evolution, claiming that God created all life forms in their "kinds". However Wiseman claims that Adam is the author of Gen. 1, having been revealed information about the creation by God over six literal days (he does not attempt to date when this revelation occurred). He argues though that this information about the creation is not specific or detailed because the Genesis creation narrative was entirely written by man, who merely could only record limited details from memory and on tablet. He concludes by asserting that science can fill in the gaps of the creation but that Gen. 1 shows God was the "originator and controller" of the creation.

 ****rather than to the actual source. 

Actual source  Hilarious 

****I've given you the actual source - the ancient clay tablets.  What bird-brained dolt would think Wiki-Whatever can contest them?


The “bird brained dolts” are all the credible Historians that think you’ve the intelligence of an unwatered pot plant....... I agree 

Dee

@Grafix

****** . .  I see you are yet again, resorting to that very unauthenticated source of Wiki-Whatever,

Right , well it beats your last links to several young earth creationist sites and you also said that National Geographic was run by commies , your lack of education has you once again clutching at straws yet again your arguments have been destroyed and I dismissed you earlier but yet you’re back 


 ****rather than to the actual source. 

Actual source  Hilarious 

****I've given you the actual source - the ancient clay tablets.  What bird-brained dolt would think Wiki-Whatever can contest them?


The “bird brained dolts” are all the credible Historians that think you’ve the intelligence of an unwatered pot plant....... I agree 

TKDB

@Grafix

@Dee

@Happy_Killbot

There are two kinds of History in regards to Religion.

The History that Religion has unto itself.

And the Anti Religious historical views in how they interpret Religion through their own History of their Anti Religious stances?

The Bible, isn't suitable for the Anti Religious, thus you can come to rely on the commonly expressed Anti Religious, and their fluid anti Religious rhetoric, to accompany Religion, to apparently put Religion in its place, because that's how the Anti Religious, get their Atheist messaging across?

And I went to Church today.

400 parishioners, and the clergy at the same Church.

Pretty much every culture of Humanity was present at the Church service, along with a newborn, some toddlers, a fair amount of school age and college aged kids.

Along with a slew of parents, and senior citizens.

And no law enforcement showed up, to shut the place down, because of any complaints over "Indoctrination, Religious brainwashing, or for the rumors of any parishioner, being enslaved by Religion?"

It was quiet, and peaceful, and no signs of anyone showing up to publicly protest the Church, or the parishioners inside of the Religious building?

This is the weekly History over Religion, that is common place, and that I am familiar with. 

The above is my proof, and eyewitness accounts in regards to the theme of this forum:

"Proof - The First Five Biblical Books of the Old Testament Are A Compilation of Eye-Witness Accounts"

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You claim that ...

@Grafix - You have never read the bible have you? That isn't what the bible says and this is all on page 1 mind you! The 6th day was when man was created in accordance with the "good book". 

Genesis - 2:1- 7 

Where does the text say how long it was between the creation of the earth and when God created man?  He clearly didn't create man on the sixth day at all.  Who hasn't read the Bible?   It clearly states God created the material world and rested on the 7th day and did not create man until later.  

We see evidence of things being permitted to grow and a spring of water naturally springing forth.  How long did God wait after the 7th day before he created man?  The text does not say.  For all we know, he may have waited for everything to occur naturally, and grow and form naturally, including the mountains, rivers and vegetation before he put man on earth, which all of the "ology" sciences suggest is what occurred, when they look at the various evidence of soil, clay and rock stratas being laid down and the formation of the topography.  

If what you claim were true then man would have to be the same age as the earth - billions of years old, yet contrary to that, you put an age of only 6,000 years ago as the beginning of man.  So which one is it?  You contradict your very own statements. (We now have evidence of ancient city sites as old as 11,000 years.  It seems you can't get anything right, not even history, let alone the Biblical text.)

Grafix

???

Grafix

???

Grafix

@Dee - Go away.  Your comments are so tiresome and aggressive.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

You are a such a troll...

Genesis 1:26-27
"26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them."

Your claim is that the first books of the bible are eye-witness accounts, and these "eye witness accounts" say god made man on the 6th day. Therefore, either:

• They are not eye witness accounts in any way
• They are somewhat based on true events but are unreliable or entirely wrong
• They are eye witness accounts and this implies that the earth is only 6,000 years young.

Take your pick, no matter what you lose.

Grafix

Oh!  I'm a troll now?  Just because the Biblical text does not support your claim?  Caw!  Although the creation of man and woman is referred to in Chapter One, Verses 26 and 27, no day is attributed to their creation, unlike the creation of everything else.  It is an adjunct and not a chronological statement.  The next chronological statement is Verse 31, which still relates to the Heavens, i.e., God made day and night on the sixth day.  The chronology of when man and woman were created is made clear in Chapter Two - AFTER  God had rested on the 7th day.

As the scholars say, Bible text quoting, out of context is to be deplored for it renders false interpretations, just as you have done.  You have to read Chapter two in conjunction with Chapter One.  I have quoted Chapter two which gives the full account of the creation of man and woman.  It does not say on what day either was created, only that this occurred AFTER  God had rested on and blessed the seventh day.  You can argue it until the cows come home, but I have NEVER heard of anyone before now, claim it to be otherwise.  NEVER!!

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You also don't explain your own contradiction, wherein you claim God created man and woman in the same week he created the earth, but then elsewhere you say man began only 6,000 years ago.  As I said, if your statements are to be believed then we have man at both billions of years old and only 6,000 years old.  Which is it?  Then you try to hide behind the excuse of what Creationists' claim.  Why listen to them?  ALWAYS  go to the source, in this case the Biblical text.  NOWHERE  does it state how old the age of man is, nor date when the first man was created, so we don't really know.  We keep finding all sorts of evidence that now puts man older than 6,000 years anyway, so God only knows where your Creationists pulled that figure from, so why bother quoting it?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - The eye witness accounts do not say that God made the earth in 6 days at all.  Go back to the yellow table in the topic content at the top of the page and check for yourself. Note there is no Toledoth in the Biblical text nor any colophon phrase on the clay tablets attributed to any author until Chapter 2, Verse 4b on the first tablet -Verse 4 in our English translations.  An attribution to God is the only supposition that can be made regarding Verse 4, the first Toledoth.  Adam's witness account begins from Verse 5 in Chapter 2 of Genesis.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix You can read right?

You are trying to deny the words directly in front of your face...

Such a troll you are!

I do not, nor have I ever believed that the earth is 6,000 years old, I am MOCKING this idea, an idea that if you DO NOT HAVE then you can not hold a candle to the notion that the first 5 books of the bible are eye-witness accounts.

YOU LOSE!

Go Talk to rickey about it. He will tell you what I just said, that the world is only a few thousand years old, in blatant contradiction of scientific reality!

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - 

@Grafix Oh, but it does. You see, if the books of the bible are to be considered literal truth, the world is but 6,000 years young, them radioisotopes don't think so.
You see, the most this can prove is that the ancient Hebrews kept records that were roughly the same as those that would later be compiled into the amalgamation known as the book of absurdity Genesis. The hard stuff from nature says it ain't so.

Yet, you used the age of 6,000 years to so confidently rebut the authenticity of eye witness accounts, with your plutonium crap argument. I pointed out that the age of man is not proven nor stated anywhere and that it has nought to do with the age of the earth, anyway, which shot down in flames your ridicule of Biblical historicity, via your plutonium argument.  Walking away and abandoning your plutonium argument now? You can't have it both ways, i.e., use the 6,000 years argument to defend your plutonium argument and in the same breath say you don't believe the 6,000 year age of the planet.  No-one of any scholarly repute that I know of does, so why did you even try to fly that kite?  

I see you - straight through you, inventing fake arguments to attack the Biblical historicity which are not arguments at all and when caught out diving down rabbit holes at one hundred miles an hour, even trying to hide behind uneducated claims of Creationists.  Show me a single text in the Bible or a single archaeologist who claims that the age of man has anything to do with the age of the earth, let alone that it is dated at 6,000 years.

Mmm.  In one of my early posts I asked you to debate the inscriptions on the clay tablets, or were you prepared to deny they existed?  It seems that, all out of aces, you are now denying the tablets' existence, worse denying the evidence that they provide of the eye witness record.  Is that where we are at?  You deny their existence or that they are eye-witness records?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix If you had the slightest idea what my argument was, you wouldn't say such empty things.

There is an entire website dedicated to it, 
https://answersingenesis.org/

They even have there own theme-park
https://arkencounter.com/

I'm no expert on the whole "the earth is 6,000 years old" nonsense, you will have to ask @RickeyD he will fill you in on this pseudo-scientific garbage.

You will probably have better discussions about this with him as long as he doesn't find out you are Catholic.

I'm making fun of the idea, because if you assume that the bible is literally true, then a consequence is that the earth is 6,000 years old, which science says can't be true, so the bible is wrong. Therefore, the first 5 books of the bible are not eye-witness accounts, but rather a bunch of garbage speculations compiled by bronze age goat herders.

Grafix

What does this say ....

Show me a single text in the Bible or a single archaeologist who claims that the age of man has anything to do with the age of the earth, let alone that it is dated at 6,000 years.

You certainly are making fun of the idea, however not innocently nor decently, but insidiously.  You tried to fly the kite that because there are some uneducated Creationists who seem to have plucked this weird dating of 6,000 years out of nowhere, then you would take advantage of that to bash Biblical authenticity. It's a dishonest subterfuge, because you must be aware that no reputable scholar, Christian or otherwise believes that,  but yet you were not above using it to discredit Biblical accuracy.  Until you can prove that the dating of events in the Bible perforce demands an acceptance of the 6,000 year tosh, then you have no argument.  It does nothing of the sort. 

That then beggars the question, why the need to be so dishonest about this?  You just cannot climb over your atheist bias and approach the subject on any front with an objective or open mind.  You keep tripping over your atheist bias, not big enough to admit that the Bible does have great historical authenticity and that these tablets prove it even more so.  Instead, what do you do? Your responses are tantamount to unbridled prejudice and flat-out bigotry.  You are a tool of he who vowed to destroy God's people, by virtue of your denials.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix If you don't think that the bible supports a 6,000 year old earth, then that only goes to shoe that you have no idea what is in the bible, as you have adequately demonstrated.

If you want to make an argument that the bible is a compilation of eye-witness accounts, then you will have to accept that the world is only 6,000 years old.

If you do not accept that the earth is 6,000 years old, then you can not accept that the first 5 books of the bible is eye-witness accounts.

It's that simple, and yes it completely undermines your position, because theists deserve not an inch, because religious ideas are a danger to the free world.

MayCaesar

I have never seen a historian disagree with the claim that the Biblical stories are, at least, partially based on real events. This does not, of course, mean that those stories were written by eye witnesses; many of them could be a result of preservation of old stories via oral traditions. Some of those stories happened as they are told, other stories happened in a slightly different way, and there are also stories that were completely made up in folklore.

The problem with the Bible is not that it has no relation to the actual history (it, of course, does), but that it contains a lot of fantasy stories. It would be strange if the Bible did not contain anything remotely resembling reality; it doing so does not mean that it is anything more than a fantasy book overall, however.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

The below quotations are from you to @Grafix

What kind of fair and equal debate stances are these?


Debate stance 1

( "You are a such a troll..." )


Debate stance 2

("Take your pick, no matter what you lose." )



Debate stance 3

("You can read right?"

"You are trying to deny the words directly in front of your face..."

"Such a troll you are!,"


"I do not, nor have I ever believed that the earth is 6,000 years old, I am MOCKING this idea, an idea that if you DO NOT HAVE then you can not hold a candle to the notion that the first 5 books of the bible are eye-witness accounts."

"YOU LOSE!"

"Go Talk to rickey about it. He will tell you what I just said, that the world is only a few thousand years old, in blatant contradiction of scientific reality! ")

Debate stance 4

("If you had the slightest idea what my argument was, you wouldn't say such empty things."

"I'm no expert on the whole "the earth is 6,000 years old" nonsense, you will have to ask @RickeyD he will fill you in on this pseudo-scientific garbage."

"You will probably have better discussions about this with him as long as he doesn't find out you are Catholic."

"I'm making fun of the idea, because if you assume that the bible is literally true, then a consequence is that the earth is 6,000 years old, which science says can't be true, so the bible is wrong. Therefore, the first 5 books of the bible are not eye-witness accounts, but rather a bunch of garbage speculations compiled by bronze age goat herders.")


@Happy_Killbot ;

How is mocking, or making fun of another individuals points of view, worthy of mockery, or making fun of this or that points of view?


@Happy_Killbot

This is the theme of the forum isn't it?

"Proof - The First Five Biblical Books of the Old Testament Are A Compilation of Eye-Witness Accounts"

I didn't see, where making fun of, or mockery was included in the theme of the forum, do you?

I went to a Catholic church today.

The 400 parishioners there, gave proof to their belief in God, Jesus, Mary, and the Bible.

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB I will make fun of however I choose whenever I choose, because that is what freedom of speech is all about.

Also, if you are catholic then Rickey says you are not a Christian, that is a fact.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Am I reading your logic correctly as in the following ...

Also, if you are catholic then Rickey says you are not a Christian, that is a fact.

I'm no expert on the whole "the earth is 6,000 years old" nonsense, you will have to ask @RickeyD he will fill you in on this pseudo-scientific garbage.

Go Talk to rickey about it. He will tell you what I just said, that the world is only a few thousand years old, in blatant contradiction of scientific reality!

All over this forum you have rubbished RickeyD, yet you demonstrate a penchant for using him to buttress your arguments?  Logic 101 Killbot style?  These, along with the myriad of similar useless and personal assaults from you, which TDK has admirably pointed out, are simply not debating, but infantile scribblings.  

When are you going to admit that you cannot rebut the evidence on the clay tablets, which amply prove the authenticity of these five Biblical Books as an historical text of great reliability from original sources?  

Read my lips:  T H E Y   A R E   U N D E N I A B L E   E M P I R I C A L    E V I D E N C E.  Now dispute that with equally undeniable empirical evidence.  

What relevance has the denomination of anyone in this debate?  All that is  relevant to you is that I defend the righteousness of Christianity.  My specific denomination is no business of yours or anyone's.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Tell the website something?

So you're not on the website to debate in a Fair and Equal manner, but to do this instead.

"@TKDB I will make fun of however I choose whenever I choose, because that is what freedom of speech is all about.

Also, if you are catholic then Rickey says you are not a Christian, that is a fact."

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot

@Grafix If you don't think that the bible supports a 6,000 year old earth, then that only goes to shoe that you have no idea what is in the bible, as you have adequately demonstrated.
If you want to make an argument that the bible is a compilation of eye-witness accounts, then you will have to accept that the world is only 6,000 years old.
If you do not accept that the earth is 6,000 years old, then you can not accept that the first 5 books of the bible is eye-witness accounts.
It's that simple, and yes it completely undermines your position, because theists deserve not an inch, because religious ideas are a danger to the free world.

1.  If you think the Bible does support the concept of a 6,000 year old earth, then quote the texts from it which support your claim.  I know of none.

2.  I am not making any argument.  I am simply presenting you with evidence on ancient clay tablets which smacks you right between the eyeballs and proves that the first five Biblical Books are eye-witness accounts.  I am defending that evidence.  There is no argument to be had.  It is right there in front of the world and accepted by historians and anyone with two eyes, except for you.

3.  Why must accepting that these books are eye-witness accounts taken from clay tablet records, necessitate believing in the nonsense of a 6,000 year old earth?  Please explain your logic for that.

4.  If it is that simple, then you should have no trouble answering and providing the proof as requested in items 1. and 3.  

Until you can satisfy the queries raised by me in Items 1. and 3., you have absolutely no argument at all.  Now prove me wrong by answering items 1. and 3. with evidence to support your answers.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - These clay tablets prove eye-witness accounts via the colophon phrases naming the authors in the cunieform inscriptions.  Are you also going to argue the twelve Apostles were not eye-witnesses, whose accounts in the Biblical texts are the record of origin of the Christian faith and they wrote fairy tales for fun? 

Honestly, it is difficult to understand what anti-Christians write on the subject, in their own abject ignorance of it and yet, they think being anti-Christian is some kind of qualifier to set themselves up as experts on the subject.  It is a MAJOR disqualifier.

Dee

*****Go away.  Your comments are so tiresome and aggressive.


Says the guy who says  anyone who contradicts his is part of a commie plot and who's constant  appeal to young earth creationists sites and assorted quacks is his only argument 

Dee

*****Go away.  Your comments are so tiresome and aggressive.


Says the guy who says  anyone who contradicts his is part of a commie plot and who's constant  appeal to young earth creationists sites and assorted quacks is his only argument 

Dee

@Grafix

*****Go away.  Your comments are so tiresome and aggressive.


Says the guy who says  anyone who contradicts his is part of a commie plot and who's constant  appeal to young earth creationists sites and assorted quacks is his only argument 

MayCaesar

@Grafix

Even the existence of the Apostles is still debated among historians, with approximately a half-split into those who believe it existed and those who think it a metaphor. Furthermore, even if we assume that they actually existed and were eye-witnesses of the events, there is no reason to believe that the writings allegedly belonging to them actually do belong to them, or that those writings depicted their observations accurately.
History is a difficult science, and connecting the dots is much harder than most people outside the field think.

I am not an anti-Christian. I simply like logical debates and make my case in them.

Being anti-Christian would not be a disqualifier either. Your personal beliefs do not matter; your ability to wield logic and tell facts from conjectures does.

Dee

@Grafix

***** - These clay tablets prove eye-witness accounts via the colophon phrases naming the authors in the cunieform inscriptions. 

Nonsense , the clay tablets have been studied by credible academics  and prove nothing of the sort , the opposite in fact , you really should start researching the work of credible historians instead of appealing to young earth creationists and various cranks and quacks .......Pro Science .....

When 11,000 clay tablets dating from 23 centuries before Christ were unearthed in northern Syria three years ago, biblical scholars around the world rejoiced that ancient proof had been found for the Old Testament.

“The tablets were being hailed as a find equal in importance to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” said Dr. Robert Biggs, professor of Assyriology at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute. “The claims being made for these tablets created a sensation in biblical circles.”But three years of intense study and debate among scholars changed all that. No longer are biblical claims made for the 11,000 clay tablets of Ebla, the ancient Sumerian city whose palace was destroyed by fire around 2300 B.C.“In my opinion, parallels with the Bible are quite out of the question at this stage,” Biggs told a recent gathering of science writers sponsored by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. “People who are looking to the Ebla tablets for proof of the authenticity of the Bible are going to be sorely disappointed.”

The article goes into more detail about how the tablets are being misread and misrepresented.

It is not often I come across new articles pushing so-called new evidence, that has been debunked for nearly 40 years.

Dee

@TKDB

Why did you go to church you’re not a Christian according to your god anyway as you agree with same sex marriage?

Can you get the Bible verse showing where god said two men or women should lie together?

@RickeyD says you’re not a Christian  @We_are_accountable agrees 

Grafix

@MayCaesar - Several of the Apostles' tombs are properly identified, their lives with Christ properly witnessed and attested to, even by the ancient historians Tacitus and Josephus and also by Pontius Pilate and others.  Christ's existence is not even questioned by historians, both modern and ancient, so why would any question the Apostles' existence?  Christ's existence is also in the historical Roman record in missives sent by Pilate to Rome.  How can their or Christ's existence be "debated"?  I've never heard such a thing.  Anyone so debating these is not a reputable historian, but has to have zero credibility.

Everyone has a bias.  We cannot deny that, but it need not stand in the way of honesty and allowing the facts to take us where the facts lead.  Conversely, an "anti" something is an hostility towards it and can make a witness unreliable.  Kathleen Kenyon a pioneer in archaeology in her day, with a formidable reputation blotted her copy book due to her anti-Semitism, when excavating the site of the city of Jericho.  She was found to have deliberately omitted valuable finds from her final Report widely published and accepted as authoritative, even though the finds she omitted in that Report were recorded in her field notes - later discovered by another archaeologist.  Her reputation never recovered from that, after all was checked out.  So if the most famous can be guilty of fudging the record due to bigotry, I guess anyone can who has a penchant for dishonesty.  

https://navigatingbyfaith.com/2017/05/25/timing-the-walls-of-the-jericho/
.

Grafix

@Dee - You really have no idea, do you?.  Citing a text, isolated from any qualifier, identifier, source, named authentication, professional and authoritative source and claiming it as some kind of proof of anything is complete bollocks and ignorance.  How about you give me some details, such as the book, work, page number, date, author, authority, profession, identified and qualified authoritative sources, and then maybe I can CHECK that you didn't just make it up, or from wherever you've copied it from didn't just make it up?  That would be a start in the right direction.

The cunieform inscription has been properly translated by the appropriate experts, authenticated and properly housed in the Dept. of Antiquities.  Gonna argue with them?

Dee

@Grafix

****You really have no idea, do you?.  

Well obviously I do as you keep quoting Wiseman a young Earth creationist as your main source because you know actual credible Historians think his assertions are nonsense as do I 

***Citing a text, isolated from any qualifier, identifier, source, named authentication, professional and authoritative source and claiming it as some kind of proof of anything is complete bollocks and ignorance.  

I know yet you keep doing it and you have a history of copy and pasting and indeed plagiarizing others articles and words in an attempt to look credible where in reality it makes you look desperate .

Meanwhile I’m only quoting .......Dr. Robert Biggs, professor of Assyriology at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute....

No doubt you will claim he’s part of a commie plot isn’t that your usual escape route ?

*****How about you give me some details, such as the book works, page number, date, author, authority, profession, identified and qualified authoritative sources, and then maybe I can CHECK that you didn't just make it up, or from wherever you've copied it from didn't just make it up?  That would be a start in the right direction.

I keep doing do so you keep ignoring , the only one copies and claims others arguments as their own is you nearly every word you type is “borrowed “ normally without credit

****The cunieform inscription has been properly translated by the appropriate experts, authenticated and properly housed in the Dept. of Antiquities.  Gonna argue with them?

Why would I argue with actual academics that agree with me but disagree with you?

Take the Jesus goggles off and let your education continue .....What ? Oh you’re welcome ......

The tablets were being hailed as a find equal in importance to the Dead Sea Scrolls," said Dr. Robert Biggs, professor of Assyriology at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute. "The claims being made for these tablets created a sensation in biblical circles."

But three years of intense study and debate among scholars changed all that. No longer are biblical claims made for the 11,000 clay tablets of Ebla, the ancient Sumerian city whose palace was destroyed by fire around 2300 B.C.

"In my opinion, parallels with the Bible are quite out of the question at this stage," Biggs told a recent gathering of science writers sponsored by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. "People who are looking to the Ebla tablets for proof of the authenticity of the Bible are going to be sorely disappointed."

A typical misreading of the tablets, Biggs said, involved what some scholars thought was a reference to Sodom and Gomorah on the same tablet with what they took to be references to biblical patriarchs.

"At least one well-known biblical scholar took the early interpretation as evidence of the historical reality of the two cities," Biggs said. "But alas, it turned out that corrections in reading the names have eliminated the names of the patriarchs and that in any case they did not occur on the same tablet with what was supposed to be Sodom and Gomorrah."

Widely reported two and three years ago were the stories of the flood and creation that were supposed to have been inscribed on the tablets of Ebla. The creation story now turns out to be four lines of poetry in which not a single word has been translated. The flood story has now been reduced to a single word translated as "water."

Washington Post 

Dee

@Grafix ;

**** Several of the Apostles' tombs are properly identified,

Thats not true and identified by who?

 ****their lives with Christ properly witnessed and attested to, even by the ancient historians Tacitus and Josephus and also by Pontius Pilate and others.  

Historians accept that Jesus existed yet not one credible Historian references a miracle working Jesus , so a charismatic mere man  called Jesus existed so what? 

****Christ's existence is not even questioned by historians, both modern and ancient, so why would any question the Apostles' existence?  Christ's existence is also in the historical Roman record in missives sent by Pilate to Rome.  How can their or Christ's existence be "debated"?  I've never heard such a thing.  Anyone so debating these is not a reputable historian, but has to have zero credibility.

Who’s debating a guy called Jesus didn’t exist?

Grafix

@Dee - Blah, Blah, Blah.  You don't provide a single solitary hard fact which can rebut these inscriptions, let alone evidence of authoritative sources.  I don't know which is worse, the WashPo or Wiki-Whatever.  The names of the authors are undeniably and indelibly inscribed.  Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. .  There is nothing more to say about it.  But, yet your anti-Christian/anti-Semitic, or anti-God bigotry just cannot accept facts, so you carry on filling in boxes of waffle on what YOU  think.  What YOU  think is inconsequential.  What the evidence shows is all that matters.  It is the reason I ignore your posts 9 times out of 10.

Dee

@Grafix

**** Blah, Blah, Blah.  You don't provide a single solitary hard fact which can rebut these inscriptions.  

I do as does Dr. Robert Biggs, professor of Assyriology at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute

You just quote Wiseman and his delusional rantings 

***/The names of the authors are undeniably and indelibly inscribed.

Blah , Blah, Blah 

  ****Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. .

Get you mum to help you 

  ****There is nothing more to say about it.  

Not by you anyway it seems 

***/But, yet your anti-Christian/anti-Semitic, or anti-God bigotry just cannot accept facts,

I’ve nothing against Christians, young earth creationists like you are just plain nuts on the same level as flat earthers .

Anti Semetic , ah right so I hate Jews now all because I’ve corrected you . Anti god I don’t believe in god you clot are you anti Unicorn?  You really do need to work on that “logic” 

***so you carry on filling in boxes of waffle on what YOU  think.  What YOU  think is inconsequential.  What the evidence shows is all that matters.  It is the reason I ignore your posts 9 times out of 10.


Yes I know Dr. Robert Biggs, professor of Assyriology at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute is obviously anti semetic , anti god and a commie because he disagrees with you LOL

Grafix

@Dee - LOL!  You and your Prof. Biggs are tarred with the same brush - all too eager, all too quick to dismiss, without doing the full research or waiting for the full translations and results of scholarly study, the reason for his and your own failures explained below.  Your Prof. now looks a right eejit, at best.





Link to the full article with a myriad of authoritative links within it - https://navigatingbyfaith.com/2019/01/31/the-ebla-tablets-revisited/

What is so wrong with quoting Wiseman?  His work has been authenticated by a credible Professor in Assyriology, as the content of the topic has already disclosed to you.  Did you miss it?  Here it is again:-


.