For years, people like Samphire, were saying the whole bible was false and made up. But once the archaeological sites were found, they said that Jesus didn’t exist— once Josephus’s writings were found, they said that Jesus wasn’t Resurrected—
People like Samphire used to say that the Old Testament was “lost in translation”— that is .. er— until scholars found the dead sea scrolls, which matched almost word for word the modern translation— thus disproving the “lost in translation” BS.
People like Samphire used to say King Herod wasn’t real— now they found his temple.
How much more goal post moving are they going to do before REAL belivers make the PHYSICAL discovery, lay the ultimate smack down, and prove that Jesus resurrected?
28 comments
Methinks you need to go back and look at your reasoning a tad more. Archaeological sites found in that area have done more to disprove the bible than prove it. Besides, fictional stories can be placed in real settings.
"Example: the Massacre of the Innocents. Never happened."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, buy a fucking history book! The remarks about Jesus being the messiah in Josephus were a later add-in. Josephus was a heretic Jew who doesn't even accept the concept of a messiah in every other mention in all his writings. King Herod has NEVER been questioned by anyone that I am aware of since he is mentioned in quite a few Roman documents from the time period. And the "Dead Sea Scrolls" actually prove the Bible was edited beyond belief with a lot more "left out than was put in". So far you haven't hit a kick yet from right under the post!
Josephus' two references to Jesus are both widely regarded as forgeries added later by zealous Xians.
"How much more goal post moving are they going to do before REAL belivers make the PHYSICAL discovery, lay the ultimate smack down, and prove that Jesus resurrected?"
THE physical discovery? What discovery is that? If you know where THE discovery is, now's the time to show the world.
Smack down for Jesus? Who would Jesus smack?
Don't go so far. One, it´s true that some archaeology found some of the towns the Bible mentions but it doesn´t mean that the flood was God's punishment. Archaeology can't tell you that. It´s true that Jesus is a historical figure but that he's the son of God, nobody can tell. It´s a matter of faith. Take it or leave it, but don't say that the Bible is backed in reality because, following your logic, we should still stick to the Sumerian religion.
"People said that stuff was bull. Then they found all those archeological dig sites and said it was FICTICIOUS bull. Can you believe it? Something about no one wanting to build a town on a gravesite. Well if it was a gravesite, how come the bible tells us nazareth was real? Huh? don't know how to answer THAT, eh?"
But once the archaeological sites were found, they said that Jesus didn’t exist
...once Josephus’s writings were found, they said that Jesus wasn’t Resurrected
No one cared when these "writings" were found since there is not one shred of proof they are genuine.
People like Samphire used to say that the Old Testament was “lost in translation”
that is .. er
until scholars found the dead sea scrolls, which matched almost word for word the modern translation
thus disproving the “lost in translation” BS.
Except that the Dead Sea Scrolls, while impressive in their condition, are far from complete. There are huge gaps in them due to the ravages of time. And even considering that, the reason that the "modern translations" are so in agreement with the DS Scrolls is because when the Scrolls were found, the "modern translations" were re-edited to reflect the new information.
People like Samphire used to say King Herod wasn’t real
now they found his temple.
Really? That's big news! Oh, wait, the existence of Herod was never in dispute, being a matter of Roman records. There is no evidence that Herod ever did the things ascribed to him in the Bible, though.
How much more goal post moving are they going to do before REAL belivers make the PHYSICAL discovery, lay the ultimate smack down, and prove that Jesus resurrected?"
The goal post has never been moved. If you want to prove the Bible's miraculous claims, then you have to prove the miraculous claims, not the locations of the miraculous events. That's like me proving a man rose from the dead by showing you the empty coffin; it's not bloody proof!
@matt - no, they dind't. They found an ossuary with the name Yeshua on it but ossuaries don't generally contain bones and the name was common at the time.
@szenah: Ossuaries don't generally contain bones? Isn't that what "ossuary" means? From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Well, you find us solid empirical proof, and we just might believe.Star Cluster ftmfw.
For years, people like Samphire, were saying the whole Santa story was false and made up. But once the North Pole was found, they said that Santa didn’t exist
once some writings were found, they said that St. Nicholas doesn't deliver presents and isn't still alive.
Show us the dead body of Christ and I will agree that he lived and died on the cross. Forensics will do that part.
Then you have to show a resurrection. Thats gonna be tough cause , hey, theres the body .
The Old/New Testament was not even remotely proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls. They only represent some of the best preserved scrolls on the narrative. Not all them are represented in the Bibles.
And why the Hell would you think many used scrolls from that time didn't wear out? The DSSs exist because someone put them in clay jars in a dry, cooler enviroment, that's it!
They're not the only ancient scrolls that exist and not the oldest.
@ Star Cluster
<thunderous applause>
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
