Should parents of US KIA's pay Federal income taxes?

It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington

Don't let schooling interfere with your education.
Mark Twain

Total Pageviews

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Is the Bible a historical reference?  Our own resident atheist has surmised that it isn't, so I have resorted to research to prove him wrong (as if this is necessary).

Throughout both the Old and New Testaments, there are numerous references to historical facts.  The names and occupations of well and lesser known people and events have been proven through scientific research.  For our uneducated guests, that is research done by scientists, some of whom, in spite of enormous evidence to the contrary, are atheists.  These scientists perform tasks called archaeology, where they dig in and around the ruins of old building sites, searching for clues to the inhabitants of said buildings.  Some of these scientists discovered ancient manuscripts, which they then translated.  In the case of archaeological digs in the area of Judea, they have found numerous scientific facts supporting the Bible, but oddly enough, there has never been an archaeological discovery to disprove the Bible.

 Source one:

A few excerpts of this source, for our lazy friend:

It could be said that the Bible is a book of history -- and it is.  The Bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail.  It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years.  If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology.  Though archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it has the ability to prove whether or not some events and locations described therein are true or false.  So far, however, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.

 There are many such archaeological verifications of biblical events and places.  Is the Bible trustworthy?  Absolutely!  Remember, no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible.  Therefore, since it has been verified over and over again throughout the centuries, we can continue to trust it as an accurate historical document.

Source two:

Using scientifically proven and acceptable measures, such as the number of manuscripts of an early book, we can see that the Bible is a historical document.  That is, if you believe in science.


  1. Perhaps the lack of comments here shouts something, Tenth. If I were you, I'd delete it.

  2. Why are you here instead of answering the multiple posts refuting your last BS?

  3. Mud_PILE,

    No sane person would dispute what Tenth has posted here - a "lack of comments" might just as easily indicate consent.

    Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

  4. CS- as a 'history major,' would YOU reference the Bible if you needed evidence to support an historical event?

    {naturally, to save face here and to high-five Tenth, you'd agree with this post.]

    Tell us all, Common Sense, as a 'history major,' did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

    Tell us all, Common Sense, if Noah brought "two of every sort [of animal]...male and female ... everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life," and their food onto his ark.

    Tell us all, Common Sense, if Jonah actually survived for three days and nights in the belly of a whale and was vomited out of it on the third day.

    Historical fact or Hebrew Midrash? Which one, history major?

  5. Don't be an ass muddy.

    The historic references pertaining to places, their locations and, some people and events that are mentioned in the bible have certainly been verified by scholars and archeologists.

    Certainly a story of a man being swallowed by a whale is far-fetched but, many of the stories in the bible appear to have a lesson theme for the reader to learn from...perserverence, virtue, honesty, being a few of the themes the stories try to instill.

    I'm not a religous person but, I was taught to be respectfull of those who choose to be more devout than myself.

    Then again, liberals have no qualms when it comes to denigrating their sanctioned and approved enemies.

  6. Mud_PILE,

    I don't need to seek Tenth's approval - unlike your average liberal (democrat, progressive, socialist, whatever) I try very hard to tell the truth every time.

    I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. It is written by men so there may be problems - however as crack-pots dig up the world to try and refute the Bible, there is precious little evidence to refute it as history. The failure to find Noah's ark for example, doesn't mean it didn't exist. Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. all existed and interacted with the people of Israel. Do you demand similar proof from Muslims who document the life of Jesus, Abraham, and others? (Just checking for consistency)

    Do I find it easier to believe that God created the universe as opposed to the "Big Bang Theory?" Of course - who wouldn't? But the difference is subtle and you will miss it - I have faith in God that I can't prove. You have faith in science that you can't prove.

    For those watching at home "Midrash" , might not be a familiar concept. It essentially is when learned men got together to try and reason out how something that they know happened might have occurred without expressly having the documentation or evidence to prove how it happened.

    In that way Hebrew scholars are very much like a detective who develops a theory based on the evidence that he has available. Midrash is very much like the "science" that developed the Theory of Evolution. The bones to support human evolution wouldn't fill the bed a pickup truck - yet "scientists" have created a theory to which many have a rock hard faith in. There is no actual evidence that humans (or any other creature for that matter) evolved yet Atheists insist that it must have happened that way.

    At some point in Earth's history there was a tiny horse-like creature. It was wiped out by any one of the great disasters that wiped out life several times. There is no evidence to document the gradual migration from that creature to the horse of today, but "scientists" deduce that the evolution of the horse occurred since we had little horses hundreds of millions of years ago and we have big horses today. Call it Midrash, detective theory, or scientific theory - it doesn't matter really.

    Global Warming would be another example of "Scientific Midrash." however in the case of Global Warming as we all know now they have manufactured evidence to support their crack-pot theory.

    I don't have to believe slavishly in every single parable or story in the Bible. What I have been trying to explain to you is that in a Biblical inspired world event like the American Revolution and the birth of the United States of America, the results are infinitely better for all than an Atheist inspired event like the French Revolution.

  7. CS writes,I have faith in God that I can't prove.

    Absolutely true. What about the Tooth Fairy?

    CS writes, You have faith in science that you can't prove.

    Wrong, CS, just dumbass wrong. Here's a little 'proof' of one small theory of science:

    F = ma [force equals the mass of an object multiplied by its acceleration]

    CS, please go to your nearest RR crossing and stand between the rails. After the train passes, get back into your car, hurry home and tell me whether F = am was 'provable.'

  8. Mud,

    You need to quit comparing apples to horseshit.

    The belief in God correlates with your belief in evolution. No one here is saying science is BS, we are simply saying some science is THEORY, which means unproven. Some science is easily proven, such as your example. But you cannot disprove God based on F=ma. And I think you're smart enough to know that. I also think you're smart enough to know we won't fall for that crap. If you can't stay on subject and make your arguments pertain, you lose.

    Funny, but it seems to me that you lose every conversation you enter here. It would seem that purely for the sake of not losing, you would comment on a post you don't disagree with. But it would appear that when you agree, you remain absent.

    As for the Tooth Fairy, don't you believe? I bet you slipped a coin or two under your son's pillow, didn't you? I bet you ooh and aah over your grand-kids teeth falling out. I think your just a grumpy old asshole, and you want everyone else to be as miserable as you are.

  9. Mud_PILE,

    Logic, reason, and debate don't seem to be your forte.

    There are any number of things in the Bible that are true beyond a shadow of a doubt. You would say that the presence of hundreds of truths in the Bible doesn't make the whole thing true in the absence of proof - and you would be right.

    Similarly, there are any number of things in science that I can see, touch, experience, or reason that I absolutely accept. However there are things that you take for granted that aren't provable either and I gave you three examples: (1) Global Warming, (2) the Big Bang and (3) Evolution. All of those are theories or extrapolations of evidence. Global
    Warming we know to be false while I suspect Big Bang and Evolution will never advance beyond theory as they can't be proved. You PILEs stampeded everyone before with the "Population Bomb" (surely you remember that) and a few years later with predictions of an Ice Age. All predicated on the extrapolation of science - and they were both spectacularly wrong because of the undue politicization of the evidence and the methods.

    However, you once again stray from our original conversation. Two revolutions were conducted almost simultaneously (ours 1775-1783, theirs 1789-1799) and the results were spectacularly different. Ours was conducted by Christian men, the French one was conducted by PILEs. The Christian one resulted in the finest Nation and form of government in world history. The heathen one was just another tyrannical catastrophe.

    Please - how do you explain the difference?