Biblical contradictions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

​

***There is no need to play games here, Percy. Archeology has proven the Bible correct over, and over again, but no one has ever been able to disprove it, although many have tried. Archeology has confirmed again and again what individual scientists and archeologists have said was pure fantasy and fairy tale.

​

---

Ok, mate, here’s the challenge. Show us what archaeology has shown us about the bible that science thinks is pure fantasy & fairy tale.ALL archaeology has done for the bible is to confirm that SOME of it has a real world setting. But that was never in contest, was it? Not even by individual scientists.Archaeology hasn’t been able to show the existence of God, show that the resurrection took place, that everything was made in a week, etc. Actually, any part of the bible that is in contention, archaeology hasn’t been able to shed any light on. Also, archaeology shows that there were thriving cultures that managed to sail straight through the flood without getting wet, imagine!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:

But as it is, the more studies that are done, and the more that science advances, the more ridiculous evolution is shown to be.

---

What studies? Please be specific, & provide references.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strawman:
Since God’s chosen to communicate His Word through mistake-making humans, there are errors or contradictions. What’s amazing to me is how much consistency there really is.
Tim

---

How can you tell what has been added/deleted/mistranslated in ALL the bibles re. the original text? Especially if the "original" source was orally transmitted?How can you tell if the consistency is indicative of what is true, given that we don't know what EXACTLY was in the original text?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strawman:
>How can you tell if the consistency is indicative of what is true, >given that we don't know what EXACTLY was in the original text?

​

Since we don't know EXACTLY, then opinion can go either way. I still stand by my post.
I'll respond later on tonight.

​

Tim

​

---

Pls do, but my point is you DON'T KNOW what to accept as truth or not. Therefore it is JUST opinion.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Just back from a enforced vacation (illness not gaol) and good to see lively debate still going on.

---

Welcome back, Mister P. Hope you are back to 100% fitness, we missed you!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.