Hello everyone

Faith, you can't pick and choose though when it comes to evidence -- I mean you can but it's not the honest approach. Archeological evidence may point to an existence of a variety of different Biblical characters but it also points to a completely different reality in many other aspects about the origins of the Bible and the climate of the area. You can't see this if you aren't willing to take that first step and ask yourself that difficult question that I put forth to you: Do you really know 100% with every intellectual fiber of your being that your God and your faith are "the truth". It has to be on par with looking at a tree and touching and feeling it and knowing that it's there. Even if I wanted to deny the existence of trees or buildings or anything else, the evidence is belying my denial.Science, which you ridicule as guesswork, is why we have all of the advancement in life that we do -- only science gets this credit, not a far east religion, not christianity, not hinduism. Science has been a process yielding TRUTH which has translated into so many things you benefit from every day. If it weren't for science you would still believe that weather is caused by your version of God and not natural processes, you might even still think that illness is because of a lack of devotion to God. Ever degree of superstition held by humans is wiped out a little more each time science finds the real answer to how something is or why it works the way that it does. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

I know the history was complex but why do you deny that the desire for common folk to read the Bible in their own language was the driving force behind it? If they had not attempted to contradict the RCC Protestantism wouldn't have happened and there would have been no conflict. The conflict arose because the Catholic Church didn't want Protestants to have access to the same knowledge they could obtain and the Protestants decided to stop at nothing to get it...The whole thing arose as a type of liberation movement. After that things got ugly with politics and both sides killed each other and persecuted one another... But why? Because the Catholic Church wanted to keep things "as is" and a number of common folk (as well as nobility) wanted differently. The Protestant movement played well with a lot of kings such as Henry VIII where he used it for political purposes. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

I've only made up my mind to stop pretending that I have to answers and to be willing to look at evidence that people would like to show me for things. I'm not adamant against Christianity at all, au contraire, I'm always open and willing to see if it can come up with evidence to justify a belief in it.As far as Moses' role in the first 5 books of the Bible, I think you could at least concede that he didn't write Deuteronomy (at least starting at Chapter 34), after all, it describes his death and he couldn't have written about his own death.

But why talk about "independent verification" and "independent witness" as though you even value those things at all as a prerequisite for believing in anything? After all, you don't have anything of the sort to justify your own belief system and yet you're going to completely discard a process looking for truthful answers that at least yields SOME evidence rather than nothing at all? Do you not see the contradiction here in your whole view of truth seeking? You're willing to hold ideas with no evidence above ideas with partial evidence and then say that the reason you discard the latter is because there isn't enough 100% evidence based verification...but it's clear you don't value evidence or verification at all. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Not a "minor point", it was the WHOLE BEGINNING POINT of the reformation.

I do not know for sure that Moses did not write the first 4 books, however, there seems to be accumulating evidence that it is very unlikely he did, and even that he may have not existed at all.A lot of it has to do with seemingly different versions of events almost simultaneously together in the text.

No I haven't, what is it about?

So what is the right kind of evidence I'm looking for? Is it a feeling of certainty that enters the brain or some other place in the body?

The 95 Theses, of course I've read it. Putting treatise in there messed me up.

The fact that you think archeology and the study of past biological development is all pure speculation and no evidence whatsoever is simply an act of denial on your part, it doesn't change the actual evidence that has been and is being pieced together. You allude to the gaps in evidence in order to invalidate them but then you cling on to the biggest speculation of all, your religion.You want to conveniently invoke the whole "no one can witness the past therefore no one can know", but little do you stop to think that by taking such a position you are declaring that there's no such thing as criminal justice and bringing criminals to justice,...because after all, how do we REALLY know that someone is guilty enough to go to jail? How can we REALLY say they are guilty when we weren't there to witness the crime? It all involves investigating the past and coming to the best conclusion that the evidence can give -- because you're right, we can't go back in time!You suggest a lack of "verifiable evidence" for that which you want to reject but you've never needed verifiable evidence for your beliefs to begin with. This is why it's pointless even talking about "evidence" with you. You constantly argue with a double-standard. It's built right in to your whole stance. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Well said!

Faith, I wish you could see that science is simply a method of truth seeking regardless of what that might be, it is not a set of beliefs supposed to be true.Scientists don't decide to come to certain conclusions to make the Bible look false, they just uncover the evidence and discuss it as it reveals itself.