> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:52:01 -0500, Suzanne wrote:
>

>> "Frank Mayhar" exit.com> wrote in message
>> news:ok6jc5-pbf2.ln1@tinker.exit.com...

>>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:23:03 +0000, Suzanne wrote:

>>>> "Frank Mayhar" exit.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:tdefc5-47i1.ln1@tinker.exit.com...

>>>>> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:10:32 -0500, Suzanne wrote:

>>>>>> "Frank Mayhar" exit.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:k4c0c5-1v4.ln1@tinker.exit.com...

>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:58:14 +0000, Suzanne wrote:

>>>>>>>> "thomas p." yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:47ec9170$0$2086$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...

>>>>>>>>> Yet you won't explain why one book is evidence but the other one
>>>>>>>>> is not.

>>>>>>>> All of the scripture is evidence, Thomas.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it's not, Suzanne.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "All scripture is given by
>>>>>>>> inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
>>>>>>>> for correction, for instruction in righteousness" - 2 Ti 3:16

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A document cannot be used as evidence that what it says is true.
>>>>>>> The Bible cannot be used as evidence that the Bible is true. This
>>>>>>> is called the "bare assertion fallacy." Look it up.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>> The Bible can be used as evidence because of the internal evidence
>>>>>> written within it.

>>>>>
>>>>> Um, no, not without corroborating external evidence. And in fact
>>>>> much of the so-called "internal evidence" is actually contradicted by
>>>>> historical fact, such as the interesting tidbit that the town of
>>>>> Nazareth didn't actually exist until some time in the second century.
>>>>> And while I won't go into them now, there are lots more little
>>>>> contradictions like that.

>>>> Frank, the gospel that quotes Jesus telling about the destruction of
>>>> the temple, was written before the temple was destroyed. That
>>>> constitutes internal evidence that is just that, real evidence.

>>>
>>> The only problem with that bare assertion is that it isn't true. Luke
>>> was written _after_ the events it describes, including the destruction
>>> of Jerusalem. In fact, the earliest actual manuscripts date from the
>>> late 2nd century; there is indirect evidence that they were authored
>>> earlier but the actual author is disputed, as is the date.
>>>

>> No, Frank, Luke was written before the destruction of the Temple.

>
> No, Suzanne, it wasn't. The best evidence we have suggests that it _may_
> have been written as early as the late first century (still after the
> said destruction), but in fact that evidence is not very good and there
> is better evidence that it was actually written after, and partially
> based on, the gospel of Mark, in the second century.
>
> If you have evidence that it was written earlier (other than just bare
> assertion, of course) then show it.
>

>>> And what about the nonexistence of Nazareth at the time that those
>>> events were purported to have happened? You plan to just ignore that
>>> and hope it goes away?

>> It's not true that Nazareth didn't exist. Frank Zindler, the editor of
>> American Atheist Magazine has claimed that Nazareth didn't exist and he
>> gives his reasons, which you can read at Wikepedia Encylopedia. But to
>> my knowledge, he doesn't show both sides. The synagogue in which Jesus
>> taught in Nazareth was torn down, as were all of the buildings a few
>> centuries after he lived on the earth. You can read about that also in
>> Wikepedia. Just because Frank Zindler thinks that the town isn't found,
>> doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

>
> Suzanne, something _did_ exist there. It _was_ found. It was a
> graveyard. Not a town. The town of Nazareth was founded at least two
> hundred years _after_ the events described in the gospels. And it's not
> just Frank Zindler that thinks so.
>
> Of course, if it _did_ exist, you have evidence of its existence, right?
> Other than bare assertion, that is.
>

>> It did exist. My father grew up in
>> Highland, Texas in Erath County. It's not on the map now. There is even
>> another city near Tyler now with that name. Thurber, a town that is now
>> a ghost town in Texas, which is 75 miles west of Ft. Worth is not known
>> by many anymore. I've seen it, and you can see where the coal-mining
>> took place, and you can see buildings. Yet it was one of the largest
>> bituminous coal towns in Texas, in it's day.

>
> Uh, huh. And this has exactly nothing to do with a town in Israel that
> didn't exist at the time the events described in the gospels were
> purported to have taken place. A town that was founded later (and early
> enough to have been mentioned in the gospels, which were generally
> written _after_ the founding of said town) and which still exists today.
>

>> Skeptics also doubted that
>> there was an Ai, that is mentioned in the Bible, now they have found it,
>> and excavation is going on there.

>
> Just because Ai is _mentioned_ doesn't mean that the archeology supports
> the biblical accounts. In fact, the archeological record shows that the
> city existed from about 3000 BCE but was destroyed at around 2400 BCE and
> never rebuilt. There is no evidence whatsoever for a late Bronze Age
> city at that site. Source: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/
> tsrmag/982front.html (http://tinyurl.com/3h8ef7), which itself cites
> _Biblical Archaeology Review_, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/
> December 1988, p. 24.
>
> The conclusion the original researcher comes to is that "[a]rchaeology
> has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as
> reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons
> between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of
> the Ai account in the Bible." Same source.
>
> So you're wrong on this count.
>

>> The prophecy about Jesus being a Nazarene comes from the book of Isaiah,

>
> Nope, you're wrong on this count as well. It comes from Judges and it
> refers to a "Nazarite unto God," not a "Nazarene." The Isaiah passage
> only says, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,
> and a Branch shall grow out of his roots," using a term with the same
> root as "Nazarene" but not referring to a town at all. Whoever wrote the
> book of Matthew just wasn't very smart or well-read.
>
> So I reiterate:
>

>>>>> So you're getting your "internal evidence" from a source that has
>>>>> been clearly shown to be unreliable at best.

>

>>> You see, I'm not as gullible as you are, Suzanne. I don't believe
>>> folks who go to great lengths to "prove" their bible just because their
>>> religion demands it. I've read as much apologetics as I can stomach
>>> (and it's entirely likely that I've read more of that crap than _you_
>>> have) and none of it holds water. These people build great chains of
>>> supposition and "plausibility" to support their preconceptions, yet
>>> they have not a dram of independent evidence. And when they find the
>>> occasional bit of real data that might be twisted to supply inferred
>>> support for their notions they jump on it and build great, shaky
>>> edifices.
>>>
>>> You _want_ to believe in the truth of your holy book. As for me, quite
>>> honestly, even if it was historically factual, I wouldn't believe the
>>> supernatural elements regardless; I don't _care_ whether or not the
>>> Bible is historically accurate. But it just so happens that it simply
>>> is not. And I find it amusing and often tragic that so many people base
>>> their entire lives upon a work of fiction.

>
> I note that you have ignored this entire section.
>

>>>> But biblical archaeology has
>>>> made great strides to help people such as yourself to realize that the
>>>> scriptures tell what happened and where.

>>> Um, no, it hasn't. The overwhelming majority of "biblical archeology"
>>> has failed to provide evidence of anything in particular. Of course,
>>> the very few digs that actually turn something up are jumped on by you
>>> clowns with cries of glee that you finally have something that "proves"
>>> your beliefs. But you're wrong.
>>>

>> I've never seen such a falsehood before as this, Frank!

>
> You don't read very much apologetics then, do you?
>

>> I've read of
>> many discoveries that are significant.

>
> Suzanne, no one has claimed that all of the places mentioned in the Bible
> are fictional. You and those like you are the ones claiming that all of
> them are true! And that just isn't so.
>
> By the way, discoveries that are archeologically significant are not
> necessarily (are usually _not_, in fact) theologically significant.
>

>> And why would Christians be happy
>> to find such things?

>
> Um, because they can point to such discoveries whenever someone like me
> tells them there's no evidence for the claims of their holy book? Is
> this a trick question?
>

>> Because of people such as you, who seem to need
>> verification.

>
> Oh, please. I don't "need verification." There's nothing to verify.
> Even if every mention of every town, village, person, dog and cat in the
> Bible were tree, there would _still_ be no evidence for the supernatural
> BS. Although I have to say that it would go a long way toward making the
> document a decent historical record, which it simply is not.
>

>> Not for themselves. You make a point of ridiculing me and
>> calling me "gullible." That's a very silly comment on your part.

>
> Nope. It's true. You are gullible. You have swallowed the claims of
> your religion uncritically and totally and now you are defending it to
> the limit of your ability. Which is, unfortunately, not very far.
>

>> There
>> is more evidence for Nazareth being a real place than there is that
>> there is not one.

>
> Yes, Nazareth _is_ a real place. Now. And historically back to about
> 200 CE. But not before that, and especially not during the time the
> events depicted in the gospels supposedly took place.
>

>> And you claim that I just want it to be true. I don't
>> just want it to be true, Frank, I know for a fact that it is true.

>
> Sorry, Suzanne, but I can see that you have doubts, as well. The harder
> I push with the facts, the more desperately you defend your beliefs. If
> you truly knew "for a fact that it is true" then you wouldn't worry about
> the problems I'm pointing out.
>

>> And as far as who is gullible, you are gullible to atheist views.

>
> Now many is that now? Five? Six? "I know you are but what am I" isn't
> a valid debating technique, Suzanne.
>
> Oh, and there's no such thing as "atheist views."
>

>>> Yeah, yeah, and scholars were skeptical that people had the ability to
>>> smelt copper in precolumbian America, but they did. And scholars were
>>> skeptical that people were able to make sea journeys of thousands of
>>> miles, but they did. Ancient people were just as capable as people
>>> today, there were just fewer of them and they didn't have as much
>>> knowledge. They _did_, though, have just as much ingenuity.
>>>
>>> It proves nothing but that people then weren't all idiots.
>>>

>> It does prove something, Frank. It proves that the shaft really did
>> exist, which skeptics had doubted that it existed.

>
> So what? That proves nothing but the fact that it existed. You seem to
> think that it also proves everything _else_ the Bible claims, which isn't
> the case.
>

>> Warren't shaft, by the way is in Jerusalem, not Nazareth.

>
> Yes, it is, are you confused?
>

>>>> Then they found the shaft and that
>>>> verified the story and that it was exactly as it was reported.

>>> Well, gee, seems that fictional stories are often set in real places.
>>> Imagine that!

>> You are in denial. What was claimed originally, was logically shown to
>> be wrong.

>
> If the skeptics claimed that there was no such shaft then yes, they were
> wrong, but that means nothing by itself. (And you apparently don't know
> what "denial" means.) Did you even bother to read my paragraph up there
> about smelting copper and sea journeys?
>

>>> But as you say below, all that proves is that there was such a shaft,
>>> not that the stories are true.
>>>

>> I didn't say that about Warren's Shaft! I said that about Troy being
>> found. Warren's Shaft IS the story, itself.

>
> No, it isn't. The Biblical story could as easily have been made up to
> explain the existence of the shaft as it could have been the story of the
> building of the shaft, and there's no way for you or anyone else to know
> the difference. Not without something other than bare assertion as
> evidence.
>

>> It would be equivalent to
>> people finding the wooden horse in the Troy story, that soldiers could
>> have gotten into.

>
> Right. A single-use tactic to win a single battle is the equivalent to
> the centuries-long existence of a massive public works project. Right.
>

>> By the way, the story about Warren's Shaft, earlier
>> people assumed that it meant that the water would flow through it into
>> the city. But now many think it means that people could walk through it
>> to go to the Spring and get the water. The other night on the History
>> Channel, they showed this actual tunnel.

>
> So what? Speculation is not evidence. Oh, and neither is a television
> show.
>

>>>You latch on to one single piece of data and
>>> try to turn it into support for the whole thing, when it isn't.

>> You are presenting me falsely! I usually show both sides of a story and
>> then show why I believe a certain side. I am not grabby about claims, I
>> consider them very carefully.

>
> You say that, but you don't _do_ it. You've _never_ "shown both sides of
> a story" in this exchange, not once! You invariably latch on to one or
> two small bits of data and try to claim that they are "proof" of your
> whole crazy belief system, hell, you've done it at least twice in just
> this one post.
>
> I'm not "presenting you falsely," I'm telling you, again, what I observe
> about your behavior.
>

>>> Of course, just above you claimed that the discovery of "Warren's
>>> Shaft" proved that the Biblical story involving it was true: "Then
>>> they found the shaft and that verified the story and that it was
>>> exactly as it was reported." But here you claim that all discovering
>>> Troy did was prove that there really was such a place.
>>>

>> It does show that the story is true. It shows that a passageway was made
>> through solid rock to get to the Gihon Spring in case of a siege of the
>> city.

>
> No, it doesn't. It shows "that a passageway was made through solid
> rock." Nothing more. That the passageway exists is indisputable. Why
> it was made is a matter of speculation without further data.
>

>> And you are wrong and presenting what I've said incorrectly. That
>> they found the archaeological site of Troy is great, but it does not
>> prove the story of the wooden horse. Finding the wooden horse would do
>> that. Warren's Shaft is equivalent to the wooden horse, in that it is
>> the story that was told in the Bible passage.

>
> Okay, here you go:
>
> Ceramics found in the tunnels by these more recent archaeological
> excavations firmly date the Warren's shaft system, and the tower
> defences to at least the 18th century BC. This expressly places it in
> the time when Canaanites controlled Jerusalem, and this, together
> with the guard towers, expressly rules out the possibility of anyone
> sneaking into the city in David's time via the shaft; the shaft's
> exit was heavily fortified as was the Gihon spring. In essence,
> conquering the city would have been more a case of capturing the
> guard towers and holding the city to ransom over its water[1].
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren%%27s_shaft, which cites Ronny
> Reich "Light at the End of the Tunnel: Warren's Shaft Theory of David's
> Conquests Shattered" (in Biblical Archaeology Review, vol. 25, no. 1).
>
> So no, Warren's Shaft does _not_ support the biblical story. Sorry,
> Suzanne.
>

>>> You have a double standard, one for your holy book and another for
>>> everything else. Your holy book is "special." Why? Because it is.

>> Er....no. Jesus prayed to the Father for people to be sanctified by
>> God's word. God's word already was special before he prayed that, but he
>> prayed especially that his followers, and also those who trust what his
>> followers (in his day) said in their testimonies (which includes us in
>> the future), should be "sanctified" by God's word. I've carefully shown
>> why the N.T. is God's word, too, by showing this that Jesus prayed. So
>> if you are another of the inane people that claim that Christians
>> "worship" the Bible, that's just plain wrong. We read it because Jesus
>> told us to do that. It is Jesus that is the one being revered and what
>> he has told us to do.

>
> This is babble. I said that you have a double standard, one for your
> holy book and another for everything else. You've just provided more
> evidence that you have that double standard, since you ascribe special,
> mystical powers to your holy book, in that it is "God's word."
>
> One would have thought that "God" would have gotten a few more things
> right when having all of that stuff written down.
>

>>>> It does not
>>>> prove that there was a wooden horse that was filled with enemy
>>>> soldiers. But it certainly is possible.

>>>
>>> Not so much, actually, since the story is a fable. Made up. Fiction.
>>> _Good_ fiction, but fiction nevertheless.

>> The story is not a fable anymore, since they found Troy. In case you
>> don't know it, that makes it real. It's extremely likely that the story
>> is true.

>
> Oh, _please_. No, it's _not_ "extremely likely" that the story is true,
> any more than it is "extremely likely" that _The Vampire Lestat_ is true
> because it was set in New Orleans. It's _fiction_, Suzanne. Just like
> your holy book.
>

>>>> But that is not the Bible. The Bible is brought about by those
>>>> following the Lord.

>>>
>>> Right. _Your_ book is "special." This is, by the way, the fallacy of
>>> special pleading:
>>> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
>>>

>> God's word has always been "special." All the words that issue forth
>> from the mouth of God are special. "Man shall not live by bread alone,
>> but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," Mattew 4:4.

>
> Again, special pleading. _Your_ book is "special." And you just can't
> understand how someone can't believe that.
>

>>>> Since you don't believe that, you are at a disadvantage.

>>> What, because I'm not deluded? Because I don't believe falsehoods?
>>> That's hardly a "disadvantage." I would call it an advantage,
>>> actually, seeing as how I spend neither time engaging in talking to
>>> myself nor money supporting the hucksters who call themselves
>>> "Christian leaders."

>> I'm not a huckster and I am a Christian leader.

>
> I might have known that you would think I was referring to _you_ with
> that.
>
> No, but you _are_ deluded and you _do_ believe falsehoods.
>

>> And I did not say
>> anything meaning the way that you are telling it. I merely said that you
>> would be at a disadvantage if you did not receive this. I did not say
>> that you were deluded. I think that you simply don't know.

>
> Suzanne, it's not a "disadvantage" to be free of delusion. It's not a
> "disadvantage" to fail to believe falsehoods. To you it's a
> "disadvantage" but to me it's sanity.
>

>>> But, unfortunately for you, the opposite is happening. "As things are
>>> discovered," more and more people realize just how insupportable your
>>> religion really is, just how much evidence there is that it is just
>>> another myth like all the rest.

>> What I have been saying that you are trying so hard to go against, is
>> that there are many things that have been found in biblical archaeology
>> that are in the Bible.

>
> Almost none of which support what the Bible actually says. Up to and
> including your much-referred-to "Warren's Shaft."
>

>> A very young person would not be aware
>> of any of that. Some older people aren't aware of it either. So when
>> someone says "there's no evidence to support the Bible," that simply is
>> untrue. There is a lot of evidence supporting the Bible.

>
> Ah, so you're saying that you can use the archeological discoveries as
> propaganda to convert the ignorant! Well, yeah, what else is new? What
> _I'm_ doing is trying to shine a little light on the subject to show your
> propaganda for what it is: False.
>
> Yes, I _know_ that you really mean it, and that you didn't mean
> "propaganda." But that's what you're saying, nonetheless. You're trying
> to use "biblical archeology" to support your propaganda to convert the
> ignorant and you're carefully ignoring anything that fails to support
> your preconceptions. You should be ashamed.
>

>>>> It doesn't have a thing to do with any kind of hoaky mystical powers.
>>>> It has to do with the Holy Spirit of the Lord who speaks to all.

>>> *snort* First you say it doesn't, then you say it does. Make up your
>>> mind, woman! Which is it, hokey mystical powers (i.e. the "Holy Spirit
>>> of the Lord who speaks to all") or no hokey mystical powers?

>> This has nothing to do with mysticism. This is what you just don't get.

>
> It has _everything_ to do with mysticism. That what your talk of the
> "Holy Spirit" _is_.
>

>> I'll explain. When you tell someone that your computer is capable of

>
> Oh, no! No! Suzanne, I'm a software engineer. I've forgotten more
> about computers than you will ever learn. Don't _even_ go there.
>

>> editing digital photos, do they tell you that you are doing that by
>> "mysticism?" No, but some of them think about like that.

>
> Yeah, and lots of people don't know how their light switches work
> either. So what? Ignorance is no excuse.
>

>> Many people are
>> still not very knowledgeable about their new computers and what they
>> will do. It's not a hoaky thing that your computer could do such a thing
>> because in order to do that, you have to have had the software loaded on
>> your computer to enable it to do the digital editing.

>
> Of course, you can actually touch, hear and see a computer. You can
> watch as the software starts and you can interact with it. You don't
> have to "believe in" the software to see and use it, you don't have to
> "believe in" the electrical socket in order to plug the computer in and
> turn it on, it works whether you "believe in" it or not.
>
> On the other hand...
>

>> What you don't get
>> is that the Holy Spirit is actually "downloaded" into a person when they
>> receive Christ as their Savior and Lord.

>
> You really don't have any idea how incredibly foolish you sound, do you?
> Now show me what button to push to activate the "Holy Spirit." And don't
> say "go pray" or "you have to believe," because you don't have to believe
> in the software to use it and this is _your_ analogy.
>

>> There are several definitions
>> of "mysticism." They way that you are using the term sounds more like
>> this definition: "vague speculation : a belief without sound basis."
>> This is not something vague or ethereal. It's a real transaction that
>> takes place, that the Lord gives you the gift of the Holy Spirit.

>
> How convenient that you choose the one definition that you think you can
> rebut. Nope, sorry, by "mysticism" I'm referring to
> 1. a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate
> reality or God.
> or
> 2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or
> intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly
> accessible by subjective experience.
>
> From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mysticism
>
> Wrong again, Suzanne.
>

>>>> It's not a
>>>> book of made up stories like every other book of any kind. Nothing at
>>>> all is like the Bible.

>>>
>>> Except that it is _just_ like every other "holy book" that has ever
>>> existed.

>> It is not. That's what you don't understand.

>
> Oh, I understand _perfectly_. I understand that you _think_ it's
> "special." That you have based virtually your entire existence on it
> being "special." Unfortunately for you, you have made a profound
> mistake, because it is not "special" in any way.
>

>>>> It is "God-breathed." Jesus requested to his Father that the Bible,
>>>> which is God's word, would sanctify those who will study it. The Bible
>>>> declares "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word."

>>>
>>> Yeah, I know it does. I read it five times cover to cover, remember?
>>> And many more times than that, just the NT. You know what it did for
>>> me? Not a damned thing. I started seeing the self-contradictions
>>> within it, as well as the contradictions between it and reality, and
>>> eventually stopped believing. This happened over 25 years ago and I've
>>> never had a moment's concern that I somehow might have been mistaken or
>>> wrong in some way. Quite the opposite, I began to realize just how
>>> silly and often crazy such religious beliefs are, and how little
>>> ability most adherents to such religions have to deal with reality or
>>> with beliefs that differ from their own.
>>>

>> What has happened that you did not get answered? Something is there that
>> I am sure I don't know.

>
> Suzanne, _nothing_ "happened that [I] did not get answered." Like I
> said, I started seeing the self-contradictions within the Bible as well
> as the contradictions between what it says and reality. As an aside, I
> _also_ started seeing the basic contradictions between difference so-
> called "Christian" beliefs. In trying to resolve these contradictions I
> gained one little insight that made it all make sense. Just one, and
> everything fell into place perfectly. I'll bet that you can't tell me
> what that one insight was, can you, Suzanne, "Holy Spirit" or no "Holy
> Spirit."
>

>>> Now you're just being silly. Don't you know that this stuff is utterly
>>> meaningless to people who don't already believe it?
>>>

>> It sounds to me that you have head knowledge without having heart
>> knowledge.

>
> Oh, _please_-and-a-half! Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, woman, you
> really don't know when to quit, do you? Suzanne, what you term "heart
> knowledge" is what the rest of call "fuzzy wuzzy feelings without basis
> in fact." A heart is a pump for blood, it doesn't _have_ "knowledge."
>

>> The Holy Spirit can reach you in your heart and show you that
>> he is real. That's what happened to the people in Acts 2:37 after Peter
>> testified to them. The Holy Spirit was a participant in the action, and
>> he was simultaneously working in their hearts as Peter spoke to them.
>> Christianity is not a religion so much as it is a relationship with
>> Christ.

>
> Yeah, whatever. Meaningless, like I said.