The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The bible was written a long time ago and was used as a way of controlling people. Ordinary people were scared of this thing known as God because they did not understand death. We still do not understand death but at least we understand life a little better.
God was used to explain the unexplainable but now we understand some of the unexplainable. We no longer need God like our ancesters. All we need is hope...
Human nature is destruction and the only thing that we should hope for is that we do not destroy the beautiful planet on which we live. We do not deserve the gifts we have but maybe one day we will be truely gateful for them...
God was used to explain the unexplainable but now we understand some of the unexplainable. We no longer need God like our ancesters. All we need is hope...
Human nature is destruction and the only thing that we should hope for is that we do not destroy the beautiful planet on which we live. We do not deserve the gifts we have but maybe one day we will be truely gateful for them...
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
> What 'inaccuracies'?
Some examples of biblical statements contradicting known history:
Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who's name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.
Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.
Daniel 5:30-31 says that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire. While there is a Darius the first in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.
Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.
Jeremiah 29:10 Tells us the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about. However, the elapsed time from the destruction of the temple (beginning of the exile) in
586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70.
> What 'inaccuracies'?
Some examples of biblical statements contradicting known history:
Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who's name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.
Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.
Daniel 5:30-31 says that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire. While there is a Darius the first in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.
Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.
Jeremiah 29:10 Tells us the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about. However, the elapsed time from the destruction of the temple (beginning of the exile) in
586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70.
What 'inaccuracies'?
Archangel wrote:
> Why did I drag this up? Because I wanted to go to the thread that said
> what I want you blokes to prove to me. Show me absolute proof that
> the Bible is fiction.
Then I'll be demanding absolute proof the bible is fact then. Beyond your own personal faith that is mind.
[edit] monkey_man beat me to it, apologies mm.
> Why did I drag this up? Because I wanted to go to the thread that said
> what I want you blokes to prove to me. Show me absolute proof that
> the Bible is fiction.
Then I'll be demanding absolute proof the bible is fact then. Beyond your own personal faith that is mind.
[edit] monkey_man beat me to it, apologies mm.
Archangel wrote:
> Why did I drag this up? Because I wanted to go to the thread that said
> what I want you blokes to prove to me. Show me absolute proof that
> the Bible is fiction.
Then you show us 'absolute proof' that the Bible is fact. There are plenty of inaccuracies and contradictions, but I think you're maybe taking it too literally. Most of it is just stories for the purpose of teaching morals and passing on traditional stories. I'd be surprised if very little was based on actual events.
But you want proof that it's fiction? Noah. So they re-populated the Earth with just two of each animal, eh? And then went all inbred to make up the Human race again? Not buying that, sorry.
> Why did I drag this up? Because I wanted to go to the thread that said
> what I want you blokes to prove to me. Show me absolute proof that
> the Bible is fiction.
Then you show us 'absolute proof' that the Bible is fact. There are plenty of inaccuracies and contradictions, but I think you're maybe taking it too literally. Most of it is just stories for the purpose of teaching morals and passing on traditional stories. I'd be surprised if very little was based on actual events.
But you want proof that it's fiction? Noah. So they re-populated the Earth with just two of each animal, eh? And then went all inbred to make up the Human race again? Not buying that, sorry.
Yeah, POP.
Why did I drag this up? Because I wanted to go to the thread that said what I want you blokes to prove to me. Show me absolute proof that the Bible is fiction.
And in the Word of God, just because you read the same passage for the hundreth time doesn't mean you may not get some new truth that was unrevealed to you earlier. His Word is always fresh and exciting.
The Bible is the Lord's Word and is the book of truths, it is interesting to read of prophecies in the Old Testament of Jesus, which later come to pass.
the bible is fiction...
OH it is i been following it for 1 week and its all a lie?
OH it is i been following it for 1 week and its all a lie?
Mormonism, Catholism etc. I'm not trying to be judgemental here, but anything that adds to the Bible or makes up it's own theory, is the foolishness of man.
Page: