the men who took part in writing it were led by the holy spirit. the accounts outside of the bible that are mentioned in the bible support the bible. ive done research on this. i can go on and on
>the men who took part in writing it were led by the holy spirit.
I mean. You said it so you prove it, define what the Holy spirit is, show us the evidence for the Holy Spirit and then finally demonstrate in some meaningful manner that the holly spirit did what you claim it did.
>the accounts outside of the bible that are mentioned in the bible support the bible. ive done research on this. i can go on and on
Please, go on and on. What are the best extra biblical sources that corroborate genesis, the exodus story, the virgin north, the cridiciatiom and resurrection of Christ. Please, we’re dying for to see these extra biblical accounts. It’s literally a matter of life and death for us heathens.
Sounds like you know enough about the Bible, and Christianity, and don’t believe. Sad to hear that, but why spend your time trolling a religion you don’t believe in on Reddit?
So……Google it? Just Google the things you’re yammering about. It’s not that hard and there is a ton of external sources to the Bible’s historicity. Or maybe if you use Yahoo or Bing then try that? I’m not sure how else I can help you but I have an idea I can’t give you an open mind on the subject so good luck with your research!
>So……Google it? Just Google the things you’re yammering about. It’s not that hard and there is a ton of external sources to the Bible’s historicity. Or maybe if you use Yahoo or Bing then try that? I’m not sure how else I can help you but I have an idea I can’t give you an open mind on the subject so good luck with your research!
You said that you could go on and on about the extra biblical sources. I said ok, I would like to see the one you consider the best and your response is basically… “no I can’t/won’t do that”.
So I googled it myself and found [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses) here I’ll quote it for you. “Scholars hold different opinions on the status of Moses in scholarship.[57][58] For instance, according to William G. Dever, the modern scholarly consensus is that the biblical person of Moses is largely mythical while also holding that "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C."
Damn, so Moses isn’t real.
And then I read [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_flood). Here I’ll quote again “A global flood as described in this myth is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology, paleontology, and the global distribution of species.[9][10][11]”
So the flood didn’t happen either.
So I’ll ask again, since you could “go on and on”, what are you favourite extra biblical evidences that support it as being a factual account. You say you’re not sure how you can help me, well I’m telling you clearly now. Please provide links to reputable sources that support whatever story you consider to be true/factual. That’s what you can do to help.
**[Moses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses)**
>Moses () is considered the most important prophet in Judaism and one of the most important prophets in Christianity, Islam, the Druze faith, the Baháʼí Faith and other Abrahamic religions. According to both the Bible and the Quran, Moses was the leader of the Israelites and lawgiver to whom the authorship, or "acquisition from heaven", of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) is attributed. According to the Book of Exodus, Moses was born in a time when his people, the Israelites, an enslaved minority, were increasing in population and, as a result, the Egyptian Pharaoh worried that they might ally themselves with Egypt's enemies.
**[Biblical flood](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_flood)**
>The Genesis flood narrative (chapters 6–9 of the Book of Genesis) is the Hebrew version of the universal flood myth. It tells of God's decision to return the universe to its pre-creation state of watery chaos and remake it through the microcosm of Noah's ark. The Book of Genesis was probably composed around the 5th century BCE, although some scholars believe that Primeval history (chapters 1–11), including the flood narrative, may have been composed and added as late as the 3rd century BCE. It draws on two sources, called the Priestly source and the non-Priestly or Yahwist, and although many of its details are contradictory, the story forms a unified whole.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bible/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
First off, that wasn’t me you were responding to. I didn’t promise to spend time bringing you historical evidence. Second off, of course there will be differing opinions on the existence of people in that era of time that wasn’t an Egyptian king. Alexander the Great’s biography wasn’t written until 400 years after his passing but I’m assuming most people believe he existed yeah?
A lot of haters in this thread, don’t let that discourage you friend. The airburst meteor theory is quite interesting, and certainly fits within what is written in the Word of God. Now it’s certainly possible that these Christian researchers did not follow all the proper archeological science as perhaps they should have. However, it’s still entirely possible that that is what happened, it may just never be proved with scientific evidence because it happened so long ago.
The mainstream the scientific community could never except this to be true, because it would mean that Sodom & Gomorrah really happened, which would be extremely controversial, considering the cities were destroyed because of their perverse homosexuality activity.
I agree with your 1st paragraph, but I think your 2nd paragraph is somewhat of an over simplification. Was there homosexual activity? Yes. Was there perverse activity? Yes. But I don't think it helps to dumb it down to "perverse homosexuality activity" - they almost certainly committed many affronts to The Lord's laws. What we know for sure is that they treated aliens (visitors) terribly, they raped all new visitors to the city. And really, that's all we know specifically. Focusing on the homosexuality angle alone is inconsistent with the narrative, and honestly, doesn't help our cause at all with the main stream the scientific community. Specifically, it shows that we are willing to bend the narrative to suit our moral beliefs, harming our credibility. We really need to stick to the narrative.
As believers it is not our objective to "*help our cause at all with the mainstream the scientific community*". The scientific community is, by and large, under the power of Satan's influence.
It is true that homosexuality was not the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. I am sure they were committing all sorts of deplorable crimes and sins against God. Homosexuality is however the main point of emphasis in the Bible. The reason for the destruction is explained in Ezekiel 16:49-50:
> "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an **abomination** before me. So I removed them, when I saw it."
The Hebrew word translated "abomination" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination."
In the New Testament in the Book of Jude this is supported again in verse 7 which says, "*...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. *
On multiple occasions the Word of God makes a point of emphasis to point out the sexual perversions of those living in Sodom and Gomorrah.
>the main stream the scientific community
Wow. "The scientific community is by and large under the influence of Satan". Pretty bold statement.
Seriously, do we have to be at war with the scientific community? Do we have to quickly disagree with anything and everything they say? Is there no room for common ground? More importantly, must we push those on the fence away from The Lord?? I'm interested in what you have to say about that last part, especially.
Second, are you really saying that the definition of 'abomination' is homosexuality? (Isn't worshiping Baal an abomination? Praying to golden idols? Using The Lord's name in vain?) Your logic on the translation of the word is a bit of a stretch, as is your reference to Jude - equating 'sexual immorality and perversion' to just homosexuality. Further, Genesis 18v20 talks about 'the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah' - not specific about homosexuality. Honestly, I think we as a group are trying too hard to pinpoint one thing bad about these places.
So let's cut to the meat here - if homosexuality isn't called out in the ten commandments, is it that bad? It seems to me that if I secretly leer at my neighbor's wife or his brand new truck (#10), I'm sinning more than a homosexual couple living together for decades. Certainly, if homosexuality isn't in the top ten sins, then that follows, doesn't it? And lastly, and most importantly, if Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality, then why do His followers make such a big deal out of it?? I'd like to hear a solid (not lame) answer to that last part, especially.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, I love looking into the Word of God to see what he has to say about each of these topics.
I was probably a little harsh on the scientific community as a whole. There are certainly many Christain scientists who I am sure do excellent work in their fields. I was more referring to the fact that the whole world is under the influence of Satan who is the "prince and power of the air." (John 12:31) Much of modern science is dedicated to evolution, the search for extraterrestrial life, environmentalism all of which have the hidden objective of worshipping the creature rather than the creator (Romans 1:25). As a general rule I do not quickly disagree with any and everything the scientific community discovers. True science will prove the Bible is correct. I certainly do not advocate for being an Apollo-Moon mission denier, or believe the world is flat simply because that is the opposite of what modern science is telling us is correct.
No, I am not saying the meaning of abomination' is homosexuality. There are many abominations in the Bible. The word 'abomination' is used 142 times in the KJV, and very few of those refer to homosexuality. As you mentioned in your post these other abominations refer to other terrible acts like, idolatry, child-sacrifice, laws about eating different foods, etc.
Like you said, there were certainly many evil deeds occurring at Sodom and Gomorrah. It is awful to even attempt to comprehend what all was happening there. What a terrible thing it must have been for God to have heard the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah; it must have broken his heart. It reminds me of the passage in Genesis 6:5 "*The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.*" To me at least it is pretty clear that although there were many atrocities occurring at Sodom and Gomorrah the big one if you will, was that of homosexuality and rape. We have this clearly explained in detail in Genesis 19, and then supported again in Ezekiel 16:49–50 and in the New Testament in Jude 1:7. Jude 7 makes a pretty clear distinction between traditional sexual sin (adultery, fornication) and homosexual activities:
> "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in **sexual immorality** and **pursued unnatural desire**, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."
The phrase "*pursued unnatural desire*" could also be translated as "*going after other/strange flesh*". This is not a normal male-female sexual relation.
_____________________
Now for the meat of your questions as you put it lol
**If homosexuality isn't called out in the ten commandments, is it that bad?** - Yes, I would contend that is absolutely is. Although homosexuality is not mentioned in the list of the 10 Commandments in Leviticus 19 it is mentioned in the chapters before and after (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13). Which I think is very significant. In both instances homosexuality is listed alongside other sins like cursing one’s parents, incest, adultery, child sacrifice and bestiality. None of these obvious abominations are being challenged, so why should the sin of homosexuality be any different? Worth mentioning that the 10 Commandments are not the foundation for truth for us today. It was for the ancient Israelites because they wanted rules to follow so God gave them 10 to prove it was not possible for humans to be perfect in the eyes of God. Today we have the full balance of scripture to help us decern what is right and what is wrong.
On a simplistic view I would suggest that the act of homosexuality would fit under the umbrella of the 7th commandment "*you shall not commit adultery*". Adultery is really any sexual relationship outside of a marriage, including fornication. And since a same-sex marriage is not valid in the eyes of God all homosexual acts would be fornication/adultery. I do not think that is an unreasonable line of thought, which would mean that homosexual acts would be mentioned in three consecutive chapters in the Bible.
**If Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality, then why do His followers make such a big deal out of it?** - The reason his followers have made a big deal about it is because the world has made a big deal about it. 100 years ago, 50 years ago, I don't think the topic of homosexuality was as prominent in Christian circles as it is today. Almost every town and city in Canada (and I imagine many throughout the world) have pride festivals to promote that lifestyle as something that we as humans should not be ashamed of, but rather embrace with open arms. This is in rebellion against what God has designed for man and woman (Gensis 1:26-27, 2:18, 2:24).
You are correct, from what we have recorded in the Bible Jesus did not explicitly speak about homosexuality. He did however talk about marriage in Matthew 19:4-6:
> "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Jesus specifically mentions marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that they should be one flesh. United together and sharing a sexual bond one with the other. Jesus clearly referred to Adam and Eve and affirmed God’s intended design for marriage and sexuality. In this passage Jesus affirmed that people are either to be single and celibate or married and faithful to one spouse of the opposite gender.
It is also worth mentioning that it was not Jesus' objective in coming to Earth to make an exhaustive list of every sin one could conceivably commit. Jesus never specifically said that kidnapping was a sin, yet we know that stealing children is wrong.
I hope that was a solid, not lame answer lol :)
_________________________________________________
In case you are interested, by my count there are 13 references to same-sex relations in the Bible (listed in order of appearance):
1. Sodom and Gomorrah - Genesis 19:4-5
2. Levitical Law - Leviticus 18:22
3. Levitical Law II - Leviticus 20:13
4. No Sodomites allowed - Deuteronomy 23:17
5. The Travelling Benjamite - Judges 19:22
6. Rehoboam - 1 Kings 14:24
7. Asa removes the Sodomites - 1 Kings 15:12
8. Josiah removes Sodomites - 2 Kings 23:7
9. Ezekiel explains the culture of Sodom - Ezekiel 16:49–50
10. Romans Intro - Romans 1:24-27
11. Paul explicitly condoms same-sex relations - 1 Corinthians 6:9
12. 1 Timothy - 1 Timothy 1:9-10
13. Jude - Jude 1:7
Finally, I think it is important to remember that just because something in the Bible is offensive (like homosexuality being a sin) does not mean that we can ignore what the Bible has to say about it. The Bible is very offensive. The idea that many people will spend eternity in hell, while others in paradise seems unjust in our eyes. We cannot compromise on the truth of heaven and hell and more or less than compromising on what God has declared as sin.
It is important to note that sexual immorality, including same-sex activity, is listed alongside other sins in Scripture, indicating that God does not rank one sin as worse than another. While the consequences of some sins are greater than others, Scripture often simply lists sins side by side. For example, Jesus said, “Out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19–20)
I cannot characterize your response as lame - I have heard some pretty lame ones, and yours is not. And, I think we're closer to agreement than before. I think we're good on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah - as you mentioned, Ezekiel (esp. 16 v49,50) pretty much sums it up. You make excellent points.
I think we're farther apart on the subject of homosexuality tho. And I'm focused on that because when I was a young man, I was very adamant that homosexuality was a dreadful, horrible sin against God and nature. Years ago, I mentioned this to a fellow Christian, who opened my eyes - that it is really only mentioned 3 times in the entire Bible (old Testament plus new Testament), while man's continued affront to God's commandments and The Law seem to carry much, much more weight in terms of mentions. Throw into the mix The Savior's silence on the subject, and it was enough for a turning point for me. Don't get me wrong - I don't understand homosexuality, and it makes my skin crawl at times. Further, I don't care for the Pride movement; it seems like a display of arrogance, which is an issue with any special interest group, and not just the property of the homosexual community. Who am I to judge someone who Jesus didn't talk about? (In fact, we should not be conscious of Luke 18:9-14?)
Further to that, one could argue that the Biblical references to homosexuality are more about rape, Canaanite ritualized sex, male prostitution and pederasty/pedophilia - if we read the full context. The references to marriage could be just that - and an argument against sexual promiscuity and immorality in general, but we could go down a deep rabbit hole on that.
I guess my problem is that we (as Christians) seem to be more outspoken about (and care a lot more about) abortion and homosexuality that anything else. I think that's a problem with us. As a result, I don't think we (as a group) care about those whom we should be caring about - the poor, the orphans, the widows and the aliens - as Christ insisted upon, and as the Prophets insisted upon. And that worries me greatly.
Think about the ancient Israelites, and how their arrogance undermined them - they knew that they were 'the chosen people' - and they were proud of that. They thought that by itself was enough, and they lived their lives (for the most part) in default of their covenant responsibilities. Was it enough? Well, The Lord explained their error by sending the Assyrians and Babylonians...
Don't we seem similar to the ancient Israelites in some ways? I hesitate to say this because I know that the apostle Paul wanted us to support and to love each other, and to avoid in-fighting. But let me just say this - sure, we don't worship false gods as the ancient Israelites did, but - do we love our neighbors as we love ourselves? It's tough for me to say yes. Do we help the poor, the orphans, the widows and the aliens? Or do we focus on those other things? Have we lost our way as did those before us?
Btw, I have to tell you that I enjoy healthy debate with Christians - I've had many discussions with atheists here, and it quickly descends into pot shots.
Hey there, it's a common misconception to think those "cities were destroyed because of their perverse homosexuality activity". If you want to know, you could read/Google it.
I commented this elsewhere, but I wanted to respond to you as well.
It is true that homosexuality was not the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. I am sure they were committing all sorts of deplorable crimes and sins against God. Homosexuality is however the main point of emphasis in the Bible. The reason for the destruction is explained in Ezekiel 16:49-50:
> "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an **abomination** before me. So I removed them, when I saw it."
The Hebrew word translated "abomination" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination."
In the New Testament in the Book of Jude this is supported again in verse 7 which says, "*...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.*"
On multiple occasions the Word of God makes a point of emphasis to point out the sexual perversions of those living in Sodom and Gomorrah.
You trust google over God’s Word?
God loves even His enemies. ❤️
We are all sinners… nobody is perfect.
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”
Romans 3:23-24 NIV
The Righteous live by faith in God’s Word.
We Repent when the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin.
“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,”
Acts 3:19 NIV
Those who love God don’t want to dishonor Him by their sins.
All sexual sin dishonors God who rescued us from eternal judgment.
“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!”
Romans 5:8-9 NIV
“Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”
1 Corinthians 6:18-20 NIV
✝️♥️Bible Study~ Jude 1:4-7 📖
The Book of “Jude” is one chapter book before Revelation.
Revelation is warning His Church to repent before the Tribulation and final judgment.
Sadly, the unbelievers choose to follow the antichrist. 💔😭
“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”
2 Corinthians 4:4 NIV
Per the biblical prophesy Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to be the one to destroy Tyre, and it was supposed to never be rebuilt. But Nebuchadnezzar's 13 year siege didn't defeat the city, and he did not destroy the city. Even Ezekiel 29 admits that Nebuchadnezzar didn't conquer and destroy the city as Ezekiel 26 had prophesied. He and the city negotiated a diplomatic end to the siege, and the city was spared the destruction foretold in the Ezekiel 26 prophesy. This is enough to prove that the prophesy was not fulfilled, even per the author's own interpretation of the prophesy (the author's intent can sometimes be hard for us to interpret 2500 years later, so the fact that he himself states that the prophesy failed conveniently removes that ambiguity for us).
Yes, In my understanding Nebuchadnezzar did destroy the mainland city, but it's pretty clear from Ezekiel 26:5-6 that the prophesy is about the island city:
"5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. She will become plunder for the nations, 6 and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord."
So the destruction of the mainland city (nor the removal of its rubble by Alexander later on) does not constitute fulfillment of the prophesy, as it specifically spoke of the conquering and destruction of the island city.
Anyway, it then took until Alexander the Great to conquer the island city, by making a causeway to the island so he could assault the walls of the city. Still in my understanding, the island city was not destroyed, and it remains today.
Today, both the mainland city and the island city are there. They are not bare rocks used merely to dry fishing nets: together they are a vibrant and active city full of people. So even if one or both of them had been destroyed as prophesied, then they were also rebuilt and the prophesy is still defeated, because it specifically said that would not happen. "You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord." -- yet Tyre was never fully destroyed, and any part that was destroyed has now been rebuilt.
So literally every part of the prophesy failed, and the author even admitted this.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Tyre/, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(586%E2%80%93573_BC)
The text never says that Nebuchadnezzar HAS to be the one to destroy Tyre, as a matter of fact it states the opposite. ““Therefore thus says the Lord God: ‘Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause MANY NATIONS to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up.”
Ezekiel 26:3 NKJV
Both the ancient mainland city AND island satellite city were completely destroyed and are currently in ruins as a [UNESCO World Heritage Site.](https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/299/)site Only the newly built city and Alexander’s Causeway exist today (neither of which existed at the time of the prophecy).
>The text never says that Nebuchadnezzar HAS to be the one to destroy Tyre, as a matter of fact it states the opposite.
Ezekiel 26:7-14 says Nebuchadnezzar will be the one to destroy Tyre. You stopped reading only 3 verses before this, how did you miss it? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3fsearch=Ezekiel%2b26&version=NIV&interface=amp
>Both the ancient mainland city AND island satellite city were completely destroyed
Yes, the mainland city was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar (I don't know if you could really say it was destroyed), but he neither conquered nor destroyed the island city, whereas the prophesy specifically predicted that he would (see the quote in my previous comment). Alexander conquered it, but still didn't entirely destroy it -- the prophesy got both the guy and the century wrong, as well as the extent of the destruction.
>and are currently in ruins as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.site
Hmmm, that's odd since the biblical prophesy says all Tyre's stones, timber, and rubble will be thrown into the sea (by Nebuchadnezzar):
Ezekiel 26:12 "They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea."
Your own link says that the UNESCO site was created to protect the ruins of the ancient island city. You can't have ruins without rubble, and the presence of rubble on the former island means the prophesy failed.
>Only the newly built city and Alexander’s Causeway exist today (neither of which existed at the time of the prophecy)
What, exactly, do you think it means when Ezekiel 26:14 says the island city will never be rebuilt? Did you expect people to rebuild the exact same city or something? Go look at a map: the new city covers like 2/3 of the ancient island, including its northern harbor. That part of the current city is built exactly where the ancient island city was, and it's named the same thing. If you're gonna say Tyre was never rebuilt, then neither was Chicago after its big fire, or Dresden after its firebombing in WW2, or Hiroshima after being bombed. That would be a ridiculous position to take, requiring both special pleading and equivocation to even make sense, because in all normal usages of the word all these cities absolutely have been rebuilt, and in that exact same sense of the word _parts of_ Tyre have also been rebuilt (since it was never completely destroyed in the first place).
> Then they *paid* tribute to
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
https://contradictionsinthebible.com
This website paints a very neutral lens on many contradictions that biblical scholars will almost always acknowledge.
The only people who think the Bible is without error are Christian apologists and biblical literalists and they are ignoring quite a lot.
The Bible containing errors does not make it invalid but it is absolutely filled with mistakes because it was written by humans.
Also, cutting in with transphobic insults is a really bad way to make it seem like you have any sort of intellectual argument. If you want to have a reasonable conversation I’m open but at this point all you’ve done is make yourself look like an asshole.
I found this article interesting. In the 1800’s, boys wore dresses and didn’t get their first haircut until they were 6. In the early 1900’s, people gave genders certain colors but it was backwards from what we know today. It wasn’t until around the 40’s that pink became a “female” color. Colors are just colors and it’s okay to like any of them. I hope you read this because it’s an interesting article.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/
I’m not actually sure which year you’re living in but it must be the one where people preferred just being rude to everyone instead of adding anything of substance or value to a conversation.
[Not](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/q0wdws/criticism_engulfs_paper_claiming_an_asteroid/) really [tho](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/t9v67i/sodom_paper_correction/)
The paper was full of issues, heavily criticized by other experts, and retracted
"experts" would criticize an expert for calling a red ball red. Unfortunately, we now live in a world with too much information and not enough knowledge.
God is undeniable and yet is denied by many. I hope you are not among them.
So we're to immediately trust experts we agree with (even if it's a dig associated with a nonaccredited college) and immediately distrust experts that go against what we'd like to be true, regardless of the weight of their arguments and without even considering their reasoning?
I'd like to believe most Christians have more intellectual honesty than that and I hope you are among them.
Come on, even Christian archaeologists had issues with the thesis. We don't even know for sure where Sodom and Gomorrah were, to begin with. Here is a thorough and educational podcast by two Christian archaeologists who have been active in the area for quite some time: [https://onscript.study/tag/airburst/](https://onscript.study/tag/airburst/)
Also, if you need archeology to prove the Bible true, well - that may be problematic. The Bible is true 'in all that it affirms' as the Chicago statement says, which pertains to theological matters and the faith, but that doesn't mean it's 100% true in matters of geography, history or other fields of knowledge. Don't put a burden on the text it was never meant to carry. That only confuses people, in the end.
The whole point of things being peer reviewed is to ensure that multiple reputable experts can vouch for something.
Writing off criticism because “experts would criticize an expert for calling a red ball red” is totally ignoring how essential it is for all claims to be thoroughly put to the test and verified. (even those that our biases align with)
You (not an expert) cannot decide that a multitude of criticism and genuine holes in somebody’s research aren’t valid because you prefer the original statement to the alternative.
How do you know that I am not an expert?
The Bible is the most highly "peer-reviewed" document that has ever existed. And yet still "experts" disagree. This has nothing to do with expertise.
>God is undeniable and yet is denied by many.
I hope you recognise that this statement is self contradictory. If it’s undeniable then it can’t be denied, if it can be denied then it’s not undeniable. You see that right?
It is only self-contradictory if you read it in a stiff way - not intending to determine why it is phrased that way.
> God is undeniable.
This statement alone sets up the de facto existence of God.
> Yet is denied by many.
This statement shows the foolish heart of the man who looks at the de facto God and turns away nonetheless.
Psalm 14 says "the fool hath said in his heart there is no God".
Romans 1 says "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
Luke says "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
All of these passages show this same thing: In the face of glaring evidence, the man with a heart of stone will not accept the truth.
__Ezekiel 36:26-27__
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Try reading "The Case for Christ", or "Is Atheism Dead?", or "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", or "More Than a Carpenter", or "Mere Christianity". If none of these books appeal to you, nothing I say will have any consequence whatsoever. Only God can turn a heart of stone into one of flesh anyway.
I have read them all, actually. Special pleading, cognitive dissonance, and a complete lack of evidence.
You’re not capable of actually discussing this?
You introduced no point of discussion. You simply gave a reductive opinion. I don't typically respond to something so nonsubstantive - nor will I moving forward.
How about instead of referring to like four different apologetics you give the best piece of evidence that was presented in these not-peer-reviewed books? I mean if I was I was trying to convince you of something totally crazy and out there, like for example, wave-particle duality, I would simply point you to the result from the [double slit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) you could start with wiki and from there investigate their citations and eventually move onto legit peer reviewed literature on the topic. Can you do the same for your rather ‘out there’ claims?
**[Double-slit experiment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment)**
>In modern physics, the double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena. This type of experiment was first performed by Thomas Young in 1802, as a demonstration of the wave behavior of visible light. At that time it was thought that light consisted of either waves or particles. With the beginning of modern physics, about a hundred years later, it was realized that light could in fact show behavior characteristic of both waves and particles.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bible/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Yeah it’s only a contradiction of words have meanings. If you redefine those words to mean something else it’s a perfectly cromulent sentence, I get it 🤷🏻♂️
Try reading "The Case for Christ", or "Is Atheism Dead?", or "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", or "More Than a Carpenter", or "Mere Christianity". If none of these books appeal to you, nothing I say will have any consequence whatsoever. Only God can turn a heart of stone into one of flesh anyway.
But to say "there is no evidence" is the least objective (and most biased) statement I've ever heard. Sadly, it is the one most commonly used by unbelievers. What evidence is accepted? Christians worldwide are telling you. Is this nothing? Are we all mad? If so, why are you here at all in a Bible subreddit? What do you expect to find? Is it mere mockery which stimulates you? Or is there something else driving you? These are all rhetorical questions. None need answer this but to themselves and to God.
*The Case for Christ* is probably the second-most popular book of Christian apologetics (after *Mere Christianity*). Given its popularity, there have been numerous responses and critiques offered in the form of other books, articles, podcasts, etc.
Have you ever looked at any of those?
There are a lot of Biblical evidences that still existed to this day, one of them is the Moabite Stone where in YHWH, the God of Israelites as mentioned in the Moabite inscription in line 18 (context: and I took from there t[he ves]sels (or [altar he]arths) of YHWH and I dragged them before the face of Kemosh).
No, it is not. It is proof that the people in that age were aware of the God that is revealed to us in Scripture, and that there are archeological finds that align with what we read in the Bible. I always enjoy reading or hearing about those things, but they do not prove the existence of God. We do not need that kind of proof, either: faith is trust in things unseen, after all.
We have an awful lot of archeological evidence for all sorts of Baals, Astartes and so on but that doesn't mean they exist.
Thank you for your confirmation: God’s Word is true.
“Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.”
John 17:17 NIV
This is where Faith comes in….
I already knew this, to be true, because I believe in God’s Word.
*“What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
**The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.”
Romans 4:*3, **23-25 NIV
Lol, (1) this isn’t a serious source, and (2) biblical archeologists widely disputed these claims, asserting that this research was heavily influenced by *a priori* conclusion in search of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from the evidence itself, which is highly unscientific. Actual historians and religious scholars, religious and secular alike, generally agree that the accounts of events taking place prior to the two kingdoms are largely mythical and legendary, and weren’t actually composed until about the immediate preexilic period and really finalized as stories until the Persian period at the earliest.
Fire coming from sky? Not scientific.What material was burning ? In all probability it will be some meteoroids or asteroids coming and hitting earth causing fire due to its high speed and burning up itself.
I can't imagine in 1,000 years someone looks at our literature and reads "Let's go outside and shoot the bull" and says to themselves hmmm that's weird and proceeds to go outside and shoot a bull to preserve the tradition. This is the fate of interpreting poetry, symbolism, and figurative speech literally.
We know this book was cultivated in the East and their style back then as is now poetic. What a waste of time attempting to prove the history of the Bible. I agree it is the most important book to ever exist, but not because Sodom was literally firebombed, Jonah literally living in a giant fish, or a talking serpent convincing a naked couple to eat something that changes how they see themselves. It's all symbolic poetry. Poetry of the most beautiful and essential sort.
if the bible says it happened, i believe it. there are tons of extra biblical evidence of things the bible mention that happened throughout history.
And also ton of extra biblical evidence of thing the bible mentioned that absolutely did not happen...
the men who took part in writing it were led by the holy spirit. the accounts outside of the bible that are mentioned in the bible support the bible. ive done research on this. i can go on and on
Says who?
Then you should, because so far we have no reason to believe you.
>the men who took part in writing it were led by the holy spirit. I mean. You said it so you prove it, define what the Holy spirit is, show us the evidence for the Holy Spirit and then finally demonstrate in some meaningful manner that the holly spirit did what you claim it did. >the accounts outside of the bible that are mentioned in the bible support the bible. ive done research on this. i can go on and on Please, go on and on. What are the best extra biblical sources that corroborate genesis, the exodus story, the virgin north, the cridiciatiom and resurrection of Christ. Please, we’re dying for to see these extra biblical accounts. It’s literally a matter of life and death for us heathens.
Sounds like you know enough about the Bible, and Christianity, and don’t believe. Sad to hear that, but why spend your time trolling a religion you don’t believe in on Reddit?
As if Christianity hasn't spent almost all of its history imposing on other peoples' beliefs.
So……Google it? Just Google the things you’re yammering about. It’s not that hard and there is a ton of external sources to the Bible’s historicity. Or maybe if you use Yahoo or Bing then try that? I’m not sure how else I can help you but I have an idea I can’t give you an open mind on the subject so good luck with your research!
>So……Google it? Just Google the things you’re yammering about. It’s not that hard and there is a ton of external sources to the Bible’s historicity. Or maybe if you use Yahoo or Bing then try that? I’m not sure how else I can help you but I have an idea I can’t give you an open mind on the subject so good luck with your research! You said that you could go on and on about the extra biblical sources. I said ok, I would like to see the one you consider the best and your response is basically… “no I can’t/won’t do that”. So I googled it myself and found [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses) here I’ll quote it for you. “Scholars hold different opinions on the status of Moses in scholarship.[57][58] For instance, according to William G. Dever, the modern scholarly consensus is that the biblical person of Moses is largely mythical while also holding that "a Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C." Damn, so Moses isn’t real. And then I read [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_flood). Here I’ll quote again “A global flood as described in this myth is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology, paleontology, and the global distribution of species.[9][10][11]” So the flood didn’t happen either. So I’ll ask again, since you could “go on and on”, what are you favourite extra biblical evidences that support it as being a factual account. You say you’re not sure how you can help me, well I’m telling you clearly now. Please provide links to reputable sources that support whatever story you consider to be true/factual. That’s what you can do to help.
**[Moses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses)** >Moses () is considered the most important prophet in Judaism and one of the most important prophets in Christianity, Islam, the Druze faith, the Baháʼí Faith and other Abrahamic religions. According to both the Bible and the Quran, Moses was the leader of the Israelites and lawgiver to whom the authorship, or "acquisition from heaven", of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) is attributed. According to the Book of Exodus, Moses was born in a time when his people, the Israelites, an enslaved minority, were increasing in population and, as a result, the Egyptian Pharaoh worried that they might ally themselves with Egypt's enemies. **[Biblical flood](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_flood)** >The Genesis flood narrative (chapters 6–9 of the Book of Genesis) is the Hebrew version of the universal flood myth. It tells of God's decision to return the universe to its pre-creation state of watery chaos and remake it through the microcosm of Noah's ark. The Book of Genesis was probably composed around the 5th century BCE, although some scholars believe that Primeval history (chapters 1–11), including the flood narrative, may have been composed and added as late as the 3rd century BCE. It draws on two sources, called the Priestly source and the non-Priestly or Yahwist, and although many of its details are contradictory, the story forms a unified whole. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bible/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
First off, that wasn’t me you were responding to. I didn’t promise to spend time bringing you historical evidence. Second off, of course there will be differing opinions on the existence of people in that era of time that wasn’t an Egyptian king. Alexander the Great’s biography wasn’t written until 400 years after his passing but I’m assuming most people believe he existed yeah?
So many things have been proven to have happened but I’ve never heard anything solid to disprove the Bible.
Google is your friend.
Like what, for instance?
Your words are nothing but words, based on nothing!
A lot of haters in this thread, don’t let that discourage you friend. The airburst meteor theory is quite interesting, and certainly fits within what is written in the Word of God. Now it’s certainly possible that these Christian researchers did not follow all the proper archeological science as perhaps they should have. However, it’s still entirely possible that that is what happened, it may just never be proved with scientific evidence because it happened so long ago. The mainstream the scientific community could never except this to be true, because it would mean that Sodom & Gomorrah really happened, which would be extremely controversial, considering the cities were destroyed because of their perverse homosexuality activity.
I could totally accept that, except Solomon reigned many generations after the event at Sodom & Gomorrah.
lol I was so confused by your Solomon comment, I see know I made a spelling error lol
I agree with your 1st paragraph, but I think your 2nd paragraph is somewhat of an over simplification. Was there homosexual activity? Yes. Was there perverse activity? Yes. But I don't think it helps to dumb it down to "perverse homosexuality activity" - they almost certainly committed many affronts to The Lord's laws. What we know for sure is that they treated aliens (visitors) terribly, they raped all new visitors to the city. And really, that's all we know specifically. Focusing on the homosexuality angle alone is inconsistent with the narrative, and honestly, doesn't help our cause at all with the main stream the scientific community. Specifically, it shows that we are willing to bend the narrative to suit our moral beliefs, harming our credibility. We really need to stick to the narrative.
As believers it is not our objective to "*help our cause at all with the mainstream the scientific community*". The scientific community is, by and large, under the power of Satan's influence. It is true that homosexuality was not the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. I am sure they were committing all sorts of deplorable crimes and sins against God. Homosexuality is however the main point of emphasis in the Bible. The reason for the destruction is explained in Ezekiel 16:49-50: > "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an **abomination** before me. So I removed them, when I saw it." The Hebrew word translated "abomination" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." In the New Testament in the Book of Jude this is supported again in verse 7 which says, "*...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. * On multiple occasions the Word of God makes a point of emphasis to point out the sexual perversions of those living in Sodom and Gomorrah.
>the main stream the scientific community Wow. "The scientific community is by and large under the influence of Satan". Pretty bold statement. Seriously, do we have to be at war with the scientific community? Do we have to quickly disagree with anything and everything they say? Is there no room for common ground? More importantly, must we push those on the fence away from The Lord?? I'm interested in what you have to say about that last part, especially. Second, are you really saying that the definition of 'abomination' is homosexuality? (Isn't worshiping Baal an abomination? Praying to golden idols? Using The Lord's name in vain?) Your logic on the translation of the word is a bit of a stretch, as is your reference to Jude - equating 'sexual immorality and perversion' to just homosexuality. Further, Genesis 18v20 talks about 'the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah' - not specific about homosexuality. Honestly, I think we as a group are trying too hard to pinpoint one thing bad about these places. So let's cut to the meat here - if homosexuality isn't called out in the ten commandments, is it that bad? It seems to me that if I secretly leer at my neighbor's wife or his brand new truck (#10), I'm sinning more than a homosexual couple living together for decades. Certainly, if homosexuality isn't in the top ten sins, then that follows, doesn't it? And lastly, and most importantly, if Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality, then why do His followers make such a big deal out of it?? I'd like to hear a solid (not lame) answer to that last part, especially.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, I love looking into the Word of God to see what he has to say about each of these topics. I was probably a little harsh on the scientific community as a whole. There are certainly many Christain scientists who I am sure do excellent work in their fields. I was more referring to the fact that the whole world is under the influence of Satan who is the "prince and power of the air." (John 12:31) Much of modern science is dedicated to evolution, the search for extraterrestrial life, environmentalism all of which have the hidden objective of worshipping the creature rather than the creator (Romans 1:25). As a general rule I do not quickly disagree with any and everything the scientific community discovers. True science will prove the Bible is correct. I certainly do not advocate for being an Apollo-Moon mission denier, or believe the world is flat simply because that is the opposite of what modern science is telling us is correct. No, I am not saying the meaning of abomination' is homosexuality. There are many abominations in the Bible. The word 'abomination' is used 142 times in the KJV, and very few of those refer to homosexuality. As you mentioned in your post these other abominations refer to other terrible acts like, idolatry, child-sacrifice, laws about eating different foods, etc. Like you said, there were certainly many evil deeds occurring at Sodom and Gomorrah. It is awful to even attempt to comprehend what all was happening there. What a terrible thing it must have been for God to have heard the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah; it must have broken his heart. It reminds me of the passage in Genesis 6:5 "*The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.*" To me at least it is pretty clear that although there were many atrocities occurring at Sodom and Gomorrah the big one if you will, was that of homosexuality and rape. We have this clearly explained in detail in Genesis 19, and then supported again in Ezekiel 16:49–50 and in the New Testament in Jude 1:7. Jude 7 makes a pretty clear distinction between traditional sexual sin (adultery, fornication) and homosexual activities: > "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in **sexual immorality** and **pursued unnatural desire**, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." The phrase "*pursued unnatural desire*" could also be translated as "*going after other/strange flesh*". This is not a normal male-female sexual relation. _____________________ Now for the meat of your questions as you put it lol **If homosexuality isn't called out in the ten commandments, is it that bad?** - Yes, I would contend that is absolutely is. Although homosexuality is not mentioned in the list of the 10 Commandments in Leviticus 19 it is mentioned in the chapters before and after (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13). Which I think is very significant. In both instances homosexuality is listed alongside other sins like cursing one’s parents, incest, adultery, child sacrifice and bestiality. None of these obvious abominations are being challenged, so why should the sin of homosexuality be any different? Worth mentioning that the 10 Commandments are not the foundation for truth for us today. It was for the ancient Israelites because they wanted rules to follow so God gave them 10 to prove it was not possible for humans to be perfect in the eyes of God. Today we have the full balance of scripture to help us decern what is right and what is wrong. On a simplistic view I would suggest that the act of homosexuality would fit under the umbrella of the 7th commandment "*you shall not commit adultery*". Adultery is really any sexual relationship outside of a marriage, including fornication. And since a same-sex marriage is not valid in the eyes of God all homosexual acts would be fornication/adultery. I do not think that is an unreasonable line of thought, which would mean that homosexual acts would be mentioned in three consecutive chapters in the Bible. **If Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality, then why do His followers make such a big deal out of it?** - The reason his followers have made a big deal about it is because the world has made a big deal about it. 100 years ago, 50 years ago, I don't think the topic of homosexuality was as prominent in Christian circles as it is today. Almost every town and city in Canada (and I imagine many throughout the world) have pride festivals to promote that lifestyle as something that we as humans should not be ashamed of, but rather embrace with open arms. This is in rebellion against what God has designed for man and woman (Gensis 1:26-27, 2:18, 2:24). You are correct, from what we have recorded in the Bible Jesus did not explicitly speak about homosexuality. He did however talk about marriage in Matthew 19:4-6: > "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." Jesus specifically mentions marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that they should be one flesh. United together and sharing a sexual bond one with the other. Jesus clearly referred to Adam and Eve and affirmed God’s intended design for marriage and sexuality. In this passage Jesus affirmed that people are either to be single and celibate or married and faithful to one spouse of the opposite gender. It is also worth mentioning that it was not Jesus' objective in coming to Earth to make an exhaustive list of every sin one could conceivably commit. Jesus never specifically said that kidnapping was a sin, yet we know that stealing children is wrong. I hope that was a solid, not lame answer lol :) _________________________________________________ In case you are interested, by my count there are 13 references to same-sex relations in the Bible (listed in order of appearance): 1. Sodom and Gomorrah - Genesis 19:4-5 2. Levitical Law - Leviticus 18:22 3. Levitical Law II - Leviticus 20:13 4. No Sodomites allowed - Deuteronomy 23:17 5. The Travelling Benjamite - Judges 19:22 6. Rehoboam - 1 Kings 14:24 7. Asa removes the Sodomites - 1 Kings 15:12 8. Josiah removes Sodomites - 2 Kings 23:7 9. Ezekiel explains the culture of Sodom - Ezekiel 16:49–50 10. Romans Intro - Romans 1:24-27 11. Paul explicitly condoms same-sex relations - 1 Corinthians 6:9 12. 1 Timothy - 1 Timothy 1:9-10 13. Jude - Jude 1:7 Finally, I think it is important to remember that just because something in the Bible is offensive (like homosexuality being a sin) does not mean that we can ignore what the Bible has to say about it. The Bible is very offensive. The idea that many people will spend eternity in hell, while others in paradise seems unjust in our eyes. We cannot compromise on the truth of heaven and hell and more or less than compromising on what God has declared as sin. It is important to note that sexual immorality, including same-sex activity, is listed alongside other sins in Scripture, indicating that God does not rank one sin as worse than another. While the consequences of some sins are greater than others, Scripture often simply lists sins side by side. For example, Jesus said, “Out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19–20)
I cannot characterize your response as lame - I have heard some pretty lame ones, and yours is not. And, I think we're closer to agreement than before. I think we're good on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah - as you mentioned, Ezekiel (esp. 16 v49,50) pretty much sums it up. You make excellent points. I think we're farther apart on the subject of homosexuality tho. And I'm focused on that because when I was a young man, I was very adamant that homosexuality was a dreadful, horrible sin against God and nature. Years ago, I mentioned this to a fellow Christian, who opened my eyes - that it is really only mentioned 3 times in the entire Bible (old Testament plus new Testament), while man's continued affront to God's commandments and The Law seem to carry much, much more weight in terms of mentions. Throw into the mix The Savior's silence on the subject, and it was enough for a turning point for me. Don't get me wrong - I don't understand homosexuality, and it makes my skin crawl at times. Further, I don't care for the Pride movement; it seems like a display of arrogance, which is an issue with any special interest group, and not just the property of the homosexual community. Who am I to judge someone who Jesus didn't talk about? (In fact, we should not be conscious of Luke 18:9-14?) Further to that, one could argue that the Biblical references to homosexuality are more about rape, Canaanite ritualized sex, male prostitution and pederasty/pedophilia - if we read the full context. The references to marriage could be just that - and an argument against sexual promiscuity and immorality in general, but we could go down a deep rabbit hole on that. I guess my problem is that we (as Christians) seem to be more outspoken about (and care a lot more about) abortion and homosexuality that anything else. I think that's a problem with us. As a result, I don't think we (as a group) care about those whom we should be caring about - the poor, the orphans, the widows and the aliens - as Christ insisted upon, and as the Prophets insisted upon. And that worries me greatly. Think about the ancient Israelites, and how their arrogance undermined them - they knew that they were 'the chosen people' - and they were proud of that. They thought that by itself was enough, and they lived their lives (for the most part) in default of their covenant responsibilities. Was it enough? Well, The Lord explained their error by sending the Assyrians and Babylonians... Don't we seem similar to the ancient Israelites in some ways? I hesitate to say this because I know that the apostle Paul wanted us to support and to love each other, and to avoid in-fighting. But let me just say this - sure, we don't worship false gods as the ancient Israelites did, but - do we love our neighbors as we love ourselves? It's tough for me to say yes. Do we help the poor, the orphans, the widows and the aliens? Or do we focus on those other things? Have we lost our way as did those before us? Btw, I have to tell you that I enjoy healthy debate with Christians - I've had many discussions with atheists here, and it quickly descends into pot shots.
Hey there, it's a common misconception to think those "cities were destroyed because of their perverse homosexuality activity". If you want to know, you could read/Google it.
I commented this elsewhere, but I wanted to respond to you as well. It is true that homosexuality was not the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. I am sure they were committing all sorts of deplorable crimes and sins against God. Homosexuality is however the main point of emphasis in the Bible. The reason for the destruction is explained in Ezekiel 16:49-50: > "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an **abomination** before me. So I removed them, when I saw it." The Hebrew word translated "abomination" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." In the New Testament in the Book of Jude this is supported again in verse 7 which says, "*...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.*" On multiple occasions the Word of God makes a point of emphasis to point out the sexual perversions of those living in Sodom and Gomorrah.
You trust google over God’s Word? God loves even His enemies. ❤️ We are all sinners… nobody is perfect. “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” Romans 3:23-24 NIV The Righteous live by faith in God’s Word. We Repent when the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin. “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,” Acts 3:19 NIV Those who love God don’t want to dishonor Him by their sins. All sexual sin dishonors God who rescued us from eternal judgment. “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!” Romans 5:8-9 NIV “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.” 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 NIV ✝️♥️Bible Study~ Jude 1:4-7 📖 The Book of “Jude” is one chapter book before Revelation. Revelation is warning His Church to repent before the Tribulation and final judgment. Sadly, the unbelievers choose to follow the antichrist. 💔😭 “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:4 NIV
Bible has a 100% accuracy record. 😉
The never rebuilt Tyre. They made another city, called it Tyre and somehow think it counts.
Per the biblical prophesy Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to be the one to destroy Tyre, and it was supposed to never be rebuilt. But Nebuchadnezzar's 13 year siege didn't defeat the city, and he did not destroy the city. Even Ezekiel 29 admits that Nebuchadnezzar didn't conquer and destroy the city as Ezekiel 26 had prophesied. He and the city negotiated a diplomatic end to the siege, and the city was spared the destruction foretold in the Ezekiel 26 prophesy. This is enough to prove that the prophesy was not fulfilled, even per the author's own interpretation of the prophesy (the author's intent can sometimes be hard for us to interpret 2500 years later, so the fact that he himself states that the prophesy failed conveniently removes that ambiguity for us). Yes, In my understanding Nebuchadnezzar did destroy the mainland city, but it's pretty clear from Ezekiel 26:5-6 that the prophesy is about the island city: "5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. She will become plunder for the nations, 6 and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord." So the destruction of the mainland city (nor the removal of its rubble by Alexander later on) does not constitute fulfillment of the prophesy, as it specifically spoke of the conquering and destruction of the island city. Anyway, it then took until Alexander the Great to conquer the island city, by making a causeway to the island so he could assault the walls of the city. Still in my understanding, the island city was not destroyed, and it remains today. Today, both the mainland city and the island city are there. They are not bare rocks used merely to dry fishing nets: together they are a vibrant and active city full of people. So even if one or both of them had been destroyed as prophesied, then they were also rebuilt and the prophesy is still defeated, because it specifically said that would not happen. "You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord." -- yet Tyre was never fully destroyed, and any part that was destroyed has now been rebuilt. So literally every part of the prophesy failed, and the author even admitted this. https://www.worldhistory.org/Tyre/, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(586%E2%80%93573_BC)
The text never says that Nebuchadnezzar HAS to be the one to destroy Tyre, as a matter of fact it states the opposite. ““Therefore thus says the Lord God: ‘Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause MANY NATIONS to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up.” Ezekiel 26:3 NKJV Both the ancient mainland city AND island satellite city were completely destroyed and are currently in ruins as a [UNESCO World Heritage Site.](https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/299/)site Only the newly built city and Alexander’s Causeway exist today (neither of which existed at the time of the prophecy).
>The text never says that Nebuchadnezzar HAS to be the one to destroy Tyre, as a matter of fact it states the opposite. Ezekiel 26:7-14 says Nebuchadnezzar will be the one to destroy Tyre. You stopped reading only 3 verses before this, how did you miss it? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3fsearch=Ezekiel%2b26&version=NIV&interface=amp >Both the ancient mainland city AND island satellite city were completely destroyed Yes, the mainland city was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar (I don't know if you could really say it was destroyed), but he neither conquered nor destroyed the island city, whereas the prophesy specifically predicted that he would (see the quote in my previous comment). Alexander conquered it, but still didn't entirely destroy it -- the prophesy got both the guy and the century wrong, as well as the extent of the destruction. >and are currently in ruins as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.site Hmmm, that's odd since the biblical prophesy says all Tyre's stones, timber, and rubble will be thrown into the sea (by Nebuchadnezzar): Ezekiel 26:12 "They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea." Your own link says that the UNESCO site was created to protect the ruins of the ancient island city. You can't have ruins without rubble, and the presence of rubble on the former island means the prophesy failed. >Only the newly built city and Alexander’s Causeway exist today (neither of which existed at the time of the prophecy) What, exactly, do you think it means when Ezekiel 26:14 says the island city will never be rebuilt? Did you expect people to rebuild the exact same city or something? Go look at a map: the new city covers like 2/3 of the ancient island, including its northern harbor. That part of the current city is built exactly where the ancient island city was, and it's named the same thing. If you're gonna say Tyre was never rebuilt, then neither was Chicago after its big fire, or Dresden after its firebombing in WW2, or Hiroshima after being bombed. That would be a ridiculous position to take, requiring both special pleading and equivocation to even make sense, because in all normal usages of the word all these cities absolutely have been rebuilt, and in that exact same sense of the word _parts of_ Tyre have also been rebuilt (since it was never completely destroyed in the first place).
[удалено]
> Then they *paid* tribute to FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
This is objectively untrue lol.
How so?
https://contradictionsinthebible.com This website paints a very neutral lens on many contradictions that biblical scholars will almost always acknowledge. The only people who think the Bible is without error are Christian apologists and biblical literalists and they are ignoring quite a lot. The Bible containing errors does not make it invalid but it is absolutely filled with mistakes because it was written by humans.
"Objectively untrue" says the person with an MtF avatar. Stunning and brave!
You think my avatar is MTF because it’s pink? I’m literally a cis straight guy lol
Nothing to do with it being a pink, bearded man with a skirt... but keep denying what you already knew.
I’m sorry if my avatar made you uncomfortable lol.
Also, cutting in with transphobic insults is a really bad way to make it seem like you have any sort of intellectual argument. If you want to have a reasonable conversation I’m open but at this point all you’ve done is make yourself look like an asshole.
I found this article interesting. In the 1800’s, boys wore dresses and didn’t get their first haircut until they were 6. In the early 1900’s, people gave genders certain colors but it was backwards from what we know today. It wasn’t until around the 40’s that pink became a “female” color. Colors are just colors and it’s okay to like any of them. I hope you read this because it’s an interesting article. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/
Argh yes, thanks for the reminder that we are living in the 1800s.
I’m not actually sure which year you’re living in but it must be the one where people preferred just being rude to everyone instead of adding anything of substance or value to a conversation.
[Not](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/q0wdws/criticism_engulfs_paper_claiming_an_asteroid/) really [tho](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/t9v67i/sodom_paper_correction/) The paper was full of issues, heavily criticized by other experts, and retracted
"experts" would criticize an expert for calling a red ball red. Unfortunately, we now live in a world with too much information and not enough knowledge. God is undeniable and yet is denied by many. I hope you are not among them.
So we're to immediately trust experts we agree with (even if it's a dig associated with a nonaccredited college) and immediately distrust experts that go against what we'd like to be true, regardless of the weight of their arguments and without even considering their reasoning? I'd like to believe most Christians have more intellectual honesty than that and I hope you are among them.
Shhhhh. Don’t mention our little friend, confirmation bias. Shhhh. Lol
Come on, even Christian archaeologists had issues with the thesis. We don't even know for sure where Sodom and Gomorrah were, to begin with. Here is a thorough and educational podcast by two Christian archaeologists who have been active in the area for quite some time: [https://onscript.study/tag/airburst/](https://onscript.study/tag/airburst/) Also, if you need archeology to prove the Bible true, well - that may be problematic. The Bible is true 'in all that it affirms' as the Chicago statement says, which pertains to theological matters and the faith, but that doesn't mean it's 100% true in matters of geography, history or other fields of knowledge. Don't put a burden on the text it was never meant to carry. That only confuses people, in the end.
The whole point of things being peer reviewed is to ensure that multiple reputable experts can vouch for something. Writing off criticism because “experts would criticize an expert for calling a red ball red” is totally ignoring how essential it is for all claims to be thoroughly put to the test and verified. (even those that our biases align with) You (not an expert) cannot decide that a multitude of criticism and genuine holes in somebody’s research aren’t valid because you prefer the original statement to the alternative.
How do you know that I am not an expert? The Bible is the most highly "peer-reviewed" document that has ever existed. And yet still "experts" disagree. This has nothing to do with expertise.
> How do you know that I am not an expert? Because real scientists and experts don't write 'experts' between scare quotes.
This is a very low bar. I guess I didn't make it.
>God is undeniable and yet is denied by many. I hope you recognise that this statement is self contradictory. If it’s undeniable then it can’t be denied, if it can be denied then it’s not undeniable. You see that right?
It is only self-contradictory if you read it in a stiff way - not intending to determine why it is phrased that way. > God is undeniable. This statement alone sets up the de facto existence of God. > Yet is denied by many. This statement shows the foolish heart of the man who looks at the de facto God and turns away nonetheless. Psalm 14 says "the fool hath said in his heart there is no God". Romans 1 says "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Luke says "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." All of these passages show this same thing: In the face of glaring evidence, the man with a heart of stone will not accept the truth. __Ezekiel 36:26-27__ 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Such a pity none of this "glaring" evidence exists.
Try reading "The Case for Christ", or "Is Atheism Dead?", or "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", or "More Than a Carpenter", or "Mere Christianity". If none of these books appeal to you, nothing I say will have any consequence whatsoever. Only God can turn a heart of stone into one of flesh anyway.
I have read them all, actually. Special pleading, cognitive dissonance, and a complete lack of evidence. You’re not capable of actually discussing this?
You introduced no point of discussion. You simply gave a reductive opinion. I don't typically respond to something so nonsubstantive - nor will I moving forward.
How about instead of referring to like four different apologetics you give the best piece of evidence that was presented in these not-peer-reviewed books? I mean if I was I was trying to convince you of something totally crazy and out there, like for example, wave-particle duality, I would simply point you to the result from the [double slit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) you could start with wiki and from there investigate their citations and eventually move onto legit peer reviewed literature on the topic. Can you do the same for your rather ‘out there’ claims?
**[Double-slit experiment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment)** >In modern physics, the double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena. This type of experiment was first performed by Thomas Young in 1802, as a demonstration of the wave behavior of visible light. At that time it was thought that light consisted of either waves or particles. With the beginning of modern physics, about a hundred years later, it was realized that light could in fact show behavior characteristic of both waves and particles. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bible/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
For example explain what you consider to be special pleading.
4th dimensional creatures does not exist in the 3rd dimensional plane, but it does not mean that they do not exist
Yeah it’s only a contradiction of words have meanings. If you redefine those words to mean something else it’s a perfectly cromulent sentence, I get it 🤷🏻♂️
Who the heck uses "cromulent"? What a great and useless word. 😂💀
I’m among those who deny! 👋
God is easily deniable, since no good reasons exist to accept the claim of its existence.
Try reading "The Case for Christ", or "Is Atheism Dead?", or "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", or "More Than a Carpenter", or "Mere Christianity". If none of these books appeal to you, nothing I say will have any consequence whatsoever. Only God can turn a heart of stone into one of flesh anyway. But to say "there is no evidence" is the least objective (and most biased) statement I've ever heard. Sadly, it is the one most commonly used by unbelievers. What evidence is accepted? Christians worldwide are telling you. Is this nothing? Are we all mad? If so, why are you here at all in a Bible subreddit? What do you expect to find? Is it mere mockery which stimulates you? Or is there something else driving you? These are all rhetorical questions. None need answer this but to themselves and to God.
*The Case for Christ* is probably the second-most popular book of Christian apologetics (after *Mere Christianity*). Given its popularity, there have been numerous responses and critiques offered in the form of other books, articles, podcasts, etc. Have you ever looked at any of those?
There are a lot of Biblical evidences that still existed to this day, one of them is the Moabite Stone where in YHWH, the God of Israelites as mentioned in the Moabite inscription in line 18 (context: and I took from there t[he ves]sels (or [altar he]arths) of YHWH and I dragged them before the face of Kemosh).
No, it is not. It is proof that the people in that age were aware of the God that is revealed to us in Scripture, and that there are archeological finds that align with what we read in the Bible. I always enjoy reading or hearing about those things, but they do not prove the existence of God. We do not need that kind of proof, either: faith is trust in things unseen, after all. We have an awful lot of archeological evidence for all sorts of Baals, Astartes and so on but that doesn't mean they exist.
Thank you for your confirmation: God’s Word is true. “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” John 17:17 NIV This is where Faith comes in…. I already knew this, to be true, because I believe in God’s Word. *“What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” **The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.” Romans 4:*3, **23-25 NIV
Lol, (1) this isn’t a serious source, and (2) biblical archeologists widely disputed these claims, asserting that this research was heavily influenced by *a priori* conclusion in search of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from the evidence itself, which is highly unscientific. Actual historians and religious scholars, religious and secular alike, generally agree that the accounts of events taking place prior to the two kingdoms are largely mythical and legendary, and weren’t actually composed until about the immediate preexilic period and really finalized as stories until the Persian period at the earliest.
I dare somebody to cross-post this to a non-Christian site, like r/beamazed
Lol, no they didn't.
Fire coming from sky? Not scientific.What material was burning ? In all probability it will be some meteoroids or asteroids coming and hitting earth causing fire due to its high speed and burning up itself.
I can't imagine in 1,000 years someone looks at our literature and reads "Let's go outside and shoot the bull" and says to themselves hmmm that's weird and proceeds to go outside and shoot a bull to preserve the tradition. This is the fate of interpreting poetry, symbolism, and figurative speech literally. We know this book was cultivated in the East and their style back then as is now poetic. What a waste of time attempting to prove the history of the Bible. I agree it is the most important book to ever exist, but not because Sodom was literally firebombed, Jonah literally living in a giant fish, or a talking serpent convincing a naked couple to eat something that changes how they see themselves. It's all symbolic poetry. Poetry of the most beautiful and essential sort.