Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The conquests of Joshua are also a myth. The Bible is literature not history.When checked, yes.
The conquests of Joshua are also a myth. The Bible is literature not history.
Nope. There was no Exodus, no global flood, no parting of the Red Sea. Jonah didn't live in the belly of a fish. Read the book of Jasher.You are provably wrong. Seventy percent of the biblical stories has been proven via independent archeological study.
So you lie.
How typical.
LOL!I‘m done here.
Why We Should Treat the Bible as Literature, Not Scripture - Areo
In the 17 May 2021 episode of his podcast, Jordan Peterson talks to Stephen Fry about how atheists view the moral value of mythology. (Fry, a well-known atheist, is also…View Postareomagazine.com
Maybe no worldwide floods, but there is evidence that the middle east suffered a history of great floods. Of "biblical" proportionsNope. There was no Exodus, no global flood, no parting of the Red Sea. Jonah didn't live in the belly of a fish. Read the book of Jasher.
The conquests of Joshua are also a myth. The Bible is literature not history.
Mostly in the river basins of the Tigris and Euphrates.Maybe no worldwide floods, but there is evidence that the middle east suffered a history of great floods. Of "biblical" proportions
You're like a child.Does it feel good having dropped your Christian pretense?
Camels in the Bible would be an anachronism.Does. I smell a camel have a verse in the bible?
You're like a child.
You don't like having your feet held to the fire? We've settled it then, you admit you are not a Christian.
Why would John be of any interest to a Jew?33 They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”
John 8:33
I’ve read all four gospels, from a curiosity standpoint, and John was far and away the most antisemitic. It was written much later, when the early Christians were angry that Jews weren’t converting, and really turned up the heat in John.Why would John be of any interest to a Jew?
That’s not even the issue…I’ve read all four gospels, from a curiosity standpoint, and John was far and away the most antisemitic. It was written much later, when the early Christians were angry that Jews weren’t converting, and really turned up the heat in John.
True. But I notice Surada didn’t start up a thread dumping on the NT. As a Muslim, she has the Jews, and only the Jews, in her cross-hairs.That’s not even the issue…
There are so many errors in the NT it’s embarrassing.