Originally Posted by: Danny C.First of all, if you do research, the Bible is chronologically and historically accurate,

I have done research. The bible is not entirely historically accurate. The new testament is much more accurate than the old thanks to Luke, but I would expect the word of god to not have any mistakes.

For example, Clicky. There's no historical evidence that the united kingdom of David and Solomon ever even existed. The bible claims that their empire stretched "from the Euphrates to Egypt". It's simply not possible for an empire that size to exist without leaving [u]any[/u] evidence of its existence.

However, even if the bible were largely historically accurate that would lend no support to the truth of its spiritual claims. It takes no divine influence for men to simply write down what is going on around them in the world.

It has specific geneology that spans for hundreds of years, which match with historians own research,

First off, you've got to be joking. The bible doesn't even agree with itself on the genealogy.

Secondly, stop trying to bullsh*t me. You know, or should know, that there's no way to historically verify anything except a few key points of the genealogy (which hasn't been done), and definitely nothing before moses. Furthermore the most important part of the genealogy has been historically proven to be in contrast with what the bible says. Know who David actually was? The real historical genealogy shows that he wasn't a Jewish king but rather an Egyptian pharaoh. His name was actually Psusennes II, which was translated to 'David' much later. That argues against the truth of the bible's entire genealogy before david because there's no way for his family to both have been Egyptian royalty and Jewish.

Family of David / Psusennes
---------------------------
Ram / Ramesses
Amminnaddab / Amen-Nesbanebdjed
Nashon / Amenemneshu
Salmon / Siamun
Boas / Bas-Uasorkon
Obed / Amenemopet
Jesse / Harsiese
(David/Psusennes)


Furthermore, even if the bible did have a single cohesive genealogy that real history didn't argue against, so what? It would still only be possible to historically verify the life of a few key people in it and it still wouldn't prove anything. Welsh genealogies exist that trace all the way back to the kings of Troy, does that mean any of their myths are true? Nope. It takes no divine influence for a man to be able to write down who his parents and son are. Either way how well something agrees with itself is no evidence of its accuracy.

signs of the great flood are everywhere, but some scientists are saying that Pangea, a super continent, is the reason for all of the fossils found around the world by the same species.

There you go again, trying to bullsh*t me. Do you think I'm retarded or something? There is no real evidence of a global flood while there are a rediculous number of severe problems with the story.

That's another stolen part of your religion from Sumeria, btw. It wasn't Noah's flood, it was Ziusudra's.

For unexplained happenings in this world, we as humans try to find logic where there is none, just faith.

What unexplained happenings? Are you going to try proving the holy spirit to me now? I've been a member of four pentacostal churches in my life and I've never seen anything except massive loads of pathetic bullsh*t.

By the way, hundreds of documented witnesses saw Jesus after he died, it only takes two in todays world to convict someone to death.

Stop trying to bullsh*t me. There is no reliable evidence of any such thing. There isn't even any even halfway reliable evidence that Jesus ever existed except for one source that directly contradicts the bible.

The devil was in the beginning of christianity because he convinced eve to eat the apple from the forbidden tree of knowledge because he told them they would be "like God".

The serpent was the devil, you say? That's funny, because Judaism didn't even believe in a devil figure or angels until it 'borrowed' those beliefs from Zoroastrianism.

Where do you suppose the serpent came from? It was, like its garden home, just another stolen belief from Sumerian mythology. The serpent was actually named Nin-Gish-Zida in case you were wondering.

That is why there is a hell, Lucifer, the devil, was an angel but wanted to be better and more powerful than God and God sent him to reign in his own "kingdom", hell, seeming powerful now, but destined to fall in the end to Gods power.

Lucifer? Lucem Ferre? Lucifer wasn't even equated with the devil until Jerome and Milton (who were both mistaken). The ony time the name Lucifer is mentioned in the bible is in reference to a Babylonian king. The story of the fallen angel waging war with god was fabricated long after the birth of Judaism. As I mentioned earlier the belief in angels isn't even originally from Judaism. I fail to see how you hope to make a convincing argument by pointing out yet another one of christianity's many mistakes.

My point is that Christianity in not a knock off of anything, branched off yes, and it has been branched off of yes, but not a knock off of anything.

Branched? It's a pathetic knockoff of the very religions it's gone out of its way to exterminate. You haven't made a single valid point.

To the proof of a God, you must believe personally and I know I can't make anyone do that, but that is what it takes and then things will start to make a little more sense in this world. Thanks to anyone who read all this lol :)

...so the proof that god exists is dependent on a belief in god? That's circular logic. I have no use for such tripe.

I was a solid christian until pretty close to my ninteenth birthday. I spent a full semester researching history and science trying to prove to myself that the bible and modern christianity agreed with them. They don't. Don't give me that "you just have to believe" horsesh*t.