The point I'm making ...
How about responding to the points which "Falconer02" raised before going off on diverting tangents? If you cannot do so, (and feel compelled to diversions), then you are engaging in disingenious 'debate' tactics. If you can do so but, choose not to, the same conclusion applies.
(that I'm willing to bet didn't go over most people's heads) is that you can pick apart ANY old/ancient text for proof of validity.The Bible should be judged by the same standards.
No other ancient texts have been introduced into 'evidence' to test for validity thus far, (although the Dead Sea scrolls were mentioned by me only as extant evidence that what is called "the bible" isn't what was originally written and NOT as evidence of the validity of the concepts contained Scrolls themselves). The various versions of 'the bible' have consistantly failed evidentiary challenges to their 'religious' validity.
Many take Plato,Homer -even early American history at face value.The Bible,however requires some strange "iron clad" evidence.The burden of proof is on you to disprove,not me to prove.
Plato's writing concering philosophy and some religion. Both can be agreed to or, disputed. Neither are taken at face value by all. Once again, you, "jedijohnnie", do not have an accurate concept of logic; the burden of proof falls upon those who make an initial claim, ('positive' assertion), and does Not require a dissenting viewer to "disprove" the initial claimaint's claim. Not only is that lazy on the part of the initial claimaint but, is a dishonest dodging of the actual burden of proof requirement. For instance, you'd be unable to "disprove" a claim made regarding invisible pink unicorns however, it cannot be conclude from your failure to do so that IPUs exist. There is absolutely no confidence that you'll acquire the ability to reason any time soon so, one can conclude that you'' continue using illogical 'arguments' to prop up your specious religious beliefs.
Again,the evidence in archeology speaks for itself.
Yep, and so far, none of the non-biased, (secular), archeological evidence supports the tenuous claims by by biased/vested interest/religious 'archeologists'.
I have much ... books in my basement.
Doubtless most, (if not all), of them are from religiously-biased and therefore, dubious sources.
And again,your resorting to name-calling/calling out is childish at best.
Since you are falsely claiming both "name-calling" and "calling out"; the burden of proof falls on you as the claimaint. Post quoted evidence of the "names" you were called, (and if you can find any, evidence supporting the accuracy of those descriptions can be produced subsequently), and quotes verifying where this you have been 'called out'. If you fail to or, cannot do so then your claims are specious, (without merit), and the default conclusion drawn is that you've lied.