I wouldn't exactly use wikipedia as a "trusted source" for one thing.lol.And for the record,I stuck around that debate for quite a few replies.Long after you dropped that subject and long enough to see you play the same tired "debate games" that you're doing now.
I can agree with you on wikipedia not always being a solid source, though pertaining to what I quoted- it's quite common for historians to know this fact. Your argument here amounts to "Apples are usually red or green, but since wikipedia says this, it's probably not true."
Several sources have been provided by the OP.That was the point.You don't want to except them because of the same old "tainted source" fears.
You're failing very badly here-- those sources were heavily refuted and anyone who actually read the thread would know this. To save you some time, those sources were dressed up to look legitimate (by the OP), but were actually just as credible as your Yacht-club myth link about the whale eating a man. If you could, please refute this with some credible knowledge of the subjects discussed. Actually I know you won't do this, so please stop backtracking and answer my original questions.
The Bible hasn't been significantly altered.I'm afraid I'll have to turn to you to provide proof for that claim.(and yes,I imagine I won't except it any more than you'd except my claims/sources.Ain't it always the way?)
The major difference here (as is presented throughout the thread) is bias. People searching for answers without a preconceived want is what real archaeology is. As you said, you were in this thread for quite some time. We've already proven the xtian arch's are being completely biased in their findings. However, if you are not to take something as legitimate as the Dead Sea Scrolls as truth (something I fortunately have seen up close), I suggest you kindly keep your bronze-aged mythology to yourself before you end up looking like a buffoon as you have here.
The fact remains that not everyone makes it their life's work to defend (or in your and Falcon's case attempt to destroy) the Faith.Those of us who don't have the resources at our fingertips to post (only in a futile attempt to get some of you hard headed skeptics to concede even the smallest claim) should not be mocked any more than the several atheists who post here with nothing to back themselves up.
Name an atheist here that refuses to back up their claims. Because I can name a xtian who refuses such simple requests...
So.....did Columbus discover America or not?We didn't SEEEEE him do it,did we?How can we trust what was written back in 1492?Some mad man came up with the whole story!Hearsay!Hearsay,I say!!!!
Columbus did not discover America. That would be impossible unless he was the first human on the shore of this continent. Considering natives were already there 20,000+ years earlier and he (negatively) interacted with them, your question needs to carefully be restated. Columbus did exist though, as there are countless valid and credible sources to his existence. Unfortunately such characters as Jesus do not share such parallels. Also, my first questions still remain unanswered.
*crickets still chirping*
for one,have "a life" and have no desire to spend a significant part of it in endless debates that can hardly be considered won or lost.If you want to consider anybody that leaves the topic before you say the discussion is over "running away",that's your problem.
Thanks for failing to answer my questions and show you can't follow your own belief system. It's always a pleasure! lol