CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
17
Yes No
Debate Score:31
Arguments:82
Total Votes:31
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (14)
 
 No (16)

Debate Creator

Grenache(6054) pic



Is Biblical Archeology trying to discredit Christianity?

Yes

Side Score: 14
VS.

No

Side Score: 17
1 point

You have to be mentally incapacitated to believe the group who run Biblical Archeology are actually Christians. It does not take more than a few minutes looking at the site to see that they do not believe the Bible is the word of God, they do not believe in the deity or bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ...they are no more Christian than winos and witches are Christian.

Anybody who thinks people like those who run Biblical Archeology are Christians has to be something like a wino or a witch.....or severely mentally disabled.

Side: Yes
Grenache(6054) Disputed
2 points

1) You provide zero references or links to back up that there is any bias in this source.

2) The whole point of the link I had used was simply that the gospels were written many years after the death of Christ. That fact is largely accepted by even the vast majority of serious Christians. Do you deny that? Because if you don't deny that then there was nothing in the Biblical Archeology article to trigger your attempt to smear their credibility.

Side: No
NowASaint(1378) Clarified
1 point

The Bible defines Christianity. The site you think is Christian rejects the deity of Jesus Christ and His bodily resurrection. If you do not believe in those two things, whatever it is you are calling Christian is not Christian according to the Bible.

If you can't understand this, you are just too dense and not worth my time to give Bible references.

It is very easy to find on the B.A. site that they do not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ or His bodily resurrection. It only took me about two minutes and I knew it was one of those kind of phony anti-Christian sites just by looking at the way their home page is constructed and who they claim praises their work.

They are not Biblical, they are just using that term as a catch to get more following for more money. If they were honest and not just plain greedy, they would call themselves something like Judaism/Middle East Archeology and admit that they are just like the rest of the Anti-Christ sites which are Hell bent on trying to make God look bad.

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1378) Clarified
1 point

The whole point of the link you used is that you want to believe you have the right to exist outside of Hell. People like you pay those money grubbers at B.A. to help them feel like they have the right to exist outside of Hell. That's what it boils down to, you and others like you trying to justify your own lives and paying each other when you feel they do a good job of helping you believe that you are justified to exist outside of Hell.

Just a bunch of fools pretending to be wise....and you buy it.

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1378) Clarified
1 point

They are not Christian and they are not Biblical. They are working to smear the Bible and teaching to deny the divinity of Christ and His bodily resurrection.

They should be sued for fraud for calling themselves "Biblical".

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1378) Clarified
1 point

It's kind of hard to write books when paper is not easy to come by and those who believe the words of the books written, or caught carrying copies of the book, are thrown to the lions or used as human torches to light the garden of the Roman overlord.

It is anti-Christians who try to discredit the apostle John, and who try to deny the divinity of Christ and His bodily resurrection. The gospel story was passed mostly by word of mouth in the early days under constant threat of being tortured or killed if you believe in Jesus Christ. Writings had to be kept and passed along secretly and the news of the deity and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ could not be suppressed and the number of His followers only grew along with the persecution and in spite of people like "Biblical Archeology" who have been around trying to discredit the word of God ever since the Garden of Eden when the Serpent tempted Eve, saying "hath God said....?".

Yes, God said what He said and He made sure it was written down and preserved in spite of lions, torches, and the B.A. site.

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1378) Clarified
1 point

The vast majority of people who are considered to be "serious Christians" are not Christians according to the Bible.

And it does not bother me exactly when the gospel of John was completed and compiled, it's the gospel according to John. It is entirely true and without error.

The ending of the book does credit the book to John as the author, and I'm sure the early Christians who faced torture and death if they would not renounce their faith were fully confident that what John wanted written in his name was written exactly as John wanted it as John was specially chosen and commissioned by Christ. You might want to read about Polycarp who was John's protege'. From the time of Christ to now there has been an unbroken chain of believers who obeyed the Lord, and kept His word pure, intact, and unchanged often at the cost of their own lives and there have always been those who try to change it or discredit it in other ways. God kept His word and made sure that we have it exactly as He promised He would.....and He used people who obeyed Him to do it.

People who try to discredit the Bible just don't use much common sense. They always base their attempts on presuppositions which are illogical and ignorant of the reality of Christ living in His followers by His Holy Spirit. You, nor B.A., will ever succeed in trying to convince the world that Jesus Christ is not alive, bodily risen from the dead, and is not God. Keep on trying, you are wasting your breath and worse: you are heaping more and more of God's wrath upon yourself.

John 3:36

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1378) Clarified
1 point

Show me one time on the site you love where they say that they believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate and that He rose from the dead Bodily. It is not there. The site is not Biblical, it is not Christian. If you think it is Biblical or Christian, you do not know what Biblical or Christian is.

If they were Biblical, they would talk about the tomb where Christ was buried and the Roman seal set under guard of Roman soldiers who were supposed to make sure the body stayed put so that followers of Christ could not steal the body and claim that Jesus rose from the dead as He said He would before He was crucified.

If they were Biblical, all of their archeology would be showing facts which support the Biblical account of history; the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and His deity.

B.A. does nothing to show that they are Biblical, they should be sued for fraud for claiming to be Biblical.

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1378) Clarified
1 point

Your Catholic brother is doing the same thing you are doing, trying to justify his life by what he thinks is his own goodness....and both of you are failing to justify your life and both of you are on your way to Hell.

Do you deny that ?

Side: Yes
1 point

That looks to be an interesting magazine, thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I would like to ask why someone would think that it would be trying to discredit Christianity though. Could you clarify a bit?

Side: No
Grenache(6054) Clarified
1 point

See my post below yours. It explains all. ......................................

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1378) Clarified
1 point

They try to discredit the Bible because suckers like you subscribe and boost their ad sales.......it's all about money.

Side: Yes
Mint_tea(4647) Disputed
1 point

It's not discrediting the bible. It's using it as a source of written history to not only find locations but try to have more of an in depth description of the people and the times....such as what they eat, how they lived, where locations in the bible are, and the like. It adds more dimension to the Bible.

Side: Yes
1 point

Context. I used this reference in a debate with SaintNow:

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/gospel-of-john-commentary-who-wrote-the-gospel-of-john-and-how-historical-is-it/

After he blew it off earlier in the debate thread he came back to say:

"I am not interested in any source which is or which claims to be Christian while they attempt to obliterate the authority of God's word. Of course you love a site like that because you know God's word condemns drunks."

Check out the source. These are hard core Christian believers seeking to learn the maximum about the Bible. He is dismissing their quest as beeing attempts "to obliterate the authority of God's word." Seems to me the exact opposite is the truth.

And the last dig about condemning drunks is just one more cheap shot based only on the fact my avatar is fine wine related.

Sorry, I would have debated this exactly where it was but of course he banned me right before trying to get away with another set of smears.

Side: No
1 point

Ahhh I see, you must have been writing that as I gave that question.

Honestly, FW gives me a headache sometimes. It is cowardly to fear information simply because it doesn't add up to what he believes in which is his single source.

If a person's faith is so threatened that they can't even consider possible alternatives or educational study.... then their foundation for faith has cracks. But of course he wants to accuse them as being non-Christian, even though they are trying to understand and study the bible in a depth he can't or won't. That's par for the course, just as he bans those who bring facts and logic to his emotional debates, he will shun any findings or works that contribute to Christianity but don't fit his theme. I do believe having emotion in a subject isn't a bad thing at in, in fact many times I get where he is coming from; but denying all fact, reason, and logic just because it doesn't fit the bubble he wants it to be in, is.

Moving on though, I've said it before and I'll say it again, the study of Archaeology and the Bible is a fascinating one and I think I'll be taking a closer look at this magazine, so thank you again for bringing it to my attention.

Side: No
1 point

Seems to me the exact opposite is the truth.

That's why Republicans love Christians so much. Reversing the truth is considerably more difficult when you try it on rational minds.

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1378) Clarified
1 point

I call you a drunk because you have admitted many times that you are a habitual drinker, wino.

Side: Yes
Grenache(6054) Disputed
1 point

Having knowledge of fine wine does not make that person a drunk.

To use your analogy back at you, having knowledge of Christianity does not in and of itself make you a holy roller religious nut. Nope. But indeed your fixation on posting every debate about that does indeed.

Hey, if I posted nonstop debates about wine, other alcohol, or drinking games, then you'd have a basis for your claim. I don't.

Side: Yes
1 point

I cannot see how the study of ancient artifacts could be used to discredit Christianity. I have not heard any such claim being made so I do not believe it.

Side: No
Mint_tea(4647) Clarified
1 point

It wasn't made by an outside source, just another person on this site in another debate.

Side: Yes
Chinaman(3047) Disputed
1 point

Ancient artifacts should be discredited at all levels and history should be rewritten by Libtards.

Side: Yes

"The oldest shipwreck that we have discovered so far of that area is around 500 BC, classical period," Ballard said. "But the question is you just keep searching. It's a matter of statistics."

Still, Ballard said the find gives him hope that he will discover something older "because there, in fact, the deep sea is the largest museum on Earth," he said.

Ballard does not think he will ever find Noah's Ark, but he does think he may find evidence of a people whose entire world was washed away about 7,000 years ago. He and his team said they plan to return to Turkey next summer.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/top-three-archaeological-finds-2016-confirm-biblical-history

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/redseacrossing.htm

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/08/scientists-find-evidence-of-catastrophic-flood-of-4000-years-ago/

http://www.khouse.org/enewsarticle/2014/2199

https://www.google.com.gh/search?q=cbn+news+did+david,+solomon+exist&gws; rd=cr&dcr;=0&ei;=9OLgWc2lJcaWgAbx3bywCw

Side: No
1 point

Intersting link it's something I would enjoy reading myself as it's nondenominational and merely interested in historical findings .

Now A Stain is barking mad and only worthy of ridicule and as a lover of the odd ' cheeky red or two ' I've also been called a drunkard ..... wonder what he does for fun ..... bible study or biblical jigsaws no doubt

Side: No
1 point

I just subscribed to it, if you like I can let you know if it's worth it or not. It seems really neat so I'm going to be annoyed if it's mostly ads.

Side: No
1 point

Yes please do Mint it's sounds good , I hate those ad filled ones myself

Side: No
NowASaint(1378) Clarified
0 points

I called you a drunk because you said you like to drink, and many times you acted like you had a belly full of booze while you typed........bizarre rabid animal stuff.

Side: Yes
Dermot(5736) Disputed
1 point

I said I enjoyed a social drink , yes . The veracity of my claims regarding your insanity is a given , that you think honestyly stating what is regarding your insanity is the result of excessive booze is merely a symptom of your ever increasing paranoia

Side: Yes