loooool

>>"The creation story is discredited? Someone forgot to tell a whole lot of people. Someone call mitochondrial Eve and tell her she didn’t exist."

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a story which claims earth predated the stars and sun, birds predated land animals, the upper atmosphere and space is literally an ocean, the stars are locked in a "firmament" just slightly above cloud level, and modern humans sprang complete into being six days after the creation of the planet has been completely, totally, and utterly _annihilated_ by literally every branch of modern science. Adding to the long list of things you apparently don't understand, Mitochondrial Eve was NOT the first female homo sapiens sapiens (nor were modern humans even the first species of highly intelligent hominids. On top of the older ancestors we evolved from or outcompeted we now know early homo sapiens sapiens actually existed beside related but genetically distinct hominid species such as Neanderthals and Denisovans.) To quote the people who coined the term:

"The study's lead author, Rebecca Cann, called her colleagues' and her choice to use Eve as the name "a playful misnomer," and pointed out that the study wasn't implying that the Mitochondrial Eve was the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived [source: Cann]. Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. In other words, there were many women who came before her and many women who came after, but her life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity's family tree grew."

All the "eve" theory here means is that, since mitochondrial DNA is ALWAYS maternal, at one point VERY early in homo sapiens sapiens history when populations were still very small and concentrated in one spot in Africa there was one woman who had such great reproductive success her progeny spread her mitochondrial DNA through all the other small, scattered tribes of humans. Not that she was the first or only human woman to exist at the time. Come on man, you're zero for two here with all these weak science gotchas you're trying to spring on me.

>>"The flood has quite a bit of debate still to this date. Debate as to scope of the flood mainly, and the effects as a result. Quite a few differing views on this, all with degrees of plausibility. Hardly the fabrication you have called it."

Ahaha this is hilarious. "If I pretend there's a rigorous debate about the flood that isn't entirely an one-sided debacle of Christians insisting scientists and historians are wrong while everyone else rolls their eyes, it's true!!!" Okay, so lets set aside the fact that the scientific consensus is the great flood described in the Bible was just a legend and concentrate at what the holy word of God has to say about the scope of the Flood:

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."

"20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[a][b] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. 24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."

That's pretty clear, man. According to the Bible the flood killed everything not on the Ark and totally submerged all land on earth including the mountains, which had at least 25 feet of water over their peaks, for about 200 days. How can there be debate on the scope of the flood when it's so clearly described in your holiest book, a document you consider to be the absolute word of God? I thought the Bible is was perfect and accurate? It was clearly a complete cataclysm that wiped out all life not on the Ark, as per Genesis.

>>"But let’s just deal with the few specifics you mention. The Ark, nautically seaworthy as designed."

Like usual you're just making unsupported assertions again, there's no way to look at the sparse information given about the ark and say "oh yeah that would be totally seaworthy." The only thing the Bible really tells us are that it had a single door, its dimensions in cubits (which comes out to 450'x75'x45' in feet,) that it was sealed with pitch, and it was made of "gopher wood" (although nobody has any idea for sure what this actually was because it's never mentioned again.) At 450 feet long it would have been over 100 feet longer than the longest confirmed wooden ships such as Wyoming, Great Republic, and HMS Orlando but curiously enough it seems the incredible engineering knowledge required to build such a massive seaworthy  ship was apparently lost forever as soon as they stepped foot off the Ark.  In the 1800s and early 1900s American and British yards built wooden ships in the 330-foot range (like the ones above) and every one was ridden with problems, constantly leaking in all but the calmest weather due to lateral flexion even though they used steel reinforcements to strengthen the wood. All sank or were abandoned due to their instability and constant leaks which could only be countered by constantly running steam pumps. Weird, it's almost as if... there's no physical evidence for the Ark and the ship itself is incredibly implausible because it's just an ancient story based on an even older story which is based on yet older poems?

>>"According to the designation of “kinds” of animals, that size of Ark would readily accept the full manifest, to include provisions."

This is another one of those things you insist is obviously just true (because reasons) but you provide no actual evidence or argument to back it up. Since it's made clear by God himself that every living thing on the earth that wasn't on the Ark was killed by the flood, the only logical(?) conclusion to the sheer number of distinct living species today would be that Noah successfully fit between two and seven examples of every animal species  alive in the past few thousand years (plus the food needed to sustain them for at least 200 days) into the Ark:

"Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in."

An Ark which, according to the Bible, had only three decks which were 450'x75'x15' for a total of 1,518,750 cubic feet (assuming it was rectangular like a barge instead of rounded like most ships, and made perfect use of internal space.) 1,518,750 cubic feet sure sounds like a lot but when you consider that he would have had to fit at the _very least_ 2,266,506 animals from all the currently-existing species (19,996 birds, 10,980 mammals, 18,168 reptiles, 12,866 amphibians, 2,000,000 insects, 204,496 arachnids) plus at least 200 days worth of food for all those creatures into that space it becomes hilariously impossible. That's an average of just .67 cubic feet of space allowed per animal without even taking into account both the thousands of species that have gone extinct in the last few thousand years and the fact that God actually instructed Noah to take SEVEN of each kind of "clean" animal.

How they all survived in the time after leaving the Ark makes no sense either- what did the herbivores eat, all the plants that had been killed and swept away by almost 200 days of flooding? What did the carnivores eat, the seven surviving antelopes? The two surviving swine? They would have wiped out their prey in a week.

The story of the Ark, as described, is literally impossible in every way. This story can only possibly make any sense if you, like most people in Biblical times, only know of the relative handful of species local to you and not the actual staggering amount of animal life that exists outside your little craphole village. Also you don't understand engineering. Or simple math.

>>"The common lore of the flood evidences to its reality"

Good point, if a bunch people repeat a simple and popular story then it MUST be true! That's how we today know that dragons were also real and how historians in the year 5572 will know of the plague that we have to deal with today: an endless stream of sexy vampires infiltrating our high schools and small southern towns.

>>"and recent scholarship is questioning the assertion of the Noahide flood being borrowed from Gilgamesh, to the opposite being the case. Comparing nuances of the texts, details, etc….and the typical permutation of embellishment in borrowed texts, supports this claim."

According to whom, actual historians or more random creationist websites that don't source anything? The Epic of Gilgamesh has been dated back to Akkadian texts that existed between 1800-1700 BCE (and were based on individual Sumerian poems that are even older, written in the 3rd Ur dynasty sometime between 2150-2000 BCE.) The oldest known account of Genesis I can find are the 4Q Dead Sea Scrolls, which from what I can tell from reading this study of the fragments have only been dated to about the second or third century BCE. Yet, even though the Sumerian poems (and even Gilgamesh) predate the oldest known version of Genesis by thousands of years according to all the studies I can find some "scholars" you refuse to name or quote have determined the latter is older than the former by looking at "nuances?" You are terrible at substantiating _anything!_

>>"The geocentric model is not promoted as you assert. You are making the mistake of equating relativism with geocentricity, the same as many in the church of Galileo’s time."

Yeah no, there are passages which explicitly state the earth is fixed in one point in the dome of the heavens, aka the "firmament." For example, 1 Chronicles 16:30 states the earth is fixed in place by the might of God: "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." In other cases it clearly states the sun moves through the heavens around the earth rather than the observer's point on the surface earth rotating away from it: "Psalm 19:6: It [the sun] rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat." In Joshua there is a passage where the titular character asks god to keep the sun from moving through the heavens:

"Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

Remember that as defined in other passages in the bible (as was the common belief in the day) that heaven was the dome-shaped firmament of the universe in which God reigned and cosmic bodies moved. Here it clearly states that the sun _stopped moving_ and stood still in the middle of not just the sky but the heavens. Where do you think the geocentric fanaticism of the Church came from? It certainly wasn't scientific evidence. [Hint: it was the bible]

This passage is also convenient because it helps to show how much of a fragmented mishmash the Bible actually is- the original book of Jasher, also referenced in 2nd Samuel, is completely missing. Not a trace of it survives. Kinda weird how God could misplace such an important historical document about the time he stopped the sun at the whim of a mere man, isn't it?

>>"Consider that “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”

Yes, lets consider that contextless, confusing nonsense about stretching a cardinal direction. Then just to tell you how much the author of those words actually understood the natural world let's look at the verse that follows it! "He wraps up the waters in His clouds, yet the clouds do not burst beneath their weight." Yeah this goes back to the idea of the firmament separating the waters of earth from the waters of heaven during the creation story of Genesis, which is to say that according to the Bible the sky is literally an ocean held up by a magic dome. And you still say it's scientifically sound?? On top of that this passage says nothing about the relation of the earth and the sun, why did you even post this?

>>"The use of the term “the round of the earth” uses the same word for round that describes a pregnant woman’s belly, not a pizza plate."Remember, even today our meteorologists publish sunrise and sunset times in our locales, are we today just as backwards, or is it a relatively useful term? You know the sun does not rotate around the earth, but it appears to move through the sky relative to your position."

How are passages which literally say "god made the sun stop moving through the heavens around the earth and stand still" related to the fact that the sun sets at slightly different times relative to your location and we acknowledge that today? What the heck are you trying to say? Almost none of these points are coherent with one another and none of them address the obvious passages in the bible which say the earth is fixed in place and it's really the sun which moves around it. Beyond the fact that the shape of the earth is separate matter from the geocentric beliefs of the Bible, there are actually passages which seem to say the earth is simply a flat plane! In Matthew and Luke Jesus supposedly ascends a mountain so tall it allows him to see all the kingdoms of the world- the problem being that would only be possible on a flat earth. According to a formula I found for calculating the visible horizon based on your height, even from the top of Mount Everest you can only see about 340 miles which is a _teeny_ bit smaller than the earth. Even from an impossibly tall mountain, one so high its peak would be in space (excuse me, I mean "the heavenly ocean above the firmament!) you could still see no more than half the earth at a given time. Like most people at the time the authors of this passage clearly didn't know the earth was spherical and thus has a very limited visible horizon, along with being MUCH larger than any of them knew at the time.

Isaiah refers to the earth not as a sphere ( "kadur" in Hebrew) but rather shaped like a "chug". This term refers to a "circle instrument," what we today call a compass, and the verb form of the word used in other places in the bible clearly means "to make a flat circle" or "to set a flat circular boundary." You can see an example of the usage of this word in the directly translated Hebrew version of Job 26:10: "He hath described a boundary upon the face of the waters, unto the confines of light and darkness." Other scripture declares that the earth has literal edges, or even corners that could be held and shook by angels.

The Bible is full of stuff like this. Taken together it tells us the earth is a large, flat, circular disk anchored in water below (the deep, Prov 8:27, Gen 1:2, 49:25, etc.) by pillars or foundations (1 Sam 2:8, Prov 8:29, etc.). Between the earth and this deep was Sheol, the place of the dead. The earth was covered by a "firmament," conceived as a large solid upside down bowl or "dome" (Job 22:14, 37:18), in which the stars were placed (Gen 1:14-20). Above the dome was also water placed there by God during creation, which was the source of rain. The dome had "doors" and "windows" to let the waters above fall to the earth (Gen 7:11, Isa 24:18, Mal 3:10, etc.). God was described as ruling the world from his throne above the dome (Psa 33, Psa 113:4-6, Matt 5:34, etc.).

These references are not just isolated anomalies amidst an otherwise scientific grasp of the world. These conceptions are pervasive throughout the biblical narratives, not only in describing the physical world, but extended into metaphorical applications relating to other topics or even simply as ways to talk about the world and God. There is seriously NO WAY that what the Bible tells us about the nature of the earth and cosmos is true unless you completely ignore all these absurdities and cherry-pick the meager few things it says which agree with modern science if you squint at them really hard.

>>"The exodus? You want to use Egyptian record keeping? Even knowing that they had a penchant for inaccuracy? For not recording embarrassments, even destroying records that would make them look bad? Historical records have improved a lot in recent times."

So Egyptian records that match up fairly well with what historians and archaeologists have found are worthless bunk, but the records kept by the Jews (ie stories that are outright impossible in many practical ways and contradicted by almost all current mainstream evidence) are airtight? Oh right, for a second there I forgot that you're arguing from the position that the Bible is automatically a sourced and respected historical document while literally everything and everyone else is wrong.

>>http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/08/09/The-Exodus-Controversy.aspx

Are you serious??? Are you? Like, are you an actual human being or are you some sort of chatbot whose only syntax library is the Bible? The "evidence" presented here, in order, is that the unverified story of the Exodus is true because:

1) Another unverified story in the same book says it's true
2) Archaeology hasn't found much to actually support the Exodus so logically it must be true because there's always the possibility the evidence just has yet to be found
3) Contrary to the statement above all the evidence was destroyed, which we somehow know even though there's no evidence for that because it was all destroyed. Here, look at this short list of historical evidence the Egyptians completely destroyed even though they actually obviously didn't destroy it because we're talking about those things here 3,500 years later! They couldn't wipe out all references to a handful of disgraced rulers but they OBVIOUSLY managed to do it with millions of slaves kept over multiple generations whose Jewish names would have been recorded in the accounts of every family who owned them! By the way, I literally have no idea what the phrase "mental disconnect" means!
5) Archaeologists are a shadowy cabal of people who hate the Bible and all believe the same things, so they just PRETEND the Exodus never happened! I mean, sure they all used to believe it up until the 1950s or so when they realized they couldn't find any evidence for it and that's why they don't believe it now, but BIAS! They're BIASED! Not like us pillars of integrity, who rebuke any science that disagrees with this ancient book written by... uh, somebody?
6) Duplicating point #1 there's later mentions of the Exodus in Biblical passages that were written by...  somebody, again? Well, a circular argument is still an argument, right???

This is pathetic. Literally the only archaeological evidence they bring to the table is a very weak body of work by biblical fringe archaeologists which has been rebutted by a much larger body of more recent research. Searching for base sources on many of these people and claims doesn't lead me to peer-reviewed studies or anything approaching a primary source, but more Christian sites which just repeat the same thing over and over with nothing to actually back it up! Many of the claims themselves are absurd, such as finding 3,000 year old footpaths in the Sinai desert supposedly made by the wandering Jews. A desert like the Sinai is constantly eroding and shifting, a footpath could be wiped away in days let alone millennia! The experts they claim that I can actually find info on are not independent researchers but are rather part of the staff of that very website and are obviously very heavily biased, if you look at their credentials they almost all come from private Christian colleges with a strong fundamentalist bent. Given how many of the claims I'm seeing on this page are contradicted by a great deal of the more recent research from non-secular authors that I've been reading recently, this "evidence" you've presented here is laughable. How about a single _shred_ of evidence that isn't weak conjecture and fudging dates? Where are the ruins of an entire army of armored troops in chariots scattered across the red sea? They've been looking for them for centuries now and haven't found jack, it shouldn't be hard to find _something_ at these known potential crossing sites you claim exist. And you say you can find ancient Jewish footpaths in the sand, but not the remains of campsites around rivers and lakes and other things so crucially important to a nomadic desert-dwelling people? Funny, they don't seem to have nearly as much trouble simply proving the existence of nomadic peoples elsewhere.

>>"Also, their records were far from the marvel you claim. The Egyptian king list was clearly errant, as was the Sumerian. However, use of the Hebrew sources enabled correcting those errors."

Substantiate this. I'm getting tired of calling you on your biases and vague unsourced assertions. Funny how the only "Hebrew source" I've ever seen regarding this is the Exodus story supported by little to widely-accepted archaeological evidence and CAN'T EVEN NAME THE PHARAOH that supposedly died chasing after the fleeing Jews. Seriously, it's just "pharaoh" this and "pharaoh" that, not a single proper name that would set a proper time or lend any credence to the story or prove that the Egyptians successfully erased from every records in their society an entire king's reign and the deaths of most of the Egyptian army!

>>"The plagues are evidenced, and explained away through natural phenomena.

That's pretty disingenuous to say the least. In reality there's _some_ evidence that _some_ events similar to _some_ of the plagues _may_ have happened (and could have been incorporated into the story) but they don't chronologically coincide with the supposed time in which the Exodus occurred as per biblical scholars and would have been spread out over a great amount of time. For example, the volcanic eruption that some claim is responsible for the plague of darkness? The most likely year for that is considered to be 1627 or 1628 BCE which would have been CENTURIES before the dates of ~1440 or ~1250 BCE that biblical scholars like to claim for the Exodus.

>>"Your references to specific towns are questionable, after all, you claim that Gedara is far from the Sea of Galilee when it was not, and Jesus even arrived there via boat!"

And ONCE AGAIN, neither of the completely different towns that Jesus supposedly did this in (either Gerasa or Gadara depending on which Gospel you're reading in this super-accurate historical work) is near enough to sea that it could have actually happened as described. On foot it would have taken about two hours to walk from the ancient ruins of the closest city to the coast (and from the other it would have taken 10) so it's literally impossible for any pigs to have jumped off a cliff there and landed in the sea unless Jesus attached rocket motors to them beforehand.

Again you're wrong, and again you're simply taking the inaccuracies of the Bible at face value! How can you be this obstinate and naive???? Given the inconsistencies and the impossibility of driving any animal into the sea even from the closest of the two towns, the story (stories, actually) of Jesus and Legion were clearly written by someone who did not know the simple geographic layout of the coast of Jordan. B-b-b-ut it's sooo accurate!!! Give me a break and go argue with a map if you think I'm wrong.

>>"Interesting also that so many scholars debate the exact point of the Red Sea crossing, yet there is no consensus on that location. Of course, none of the locations under consideration have the features you describe."

Gee, I wonder if there's no consensus on where they crossed because it would have been insanely difficult to cross a seabed anywhere and there's zero evidence for it to begin with? As far as I know the only person who ever claimed to have found a "shallow" spot or evidence of the Exodus in the sea was a disgraced crackpot with literally no formal archaeological training or credentials named Ron Wyatt. Among his many "discoveries" (which even Answers In Genesis considers to be blatantly false) are such gems as:

-a "shallow" route he claims could have been crossed by foot, which according to British navy oceanographic charts brought forth in rebuttal is actually a trench 2500 feet deep and miles wide, with a bed that's either jagged rock or several feet of wet silt that would be pretty much impossible to pass on foot. I mean, for crap's sake dude, have you ever SEEN the actual bottom of a deep sea or ocean? It's not like diving at a white sand beach far from the continental shelf, it's nothing but muck and underwater mountains.
-a "chariot wheel" which was clearly a modern steel pressure valve wheel from a ship
-the "ancient" fortress of Nuweiba which was actually built by the much later Ottoman empire
-a bunch of other really embarrassing stuff that Christians still quote like Solomon's Pillars, one of which apparently never existed and the other being simple stone rod which lacks any of the markings he claimed linked it to the Exodus, lol

>>"As to Herod, you really dropped the ball there. Herod the Great did pass, and was replaced by Herod Antipas, who outlived Jesus. The Bible even makes that clear, sorry you missed it."

What? WHAT?? How are you SO BAD at understanding this book you claim to revere so highly?? Holy crap!

The Bible makes it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that Herod the Great is the one to order the Massacre of Innocents. Chapter Matthew 2:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202&version=ESV

Since you obviously have trouble comprehending let me very clearly spell this out for you: the Herod first mentioned here is Herod the Great (the one that could not have been alive during the census despite the Bible's claims.) Herod attempted to use the wise men to find Jesus so he could have the prophesied king of the Jews killed to cement his power, but the wise men never returned with that information after being warned about Herod's intentions in a dream. His original plan having failed, Herod (supposedly) ordered the (elsewhere completely undocumented) Massacre of the Innocents.

Okay, so how do I know that the Herod the Bible refers to is Herod the Great? To avoid the Massacre an angel told Joseph to flee with his family to Egypt where they, AND I QUOTE THE BIBLE,  "remained there until the death of Herod." (Are you following this so far? Sorry I have to ask, but you haven't inspired much confidence in your comprehension abilities so far!) According to Matthew 2:20 Herod "died" after Jesus had already been born and spirited away to Egypt! They even knew of his "death" because an angel told them it was safe to go back to Judea. The reason they instead went to Galilee was because one of Herod's sons, who the Bible only mentions once in Matthew 2:22 and only refers to NOT as Herod but only "Archelaus," had taken over. Herod Antipas was his brother, and ruled a completely different part of Herod the Great's previous kingdom. At any rate, from this it is astoundingly clear that the Bible claims Herod the Great was the one who supposedly tried to kill the infant Jesus even though it would have been literally impossible according to other, better-documented sources!

>>"Josephus was a captured general who created rapport with his captors, but one of the few sources of the time. Still, absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence."

Actually no, a complete and total lack of evidence is a complete and total lack of evidence! You keep repeating this phrase over and over to keep from actually having to present evidence to back up your extraordinary claims but it's a logical fallacy, and one of the dumbest out there:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/54-argument-from-ignorance
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Absence_of_evidence

You should really, really, REALLY read through those because your entire premise here is based on repetition of a logical error that would make you lose a simple high school debate and in a roundabout you manage to defeat your own argument that the Bible is the lone truth- after all if argument from ignorance is a valid tactic it would not just apply to the Bible but EVERY OTHER religion or myth or legend.

>>"You yourself even admit the brutality of Herod the Great. Murder of dozens of infants was definitely not outside of possibility. It really wouldn’t have amounted to much more than that, and may explain why Josephus was unfamiliar or unimpressed."

I admit the brutality of Hitler but that doesn't mean I just assume he did every terrible thing possibly suggested by anyone, only the ones for which there are evidence. Josephus did not record it despite keeping a rather thorough chronicle of Herod's reign and no other Gospel but Matthew claims it, and what's the evidence for ANYTHING in Matthew being _true??_ Did you forget the reason I brought this up was because you claimed the Bible was this amazing, undeniable, historical work that has unerringly stood the test of time when in reality it's often contradicted by historians and even itself?

>>"That earthquake, it is documented, actually both of them. Look for them under April, 33 A.D. (ce)."

Where?? The only official reference I can find to a documented earthquake in 33 AD uses, as it's source, not any Roman records or scientific evidence but... the Gospel of Matthew. The link itself admits it is a terrible source and the quake may be nothing more than a legend.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/results?eq_0=8178&t=101650&s=13&d=22,26,13,12&nd=display

That means it's not actually third-party unbiased evidence for the events purported in Matthew, but is just the highly questionable repeating of an ancient religious text as fact!

I did find some news stories about a geologist who, two years ago, claimed he may have found evidence of sedimentary disruption which could suggest there was some sort of earthquake that happened near Jerusalem NOT in April of 33 AD but sometime in 31 AD (which doesn't coincide with either of the Crucifixion dates favored by biblical scholars) along with a much smaller "seismic event" they think happened "sometime between 26 AD and 36 AD." That's not exactly some sort of smoking gun like you're claiming given that Jerusalem is pretty much sitting on top of an active fault line:

http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/users/swdowinski/images/research-deadsea-fig-1.jpg

and Isreal/Palestine has been subject to great many recorded earthquakes both before and after that which certainly had nothing to do with any Crucifixions. It's interesting if true (and that's still a big IF since I can't actually find analysis or peer review of this work that isn't a two year old pop-science news article) and it's not like earthquakes are impossible near a fault zone. However, contrary to what you claim I CANNOT find evidence that there were actually two earthquakes in April of 33 AD outside of Matthew.

>>"The darkness has been recorded as well, but the dead saints walking among the living hasn’t much to back it"

Recorded by three of the four Gospels, yes, even though one curiously omits it entirely. Of those three Luke specifically claims it was a solar eclipse, even though that would be impossible as the Bible says Jesus died on the Passover (which only happens on the full moon which in turn cannot cause an eclipse!) As for sources outside of 3/4th of the Gospels? There is exactly one and it is laughably weak: in 800 AD a scholar named Georgius Syncellus wrote of a now-lost book penned by church father Julius Africanus around 220 AD, which in turn only makes passing reference to the long-lost writings of someone named Thallus. Of course, since Africanus doesn't actually quote Thallus and his works are lost we have no idea what he actually said, when he said it, or how trustworthy it is.

>>"Gadara, besides being near the sea, was home to Hellenized Jews, who were likely to herd pigs."

And ONCE AGAIN, neither of the completely different towns that Jesus supposedly did this in (either Gerasa or Gadara depending on which Gospel you're reading) is near enough to sea that it could have actually happened as described. On foot it would have taken about two hours to walk to the coast of the sea from the ancient ruins of the city closest to it (and from the other it would have taken 10) so it's literally impossible for any pigs to have jumped off a cliff in either and landed in the sea unless Jesus attached rocket motors to them beforehand.

>>Your camel statement is based on two researchers’ allegation, derived from copper mining site studies, and ignores other evidence that records camels in use much earlier.

"Allegation?" Really? That literally means a unproven assertion, which is certainly not what that study was. It's funny- when you claim something like "scientists have proved the exact earthquakes described in Matthew actually happened" it's "evidence" even though that's not anything like they actually claimed they found, but when I present a much more definitive case? It is, of course, a mere allegation!

I did somewhat misspeak and couldn't go back and edit it when I realized my mistake; dromedary camels _were_ domesticated earlier than ~900 BCE outside of Canaan, but according to current evidence they originated far from there and would not have been present where Abraham lived until long after his death. Would you care to enlighten me as to these other records of domesticated camels being used in Canaan thousands of years earlier than any archaeologist can confirm, or are you just going to keep ignoring my insistence you actually provide firm evidence and then just go back to misquoting the Bible??

>>"It is odd that archaeology uses the Bible as a source for promising sites, and is so often rewarded, yet you claim the opposite is true."

Probably because what you claim is only marginally true, and the Bible has led tons of archaeologists on useless wild goose chases! The Bible mentions lots of places but doesn't actually say much about them so it offers little in the way of direction to lost ruins, if you think it's a primary source for archaeologists who got a degree from a university that _doesn't_ teach that fossils were put there by the Devil to trick us you're hilariously misinformed. Its geography and chronology are often severely with at odds with what researchers commonly find. That list of links you posted earlier? Sure, that was stuff mentioned in or related to the Bible but the finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls? Yeah, they were not found with clues from that book. Someone literally just stumbled upon them. You seem to be constantly bringing this point up about the Bible guiding archaeology and it's constantly incorrect.

>>"Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other? Oh my, stop the presses. I wish you were around a few millennia ago, you could have saved billions of people the false belief they accepted. Why didn’t scholars or priests or someone working in the original language point this out? Why didn’t they change it when there was still time? How could so many be so knowingly ignorant? Did they not see this? Certainly there must be an explanation. Whew, There is.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/15/contradictions-two-creation-accounts
You may find a better explanation, but the point is, it is easily explained. More to the point, it was obviously known about for quite some time, and no attempt was made to redact, or was it ever a point of contention, so it must not be the glaring error you think. Or do really thing this was just brought to light recently?"

Ahaha, the actual differences are _way_ more substantial than that steaming pile of handwaving lets on. The sheer amount of mental breakdancing required by both you and the author to convince yourselves those two different things are exactly the same is very impressive, though, so hats off to guys for that.

The accepted order between the two versions IS different. Very different. So different you have to wonder how it happened if this was the Truth handed down by an all-powerful God. If you actually read through both books of Genesis instead of letting someone spoon-feed you the comforting cliff notes version you'll see what I'm talking about:

In Genesis 1 the order of creation of life was: Vegetation (1:11-12), Fish and birds (1:20-23), land animals (1:24-25), Adam and Eve simultaneously (1:27)

In Genesis 2 the order of creation was: Adam (2:7), Vegetation (2:8-9), All animals (2:18), Eve from a rib (2:22-23)

Actually if you want to know the real explanation: rather than common synonyms not being synonyms in this case because reasons, those two writings (along with so many others in the Bible!) contradict each other because they're from entirely different sects and traditions of early Judiasm but were later compiled and never resolved because that would be changing the word of God, which is blasphemy.

"A common hypothesis among biblical scholars is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC (the Yahwist source) and that this was later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like the one we have today.[6] (In the creation narrative the two sources appear in reverse order: Genesis 1:1–2:3 is Priestly and Genesis 2:4–24 is Yahwistic.)"

You can see a similar state of disagreement even today as there is not just one Bible! Protestant bibles are several books shorter than Catholic bibles which in turn several books shorter than Orthodox bibles, and there's a great deal of ancient apocrypha or missing books beyond that.

>>"The same is true for all of the other contradictions you could mention. There are huge lists of simple explanations for the supposed contradictions brought up. And atheists think they were the first to point out seeming contradictions, ha ha ha. At least you make me laugh."

Actually modern atheists sort of are some of the first people that can openly question those contradictions, because until pretty recently questioning all the problems in the Bible could get you shunned from your community or even _executed_. Open heresy was not tolerated in societies steeped in Abrahamic religions until very, very recently and in some places it still isn't.

>>"Calling people researching the Bible and its historicity biased because they are religious is like calling a heart surgeon researching cures for heart disease biased because he cares about diseases of the heart."

No, calling people who twist logic and science into a pretzel so it doesn't upset their dogma biased is the cold hard truth. The heart surgeon example is terrible because the only way a heart surgeon could be like a fundamental Christian would be if they loudly rejected proven modern medicine to try to treat a coronary embolism by balancing humors because that's this old book says and it just FEELS right, and then they called everyone who proved them wrong an idiot.

>>"After all There is no good reason to falsify data to support a religious view, it is contrary to the religion itself. An atheist, on the other hand, has no religious conviction to prevent him from such falsification."

..... huh? You have this completely backwards and it's hilarious given that I just caught you trying to erase Herod from the story of Jesus's birth and replace him with one of his sons so that you didn't have to address a major historical inaccuracy in the Bible. I have literally nothing to gain from this debate and it's actually been a complete and total waste of time aside from the satisfaction of making an ignorant and aggressive stranger look silly on the internet. Look- even If I convince you of everything above with my EVIL SCIENCE LIES what _possible_  tangible reward is there for me doing so? It's not pride or a sense of superiority because I don't know you so I can't even personally rub it in, here on the internet you can just ignore me any time you want. I don't have a deity to reward me for my non-piety or for bringing in anti-converts (and I'm certainly not working for the devil or anything goofy like that because I don't believe he exists any more than I do Vishnu.)

There's no unified organization of atheists with any sinister end goal who get together every Sunday morning and preen about how we sure don't believe that one thing and how grateful we are that our consciousness is tied to our bodies, one doomed to die for good with the other. There's no shadowy cabal of archaeologists who devote their lives to decades of study and then a lifetime of frustration in academia, constantly having to defend their conclusions just to fabricate evidence that contradicts just one of the MANY religious texts for no particular reason. As for my motivations why would I rail against the existence of God if I secretly though it to be true?? The ONLY thing that would accomplish is condemning me to Hell. The alternative of embracing it and begging God to cleanse me of sin would ensure me eternal life in paradise which sounds amazing in comparison to that. Like, how does this argument even make any sense? At all? What "good reasons" do I have for lying? Do you think I've got a little punch card and every 10 times I deny god I get a free Slurpee? I guess if all you know is dogma critical thinking may not be your strongest suit what with the former often actively discouraging the latter as heresy, but COME ON. Do you think I secretly see the truth and love of God all around me and pointlessly reject it to promote a cruel and sterile view of the universe with nothing gained on my end, knowing I'll burn forever as a result of denying him?? I was raised in a devoutly Southern Baptist household, I know how this stuff is supposed to work (even though I never once saw it in action.)

Like I said before what I believe follows this life- oblivion- scares the crap out of me compared to the alternative of a loving God welcoming me to an eternal paradise. I just don't see any evidence that alternative is actually true, anywhere I've looked.

You on the other hand (along with most other devout Christians) DO probably think you have plenty to lose if you can't keep proving to yourself that your beliefs are true. You have been commanded by the Bible to evangelize and spread the good word and carry out God's will, to bring others into the fold and save them from a terrible fate. You think you have a divine mission and on a personal level that undoubtedly makes you feel like you're part of something huge and important (or at the very least your religion provides an important social structure.) It's obviously a large part of your identity and is probably central to how you deal with the suffering the world heaps upon us all, for with many people their faith is their source of hope that there's something better waiting ahead and there's a greater force for good in the world. I don't even think you're lying (you seem to be implying that one of us must be and thus it must be me since you know you're not) because that requires malice. I just think you are really convinced you're right because it's what you want to be true, and have put on blinders to keep from seeing anything that could shake that faith.

In the end though, here's how it REALLY breaks down:

If you prove me wrong I get to cast aside my doubt and go to heaven and you get the satisfaction of saving a soul, maybe even gain an eternally grateful friend.

If I prove you wrong, welcome to my existential quandary of inexorably edging closer to your permanent demise every second that ticks by... with that benefiting me in no way.

I think it's safe to say that of the two of us one has far more than the other to lose by being proven wrong and it's not me.