There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

The books of the bible are themselves evidence, corroborated by physical evidence. The accounting and geneaological tables are themselves evidence. You have to remember that evidence of David or Solomon don't come from one source; the Bible. The Bible is a collection of separate books, from different authors, from different times. Each of those are pieces of antiquity. It was only much later that it was condensed it to a single book.Also try and remember that finding anything over 3,000 years old directly pointing to a single man is extremely rare and difficult. Before the Tel Dan Steele, the same debunkers claimed that David was pure mythology. Now this piece of evidence isn't good enough. I happen to think that is evidence that nothing will ever be good enough so long as bias exists.There is also independent physical evidence pointing to Solomon. One wonders if you would ever use the same scrutiny about other historical figures. When nothing but incredulity and assault is presented to the bible, people would like to present evidence so as to place the naysayers in disrepute. Look at it sensibly. If these epic figures of antiquity were not actually real, it would take a collusion so colossal that it rivals modern-day conspiracies.Your excoriation of all things biblical is very telling, and it immediately questions your objectivity. You stated in no uncertain terms that it's all bunk. Well, that clearly isn't the case. And the more archaeologists dig, the more they corroborate the testimonies displayed in various books of the Bible. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

I read what you wrote. I have now read it a second time. My conclusion remains the same. The glaringly obvious sentiment you seek to portray is that anyone who asserts that biblical claims appear true, only does so out of ignorance. I am simply telling you that what you thought didn't have any evidence supporting it, actually does.

I am aware that many Christians pathetically try to invent parallels that don't exist. I'm so disturbed by it that I no longer refer to myself as a Christian. It's an absolutely meaningless term to me. I am so uninspired by the claims of someone being "Christian," mostly because there is no assurance that (s)he will think as I do. If there is some sort of unspoken comraderie supposed to be found between two people who think that Jesus is the messiah, it has thus far eluded me. Any real signs of someone existing over 3,000 years ago is expected to be sparse, other than perhaps the megalomaniacs of history who go to great lengths to preserve their memory and legacy (see Egyptians and Romans).But this sparsity could be said of almost anyone from antiquity, if you think about it honestly. The problem occurs when noticing the bias and motives. We don't generally see people saying that Plato was a fable, and that he never existed. Even supposing they did, you certainly don't see it with the same excoriation you do with all things Judeo-Christian.It gives a glimpse in to the psychology of the person denying it, their motives for doing so with such fanaticism, and what they hope to gain by doing it. It makes you wonder why they care so much about debunking Judeo-Christian figures, but could care less about secular persons of antiquity, and whether or not they really existed. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Lets not be coy here. Fundy atheists websites spend inordinate amounts of time trying to subvert any evidence that would corroborate the bible, and fundy Christian sites spend inordinate amounts of time trying to connect erroneous dots. Occasionally one side or the other is correct, but why they are making the inquiry is something seldom spoken about.If Berreta, whoever that is, is every bit as fundy as you say, do you then indict yourself in the opposite question? Okay, fair enough, if that's all that you said. You continued on in a tirade, going on about how you concluded the bible is total bs. The thread title should say it all. I don't either, but then, I don't like lies at all. I obviously can since I am critical of all extremism in any direction. What upsets me is irrational loathing. To be upset at so-called Christians lying to further a claim is reasonable, and that really ticks me off too, maybe even more for me than you because I at least have some vested interest in it. Though that is dwindling more by the day. What also upsets me is people thinking that there is this war against Christianity if the Christians somehow fail to measure up to Christ -- as if that is something to avoid.Confronting people about why they find Judeo-Christian beliefs or ethics so appalling, I find, can usually be traced back to their cognitive dissonance about it. They felt let down. And it's as if they shook their fists skyward saying, "you lied to me." Who are they talking to? While I understand it, it is nonetheless irrational, and they should be careful not allow it to fester.Christians and pagans should not be seen as us versus them. Individuals within each exacerbate the situation needlessly, I think.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

I spoke about fundy atheist websites. Do you host fundy atheist websites? If not, then what are you getting angry at me for? I'm simply pointing something very obvious. Uhhhh, yeah!!! Cave, you need to read what I write, because you are taking something personal that was extended to how other people take their cognitive dissonance. If that doesn't include you, then let it roll off of your back.Sensitive much?

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"