Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

what jar said is true. there is indeed archaeological and historical evidence associated with some of the stories in the bible. for instance, we know from external sources that the assyrian invasions referenced in isaiah 7 actually happened, and that israel was, in fact, destroyed by the second one.the archaeological and historical records do not necessarily back up the bible's prophecies as 100% true, of course. even the bible's own history records do not do that -- simply compare 2 kings 15+16 to isaiah 7 to see that. there is also an image upthread of a stele left by shalmanessar iii, depicting someone described in the bible -- put as part of an event that seems rather intentionally left out.generally speaking, the evidence gets stronger towards the end of the old testament period.

---

אָרַח

this is because your replies are frequently answered by the thing you're replying to. repeating the refutation is necessary when you repeat the refuted claim.

---

אָרַח

you're going to have to try harder, dawn, considering that i quoted almost your entire post, as i have in nearly every reply to you. if you feel i have left something important out -- besides, you know, the stuff i've already addressed a thousand times -- feel free to point it out.my claims of misrepresentation were not baseless. they included context and clarification. yours are pedantry.

---

אָרַח

has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? look up "assumption" again, please. read isaiah again, please. read matthew again, please.

quote:

---

arachnophilia writes:

​

please cite me the chapter and verse in matthew in which the author of that text claims that god told him specifically what to write.

---

i've correctly limited the text to what it says, instead of what dawn imagines.

quote:

---

arachnophilia writes:

​

please cite me the chapter and verse in matthew in which the author of that text claims that god told him specifically what to write.

---

quote:

---

arachnophilia writes:

​

irrelevant

---

look up "confirmation bias" again, please.

quote:

---

you are misrepresenting my position. my position is not that we must read and believe the text, but simply that we must read it.

---

quote:

---

arachnophilia writes:

​

irrelevant

---

---

אָרַח

now, show that matthew the disciple wrote the book traditionally titled matthew.

---

אָרַח

again, Message 524, the post that grants the title to this whole sub-thread, i wrote:

quote:

---

my position is that we must pay attention to what is actually written, and not that we must actually believe it. they two do not go hand in hand, as i keep trying to explain to you. i do not know why you cannot grasp this concept. the accuracy of the source is irrelevant to concerns about how someone represents it. that includes me, my points do not have to be correct for your misrepresentation of them to be incorrect. at this point, i am forced to believe that you are doing this on purpose; that you are intentionally intellectually dishonest.

---

you continue to misrepresent me. the words are right there for anyone to check.

---

אָרַח

matthew doesn't indicate that. the verse you quoted says:

quote:

---

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

---

now, you need to explain several assumptions you have made. namely,

1. why "speaking" the testimony in the specific instances of being brought before tribunals (and potential martyrdom) is the same thing as authoring a gospel
2. why you think matthew the disciple wrote this book
3. why you think even a direct claim of inspiration that actually says what you want it to would mean the author actually is inspired

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

which you have consistently misrepresented, regardless of the fact that i keep restating the clarification between reading the words and believing every claim indiscriminately. completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not matthew misrepresents isaiah. you've got to be kidding me. i've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? my guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. it's just common sense.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

of course. i was just attempting to clarify that idea a bit with some added detail. not that this will help dawn. we can't get past "claims" vs "is", nevermind the subtle difference between embellished history, historically set fiction, academic history, and real events.

---

אָרַח