What's one thing got to do with another? The bible was written by fallible humans trying to preach a new religion. It doesn't matter if parts are correct. (and who's to say the ruins were part of a biblical city?)
ahaha, for you makno, anything maan, I need sleep and to stop being so bitchy. it's fun, but mean... but fun Sorry, I just see the bible as a collection of stories. Doesn't mean they aren't good stoires, or not apropos to the time they were created in.... but I'm also a fan of fact and of archaeology, and there simply hasn't been a historical/factual/archaeological record strong enough to prove every story of the Bible true. Hell, probably never will be - things are destroyed over time and the Bible isn't 100% true to what it's based off of
Dude, you're just fucking with us at this point. You don't know shit. Your inane comments are pissing me off. Your ego is bigger than it should be.
i finished it in a week, thorough reading (not fast) brings up another interesting question... how in the heck can you believe in god if you've never read the bible?????
i'm going to go cry now Read the bible. read a little about archaeology before you start using archaeological evidence as backing for the bible. PLEASE.
man im glad i came back here stoned, alot of this jib jab should of been over with, but it keeps going and going, its funny! hahaha
I've read part of the Bible. The rest I've heard from preachers. Woa, wait, no, stop; you better go back and capatalize God's name.
didnt he also kill a nation of 20,000 nonbelievers because god told him to? yeah, a god like that deserves a lot of praising. if more people read the bible only the insane ones would dare call themselves christians i think.
