@chisa96 Said 
No. I'm sorry, but you really have not. You have explained your reasons for believing it to be true, but while those reasons are more concrete than those who say "I just feel like it's the truth," they still fall many stone throws short of counting as actual proof.
Well if you don't accept archaeological and prophetic evidence as such then no I guess I haven't. After all I have pointed readers on here to "The Bible as History" by Werner Keller to provide the archaeological evidence, and cited two highly specific prophecies of the sack of Babylon and of Tyre to show it's prophetic reliability.
Both of the above are proof whether you accept them as such or not.
@chisa96 Said
Only when you're inclined to interpret them in such a way.
No, such things aren't open to interpretation which is why I cite the two most specific prophecies in the bible which are so specific there is no argument over what they mean.
@chisa96 Said
This is what your arguments consist of, and it is a well-detailed testimony, but still not proof of anything.
Not all of them, only a minority. Again it is not up to me whether you accept the evidence I present as such. I was talking of a specific instance in the pot you were replying to.
Nov 28, 2011 @ 16:20:58
