the bible also mentions a few other giants in 2 samuel. it refered to them as "sons of the giant" their where five sons of the giant, one of whom had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, (that would be a mutation, or multiplication of genes.) goliath was also one of the five sons of the giant. (for reference look up 2 samuel chapter 21 vs 15  their are dozens oof other giants mentioned in the bible (some are mentioned in joshua.)

The whole 'shepherd is/becomes royalty, takes out an enemy hero with a missile weapon, and runs off with another man's wife' story is extremely suspicious.  It was a pretty standard myth in the ancient Middle East, and the Israelites probably nicked it from my Greek ancestors, who had a somewhat older and spicier version, complete with love goddesses, wealthy shipowners, beach parties, and plenty of wine.  Paris... David... Achilles... Goliath... Helen... Bathsheba... same thing, really.  But we came up with the idea first!  Ho ho!  No wonder Saul's army seems like such a dour lot compared with the Trojans and Achaeans.  Second place is never fun...

The bit about slings, however, seems to be unique to the biblical tale.  In most other versions of the myth, the hero uses an arrow ("Take that!"  TWANG!  "Ouch, my head/ankle/heart/naughtybits/whatever!") to dispatch his foe.  The biblical tale also contains enough circumstantial details -- such as a plausible number of slingstones and cutting off the fallen enemy's head to make sure he's dead and not merely stunned -- to suggest that these parts were based on one or more actual incidents.  Was this really some single combat between champions, rather than a random shot in the middle of a pitched battle?  It's quite possible, for such things are not unknown among small agrarian societies at that level of cultural development, so I'll be happy to give Samuel and Chronicles the benefit of the doubt on this.

sv wrote on Oct 24^th, 2007 at 7:02am:


abraham the father of jews was supposed to have had ishmael, this is backed up by muslimism.
creation has smashed the face of evolution many a time ( go to creationministries.org,i dont know how to post a link, also read the bible, the orgional document for christian beliefs, nkjv is probably best)
their is some version of the great flood in most ancient civilizations (africa, israel, persia, thier are more but those are the ones i've heard of.)
christianity is the most scientificly correct religion.
recently a cuniform tablet has been found with strong links to jeremiah (biblical prophet.)
the mount sinai (a place which god met moses) has been found (www.baseinstitute.org)
and even if god, jesus, hold spirit wasn't real (i don't think thats possible) christianity improves ones morral standards so much that if every one followed what the bible taught perfectly we would be living in a world hundreds of times better.

Christianity is benificial wiether or not it's true.

oh well, i can see im not going to get anywhere if all i give you is links ive never even read(i just heard they where good.)
In the beggining god made the world. first he made light(clever, he made it in order) then he made the sun, the moon and all the planets (excluding earth) then he made the earth, then he made water, then he made the plants (notice that he made it in order), he then made the animals, then he made  man then woman. he prceded to say the the entire earth was good. then they (the two people) did the only thing god told them not to because a serpent told them to (satan). god cursed the serpent, so that he woyuld eat dust and crawl on his belly for the rest of his days. ( snake has four places in it's skeloton where legs could go, also they eat dust)
After that all the animals where alowed to eat each other (before that they where vegitarians). very soon the earth became a terrible place, god wished he'd never  made it and sent a flood to wipe everyone except noah out.(note: there are millions of  almost perfectly preserved fossils across the entire face of the world, if they took milliions of years to turn into fossiles they would be in terrible condition, and all we would be able to see by looking at them would be a mess.) also evolutionist way of dating things is in acurate by up to billions of years. (real story) someone
(i dont know his name) once cut down a swamp cowry, some of the amber fell into the swamp it was beside about 10 years latter he to it to a dating expert to get it carbon dated (evolutionists way of dating things) the man said it was about 3000 years old (oh, so acurate....)
their are no fossiles for in between evoltuion from something to something else. evolution was based on a groundless theory (i call it fairy) charles darwin admitted he had absolutely no proof for evolution on his death bed
but people still went on with the idea because they probably (this is my personal belief) had gotten used to having no respect for the divine. also evolution is the biggest something from nothing that ever happened, (i am refering to the big bang) it claims that in the beggining their was a single cell with a hell of a lot of information, this cell then exploded and more cells came along, they then condensed (by their own acord) and made planets and stars. the cell that i was talking about, where in the world did that come from?! evolution doesn't work, it works even less whne you try and mix it with creation. the fool that belives we come form apes is a fool indeed  (that was half an insult to all who think we came from apes).

axon50 wrote on Oct 26^th, 2007 at 12:30am:

I interpret Genesis as a metaphor that was meant to tell people that earth did not exist forever in the shape as we know it, but was the result of some steps that came before it. If you don't interpret it literally but just see it as some pictures there is no problem with it.

Then there are many ways to create something. There is a hocus-pokus way of a magician who creates a whole structure in an instant (one day as we know it is an instant in a cosmologically sense). Then there is the way of an engineer who choses the most elegant way. And evolution is a method used in modern computer programs already.

Quote:

They are usually in a terrible condition. In fact some don't even exist anymore. In this case we only see a different kind of stone at the place where the fossils used to be. Have you seen a picture of an excavation? The bones are lying more or less scattered. And most are completely gone already, that is why fossils are so rare.

Quote:

Every method has its errors. But because of a single error you say that the whole method is wrong? Oh and by the way, carbon dating only goes back 50000 years, so it is a method applied only to younger fossils.

Quote:

It doesn't work? Strange, I have seen computer programs who simulate evolution in order to create neural networks for solving a given problem that work quite well.

OrangeDuck wrote on Oct 26^th, 2007 at 1:19am:

Well, this whole thread is bit off-topic... But what do you expect, when you ask whether a single, very old book is correct.

PS: Axon, please don't take this personal, it is just that it is hard for me to resist to reply when I read something controversial.

I think a little more than a synopsis of Genesis is needed to 'prove' anything. As should be clear from Dravonk and others, there are many Christians who do not find it necessary to accept the bible as a literal and unalterable statement of truth. Are such believers lesser christians?

exactly - what must a man do to be saved? repent and be baptised, there's nothing about adhering to a scientific theory about species' changes over long periods of time. a Christian needn't even have heard of the Old Testament or genesis, or evolution! 

Quote:


maybe not - but the question was "which bible stories have been proven to be true" which is nothing whatsoever to do with the big bang or evolution. people tend to dodge the issue if they are stuck for an answer 

so, keeping to the point, which Bible stories or references have been proven to be true?

sorry if this offends anyone, but the bald assertion that many Bible stories have been proven to be true - needs to be challenged, as does any statement which is uttered with no examples to back it up

SV