By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
(CNN) - NFL quarterback Tim Tebow has canceled an appearance at a controversial Dallas-area church. The outspoken Christian quarterback was scheduled to speak at First Baptist Church on April 28.
The church is led by Robert Jeffress, who has been widely criticized for views against homosexuality, Islam and Mormonism. Tebow, announcing his decision Thursday on Twitter, said that he was canceling his appearance “due to new information that has been brought to my attention.”
Tebow’s statement appeared over a series of four tweets on the social media site.
“I will continue to use the platform God has blessed me with to bring Faith, Hope and Love to all those needing a brighter day. Thank you for all of your love and support. God Bless!” he wrote to his Twitter followers.
Tebow was scheduled to speak at the 11,000-member Dallas church as part of a monthlong celebration of the megachurch’s completion of a new building campaign, a $130 million dollar project that encompasses five blocks of the downtown.
“Tim called me last night and explained to me that because of some things going on in his personal life and his career he needed to steer clear of controversy right now, but that at some other date he would like to come and speak at our church,” Jeffress told CNN by phone from Dallas. “Tim has to do what Tim thinks is best for him right now.”
The First Baptist Church of Dallas is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention. Jeffress, who has been in its pulpit since 2007, is no stranger to controversy.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
After introducing Texas Gov. Rick Perry at the Values Voter Summit in Washington in October 2011, Jeffress told reporters he believed Mormonism was a cult, expressing a personal position and one held by his denomination. The move was seen as a particular slight to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a lifelong Mormon.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while acknowledging sharp theological differences with the Southern Baptist Convention, bristles at the term cult and says it is inaccurate.
Jeffress has also drawn fire for his comments about homosexuality, Judiasm and Catholicism.
“This in no way is going to diminish what our church is teaching about salvation being available to all through faith in Jesus Christ,” Jeffress said.
Jeffress pointed out that Tebow is a member of the First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida, a fellow SBC church.
“They certainly believe what we do, that salvation is through Christ alone, and about homosexuality. Tim confirmed that to me last night, that they believe exactly what we do about homosexuality.”
Tebow and Jeffress differ dramatically in how they present their faith. Tebow in talking about his faith has used much softer language, while Jeffress has no trouble going after less popular and culturally sensitive issues in Christianity.
CNN Belief Blog: Quarterback moves to trademark 'Tebowing'
“I believe that homosexuality is a sin just like adultery is a sin, just like I believe premarital sex is a sin, because it’s a deviation from God’s standard,” Jeffress said.
“God’s plan for sex is that is should be between a man and a woman in a marriage relationship and any deviation from that is wrong.”
While he believes any sex outside a heterosexual marriage is wrong, he adds, “I never single out homosexuality as the only sin or the unpardonable sin. I think homosexuality, just like adultery, can be forgiven if we ask God for forgiveness.”
Jeffress said he thinks there is a genetic disposition toward homosexuality, a stance on sexual orientation taken by many theologically conservative Christians and one scorned as scientifically flawed by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
Jeffress said he is sure there are gay members in his church. “We don’t ask all the gay members to stand up, but I’m sure that there are people who are gay in our church simply because of the letters I have received,” he said. “We have people who’ve committed adultery and who lie and who steal, but that doesn’t mean they’re not welcome to come to our church.”
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
As for comments about Mormons, Jews and Catholics, he is quick to point out that he believes “no one goes to hell in a group.”
“I’m not the one who decides who goes to heaven and hell. God does that. God has already given us the criteria for what it takes to go to heaven when you die. Jesus said in John 14:6, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life, and no man comes to the father except through me.’ When I quote that verse I like to remind people that Jesus who said that was not a Southern Baptist evangelist but a Jewish rabbi. Yet as a Jewish rabbi he said there is one way to heaven, and that is through faith in me.”
The controversy surrounding Tebow’s appearance won’t dampen the church’s plans, Jeffress said. He said Tebow, while escaping the spotlight now over his beliefs, will continue to face controversy.
“I think Tim is going to discover that no matter how hard you try to hide from controversy, if you stand for the simple truths of the Bible, like faith in Christ, necessary for salvation, and sex (being acceptable only) between a man and a woman in marriage, you can't avoid controversy. That’s something Tim needs to discover on his own. We in no way want to impugn him. He’s a great man of God who sincerely loves the Lord.”
He doesn't say what information, specifically, made him change his mind. I hope he cancelled for the right reason, and not just because he knew it looked bad.
That is just it, he didn't realize it looked bad, someone most likely had to tell him it looked bad.
Who would it have looked bad to?
Pretty much anyone who respects other human beings.
C'mon. Who specifically. Tebow claims to be a Christian. This church, from all reports anyway, is a Bible-believing church. So who will this look bad to?
Topher are you really that dense? If he spoke at this church there is a good chance that any company looking to pay Tebow to endorse their products would have looked elsewhere because they want gay people to by their products.
So the company is afraid of an extreme minority?
Topher, I'm not gay, but if Tebow spoke at this church I would lose all respect for him, and would try not to buy or watch anything that he has anything to do with. There are millions of others in this country just like me.
What company ?
Most companies, Chik-fil-A excepted, don't want to be associated with bigotry.
But of course you know this. You just enjoy being disingenuous.
"Most companies, Chik-fil-A excepted, don't want to be associated with bigotry. "
So because I refuse to endorse an immoral act I'm a bigot?
Topher, holding the belief that being gay is immoral doesn't make you a bigot, but wanting to get laws passed based upon your belief does make you a bigot.
no topher: i refuse to embrace the immoral god of the bible, and that doesn't make me a bigot.
"Topher, holding the belief that being gay is immoral doesn't make you a bigot, but wanting to get laws passed based upon your belief does make you a bigot."
You'd like me to vote in favor of those laws, thus giving my consent that it is OK. I don't believe it is. So I have to vote no on those laws. I'd say that just means we disagree, but if you want to call me a bigot, go ahead.
There is NOTHING immoral about God.
'You'd like me to vote in favor of those laws, thus giving my consent that it is OK. I don't believe it is. '
Voting yes or no isnt the only option. Not voting at all is also an option. And he i specifically talking about bringing in laws to ban gay marriage, which is invariaby brought in and sponsored by christian groups.
So you don't think that everyone has the same rights, one being the right to pick your own spouse?
Why is it immoral, because a book you believe is God's words says so? And only your God is the real God, right? So that means that roughly 4 billion people on this planet are immoral purely because they don't share your exact same beliefs? And therefore those people shouldn't get equal rights to you?
Funny, that sounds EXACTLY like the terrorists we've been fighting for the last decade.
Perhaps he would look bad to those who are not bigots.
" So you don't think that everyone has the same rights, one being the right to pick your own spouse?"
I'd say they have exactly the same rights I do right now. Actually, I could argue they have more because in this state they have civil unions.
No, Topher, those who seek to deny others their civil rights for SOME "immoral" acts are bigots.
Really, Topher? What other "immoral" people do you seek to deny their civil rights? Are there liars at your church? Adulterers? Obese people? Why do you focus on one "immorality"?
Gopher: You are a bigot, and a snivelling sycophant. Go fvck yourself.
Topher, you have exactly the same right to enter into a marriage with whoever you want. Christians are not special.
@Topher, if you haven't noticed most of the country is now supporting gay rights. In the northeast even most of the Christians support gay rights. If you have a public figure buddying up with someone who preaches on “Why Gay is Not OK” you are going to lose millions.
Some recent stats:
"Are there liars at your church? Adulterers?"
Of course. I'm one of them.
"Why do you focus on one "immorality"?"
I'm not focused on one. They just happen to be the loudest ... asking for us to endorse their immoral activity. I'm not going to do that.
Wow Topher is trying anything and everything to defend his hate and bigotry.
@Topher, I don't know if you're a "bigot" because it's not a word I use much. But I would call you simple-minded, self-centered, selfish and lacking imagination.
You've pretty much described all believers!
"I'd say they have exactly the same rights I do right now. Actually, I could argue they have more because in this state they have civil unions."
Actually they don't Topher so you don't know what you're talking about, they don't have all the federal civil rights that go with marriage, they only have state ones.
"Actually they don't Topher so you don't know what you're talking about, they don't have all the federal civil rights that go with marriage, they only have state ones."
Really Topher you don't know. It's why it's gone to SOC. The Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that went into effect in 1996. DOMA expressly states that the United States government does not recognize the legality of gay marriage. That effects their taxes and they can't legally take the last name of the partners for starters.
"That effects their taxes and they can't legally take the last name of the partners for starters."
While you can (anyone) change your last name legally, in states where marriage is restricted you can not do it for free as is often allowed at that time.
On a federal level the biggest issue is taxes, particularly estate taxes which do not apply in spousal situations. Another huge issue for thousands of people is immigration. For most people it is simple enough...you fall in love and you get married. If your marriage is federally banned, you are just out of luck unless you happen to be in one of the very few professions targeted for special visas...most are not. Other problems at the federal level relate to SS benefits and other benefits given to married couples.
At a mixed state and federal level are issues such as adoption and divorce, and of cource state taxes. Medically, the paperwork needed to guarantee the rights already given to married couples is an extra burden, and without a federal guarantee health benefits are not available through employers in many states. The list goes on, but everything I have listed is something that I or a close friend has personally experienced.
That's it?! THAT'S why I should endorse immorality?
"That's it?! THAT'S why I should endorse immorality?"
You already do by allowing Christians to divorce. LOL!
And by not loudly (in this forum) advocating for the excommunication and/or stoning of the 700,000+ believers that get abortions each year in the USA.
"You already do by allowing Christians to divorce. LOL!"
One more thing I agree with the Bible on.
""You already do by allowing Christians to divorce. LOL!"
One more thing I agree with the Bible on."
But yet you are such a prejudice bigot you aren't out trying to block their civil rights now are you.
I'm not being asked to endorse it.
"I'm not focused on one. They just happen to be the loudest ... asking for us to endorse their immoral activity. I'm not going to do that"
Which of the others are youi denying their civil rights?
"Which of the others are youi denying their civil rights?"
Not trying to deny anyone a civil right. I am, however, saying no to immorality.
"Not trying to deny anyone a civil right. I am, however, saying no to immorality."
Your prejudice and bigotry is immoral, Christ was neither.
Marriage is a civil right, you are for denying that right to those you don't like. You are therefore denying a civil right. Now go ahead and ignore this, that's all you can do.
"Your prejudice and bigotry is immoral, Christ was neither."
I agree Christ was not prejudiced or a bigot. But are you trying to honestly tell me Christ never said to 'go and stop sinning"?
Hate the sin love, the sinner. Did that one get past you. So why would christians exclude the sinner? The catholics proved that, they hated the se*x abuse but forgave the sinner or at least kept them part of the club.
You endorse it by not speaking out against it just as loudly as you do gay marriage.
"Hate the sin love, the sinner. Did that one get past you. So why would christians exclude the sinner? The catholics proved that, they hated the se*x abuse but forgave the sinner or at least kept them part of the club."
None of that says the sin is OK. In fact, what Christ said to do is to turn from your sins (repent) and trust in Him. And I do love the sinner. I love them enough to tell them what God says so that they too can be forgiven and go to Heaven.
"You endorse it by not speaking out against it just as loudly as you do gay marriage."
Topher, until I see you call for laws to ban everything that the bible says immoral I can't take your argument seriously.
You won't like anything I say no matter what.
OK, I'm off to work. Have a good one, everyone.
You don't get it Topher. If that church excluded all people that sin the pews would be empty, by excluding one group because of thei particulare sin is discrimination, hatred of the sin evolves into hatred of the sinners. That is bigotry.
Tebow's agent: Uh, Tim, this preacher has sort of a rep of being a b igot, r acist and a h o m o phobe. It might not be in your best interest to speak there.
Tim Tebow: What has he said that any religious conservative haven't also said?
Tebow's agent: Well, we just don't need people pointing out that you also agree with that sort of thing, it's not cool these days.
Tim Tebow: Ok, then I won't. I don't want to do anything to hurt my pocket book.
That's probably pretty close to what happened.
Rugby rugby oi oi oi. Pads are for girls and religion is for wimps. And Euro (real) football rocks. US football is rapidly on its way dowwwwwwn.
Tebow is the perfect example of the 'Dumb Jock'. Bad quarterback, but much worse as a thinker.
This just in: "Citing 'new information', Tim Tebow cancelled his appearance with Osama Bin Laden".
I don't think that's a fair comparison. I've never heard of Robert Jeffress before now. Have you?
So glad we no longer have to see Tebow's xstian stupidity here in CO anymore. Tebow, like all xstians, needs to "practice" his faith in private, and not be sharing his delusions in public. I don't know any xstians who just vomit all over the table when people are there eating, why can't they realize that their public displays of their deluded "belief" have about the same effect on people of reason.
I pity you on Judgement Day! If you are right, we are dead and will stay dead. If I am right as a Christian, I have a chance at the Judgement, where you have ZERO! I'll take my chances!
Why do you want to go to see your god if you are so afraid of him/her/it?
Seems pretty silly to be afraid of a fictional character.
They probably assume that most people of reason aren't bigoted, that's why.
As an atheistic agnostic, I can honestly say hat someone's religious belief doesn't offend me in any way, as long as they're not using it to hurt someone else. That's the difference between Tebow and Robert Jeffress. Robert Jeffress offends me because his beliefs are hateful. Tebow's beliefs just seem incorrect to me. Then again, some people think Nine Inch Nails is a good band. I don't see any reason I should care about either opinion.
If Pascal's Wager is the best you've got, keep your pity for yourself.
@Doobs : If Pascal's Wager is the best you've got, keep your pity for yourself.
So, what's wrong with his wager?
'I pity you on Judgement Day! If you are right, we are dead and will stay dead. If I am right as a Christian, I have a chance at the Judgement, where you have ZERO! I'll take my chances!'
why do people insist on thinking there are only 2 options?
atheist right then no matter
christian right than they are safe but atheist damned.
There is a third.......there is a god but its not the one you are worshipping and you are just as s crewed as the rest of us. you had better worship all of them just to be safe.
What proof have you that God is a fictional character?
What if you are wrong and on Judgement Day, you are asked by God to explain why you considered him a "fictional Character"?
I read the bible, and that was enough to convince me that god is fictional.
"What if you are wrong and on Judgement Day, you are asked by God to explain why you considered him a "fictional Character"?"
This is another tired repeti.tion of Pascal's Wager - thoroughly refuted since the 17th century.
- What if the real "God" is Allah, or Vishnu, or Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl, or any of the other of thousands which have been dreamed up over the centuries? Some of them are very jealous and vengeful and will relegate you to nasty places for not worshiping them. You'd better cover your butt by believing in ALL of them and fulfill their wishes and demands.
- What if the real "God" prefers those who use logic and reason and punishes you as a silly sycophant?
- What if the real "God" detests those who believe something just to cover their butts in eternity?
'What if you are wrong and on Judgement Day, you are asked by God to explain why you considered him a "fictional Character"?'
why would god punish anyone for simply not believing in him?
What if the Vikings were right and by worshipping Jesus and refusing to die gloriously in battle you miss out on Valhalla?
What if teh Mormons are right and you need to learn the secret passwords, new names and masonic handshakes in order to pass Joesph Smith and get into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom?
What if the Hindus are right and you get reincarnated as a dung beetle becuase you failed to pay cows the proper respect?
What if the egyptians were right and your heart gets measured against Ma'at's shu feather when you die?
There are countless myths about the afterlife – it isn't simply a matter of Jesus or Nothing....
Heck, even the various denominations of the Abrahamic religions can't agree on what happens.
The Jewish faith has no Hell, and they are your God's Chosen People!
A Jehovah's Witness would tell you that YOU'RE bound for eternal torment becuase you don't subsribe to their particular subset of Christianity.
If you're using Pascal's Wager as an argument for religion, then it must logically encompass ALL religions, gods and possible afterlives.
Pascal's Wager is flawed because it considers only two possible outcomes. There are many more than that, as others have pointed out.
Have you updated your Serious Injury Book lately?
"So, what's wrong with his wager?"
Precious. That one's up there with L4H’s claim that all questions can be answered Yes or No.
Here come the CREATIONTS funny stuff.
Learn to spell . Learn to think
Nice to see him making good choices.
Wonder if he's reconsidering his faith?
I don't see why he should. Just because some people believe something ridiculous doesn't mean he does. All Christians aren't the same.
It was the Mormon thing.
"Tebow pulls out".... intentional double entendre by CNN writers? If so, pretty good!
And in earlier news, pope Benedicked has pulled out of the Catholic church....
“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullspit.”
_ Richard Pryor
If god created man in his own image, how come I'm not invisible?”
_ David Powers
I'm wondering how come you're not a burning bush.
too bad the ownerships of the NFL don't have this young man' wisdom..
" Do not conform yourselves to the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will know what God wants you to do, and you will know how good and pleasing and perfect His will really is." Romans 12:2...
The Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).
It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.
Education works .
Separation of church and state
New science standards created by 26 states (majority) for 2013 and beyond,, .. It is called Stem standards for public schools....
No god(s) required
By the way creatoin/ID LOST DEPUNKED at the Dover trial in 2005
No god(s) required for graduation n the US
Facts work best.
The End is here.
A War Without End, With Earth's Carbon Cycle Held in the Balance
Feb. 13, 2013 — The greatest battle in Earth's history has been going on for hundreds of millions of years – it isn't over yet – and until now no one knew it existed, scientists reported Feb. 13 in the journal Nature.
"The Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, (and yet it is FULL of accurate history) poetry, (Psalms) economics, (vast amount of passages on money) or science. (and yet there's plenty of science)
@Smithsonian : The Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science.
How do you know this to be true?
""The Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, (and yet it is FULL of accurate history) poetry, (Psalms) economics, (vast amount of passages on money) or science. (and yet there's plenty of science)"
Ok, so take this down to the world's largest research center comprised of 19 museums and try selling them on this B. S. You don't think all the experts there didn't think about it. You just can't handle the truth about the bible, it's NOT an historical document.
Oops poof there goes god(s)
Engineering 'Ghost' Objects: Breakthrough in Scattering Illusion
Feb. 19, 2013 — A team at the NUS Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering led by Dr Qiu Cheng-Wei has come out with an optical device to "engineer" ghosts.
How original, have you ever had a thought of your own not based on the babble?
I really don't care what the "experts" say because they have a presupposition that it's wrong. I could easily take it to Christian museums with a presupposition it's true and get the opposite results. The fact is it IS a historical docu.ment. Show me a historical entry in the Bible that has been proven false. You won't find one. We have better evidence to believe the Bible than we do the Gallic wars and yet we don't have "experts" claiming you can't believe Caesar. The Bible has proven over and over again to be reliable. Why do you hate it so much?
Smithsonian : it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science.
Live4Him : How do you know this to be true?
@Smithsonian : You don't think all the experts there didn't think about it.
So, you DON'T know if it is true. Thanks for being truthful about it.
There are a lot of people that have read the bible and come to the conclusion that it is a poorly written and poorly translated book of ancient fiction that got the most successful religious scam up and running.
The fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.
A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.
The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.
Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).
Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.
Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened"
@Smithsonian : You don't think all the experts there didn't think about it.
Yes, it's true the bible is NOT an historical document. Your twisting of words only shows your lack of facts on the truth about the bible.
@Morning : There are a lot of people that have read the bible and come to the conclusion that it is a poorly written and poorly translated book of ancient fiction that got the most successful religious scam up and running.
Every conclusion is a mixture of undisputed facts and apriori beliefs. Unless these can be separated out, one never knows if this conclusion follows the scientific process. What verses do you consider as a poor translation?
The good news is that Topher won't read what Really posted, and will come back tomorrow and claim that nothing in the bible has ever been proven false.
'I could easily take it to Christian museums with a presupposition it's true and get the opposite results'
The fact that is has to specifically be a christian museum speaks volumes, as museums are not divided into christian and non-christian museums.
'Show me a historical entry in the Bible that has been proven false'
I think you first need to clarify what you mean by 'historical entry'
He's copied and pastedthat before. It's ridiculousness. Did YOU actually read it?
Yes, and it is all true whether you want to believe it or not.
"Show me a historical entry in the Bible that has been proven false."
When was Jesus born?
" in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew)
" while Quirinius was governor of Syria." (Luke) which was after the death of Herod.
@Really? : We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu.
What is being advocated here is that non-Biblical sources cannot confirm all the details found in the Bible, so therefore the Bible is not historically accurate. This is an appeal to ignorance – a logic fallacy.
Second, it is very rare (if not unheard of) that ANY source is confirmed in detail in another source's historical records. Historical records normally record the victories of a given empire, while neglecting to detail their defeats. So, if we were to use non-Assyrian sources, how much Assyrian history be confirmed? About the same as the Biblical sources could be confirmed from non-Biblical sources.
Since this is an obvious copy-n-paste job, I'm not going to attempt to refute the other points you've made, given that when this premise falls the others fall too.@Really? : We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu.
Since this is an obvious copy-n-paste job, I'm not going to attempt to refute the other points you've made, given that when this premise falls the others fall too.
"Yes, and it is all true whether you want to believe it or not."
Ha! When I use that line to support my position, I get torched. I guess it's OK for the atheists to use it though.
When was Jesus born?
" in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew)
" while Quirinius was governor of Syria." (Luke) which was after the death of Herod.
Which Herod? There were at least 4 during this time.
"What is being advocated here is that non-Biblical sources cannot confirm all the details found in the Bible, so therefore the Bible is not historically accurate. This is an appeal to ignorance – a logic fallacy."
Are you claiming this is someone other than Herod the Great? Seriously?
" Are you claiming this is someone other than Herod the Great? Seriously?"
I have no idea. Give me the specific verse and I'll look it up.
The reliability of the Bible as history is not something that can be proven by an archeological discovery independent of an analysis of the manuscripts themselves. The first proof of the Bible as an historical document must come from the Bible proving itself as a consistent document. Let us suppose that we found in the Bible two mutually exclusive descriptions of an historical event. Let us further suggest that both events are set in a city named ‘Lor' and involve a person whose name is ‘Jack.' If we were to dig up an ancient stone with an engraving referring to the city of Lor, or an ancient document which mentions the name ‘Jack' (and for the purposes of our argument we will assume that the ‘Jack' being referred to in our Bible and the extra biblical source are one and the same person) it does not then follow that ‘the Bible is a reliable historical document.' All archeology has demonstrated is that two sources exist which refer to ‘Lor and Jack'. This discovery is of no use to us whatsoever in trying to sort out what so often proves to be the convoluted and contradictory history presented in the Bible. The Bible is a religious document, not a purely historical document, and many of the conflicts on its pages are political and polemical in nature, thus accounting for the inconsistencies. And an ancient dig is of no use in settling polemical disputes. It is of no use to us in trying to determine which of our two contradictory Bible stories is ‘true' and which is to be excluded.
"Herod the king" is in Matthew 2:1, but he is referred to throughout all of ch 2.
p.s. I don't think the other Herods held the ti.tle of "king".
One is enough, for hunderds of years, maybe thousands, if you go back to Moses and the original tablets, it was thou shall not kill, when it did not seem right to modern christians it becomes thou shall no murder. Variable translation, from a previous post; you said in the vicinity of Brthany, while the KJV states that they went out as far as Bethany.
"The Bible has proven over and over again to be reliable. Why do you hate it so much?"
The Book of Daniel consists of twelve chapters of which only the first half, the narrative portion concerns us here. Like Jonah, it pretence at being a historical work is foiled by the author’s poor knowledge of history. That he profoundly ignorant of the history of 6th century BCE can be seen in the following errors he made:
•- Mistakes in Details Regarding the Fall of Jerusalem
•- Mistakes Regarding Belshazzar
•- Mistakes Regarding the Succession of Babylonian Kingdoms
We see that Daniel was actually written around 167-164BCE and that he had less than honest reasons for pretending to be a work of the 6th century BCE.
Mistakes in Details Regarding the Fall of Jerusalem
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord have Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his God. –
The passage if filled with historical errors and anachronisms:
•- First he god the name of the king of Judah during the seige wrong. II Kings 8-13 showed that it was during the reign of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s son, that Nebuchadnezzar laid seige on Jerusalem. Furthermore, the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign would be 606BC. Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon at that time! Nebuchadnezzar only become king in 605BC, the fourth year of Jehoaikim’s reign.
•- Secondly the use of the term Shinar is an anachronism. The name was used to refer to Sumeria during the time of Abraham. During the exilic period, around the time the book of Daniel was supposed to have been written, the correct term was Chaldea, not Shinar.
•- And finally, the correct spelling for the neo-Babylonian king was Nebuchadrezzar. We noticed that books that were actually written during the exilic period such as Jeremiah (25:9) and Ezekial (26:7), got this spelling right at least some of the time. Daniel always incorrectly spells the name with an “n” rather than “r”.  [a]
Back to the top
Mistakes Regarding Belshazzar
King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine in front of the thousand. Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought... –
This innocent looking passage is simply loaded with historical errors.
•- Belshazzar, or more correctly Bel-shar-utsur ("Bel, Protect the King"), was never a king. He was a crown prince but never became king of Chaldea, for the kingdom collapsed during the reign of his father.
•- Nebuchadnezzar was not the father of Belshazzar. In fact there is no family relation at all between the two. Nebuchadnezzar died in 562BC leaving the kingdom to his son Amel-Marduk. Amel-Marduk, in turn was murdered by his brother-in-law Nergal-ashur-usur two years later. Nergal-ashur-usur reigned for only four years. After his death in 560BC, his son, Nebuchadnezzar's grandson, Labashi-Marduk became king. There was a revolt, and Labashi Marduk was dethroned. The new king was Nabu-naido ("Nabu is glorious"), or in its Greek form Nabudonius. Nabudonius was not related at all to Nebuchadnezzar. He was the last king of the Chaldean Empire, and Belshazzar was his son. 
Back to the top
Mistakes Regarding the Succession of Babylonian Kingdoms
That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom... –
Again another statement that is historically false. In the first place the Chaldean Kingdom, fell not the Medes but to the Persians (in 538BC). The King who conquered Chaldea was Cyrus the Persian. There was no historical Darius the Mede who conquered Chaldea! There was however a Persian king name Darius who became king in 521BC, seventeen years after the fall of Babylon. Darius was a renowned king in antiquity and it is obvious that the author of Daniel erroneously thought he was the conqueror of the Chaldean Empire. 
The author of Daniel revealed further his ignorance of history when he wrote:
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede... –
Now, if he is referring to the historical Darius (the Persian) this is another false statement. The father of Darius was Hystaspes. Ahasuerus, based on Ezra 4:5-6, can be correctly identified with Xerxes I. But Xerxes I was the son of Darius, not his father! 
As a coup de grace, the author of Daniel wrote the passage below:
So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. –
A fitting "tribute" to Daniel's monumental ignorance of history. The passage above clearly shows that he believed that the Chaldean empire fell first to the Median Empire and this, in turn, fell to the Persian. This is clearly unhistorical. History tells us that the Chaldean and the Median empires existed together and both fell to the Persians. 
Back to the top
The Dating of Daniel
The book of Daniel is so filled with historical errors and inaccuracies that most biblical scholars (always excepting the fundamentalists, of course) now conclude that Daniel was written very much later (between 167 to 164 BCE) than the period it pretends to be (sixth century BC). How do the scholars know this? Let us digress because it is worth knowing :
•- First we know that the book could not have been written in the 6th century BCE because it made errors that anyone living during that time would know. (see above)
•- Second is this statement from Daniel 9:2;
I was studying the sacred books and thinking about the seventy years that Jerusalem would be in ruins, according to what the Lord had told the prophet Jeremiah. –
This is revealing. The prophet Jeremiah lived during the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar in 587BCE. Thus he was a very near contemporary of Daniel. The time of the supposed Daniel was simply too soon for the book of Jeremiah to be considered scripture (which is another word for "sacred books") In fact we know that the book of Jeremiah was only canonized, i.e. widely considered as "scripture", around 200BCE. Thus Daniel could not have been written earlier than that.
•- Daniel was very accurate in "predicting" events leading to and including the desecration of the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus in December 167 BCE.[b]
•- After this Daniel starts to go wrong again. Daniel 11:45 predicted that Antiochus IV would die "between the sea and the mountain on which the temple stands", i.e. between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean sea. Yet Antiochus IV died in Persia in 164BCE.
To summarize, he made errors regarding events in the distant past (6th century BCE), was remarkably accurate in describing details of the events leading to the desecration of temple in 167BCE and then made errors about events after that. Thus it is obvious that Daniel must have been written at a time after the temple desecration but before the death of Antiochus IV. In short between 167 and 164BCE.[c]
Back to the top
Reason for Daniel's Pretense
The question then, is this: why did the author of Daniel adopt this pretence of writing in the 6th century BCE? For a simple (but dishonest) reason; by the time it came to be read, many of the so-called “prophecies” would have already been “fulfilled”. This would thus lend credence to the book and add more weight behind the prophecies yet to be fulfilled. In a nutshell, the author of Daniel tried to fool his readers into believing that the book is of an ancient origin in order to have them believe his future prophecies.
The summary below on the book of Daniel, made by the historian Robin Fox, is apt:
The book [of Daniel] has the familiar ingredients of a biblical success story: its hero probably never existed; he was credited with visions he never saw and actions he never did; ...while its dates and kings are incorrect and its setting is a fiction, posing as history. 
In short, the author of Daniel is a fraud.
Historical fiction is usually based on a variety of accounts of what happened at the time and past hand me down legends and myths. You take these stories mix them with actual names of places and dates and real people, add your fictional characters and you have your novel, a best seller if it is any good. Just two examples War and Peace, Tolstoy, actual people and events mixed with fictional characters, Ben Hur, Wallace, same thing. Historical fiction just like the bible, the story of an itinerant jewish preacher that had supernatural powers, mix in some real people, places and dates and you have got yourself a book.
Topher, you have accused one of the most respected scientific organizations in the world of bias. Please post your scholarly, peer-reviewed, published article successfully debunking the Smithsonian's statement on the historical value of The Babble. Or are just spewing bullsh!t just like your alleged god?
Jesus has justified us all. It's already done!
There's a catch to it, he wasn't the son of a God and you're worshiping an idol.
Even the hindus?
The whole world is justified to those who hear and believe
He's too busy praying to jeebus for Mark Sanchez to blow out his ACL.
Prayer changes things
So critical thinking, reason, truth, facts, curiosity, science, are all worse than faith and lack of evidence? You are either a monstrous troll, or really enjoying abusing the minds of children, who couldn't learn about the world other than being completely brainwashed by the disease you like to spread, called "religion."
Neither is rabid adherence to a religion. Please note, you can believe in God without blindly adhering to a specific religion which are man-made social groups with agendas of their own beyond promoting faith.
Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!
"Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things"
This is inaccurate wouldn't you agree? Especially when the data shows that atheists tend to have happier and healthier marriages than conservative Christians.
Shows the whole world what a Joke it is COOL. Joke is on god it looks like .
I would think Pastor Jeffress could find a speaker who could better articulate the Gospel. Another pasto or evangelist ...
If he is looking for someone who shares his interpretation of the bible then the KKK is probably his best bet.
Of course a church full of bigotry and intolerance would be right up your alley.
If you see someone's lifestyle as sinful that does not make you a bigot. A mental disease is the result of th fallen flesh and this does not condone wrongful acts
Austin, when you try to get laws passed to keep people from having the same rights that you have just because they are different than you then you are a bigot.
Austin. You become a bigot if you try to oppress a minority using civil laws that have nothing to do with anything except your own bigotries.
TAS: "You become a bigot if you try to oppress a minority using civil laws that have nothing to do with anything except your own bigotries."
Technically, if you oppose any group with intolerance, disrespect, hatred, and prejudice; even going so far as trying to force your beliefs on them (though that latter part not required), that's bigotry. So let's say for example that you criticize this pastor or Tebow for holding a stupid fairy tale belief in some sky God and they're undoubtedly uneducated morons ... yeah, that would probably also fit into that category. Perhaps it really rests not on differing beliefs, but on how you treat that actual person. I'm not sure. I do think there seem to be acceptable forms of bigotry, and unacceptable forms, all based on its definition (for those who're OCD about language correctness).
What a load of crap, He knows what kind of church tthat place is.
The new info is this his agent said it would be bad press and keep your fundie ideas to yourself.
New information? hmm what could it be?
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.