I believe you are referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls. I wouldn't say that it fits the modern Bible though... while scrolls were found that do confirm some of the books, there are manuscripts that never became canonized. Likewise, there are a couple of books (Esther and Habukkuk IIRC) that were not found amongst the findings.

Carbon dating also puts them somewhere between 300 BCE and 100 AD. If the latter date is accepted, that would still put those writings after the time of Jesus.

Keep in mind too that the beliefs of the ancient Hebrews was basically an oral tradition. Ever play the game where you whisper something into somebody's ear, and have them pass the phrase around the table until it comes back to you? Now imagine that game being played out over 2000 years amongst many different people, with different dialects, etc. Add to that the Hebrews didn't use vowels or punctuation. Ever notice the italicized words in the Bible? Those were added subsequently along with the punctuation. According to Revelation 22:18,19 that is a sin... but I digress.

THEN add to the mess the fact that the Bible went through a canonization process... literally a group of men sitting around and arbitrarily deciding which books should be included in the Bible, and which should be rejected. Add to that that the Bible went through three translations to arrive at the King James Bible, and from there many subsequent translations. Many Christian denominations can't even decide which translation is the best one!

When you've been at this debate site as long as some of the senior members have, they get a little redundant. These threads are normally started by some self rightoues religious person or athiest, they make a very generalized remark, and the opposite parties retaliate with very uneducated responses (my humble opinion is that the worst literalists (people who interprete the bible word for word) are the athiests. That doesn't mean that they agree, just that they quote and cite a literal view, where as most (again, we both know there are people out there that a vehimently opposed to the following statement) christians look at the symbology and metaphors of the bible. Some (myself included) will go as far as to say that Jesus never was born by a true virgin or rose from the dead (there is documented proof that a man named Jesus was crucified Circa 33 AD, so I won't go so far as to say he's not real) but that they were metaphors and symbols for other things.)

Long story short, the reason most of the long standing christians on the board don't bother is because its beating a dead horse. Me, I make a remark about my opinion and clarify if something is called out, but rarely do I make two posts in these threads. Another Shocker, I don't really care what people believe in. To each his own and all that Jazz.

Are you sure?

Is Jesus son of God?
Is Mary mother of Jesus?
Is God male?

Hah. Amen!

Maybe I should save my old posts in a file so a bot can cut and paste them in.

It would be more interesting if there were single specific issues to tangle with. Debate topics that are too general or too universal don't tend to regenerate themselves well. For instance, an argument over a specific myth, or a book of apocrypha, or something like that that took some research rather than just generic bloviating.

Well, as long as people are happy to debate religious issues,...Why not? Don't participate if you don't want to, but why the fuss?