FC Community

Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 06:44:35 pm

Title: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 06:44:35 pm
IS THE BIBLE TRUE?
Extraordinary insights from archaeology and history

Source: U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT


The workday was nearly over for the team of archaeologists excavating the ruins of the ancient Israelite city of Dan in upper Galilee. Led by Avraham Biran of Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem, the group had been toiling since early morning, sifting debris in a stone-paved plaza outside what had been the city's main gate. Now the fierce afternoon sun was turning the stoneworks into a reflective oven. Gila Cook, the team's surveyor, was about to take a break when something caught her eye -- an unusual shadow in a portion of recently exposed wall along the east side of the plaza. Moving closer, she discovered a flattened basalt stone protruding from the ground with what appeared to be Aramaic letters etched into its smooth surface.

She called Biran over for a look. As the veteran archaeologist knelt to examine the stone, his eyes widened. "Oh, my God!" he exclaimed. "We have an inscription!" In an instant, Biran knew that they had stumbled upon a rare treasure. The basalt stone was quickly identified as part of a shattered monument, or stele, from the 9th century B.C., apparently commemorating a military victory of the king of Damascus over two ancient enemies. One foe the fragment identified as the "king of Israel." The other was "the House of David."

The reference to David was a historical bombshell. Never before had the familiar name of Judah's ancient warrior king, a central figure of the Hebrew Bible and, according to Christian Scripture, an ancestor of Jesus, been found in the records of antiquity outside the pages of the Bible. Skeptics had long seized upon that fact to argue that David was a mere legend, invented by Hebrew scribes during or shortly after Israel's Babylonian exile, roughly 500 years before the birth of Christ. Now, at last, there was material evidence: an inscription written not by Hebrew scribes but by an enemy of the Israelites a little more than a century after David's presumptive lifetime. It seemed to be a clear corroboration of the existence of King David's dynasty and, by implication, of David himself.

Beyond its impact on the question of David's existence, however, the discovery provided a dramatic illustration of the promise and peril that come into play whenever the Bible is weighed on the scales of modern archaeology. In one moment, the unearthing of an inscription or artifact can shed new light or cast a shadow on a passage of Scripture and in the process shatter the presuppositions of biblical scholarship. One kind of truth is confirmedñor replacedñby another. In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New Testaments -- corroborating key portions of the stories of Israel's patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus. Where it has faced its toughest task has been in primordial history, where many scholars find the traces of human origins obscured in theological myth.


 
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 06:45:03 pm

IN THE BEGINNING

Ever since Copernicus overturned the church-sanctioned view of Earth as the center of the universe and Charles Darwin posited random mutation and natural selection as the real creators of human life, the biblical view that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" has found itself on the defensive in modern Western thought. Despite the dominance of Darwin's theory -- that human beings evolved from lower life forms over millions of years -- theologians have yielded relatively little ground on what for them is a fundamental doctrine of faith: that the universe is the handiwork of a divine creator who has given humanity a special place in his creation.

These apparently conflicting explanations have played a divisive role for centuries. In modern times, the supposed incompatibility of the scientific and religious views of creation have sparked bitter clashes in the nation's courtrooms and classrooms. Often the modern debate has amounted to little more than a shouting match between extremists on both sides -- fundamentalists, who dismiss evolution as a satanic deception, and atheistic naturalists, who assert that science offers the only window on reality and who seek to discredit religious belief as ignorant superstition.

Listening to some of the rhetoric today, one might easily assume that the views espoused by creationists -- that God created the universe in six 24-hour days, as a literal reading of Genesis 1 would suggest -- represent the historic position of Christianity and of the Bible, and that it is only in modern times, with the rise of evolutionary theory, that creationism has come under siege. Yet this is hardly the case.

As early as the 5th century, the great Christian theologian Augustine warned against taking the six days of Genesis literally. Writing on The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argued that the days of creation were not successive, ordinary days -- the sun, after all, according to Genesis, was not created until the fourth "day" -- and had nothing to do with time. Rather, Augustine argued, God "made all things together, disposing them in an order based not on intervals of time but on causal connections." Sounding like an evolutionist, Augustine reasoned that some things were made in fully developed form and others were made in "potential form" that developed over time to the condition in which they are seen today.

Now, a growing number of conservative scholars embrace theistic evolution -- a view that considers evolution, like all other physical processes known to science, to be divinely designed and governed. They understand Genesis as speaking more of the relationship between God and creation than as presenting a scientific or historical explanation of how and when creation occurred. "Creation and evolution are not contradictory," explains Howard Van Till, a professor of physics and astronomy at evangelical Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich. "They provide different answers to a different set of questions."

Much the same may be said of disputes over the meaning and intent of the biblical story of the Flood. Those who take it as literal history believe that God unleashed a worldwide deluge that destroyed all air-breathing life on Earth except for those creatures taken aboard the ark in divine judgment against a creation gone bad. When God finally allowed the waters to recede, the ark was emptied and the world was repopulated by the creatures that disembarked. Based on biblical genealogies, all of this would have happened less than 10,000 years ago.

While most biblical scholars consider the story of the Flood a myth, many conservatives have little difficulty imagining that God could pull off precisely what the Genesis story describes. As with the Creation narrative, however, the evidence and arguments from science stack up overwhelmingly against a literal interpretation of the Flood story. Where, for example, would such a volume of water have come from, and where would it have gone afterward? How would mammalian life have re-emerged on isolated islands and landmasses that emerged from the receding flood waters? While some scholars allow the possibility that a catastrophic regional deluge may underlie the flood legends of the ancient Near East, conservatives argue that there is, indeed, geological evidence consistent with a universal deluge. But such arguments have found little support within the scientific mainstream.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 06:45:55 pm

AGE OF THE PATRIARCHS

The book of Genesis traces Israel's ancestry to Abraham, a monotheistic nomad who God promises will be "ancestor of a multitude of nations" and whose children will inherit the land of Canaan as "a perpetual holding." God's promise and Israel's ethnic identity are passed from generation to generation -- from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob. Then Jacob and his sons -- the progenitors of Israel's 12 ancient tribes -- are forced by famine to leave Canaan and migrate to Egypt, where the Israelite people emerge over a period of some 400 years.

Modern archaeology has found no direct evidence from the Middle Bronze Age (2000-1500 B.C.) -- roughly the period many scholars believe to be the patriarchal era -- to corroborate the biblical account. No inscriptions or artifacts relating to Israel's first biblical ancestors have been recovered. Nor are there references in other ancient records to the early battles and conflicts reported in Genesis.

Moreover, some scholars contend that the patriarch stories contain anachronisms that suggest they were written many centuries after the events they portray. Abraham, for example, is described in the 11th and 15th chapters of Genesis as coming from "Ur of the Chaldeans" -- a city in southern Mesopotamia, or modern-day Iraq. But the Chaldeans settled in that area "not earlier than the 9th or 8th centuries" B.C., according to Niels Peter Lemche, a professor at the University of Copenhagen and a leading biblical skeptic. That, he says, is more than 1,000 years after Abraham's time and at least 400 years after the time of Moses, who tradition says wrote the book of Genesis.

Yet other scholars, like Barry Beitzel, professor of Old Testament and Semitic languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Ill., are neither surprised nor troubled by the apparent lack of direct archaeological evidence for Abraham's existence. Why, they argue, should one expect to find the names of an obscure nomad and his descendants in the official archives of the rulers of Mesopotamia? These are "family stories," says Beitzel, not geopolitical history of the type one might expect to find preserved in the annals of kings.

While there may, indeed, be no direct material evidence relating to the biblical patriarchs, archaeology has not been altogether silent on the subject. Kenneth A. Kitchen, an Egyptologist now retired from the University of Liverpool in England, argues that archaeology and the Bible "match remarkably well" in depicting the historical context of the patriarch narratives.

In Genesis 37:28, for example, Joseph, a son of Jacob, is sold by his brothers into slavery for 20 silver shekels. That, notes Kitchen, matches precisely the going price of slaves in the region during the 19th and 18th centuries B.C., as affirmed by documents recovered from the region that is now modern Syria. By the 8th century B.C., the price of slaves, as attested in ancient Assyrian records, had risen steadily to 50 or 60 shekels, and to 90 to 120 shekels during the Persian Empire in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. If the story of Joseph had been dreamed up by a Jewish scribe in the 6th century, as some skeptics have suggested, argues Kitchen, "why isn't the price in Exodus also 90 to 100 shekels? It's more reasonable to assume that the biblical data reflect reality."
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 06:46:52 pm

FLIGHT FROM EGYPT
The dramatic story of the Exodus -- of God delivering Moses and the Israelite people from Egyptian bondage and leading them to the Promised Land of Canaan -- has been called the "central proclamation of the Hebrew Bible." Yet archaeologists have found no direct evidence to corroborate the biblical story. Inscriptions from ancient Egypt contain no mention of Hebrew slaves, of the plagues that the Bible says preceded their release, or of the destruction of the pharaoh's army during the Israelites' miraculous crossing of the Red Sea. No physical trace has been found of the Israelites' 40-year nomadic sojourn in the Sinai wilderness. There is not even any indication, outside of the Bible, that Moses existed.

Still, as with the patriarch narratives, many scholars argue that a lack of direct evidence is insufficient reason to deny that the Exodus actually happened. Nahum Sarna, professor emeritus of biblical studies at Brandeis University, argues that the Exodus story -- tracing, as it does, a nation's origins to slavery and oppression -- "cannot possibly be fictional. No nation would be likely to invent for itself . . . an inglorious and inconvenient tradition of this nature," unless it had an authentic core. "If you're making up history," adds Richard Elliott Friedman, professor at the University of California-San Diego, "it's that you were descended from gods or kings, not from slaves."

Indeed, the absence of direct material evidence of an Israelite sojourn in Egypt is not as surprising, or as damaging to the Bible's credibility, as it first might seem. What type of material evidence, after all, would one expect to find that could corroborate the biblical story? "Slaves, serfs, and nomads leave few traces in the archaeological record," notes University of Arizona archaeologist William Dever.

The dating of the Exodus also has long been a source of controversy. The book of 1 Kings 6:1 gives what appears to be a clear historical marker for the end of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt: "In the 480th year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the Lord." Biblical historians generally agree that Solomon, the son and successor of David came to the throne in about 962 B.C. If so, then the Exodus would have occurred in about 1438 B.C., based on the chronology of the 1 Kings passage.

That date does not fit with other biblical texts or with what is known of ancient Egyptian history. But the flaw is far from fatal. Sarna and others argue that the time span cited in 1 Kings -- 480 years -- should not be taken literally. "It is 12 generations of 40 years each," notes Sarna; 40 being "a rather conventional figure in the Bible," frequently used to connote a long period of time. Viewing the 1 Kings chronology in that light -- as primarily a theological statement rather than as "pure" history in the modern sense -- the Exodus can be placed in the 13th century, in the days of Ramses II, where it finds strong circumstantial support in the archaeological record.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 06:47:52 pm
THE RULE OF DAVID
The reigns of King David and his son Solomon over a united monarchy mark the glory years of ancient Israel. That period (roughly 1000 B.C. to 920 B.C.) -- described in detail in the books of 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles -- marks the beginning of an era of stronger links between biblical history and modern archaeological evidence. Before the discovery of the "House of David" inscription at Dan in 1993, it had become fashionable in some academic circles to dismiss the David stories as an invention of priestly propagandists who were trying to dignify Israel's past after the Babylonian exile. But as Tel Aviv University archaeologist Israel Finkelstein observes, "Biblical nihilism collapsed overnight with the discovery of the David inscription."

In the aftermath, another famous ancient inscription found more than a century ago has attracted renewed scholarly interest. The so-called Mesha Stele, like the stele on which the Dan inscription is etched, is a basalt monument from the 9th century B.C. that commemorates a military victory over Israel -- this one by the Moabite king Mesha. The lengthy Tyrian text describes how the kingdom of Moab, a land east of the Jordan River, had been oppressed by "Omri, king of Israel" (whose reign is summarized in 1 Kings 16:21-27) and by Omri's successors, and how Mesha threw off the Israelites in a glorious military campaign.

But the name of another of Mesha's conquered foes may lie hidden in a partially obliterated line of text that, transliterated, reads b[ñ]wd; the remainder of the inscription is missing. The French scholar André LeMaire, after carefully re-examining the inscription, has suggested that the line should be filled in to read bt dwd -- "beit David," or "house of David" -- a reference to the kingdom of Judah. "No doubt," says LeMaire, "the missing part of the inscription described how Mesha also threw off the yoke of Judah and conquered the territory southeast of the Dead Sea controlled by the House of David."

As significant as they are, these two inscriptions -- both still contested -- remain for now the only extrabiblical references to David's dynasty. And both were written more than a century after the reigns of David and Solomon. Given the grandeur of the Israelite monarchy under the two kings as described in the Bible, how could such an influential and popular regime have attracted so little notice in ancient Near Eastern documents from the time?

The answer, suggests Carol Meyers, professor of biblical studies and archaeology at Duke University, may lie in the political climate in the region at the time, when, she says, "a power vacuum existed in the eastern Mediterranean." The collapse of Egypt's 20th dynasty around 1069 B.C. led to a lengthy period of economic and political decline for a nation that had exerted powerful influence over the city-states of Palestine during the Late Bronze Age. This period of Egyptian weakness, which lasted for over a century (until around 945 B.C.), saw a "relative paucity of monumental inscriptions," says Meyers. "The kings had nothing to boast about."

Similarly, the Assyrian empire to the east was unusually silent from the late 11th to the early 9th century B.C. regarding the western lands it once had dominated. Assyria was preoccupied, says Meyers, with internal turmoil following the death of one of the greatest of its early kings. Another major power in the region, Babylonia, also was uncharacteristically quiet. For centuries following a raid on Assyria in 1081 B.C., it seldom ventured beyond its own borders, says Meyers, "and thus its records would hardly have mentioned a new dynastic state to the west."

The reign of David was a time of territorial expansion for the united Israelite kingdom and was marked, according to the Bible, by a series of military victories. Twice the Israelite armies repulsed invasions by the Philistines, a belligerent horde of pagan marauders who occupied Canaan's Mediterranean coastal plains. While the Bible depicts the Philistines as a frequent nemesis of the Israelites, their name does not appear in ancient nonbiblical sources before 1200 B.C. Some minimalist scholars have suggested that the biblical stories of run-ins with the dreaded Philistines were invented by priestly scribes in the middle of the 1st millennium B.C. to dramatize the military prowess of the mythical Davidic dynasty.

But modern archaeology has uncovered a wealth of information regarding the Philistine "sea people" thoroughly consistent with their portrayal in the Bible. For example, sources including numerous Egyptian inscriptions indicate that the Philistines most likely originated in the Aegean area, probably on the island of Crete. That fits with biblical passages (Jeremiah 47:4 and Deuteronomy 2:23, for example) linking them with Caphtor, a location most scholars identify with Crete.

Additionally, the Bible depicts the Philistines as expert metallurgists, and archaeologists have found material evidence that the Philistines were, indeed, expert metalworkers. Trude Dothan, a Hebrew University archaeologist who has excavated many of the Philistine sites, says this superior knowledge no doubt gave them a military advantage in their early battles with the Israelites. She notes that in the famous story of the duel between David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17, the giant Philistine warrior is described as wearing a bronze helmet and bronze body armor and carrying a spear with a shaft "like a weaver's beam" and with a head of iron. "The Bible compares Goliath's spear to a weaver's beam," Dothan says, "because this type of weapon was new to Canaan and had no Hebrew name." Once again, the Bible and archaeology are in agreement.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 06:48:37 pm
THE DAYS OF THE FALL OF THE TEMPLE
Compared with the earlier eras of Old Testament history, the days of the fall of the temple are a fleeting moment. A life span of just three decades and a public career of only a few years leave a dauntingly narrow target for archaeological exploration. Yet during the past four decades, spectacular discoveries have produced data illuminating the story of Jesus and the birth of Christianity. The picture that has emerged overall closely matches the historical backdrop of the Gospels.

In 1968, for example, explorers found the skeletal remains of a crucified man in a burial cave at Giva'at ha-Mitvar, near the Nablus road outside of Jerusalem. It was a momentous discovery: While the Romans were known to have crucified thousands of alleged traitors, rebels, robbers, and deserters in the two centuries straddling the turn of the era, never before had the remains of a crucifixion victim been recovered. An initial analysis of the remains found that their condition dramatically corroborated the Bible's description of the Roman method of execution.

The bones were preserved in a stone burial box called an ossuary and appeared to be those of a man about 5 feet, 5 inches tall and 24 to 28 years old. His open arms had been nailed to the crossbar, in the manner similar to that shown in crucifixion paintings. The knees had been doubled up and turned sideways, and a single large iron nail had been driven through both heels. The nail -- still lodged in the heel bone of one foot, though the executioners had removed the body from the cross after death -- was found bent, apparently having hit a knot in the wood. The shin bones seem to have been broken, corroborating what the Gospel of John suggests was normal practice in Roman crucifixions: "Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs" (19:32-33). While one later analysis drew some different conclusions about how the man died, [some] similarities to the biblical account were affirmed.

The discovery also posed a counterargument to objections some scholars have raised against the Gospels' description of Jesus's burial. It has been argued that the common practice of Roman executioners was to toss corpses of crucified criminals into a common grave or to leave them on the cross to be devoured by scavenging animals. So it hardly seems feasible, the argument goes, that Roman authorities would have allowed Jesus to undergo the burial described in the Gospels. But with the remains of a crucified man found in a family grave, it is clear that at least on some occasions the Romans permitted proper interment consistent with the biblical account.

A find at another Jerusalem site added to the list of Gospel figures whose existence has been verified by archaeology. Workers building a water park 2 miles south of the Temple Mount in 1990 inadvertently broke through the ceiling of a hidden burial chamber dating to the 1st century A.D. Inside, archaeologists found 12 limestone ossuaries. One contained the bones of a 60-year-old man and bore the inscription Yehosef bar Qayafa -- "Joseph, son of Caiaphas." Experts believe these remains are probably those of Caiaphas the high priest of Jerusalem, who according to the Gospels ordered the arrest of Jesus, interrogated him, and handed him over to Pontius Pilate for execution.

A few decades earlier, the name of another key figure in the days of Jesus turned up in the archaeological record: During excavations in 1961 at the seaside ruins of Caesarea Maritima, the ancient seat of Roman government in Judea, a 1st-century inscription was uncovered confirming that Pilate had been the Roman ruler of the region at the time of Jesus's supposedly crucifixion. Italian archaeologists working at the city's magnificent Herodian theater found the inscribed stone slab in use in the theater's steps. Experts say it originally was a 1st-century plaque at a nearby temple honoring the emperor Tiberius. The badly damaged Latin inscription reads in part, Tiberieum . . . [Pon]tius Pilatus . . . [Praef]ectus Juda[ea]e. According to experts, the complete inscription would have read, "Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judea, has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius." The discovery of the so-called Pilate Stone has been widely acclaimed as a significant affirmation of biblical history because, in short, it confirms that the man depicted in the Gospels as Judea's Roman governor had precisely the responsibilities and authority that the Gospel writers ascribed to him.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 06:49:22 pm
THE ROAD AHEAD
Modern archaeology may not have removed all doubt about the historical accuracy of the Bible. But thanks to archaeology, the Bible "no longer appears as an absolutely isolated monument of the past, as a phenomenon without relation to its environment," as the great American archaeologist William Albright wrote at midcentury. Instead, it has been firmly fixed in a context of knowable history, linked to the present by footprints across the archaeological record.

Just as archaeology has shed new light on the Bible, the Bible in turn has often proved a useful tool for archaeologists. Yigael Yadin, the Israeli archaeologist who excavated at Hazor in the 1950s, relied heavily on its guidance in finding the great gate of Solomon at the famous upper Galilee site: "We went about discovering [the gate] with Bible in one hand and spade in the other." And Trude Dothan notes that "without the Bible, we wouldn't even have known there were Philistines."

Much work remains for the archaeological explorers of the next century, and many more mysteries of the Bible wait to be solved. Where, for example, are the lost "Annals of the Kings" of Israel and Judah cited as literary sources in the Old Testament book of 1 Kings, and the five books of Papias mentioned in early church writings as a collection of the sayings of Jesus? Will further discoveries of hidden scrolls from the Dead Sea reveal new insights into the birth of Christianity? Scholars are convinced there is much more out there waiting to be found. It's just a matter of time. (From Is the Bible True? by Jeffery L. Sheler)
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 15, 2012, 07:21:47 pm
None of these references, (from what sources?), provide conclusive evidence to support the contentions.  At best, they are stretching the meanings of archeological finds, (or lack thereof), to cover 'biblical' accounts.  It is noteworthy to point out that the archeologists mentioned as participating in attempting to support foregone conclusions are theologicians, (Hebrews, a professor of biblical studies, etc.), directly suggest a certain vested interest in such foregone conclusions.  That's not how the scientific method works.  One does not seek out that which can be used _only_ to confirm a theory but, in not ignoring a lack of evidence or no confirmation of a pet theory.

Also of particular notice was the admission concerning the complete lack of evidence to support the biblical contention of the "exodus".  For a people who kept quite meticulous records, (in stone and papyrus), of things like grain in storage, the Aegyptian records mention nothing of what the hebrew/biblical claims describe.  One would think someone would have noticed a bunch of migrant workers/slaves rebelling and heaing out into the desert, (especially if they were due at work the next day).  Curiously however, not a peep about it except years later, and from a supposedly hebrew source, (and, vested interest in maintaining the myth springs to mind).

I may have my own hypothesis as to why this series of posts was placed in D+D however, such would be speculative and it remains that they were put in the debate & discuss forum.  Whether this turns out to be a bold move, rather than a wise one, remains to be seen.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on April 15, 2012, 08:13:10 pm
THE DAYS OF THE FALL OF THE TEMPLE
Compared with the earlier eras of Old Testament history, the days of the fall of the temple are a fleeting moment. A life span of just three decades and a public career of only a few years leave a dauntingly narrow target for archaeological exploration. Yet during the past four decades, spectacular discoveries have produced data illuminating the story of Jesus and the birth of Christianity. The picture that has emerged overall closely matches the historical backdrop of the Gospels.

In 1968, for example, explorers found the skeletal remains of a crucified man in a burial cave at Giva'at ha-Mitvar, near the Nablus road outside of Jerusalem. It was a momentous discovery: While the Romans were known to have crucified thousands of alleged traitors, rebels, robbers, and deserters in the two centuries straddling the turn of the era, never before had the remains of a crucifixion victim been recovered. An initial analysis of the remains found that their condition dramatically corroborated the Bible's description of the Roman method of execution.

The bones were preserved in a stone burial box called an ossuary and appeared to be those of a man about 5 feet, 5 inches tall and 24 to 28 years old. His open arms had been nailed to the crossbar, in the manner similar to that shown in crucifixion paintings. The knees had been doubled up and turned sideways, and a single large iron nail had been driven through both heels. The nail -- still lodged in the heel bone of one foot, though the executioners had removed the body from the cross after death -- was found bent, apparently having hit a knot in the wood. The shin bones seem to have been broken, corroborating what the Gospel of John suggests was normal practice in Roman crucifixions: "Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs" (19:32-33). While one later analysis drew some different conclusions about how the man died, [some] similarities to the biblical account were affirmed.

The discovery also posed a counterargument to objections some scholars have raised against the Gospels' description of Jesus's burial. It has been argued that the common practice of Roman executioners was to toss corpses of crucified criminals into a common grave or to leave them on the cross to be devoured by scavenging animals. So it hardly seems feasible, the argument goes, that Roman authorities would have allowed Jesus to undergo the burial described in the Gospels. But with the remains of a crucified man found in a family grave, it is clear that at least on some occasions the Romans permitted proper interment consistent with the biblical account.

A find at another Jerusalem site added to the list of Gospel figures whose existence has been verified by archaeology. Workers building a water park 2 miles south of the Temple Mount in 1990 inadvertently broke through the ceiling of a hidden burial chamber dating to the 1st century A.D. Inside, archaeologists found 12 limestone ossuaries. One contained the bones of a 60-year-old man and bore the inscription Yehosef bar Qayafa -- "Joseph, son of Caiaphas." Experts believe these remains are probably those of Caiaphas the high priest of Jerusalem, who according to the Gospels ordered the arrest of Jesus, interrogated him, and handed him over to Pontius Pilate for execution.

A few decades earlier, the name of another key figure in the days of Jesus turned up in the archaeological record: During excavations in 1961 at the seaside ruins of Caesarea Maritima, the ancient seat of Roman government in Judea, a 1st-century inscription was uncovered confirming that Pilate had been the Roman ruler of the region at the time of Jesus's supposedly crucifixion. Italian archaeologists working at the city's magnificent Herodian theater found the inscribed stone slab in use in the theater's steps. Experts say it originally was a 1st-century plaque at a nearby temple honoring the emperor Tiberius. The badly damaged Latin inscription reads in part, Tiberieum . . . [Pon]tius Pilatus . . . [Praef]ectus Juda[ea]e. According to experts, the complete inscription would have read, "Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judea, has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius." The discovery of the so-called Pilate Stone has been widely acclaimed as a significant affirmation of biblical history because, in short, it confirms that the man depicted in the Gospels as Judea's Roman governor had precisely the responsibilities and authority that the Gospel writers ascribed to him.


Archaeology has been the best friend of Christians.I especially love the fact that historians were quick to change their position that victims were tied to crosses after the remains of that victim with a spike still through the foot were found.(2nd paragraph) It took a while,but science caught up to the Bible at last! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on April 15, 2012, 09:47:43 pm
Quote
IS THE BIBLE TRUE?
Extraordinary insights from archaeology and history

Source: U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT

I'd recommend editing the post and attaching links to your sources. This source is not from any 'US News' or 'World Report' site and therefore it ...seems... you're being intellectually dishonest. It's from here-
http://www.uhcg.org/

Direct article- http://www.uhcg.org/news/is-bible-true.html
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 15, 2012, 09:54:45 pm
"The shin bones seem to have been broken, corroborating what the Gospel of John suggests was normal practice in Roman crucifixions: "Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs" (19:32-33). While one later analysis drew some different conclusions about how the man died, [some] similarities to the biblical account were affirmed."

Archaeology has been the best friend of Christians.

It is noteworthy to point out that the archeologists mentioned as participating in attempting to support foregone conclusions are theologicians, (Hebrews, a professor of biblical studies, etc.), directly suggest a certain vested interest in such foregone conclusions.  That's not how the scientific method works.  One does not seek out that which can be used _only_ to confirm a theory but, in not ignoring a lack of evidence or no confirmation of a pet theory.

I especially love the fact that historians were quick to change their position that victims were tied to crosses after the remains of that victim with a spike still through the foot were found.(2nd paragraph) It took a while,but science caught up to the Bible at last! :thumbsup:

The quoted articles didn't mention anything about being "tied to crosses".  Nothing was presented which suggested that spikes/nails weren't used. Nor was it any more than tacitly implied that the unbroken bones found belonged to "jesus".  Did someone 'sacrifice' any ability you ever had to reason on the 'cross' of ignorance?
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 15, 2012, 09:56:22 pm
Quote
IS THE BIBLE TRUE?
Extraordinary insights from archaeology and history

Source: U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT

I'd recommend editing the post and attaching links to your sources. This source is not from any 'US News' or 'World Report' site and therefore it ...seems... you're being intellectually dishonest. It's from here-
http://www.uhcg.org/

Direct article- http://www.uhcg.org/news/is-bible-true.html

For shame, "Sheryls", (athough the initial dishonesty came from "Hope of Isreal" page which prefaced the quoted article with a false attribution to U.S. News & World Report). The source is therefore doubly tainted and can be disregarded as deceptive.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 09:58:36 pm
@Falconer02:

The post was obtained from site http://www.uhcg.org/news/is-bible-true.html.  The "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT"is listed right there at the top, under the site "greetings" thingy.  The source (book) where they obtained their information from is also listed right at the end of the last paragraph, see it?  Looks like this: (From Is the Bible True? by Jeffery L. Sheler)   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 10:04:16 pm
Quote
IS THE BIBLE TRUE?
Extraordinary insights from archaeology and history

Source: U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT

I'd recommend editing the post and attaching links to your sources. This source is not from any 'US News' or 'World Report' site and therefore it ...seems... you're being intellectually dishonest. It's from here-
http://www.uhcg.org/

Direct article- http://www.uhcg.org/news/is-bible-true.html

For shame, "Sheryls", (athough the initial dishonesty came from "Hope of Isreal" page which prefaced the quoted article with a false attribution to U.S. News & World Report). The source is therefore doubly tainted and can be disregarded as deceptive.

The source is from a book...   The World Report published some of it and the site posted it.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 15, 2012, 10:07:33 pm
The post was obtained from site http://www.uhcg.org/news/is-bible-true.html.  The "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT"is listed right there at the top, under the site "greetings" thingy.  The source (book) where they obtained their information from is also listed right at the end of the last paragraph, see it?  Looks like this: (From Is the Bible True? by Jeffery L. Sheler)   :thumbsup:

The problem which "Falconer02" brought up was that the actual source was not U.S. News & World Report, it derived from an article posted on a UHCG, ("United Hebrew Congregation"), religious website. This inherent religious bias was concealed by not initially referencing the link, (which was Not to a U.S. News & World Report article); an oversight which continued throughout several separate posts in this thread.  I doubt that this was an intentional deception on your part as it seems to be one on the UHCG's part.  
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 15, 2012, 10:13:15 pm
The source is from a book...   The World Report published some of it and the site posted it.

Indeed, the author, (Jeffery L. Sheler's  "Is the Bible True?"), is a religion editor for U.S. News & World Report - which accounts for their publishing it.  His other books include "Believers: A Journey into Evangelical America", hardly a unbiased commentator on religious matters.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 10:17:03 pm
The source is from a book...   The World Report published some of it and the site posted it.

Indeed, the author, (Jeffery L. Sheler's  "Is the Bible True?"), is a religion editor for U.S. News & World Report - which accounts for their publishing it.  His other books include "Believers: A Journey into Evangelical America", hardly a unbiased commentator on religious matters.

so...you're saying various groups of biased archaeologists all decided to go create their own historical "evidence" and there's no unbiased scientist that has yet been able to prove that historical evidence as fake?  And...there's so much of it to work with too...  http://www.bible-history.com/empires/ 
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 15, 2012, 10:27:06 pm
so...you're saying various groups of biased archaeologists all decided to go create their own historical "evidence" and there's no unbiased scientist that has yet been able to prove that historical evidence as fake?

Nope, if I'd said that, you'd be able to quote where I did.  What I will say instead is that various faith-based archeological investigators have been those who hold pre-existed religious biases, (essentially, having a vested interest to producing some sort of 'evidence', stretched to the breaking point as it is), to support a few minor details in the various biblical stories.  You'll note that such minor details cannot be conflated to supporting any major biblical claims made.  Historical evidence consisting of finding the gate of Solomon at the upper Galilee site does not equate to any biblical accounts concerning that gate as being factual, (e.g., the archeological evidence is that remnants of such a gate were uncovered, not that religious accounts concerning it have any veracity).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 10:30:57 pm
so...you're saying various groups of biased archaeologists all decided to go create their own historical "evidence" and there's no unbiased scientist that has yet been able to prove that historical evidence as fake?

Nope, if I'd said that, you'd be able to quote where I did.  What I will say instead is that various faith-based archeological investigators have been those who hold pre-existed religious biases, (essentially, having a vested interest to producing some sort of 'evidence', stretched to the breaking point as it is), to support a few minor details in the various biblical stories.  You'll note that such minor details cannot be conflated to supporting any major biblical claims made.  Historical evidence consisting of finding the gate of Solomon at the upper Galilee site does not equate to any biblical accounts concerning that gate as being factual, (e.g., the archeological evidence is that remnants of such a gate were uncovered, not that religious accounts concerning it have any veracity).


LOL
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 15, 2012, 10:36:11 pm
LOL

Okay, better example:  no evidence of the Red Sea having been "parted", (by anyone).  This biblical claim of supernatural intervention has no supporting geological evidence.  No biblical claims of supernatural interventions have been supported by archeological, geological or logical evidence to date.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 10:45:33 pm
(http://i807.photobucket.com/albums/yy356/thebl4ckd0g/th_michael-jackson-popcorn.gif) (http://s807.photobucket.com/albums/yy356/thebl4ckd0g/?action=view&current=michael-jackson-popcorn.gif)
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 10:54:29 pm
Pharaoh's chariots found in Red Sea?
'Physical evidence' of ancient Exodus prompting new look at Old Testament

Wheel of fortune

Is this a chariot wheel that chased Moses? 

“I am 99.9 percent sure I picked up a chariot wheel,” Peter Elmer tells WorldNetDaily after two diving trips to the Gulf of Aqaba branch of the sea. “It was covered in coral.”

The 38-year-old forklift mechanic from Keynsham, England, traveled to the region with his brother, Mark, after being inspired by videos of explorers Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray, who have documented artifacts that in at least one case authorities have confirmed to be a chariot wheel dating to the time of the Exodus.

“I believe I actually sat in an ancient chariot cab,” Elmer said, referring to his time exploring a submerged item in what he describes as an underwater scrapyard. “Without question, it is most definitely the remains of the Egyptian army.”

---Excerpt from http://www.wnd.com/2003/06/19382/ (http://www.wnd.com/2003/06/19382/)
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 11:05:21 pm
(Excerpt from "The Telegraph",  http://www.ablogabouthistory.com/2010/09/23/evidence-supports-biblical-parting-of-the-red-sea/ (http://www.ablogabouthistory.com/2010/09/23/evidence-supports-biblical-parting-of-the-red-sea/)

An ocean computer model was then used to simulate the impact of a strong overnight wind on the six-foot-deep waters.

The scientists found that an east wind of 63 mph blowing for 12 hours would have driven the shallow waters back, both into the lake and the river channel.

For a period of four hours, this would have created a land bridge about two miles long and three miles wide.

The waters really would have been parted, with barriers of water raised on both sides of the newly exposed mud flats.

As soon as the winds dropped, the waters would have rushed back, much like a tidal bore. Anyone stranded on the mud flats would have been at risk of drowning, said the scientists, whose findings are reported today in the online journal Public Library of Science ONE.

Lead researcher Carl Drews, from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said: ''The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus.

Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: sigmapi1501 on April 15, 2012, 11:09:38 pm
Ummmm... This is a book that has a guy who was born to a "virgin" mother. This same guy disappears for 29 years. He comes back walks on water, dies, comes back to life and THIS is what they are inspecting to determine if the bible is true?

Oh yea, a guy lived in a whale too
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 11:11:57 pm
 (Want some popcorn falcon9??) 


National Geographic News
Moses may have received some geological assistance when he parted the Red Sea to let the Israelites through, according to the Bible.

In a new study, scientists have determined that a recent tear in Earth's continental crust near the sea is the largest single rip seen since satellite monitoring began.

--excerpt from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060719-red-sea-parts.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060719-red-sea-parts.html)
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 15, 2012, 11:13:25 pm
Pharaoh's chariots found in Red Sea?
'Physical evidence' of ancient Exodus prompting new look at Old Testament

Wheel of fortune

Is this a chariot wheel that chased Moses? 

“I am 99.9 percent sure I picked up a chariot wheel,” Peter Elmer tells WorldNetDaily after two diving trips to the Gulf of Aqaba branch of the sea. “It was covered in coral.”

The 38-year-old forklift mechanic from Keynsham, England, traveled to the region with his brother, Mark, after being inspired by videos of explorers Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray, who have documented artifacts that in at least one case authorities have confirmed to be a chariot wheel dating to the time of the Exodus.

“I believe I actually sat in an ancient chariot cab,” Elmer said, referring to his time exploring a submerged item in what he describes as an underwater scrapyard. “Without question, it is most definitely the remains of the Egyptian army.”

---Excerpt from http://www.wnd.com/2003/06/19382/ (http://www.wnd.com/2003/06/19382/)

Without question?  Remnants of something, (which may be a chariot wheel), were found.  This does not mean that such a chariot was part of an Aegyptian army which chased Moses and a bunch of people who were on foot across the desert nor that any Aegyptians drowned in a hypothetical "parting" of the Aqaba inlet of the Red Sea.

"There was a disaster [there] a long time ago," Moller said. "Whatever that is, it's open to interpretation."
One such "interpretation", (using Occam's Razor), is that the Aegyptian armies of that time, would range far and wide, combating various enemies at various times.  It is entirely possible that any chariot parts found were the result of such battles which occurred at times which do not match the timeframe of the alleged "exodus".   Any connection to a chariot wheel and the "exodus" is therefore purely a speculative attempt to force the find to fit a religious hypothesis.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 15, 2012, 11:19:41 pm
(Want some popcorn falcon9??) 

Nah, the popcorn is stale.

"National Geographic News
Moses may have received some geological assistance when he parted the Red Sea to let the Israelites through, according to the Bible.

In a new study, scientists have determined that a recent tear in Earth's continental crust near the sea is the largest single rip seen since satellite monitoring began."

--excerpt from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060719-red-sea-parts.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060719-red-sea-parts.html)

You omitted this part, from that same article; "The study suggests that the splitting is due to the injection of underground magma (molten rock) into the rift rather than earthquakes happening on tectonic faults", (rather than some dude trained by the Aegyptian priesthood raising a stick and "parting the seas").  Also, the same article states the geologic process, (if that acounts for any "parting"), would have lasted for weeks, not moments.  Even an Aegyptian army missing a few chariot wheels wouldn't need weeks to catch a bunch of hebrews fleeing on foot.

Popcorn stale, got any more Junior Mints?
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 15, 2012, 11:25:06 pm
(Excerpt from "The Telegraph",  http://www.ablogabouthistory.com/2010/09/23/evidence-supports-biblical-parting-of-the-red-sea/ (http://www.ablogabouthistory.com/2010/09/23/evidence-supports-biblical-parting-of-the-red-sea/)

 
"According to some experts, an ancient branch of the Nile flowed into a coastal lagoon then known as the Lake of Tanis, (just south of the Mediterranean Sea)."

That's a simulation of hypothesized six-foot lake depth, not a much deeper Red Sea, (or Aqaba inlet).  Once again, stretching the 'evidence' so thinly it's more like a redvine licorice than a Red Sea.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 11:26:42 pm
You omitted this part, from that same article; "The study suggests that the splitting is due to the injection of underground magma (molten rock) into the rift rather than earthquakes happening on tectonic faults", (rather than some dude trained by the Aegyptian priesthood raising a stick and "parting the seas").  Also, the same article states the geologic process, (if that acounts for any "parting"), would have lasted for weeks, not moments.  Even an Aegyptian army missing a few chariot wheels wouldn't need weeks to catch a bunch of hebrews fleeing on foot.

Popcorn stale, got any more Junior Mints?

I didn't "omit" anything, the beginning of the site source says "excerpt".  
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 15, 2012, 11:28:47 pm
(Excerpt from "The Telegraph",  http://www.ablogabouthistory.com/2010/09/23/evidence-supports-biblical-parting-of-the-red-sea/ (http://www.ablogabouthistory.com/2010/09/23/evidence-supports-biblical-parting-of-the-red-sea/)

 
"According to some experts, an ancient branch of the Nile flowed into a coastal lagoon then known as the Lake of Tanis, (just south of the Mediterranean Sea)."

That's a simulation of hypothesized six-foot lake depth, not a much deeper Red Sea, (or Aqaba inlet).  Once again, stretching the 'evidence' so thinly it's more like a redvine licorice than a Red Sea.


And you presume to know more than "scientific experts" now?  ::)
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 15, 2012, 11:36:50 pm
"According to some experts, an ancient branch of the Nile flowed into a coastal lagoon then known as the Lake of Tanis, (just south of the Mediterranean Sea)."

That's a simulation of hypothesized six-foot lake depth, not a much deeper Red Sea, (or Aqaba inlet).  Once again, stretching the 'evidence' so thinly it's more like a redvine licorice than a Red Sea.

And you presume to know more than "scientific experts" now?  ::)

Well, I can at least tell the difference between a six-foot deep lake and the Red Sea, miles away.  Of course, that doesn't take a scientific expert, (as opposed to conflating a shallow lake with a deeper sea which might take a stretch of the imagination, even for a religious adherent).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 15, 2012, 11:41:33 pm
You omitted this part, from that same article; "The study suggests that the splitting is due to the injection of underground magma (molten rock) into the rift rather than earthquakes happening on tectonic faults", (rather than some dude trained by the Aegyptian priesthood raising a stick and "parting the seas").  Also, the same article states the geologic process, (if that acounts for any "parting"), would have lasted for weeks, not moments.  Even an Aegyptian army missing a few chariot wheels wouldn't need weeks to catch a bunch of hebrews fleeing on foot.

Popcorn stale, got any more Junior Mints?

I didn't "omit" anything, the beginning of the site source says "excerpt".  

Yep, that's what "excerpt" means; a selected portion.  That's alright, I included another excerpt which indicates not only would such a hypothesis be accounted for by a geological, (rather than a proposed theological), process but, that such a process would've taken at least weeks.  So, you'd go along with the Aegyptian army waiting around for weeks for this event to occur, maybe having a barbeque and beers, (the Aegyptians invented beer), with hebrew migrants?  Yeah, that could happen.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on April 16, 2012, 12:38:06 am
Of course,it's the same tired objection."It must be a biased source!" ::)
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on April 16, 2012, 12:43:27 am
Ummmm... This is a book that has a guy who was born to a "virgin" mother. This same guy disappears for 29 years. He comes back walks on water, dies, comes back to life and THIS is what they are inspecting to determine if the bible is true?

Oh yea, a guy lived in a whale too


So I guess you know it all,right?

http://www.ycaol.com/swallowed.htm
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 16, 2012, 12:43:48 am
Of course,it's the same tired objection."It must be a biased source!" ::)

Given that the sources were the same tired religiously-biased ones, you expected a different response?  Evenso, some of the individual contentions were challenged based upon attempts to stretch the archeological finds to fit a religious hypothesis.  You expected that to go unchallenged too? Any hypothesis or theory which cannot stand up to even minimal scruntiny is a weak hypothesis or theory.

Also, there's this excerpt:

"Biblical artifacts, faked or enhanced with inscriptions, play on peoples' religious beliefs."
-- http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/hoaxes/intro.html
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: gaylasue on April 16, 2012, 09:43:31 am
I believe in the Holy Bible and all of its contents. 
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 16, 2012, 11:46:40 am
I believe in the Holy Bible and all of its contents. 

That would be a belief an inerrant 'bible', which version?  What's your opinion concerning discrepencies between such an 'inerrent bible' and what little has been uncovered by even religiously-backed archeological expeditions?
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on April 16, 2012, 03:07:14 pm
Quote
So I guess you know it all,right?

In this instance, he does.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/n/newjonah.htm

The definitive research into this story has been done by Edward B. Davis, a professor at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania.
He was curious to try to document the story since it was so often repeated in Christian literature and had even found its way into several Bible commentaries. His research is summarized in an article in 'The American Scientific Affiliation', published in 1991.


Davis not only scoured newspaper files, original documents and libraries, but spent time in England tracking down some of the sources.
He verified, for example, that there really had been a vessel named the 'Star of the East' and that its captain was a man named J.B. Killam.
He followed the trail of the great British engineer, Sir Francis Fox, who was so struck with the Bartley story that he included a chapter on it in his autobiography, published in 1924.

The result of Davis's research was that he could not find any credible evidence to support the James Bartley story.
In fact, he found evidence which made the story seem more questionable.
He checked out a report that Bartley had been treated at a London hospital for the effects of the whale's gastric juices on his skin, but could not find any substantiation for it. When he read through the documents about the particular voyage during which the alleged whale incident happened, James Bartley was not listed as a crew member.


http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/wildlife/whales/sperm_whale_tales.htm

This is certainly a hoax the like of which seamen traditionally reserve for the gullible. In the nature of such hoaxes it is of course impossible to disprove claimed events in the past. Several factors point in this direction; no source is quoted, merely "browsing through old records". The "well authenticated facts" are given no authenticity.

If a man were swallowed by a whale, he would be entirely without oxygen and the temperature would accelerate heat stress causing him to die very quickly. Even if a sperm whale could swallow a man (see below) a live unharmed one would certainly put up a fight requiring him to be bitten and subdued, possibly (probably) killed in the process.


Quote
Of course,it's the same tired objection."It must be a biased source!"

This from the guy who uses some random yacht club webpage for his source of proving magical sea tales. Arrrrrharharharrr!
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: sfister65 on April 16, 2012, 05:10:03 pm
That's very interesting. I like reading about archaeology and it's relationship to the bible. I think the bible is a good book and I believe it attempts to teach us history but I think some of the information is from men coming from a certain belief and point of view. Through archaeology and the bible I think we can get some ideal of whay really happened 900 +/- years ago. For the record: I believe in God and Jesus.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on April 16, 2012, 07:54:55 pm
This video heavily pertains to this thread as it efficiently explains the false claims the religious use to try to make their beliefs more authentic, so I invite the Christians here to respond explaining why their 'evidences' tend to contradict real archaelogy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU

If you don't want to watch, then what is said is archaelogists have been studying many of these M.E sites for a century now, but as soon as Christian arch's come in (some not in the field of arch, all of which usually stay at nearbye Christian resorts), they start conveniently finding things in areas that have been combed for decades. And these things are generally way off the time table of when xtians say they're from. That, and major contradictions pertaining to Jewish laws of the time. 9th commandment, anyone? The amount of intellectual dishonesty is astounding when you mix religion with any field of science.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 18, 2012, 05:05:35 pm
This video heavily pertains to this thread as it efficiently explains the false claims the religious use to try to make their beliefs more authentic, so I invite the Christians here to respond explaining why their 'evidences' tend to contradict real archaelogy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU

If you don't want to watch, then what is said is archaelogists have been studying many of these M.E sites for a century now, but as soon as Christian arch's come in (some not in the field of arch, all of which usually stay at nearbye Christian resorts), they start conveniently finding things in areas that have been combed for decades. And these things are generally way off the time table of when xtians say they're from. That, and major contradictions pertaining to Jewish laws of the time. 9th commandment, anyone? The amount of intellectual dishonesty is astounding when you mix religion with any field of science.


I plan to check out the video you posted and there's some things in falcon's posts I plan to address probably after this weekend.  I missed too much sleep, slept for 14 hours straight the other day and tho' I feel a little better...still feel not so good.  Might have a possible promotion coming up at work (don't ask me how) and will know in a few days (hopefully) which will mean a "stable schedule" instead of all different shifts (and won't be  getting called in so much) plus insurance included (which is the least they could do since they nearly killed me). :P  Busy, BUSY weekend coming up and then I should be back here after that...
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 18, 2012, 05:27:13 pm
... there's some things in falcon's posts I plan to address probably after this weekend.

As always, your dispute of my reasoning is patiently awaited.  8) 

I missed too much sleep, slept for 14 hours straight the other day and tho' I feel a little better...still feel not so good. 

Sleep studies appear to indicate that one can never really 'catch up' on lost sleep; one can only start resting anew.  Shift-workers especially try to be awake when others, (or businesses), are And go to work; leaving little time to sleep.  If that's happening, you already realize that you can't be awake all the time, (sometimes, you just have to sleep some when everyone else is awake).   

Might have a possible promotion coming up at work (don't ask me how) and will know in a few days (hopefully) which will mean a "stable schedule" instead of all different shifts (and won't be  getting called in so much) plus insurance included (which is the least they could do since they nearly killed me). :P  Busy, BUSY weekend coming up and then I should be back here after that...

I understand about shift differentials, (I worked second shifts for 13 years and never saw a sunrise that whole time).  Going to one stable shift schedule ought to help with the sleep deprivation some.  The other benefits will do you good too, (even if you'd planned on attributing them to 'prayers', you may want to let that be your lil' secret here).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 24, 2012, 06:05:48 am
falcon9 had wondered why I had started this thread...it was for 2 reasons.  One is because while mainstream media will lead one to believe that science, archaeology and the Bible can't possibly go together... when what actually the Bible says has archaeology finding the evidence, and scientists saying they can see how certain Biblical events could have happened.   One only has to use their search bar (something FC pays you to do btw with the FC toolbar) and do their own research.

The second was because of the multiple posts where falcon9 responded wanting some "substantial evidence" when I relied on the Bible as a source.  The Bible was not written to be intended to be a work of science.  It's purpose isn't to describe the workings of the physical world.   The Bible was written to explain spiritual principles ( the nature of mankind, the nature of God, and how people can have a personal relationship with God.)   Still, when the Bible describes the physical world, it is accurate.  

"The Bible, written mostly by a bunch of sheep herders, makes a number of scientific claims that are remarkably correct - even though many were not even confirmed to be correct until within the last 100 years".
---Rich Deem

The Bible is ridiculous to those who are perishing, sorry to say.  (1 Cor. 1:18)



 
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 24, 2012, 09:50:24 am
falcon9 had wondered why I had started this thread...it was for 2 reasons.  One is because while mainstream media will lead one to believe that science, archaeology and the Bible can't possibly go together... when what actually the Bible says has archaeology finding the evidence, and scientists saying they can see how certain Biblical events could have happened.   One only has to use their search bar (something FC pays you to do btw with the FC toolbar) and do their own research.

That's further from being accurate than your previous contentions.  First, because "archeology" is not a monolithic group and any implicit suggestion that it is, ("...the Bible says has archaeology finding the evidence..."), leaves a false impression of that.  A few _theological_ and amateur archeologists of religious persuasions found stuff which they dubiously attributed to 'biblical events'.  One can also use the search function to find as many non-religious archeological expeditions whose findings do not corroborate the 'biblical' accounts.

The second was because of the multiple posts where falcon9 responded wanting some "substantial evidence" when I relied on the Bible as a source.  The Bible was not written to be intended to be a work of science.  It's purpose isn't to describe the workings of the physical world.   The Bible was written to explain spiritual principles ( the nature of mankind, the nature of God, and how people can have a personal relationship with God.)   Still, when the Bible describes the physical world, it is accurate.

While there are numerous historical inaccuracies, both in religious and nominally-secular records of past events, the various versions of 'the bible' contain far too many of these to be relied upon as a valid source, (whether for historical events or, "spiritual" ones), since that requires 'faith' rather than hard evidence.  There is no such evidence that the preferred source is 'the inspired word of god', (and this excludes 'faith' from being considered as evidence).

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on April 24, 2012, 10:49:14 am
Quote
One is because while mainstream media will lead one to believe that science, archaeology and the Bible can't possibly go together... when what actually the Bible says has archaeology finding the evidence, and scientists saying they can see how certain Biblical events could have happened.   One only has to use their search bar (something FC pays you to do btw with the FC toolbar) and do their own research.

Quite the opposite actually-- considering that US media is all about getting views and sustaining popularity coupled with America being riddled with uneducated people who constantly bathe in Christian mythology, the media loves attempting to couple religious magic with history. However science (archaeology focused in on this thread) has always shown that religious mythology is faulty, unreliable, or non-existent when looked into. Saying otherwise would be completely dishonest as it shows that one refuses to do any unbiased research.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 25, 2012, 01:26:16 pm
Article: Queen Jezebel: Biblical Bad Girl Had PowerSource:  http://www.livescience.com/2025-queen-jezebel-biblical-bad-girl-power.html
Jezebel, the queen whose name became synonymous with all things lewd and wicked, probably wielded a fair bit of power in ancient Israel, suggests a stone document seal newly traced to the Biblical "bad girl."

Originally discovered in Israel in 1964, the intricate seal was suspected all along to belong to Queen Jezebel, but confusion over the letters engraved on the stone left some uncertainty. Recently, closer scrutiny of the seal's engraving revealed markings characteristic of royal objects.

"The lion-sphinx with female head and female Isis-Hathor crown, which is unique, this clearly points to a queen," said Marjo Korpel, an Old Testament scholar at the University of Utrecht who conducted the research.

The seal confirms that Jezebel, who eventually met a gory demise, was a powerful figure in the ancient world who conducted business independent of her husband.

Complete results of the University of Utrecht study are published in a recent volume of the Journal for Semitics.

 Jezebel, whose life in the 9th century B.C. is chronicled in the Bible, was married to King Ahab of Israel. As a Phoenician, the Queen was considered pagan and attempted to sway the people of Israel to abandon their God and accept her chief deity Baal, partly through forging her husband's seal on documents, according to the scriptures.

The Bible says nothing of her own seal, but archaeologists have long believed that the stone discovered in 1964 was Jezebel's, despite the ambiguity of the symbols and the name depicted on it.

Multiple icons on the seal, as well as its above-average size, indicate that it belonged to a queen, the recent investigations concluded.

"The lotus (below the Horus falcon) was a symbol of gender definition and refers to a female owner," Korpel told LiveScience, "[while] the winged sun disk was a well-known symbol of royalty in and outside Israel."

Other symbols on the seal also reinforce the connection to a monarch, such as the Horus and double-cobra, a figure probably adopted from Egypt, she said.

A misspelling of the name "yzbl"—the queen's moniker in ancient Hebrew—also had archaeologists confused. However, by comparing the seal to similar examples from the time, Korpel found that an upper edge that had broken off likely contained the two missing letters that would have correctly spelled Jezebel's name.

Pagan queen had power

With her own seal, Queen Jezebel was able to exert a powerful influence upon people around her, much like the Egyptian queens, Korpel said.

"The biblical texts already prove that she was a powerful woman. The queens in Egypt … all have in common their prominent roles in religion, politics and representational art, and their status as principal wife. This also seems to count for Queen Jezebel," said Korpel.

Unlike Egypt, however, Biblical Israel did not look favorably upon powerful women. Jezebel was ultimately perceived as a threat and foreign idol worshipper, accused of prostitution, murder and sorcery, and tossed from her window to be ravaged by dogs.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 25, 2012, 01:39:23 pm
Article: Queen Jezebel: Biblical Bad Girl Had PowerSource:  http://www.livescience.com/2025-queen-jezebel-biblical-bad-girl-power.html

"Jezebel, the queen whose name became synonymous with all things lewd and wicked, probably wielded a fair bit of power in ancient Israel, suggests a stone document seal newly traced to the Biblical "bad girl."

Unlike Egypt, however, Biblical Israel did not look favorably upon powerful women. Jezebel was ultimately perceived as a threat and foreign idol worshipper, accused of prostitution, murder and sorcery, and tossed from her window to be ravaged by dogs."

This account merely affirms the contention that 'biblical' sources 'demonized' those they didn't like, ("... became synonymous with all things lewd and wicked ...", "perceived as a threat ...") and attributing a stone seal to Jezebel does not alter such demonizing nor, provide evidence that the 'bible' is a reliable source, (even for such 'gossip').
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 25, 2012, 02:09:39 pm
This account merely affirms the contention that 'biblical' sources 'demonized' those they didn't like, ("... became synonymous with all things lewd and wicked ...", "perceived as a threat ...") and attributing a stone seal to Jezebel does not alter such demonizing nor, provide evidence that the 'bible' is a reliable source, (even for such 'gossip').


right...because "lewdness, wickedness, idol worship, prostitution, murder and sorcery" are synonymous with righteous, God-like behavior.   ::)  
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 25, 2012, 02:17:26 pm
This account merely affirms the contention that 'biblical' sources 'demonized' those they didn't like, ("... became synonymous with all things lewd and wicked ...", "perceived as a threat ...") and attributing a stone seal to Jezebel does not alter such demonizing nor, provide evidence that the 'bible' is a reliable source, (even for such 'gossip').

right...because "lewdness, wickedness, idol worship, prostitution, murder and sorcery" are synonymous with righteous, God-like behavior.   ::)  

No, because the "biblical account" contains a demonizing account of a woman who held power, (and the largely misogynist 'biblical' source was generally opposed to such).  As a woman, aren't you in the least bit offended by biblical characterizations, (which come across as gossipy, instead of 'divinely inspired'), of a strong woman?  There's no evidence to supportt the 'bible gossip' proposed which demonizes her.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 25, 2012, 03:23:13 pm
No, because the "biblical account" contains a demonizing account of a woman who held power, (and the largely misogynist 'biblical' source was generally opposed to such).  As a woman, aren't you in the least bit offended by biblical characterizations, (which come across as gossipy, instead of 'divinely inspired'), of a strong woman?  There's no evidence to supportt the 'bible gossip' proposed which demonizes her.

According to other Old Testament accounts, Jezebel didn't come by her reputation solely from gossip. She is credited with ordering the slaughter of many Israelite prophets (1 Kings 18:4) so that she could install priests of Ba'al in their place.
Usually when people get a "bad name/bad reputation" for themselves...they've done something to earn it.  Considering what she is still known for...she was certainly no angel.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 25, 2012, 03:34:47 pm
According to other Old Testament accounts, Jezebel didn't come by her reputation solely from gossip. She is credited with ordering the slaughter of many Israelite prophets (1 Kings 18:4)

Once again, your source is self-referentiial, (e.g., the biblical source is being disputed and your response is to use another biblical reference).

Usually when people get a "bad name/bad reputation" for themselves...they've done something to earn it.  Considering what she is still known for...she was certainly no angel.

Not necessarily; most of the Isrealite men of that time were definitely misogynist, (conclusion drawn from written accounts such as the hebrew toran/old testament), and seemed unwilling to suffer a strong woman who had disparate religious beliefs.  Further, demonizing someone whom others do not like is not equivalent to that person being such a 'demoness'.  A reference to "what she is known for" is a reference to written gossip, (what civil courts define as libel these days went largely unchallenged when it comes to a religion's 'source book' back then - therefore, some people are challenging it now).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 25, 2012, 04:34:48 pm
According to other Old Testament accounts, Jezebel didn't come by her reputation solely from gossip. She is credited with ordering the slaughter of many Israelite prophets (1 Kings 18:4)

Once again, your source is self-referentiial, (e.g., the biblical source is being disputed and your response is to use another biblical reference).

well...the thread topic IS "Archaeology and the Bible" not "disputing biblical sources" is it not...

[to be continued, sorry... I got an annoying phone call to deal with... :-]   


Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 25, 2012, 04:54:23 pm
According to other Old Testament accounts, Jezebel didn't come by her reputation solely from gossip. She is credited with ordering the slaughter of many Israelite prophets (1 Kings 18:4)

Once again, your source is self-referential, (e.g., the biblical source is being disputed and your response is to use another biblical reference).

well...the thread topic IS "Archaeology and the Bible" not "disputing biblical sources" is it not...

If the source is 'the bible' then disputing such self-referential biblical sources is indeed applicable to the subject title.  In general, taking the "bible" at face value is disputed, (in specific, using biblical references to support biblical references is disputed as being self-referential).

[to be continued, sorry... I got an annoying phone call to deal with... :-]   

That may account for your being distracted and, (possibly), attempting to leave biblical references as indisputable, (when they aren't).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 25, 2012, 05:51:03 pm
That may account for your being distracted and, (possibly), attempting to leave biblical references as indisputable, (when they aren't).
Oh I have no doubts you see biblical references as "disputable" however, since this thread is "archaeology and the Bible" and not "archaeology and any other book"...to start "disputing" might look like an attempt to "stray from the topic".

Back to Jezebel...while some may argue that the Jezebel of the Bible never existed, they will then turn around and say if she did exist, then she isn't as bad as the Bible portrays her.  They'll paint her as a woman of "power, of tremendous ability and intelligence, strong-willed, courageous and loyal"...and perhaps she was.  There was also ALOT more to her than just a "few good qualities".

Jezebel, brought Baal-Melqart worship into Israel.  Jezebel was not content to simply allow the worship of Baal and Asherah concurrently with the worship of Israel’s true God; she was determined to eliminate all worship of the true and living God. She killed most of God’s prophets and installed her false prophets of Baal and Asherah. She successfully controlled Ahab and implemented idol worship and had him build a temple for idol worship. Baal worship incorporated both animal and child sacrifices and ritualistic sensual dancing and sodomy by male and female Baal prostitutes.

In addition to idolatry Jezebel is known for witchcraft.
2 Kings 9:22 (NIV): When Joram saw Jehu he asked, “Have you come in peace, Jehu?” “How can there be peace,” Jehu replied, “as long as all the idolatry and witchcraft of your mother Jezebel abound?”

Jezebel is an arrogantly and pridefully self-appointed “prophetess.” She established herself as a teacher of God’s people and misled them into sexual immorality. The “eating of food sacrificed to idols” carries with it a meaning of fleshly indulgences brought about by spiritual compromise seasoned liberally with moral compromise.

Some will say Jezebel "painted her face in makeup" so she could die with dignity...die as a queen.  It was a wasted effort.   She was tossed out a window by three eunuchs, was trampled by horses and then she became 'dog-food'.  When they went to bury her, all that was left was her skull, feet and hands. (2 Kings 9:35)

Compared to all the other women of the Bible...Jezebel was definitely the "worst of the worst".
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 25, 2012, 11:20:35 pm
Oh I have no doubts you see biblical references as "disputable" however, since this thread is "archaeology and the Bible" and not "archaeology and any other book"...to start "disputing" might look like an attempt to "stray from the topic".

Since I'm not disputing "any other book", the relevant disute is with the one in the subject title, ("the bible").  Your attempts to divert attention from this are doomed to continued failure so, I'll continue to relevantly dis[ute recourses to bibical references, (despite continued attempts to characterize such as "straying from the subject" while you simultaneously continue to refer to "the bible" as a reference source).  You can't have it both ways.  If the disputed reference source is immaterial to the subject, (as you contend), then so are continued references to such an immaterial source.

Jezebel, brought Baal-Melqart worship into Israel.  Jezebel was not content to simply allow the worship of Baal and Asherah concurrently with the worship of Israel’s true God; she was determined to eliminate all worship of the true and living God.

Your source for this is biblically-derived.  Here's how one can tell that's the case; designating the 'god of isreal' as the "true god" while denigrating the 'gods' of other religions is a dead giveaway.  As a sidebar, Aeyptian rulers permitted such "foreign gods", (to their neteru), to be brought in by foreigners, (of which, Jezebel was purported to be - from Assyria, IIRC).  Be that as it may, evidence of the probable existence of the woman does not constitute evidence that dubious, (and gossipy), biblical accounts of her are accurate.  These have already been disputed as misogynist, (a common view of the time period and afterword; when strong-willed women like Cleopatra and perhaps Jez were feared by males).

Compared to all the other women of the Bible...Jezebel was definitely the "worst of the worst".

So, the account of Lilith was one of a 'choirgirl' in comparison, no doubt?  Nevertheless, you may as well move on to something like 'the walls of Jericho' next, this one failed to support your argument.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 27, 2012, 06:57:27 am
Oh I have no doubts you see biblical references as "disputable" however, since this thread is "archaeology and the Bible" and not "archaeology and any other book"...to start "disputing" might look like an attempt to "stray from the topic".

Since I'm not disputing "any other book", the relevant disute is with the one in the subject title, ("the bible").  Your attempts to divert attention from this are doomed to continued failure so, I'll continue to relevantly dis[ute recourses to bibical references, (despite continued attempts to characterize such as "straying from the subject" while you simultaneously continue to refer to "the bible" as a reference source).  You can't have it both ways.  If the disputed reference source is immaterial to the subject, (as you contend), then so are continued references to such an immaterial source.


Jezebel, brought Baal-Melqart worship into Israel.  Jezebel was not content to simply allow the worship of Baal and Asherah concurrently with the worship of Israel’s true God; she was determined to eliminate all worship of the true and living God.

Your source for this is biblically-derived.  Here's how one can tell that's the case; designating the 'god of isreal' as the "true god" while denigrating the 'gods' of other religions is a dead giveaway.  As a sidebar, Aeyptian rulers permitted such "foreign gods", (to their neteru), to be brought in by foreigners, (of which, Jezebel was purported to be - from Assyria, IIRC).  Be that as it may, evidence of the probable existence of the woman does not constitute evidence that dubious, (and gossipy), biblical accounts of her are accurate.  These have already been disputed as misogynist, (a common view of the time period and afterword; when strong-willed women like Cleopatra and perhaps Jez were feared by males).

Compared to all the other women of the Bible...Jezebel was definitely the "worst of the worst".

So, the account of Lilith was one of a 'choirgirl' in comparison, no doubt?  Nevertheless, you may as well move on to something like 'the walls of Jericho' next, this one failed to support your argument.

 I can have it "both ways"---it's MY thread.  I can't help it if you don't like the topic...you DON'T HAVE to post in it.  (I'm glad that you do, don't get me wrong.  I just think it's kind of "rude" to keep 'complaining' about the topic.) I can't help it if you don't find the Bible as a "accurate source".  I realize the Bible wasn't written to provide an account of history and I also realize that not EVERY shred of archaeologic evidence is valid.   The point is, what has been found and through the years that has been considered valid and /or plausible has been in agreement with the Bible.  (Not every shred of "evolutionary evidence" has stood the test of time...has it?  Scientists are always "finding bones" and trying to make them form into some 'creature' and then a few years later they will be like..."oh wait, this wasn't what we thought it was"... point is, when discoveries are made...it's fun to check them out and see where they belonged in history/in the Bible.  If you have a problem with that...I'm sorry.  (Sometimes in d&d, especially when the topic pertains to 'religious' matters, one may see things that they don't want to...that's why FC has a "warning" on the 'd&d' section.  ;))

 Archaeology has found things that without the Bible...noone would know what they found because there would be no explanation, no record.  The Bible lists details of historical facts, geneologies, etc. that have been a valuable resource to archaeologists, which is kind of funny that that Book would have so much incredible accurate historical information in it if it were written merely to just be a "book of fairytales".

 Back on topic...where is Lilith mentioned in the Bible/or is there some archaeolgical evidence found of her existence to share?  Because it's been my opinion that Lilith's complete absence from Scripture demonstrates that she is nothing more than a myth... :dontknow:

Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: jordandog on April 27, 2012, 07:33:58 am
Lilith is a nocturnal female demon originating in Babylonian tradition, said to harm male children. The name Lilith is mentioned in the Bible in Isaiah 34:14, where it is translated as "screech-owl" in the King James Version. According to medieval Jewish lore, Lilith was the first wife of Adam, who left Eden of her own choice because she considered Adam inferior. For this reason, she has recently become a symbol of the feminist movement.
 
The earliest recorded reference to Lilith is in the prologue to the Babylonian epic poem Gilgamesh, dating from as early as 2000 BCE. Much later, around the 9th century BCE, related demons are attested in Babylonian lore, including the male Lilu and the female Lilitu and Ardat Lili. All three are vampire-like monsters that prey on infants and pregnant women during the night.
http://www.wisegeek.com/who-is-lilith.htm (http://www.wisegeek.com/who-is-lilith.htm)
 
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 27, 2012, 07:55:15 am
It's the NRSV/Darby translations that read, "there too Lilith shall repose." (in Isaiah 34:14). It's a poor translation.  All the other major translations of the Bible say "night creature", "screech owl", or something similiar.   Even if  a"demon monster named Lilith" was the proper translation of the Hebrew word, Adam isn't hinted at in this passage or its context. Whatever the Lilith was, it is not given any connection whatsoever to Adam or Creation in the Bible.

(note: for anyone that is interested, many different bible translations can be compared easily at http://bible.cc/isaiah/34-14.htm (http://bible.cc/isaiah/34-14.htm))
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 27, 2012, 10:37:50 am
I realize the Bible wasn't written to provide an account of history and I also realize that not EVERY shred of archaeologic evidence is valid.   The point is, what has been found and through the years that has been considered valid and /or plausible has been in agreement with the Bible. 

That is simply not true.  For instance, there have been several claims made that pieces of the "true cross" and "noah's ark" have been found, (either by religious amateurs or religiously-biased archeologists).  None of these were considered scientifically-valid finds. Your assertion is vague; what precisely has been found that's been considered valid/plausible, (the Aegyptian chariot wheel is an Aegyptian chariot wheel and does not corroborate a fictional religious account).

(Not every shred of "evolutionary evidence" has stood the test of time...has it?  Scientists are always "finding bones" and trying to make them form into some 'creature' and then a few years later they will be like..."oh wait, this wasn't what we thought it was" ...

Ever see the bones of modern-day animals after predators and scavengers have had at them?  They get scattered and would require forensic archeologists to identify what critter the bones came from.  Same thing for dinosaur bones, (and if you're inherently implying that dinosaurs didn't exist by your comment regarding evolution and finding bones, that's a separate debate).

... point is, when discoveries are made...it's fun to check them out and see where they belonged in history/in the Bible. 

You mean history OR the "bible"; the two are not the same thing.  They both contain historical fictions however, the "bible" contains far more of these than any secular accounts.
 
If you have a problem with that...I'm sorry.  (Sometimes in d&d, especially when the topic pertains to 'religious' matters, one may see things that they don't want to...that's why FC has a "warning" on the 'd&d' section.  ;))

That works both ways.  Oftentimes, religious adherents will read refutations of their specious beliefs in d+d which they don't want to see or know about.  My condolences for this are extended.

Archaeology has found things that without the Bible...noone would know what they found because there would be no explanation, no record.

That is an incorrect contention.  There are numerous non-biblical records, (Aegyptian, Sumarian, Babylonian, Greek, Chinese, etc.), which provide some historical context unrelated to 'biblical' fictions.  Specifically, Aegyptian records do not corroborate hebrew religious fictions for the same time period.  While some of this is no doubt due to biased perspectives, (history is riddled with those), some are more mundanely-based, (such as logistical records concerning military deployments which have been found for other engagements but, not for chasing jews across the desert and losing an entire task force in a 'magical parting of the Red Sea' - something the Aeyptians would have noticed).
 
The Bible lists details of historical facts ...

What "facts"?

... geneologies, etc.

Are you referring to geneologies of people who were reported in the 'bible' to be hundreds of years old as 'factual'?

... that have been a valuable resource to archaeologists, which is kind of funny that that Book would have so much incredible accurate historical information in it if it were written merely to just be a "book of fairytales".

Again, your contention is strongly disputed in that your reference source, (biblical), does NOT contain "much incredible accurate historical information".  Your argument is circular because the assumed premise is inaccurate; the conclusion is therefore inaccurate, (false).   

Back on topic...where is Lilith mentioned in the Bible/or is there some archaeolgical evidence found of her existence to share?  Because it's been my opinion that Lilith's complete absence from Scripture demonstrates that she is nothing more than a myth... :dontknow:

Jdog addressed this point however, my point was that biblical references are an invalid, (inaccurate), source.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on April 27, 2012, 12:19:52 pm
The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 27, 2012, 02:00:54 pm
The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.

There is that, in addition to religious adherents trying to make some 'square pegs' of archeological finds force-fit the 'round holes' of biblical references, (which is a logically invalid reasoning process, devoid of reasoning).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 27, 2012, 04:43:36 pm
Quote
That is simply not true.  For instance, there have been several claims made that pieces of the "true cross" and "noah's ark" have been found, (either by religious amateurs or religiously-biased archeologists).  None of these were considered scientifically-valid finds. Your assertion is vague; what precisely has been found that's been considered valid/plausible, (the Aegyptian chariot wheel is an Aegyptian chariot wheel and does not corroborate a fictional religious account).

It is true.  Not every archaeologic find has been proven to be real (ie: "noah's ark", "true cross", etc.) but not all finds have been proven to be fake either. The last one hundred years alone have archaeology finding things that scholars have questioned or doubted for centuries, such as:  the Dead Sea Scrolls, the basalt stone containing the “House of David” inscription, a 7th century BC amulet scroll bearing the name of God, and a stone bearing the name and title of Pontius Pilate, the Judean governor who ordered the execution of Jesus Christ, etc.  In many instances, there are scientist's working to establish the "validity"of the archaeologic finds and they are saying that what science has said was impossible before...they now see scientific evidence that not only would have permitted such an event to happen but also is in line with the Biblical timing of the events. (Which was included in my former posts in this topic as I chose the sources that mentioned scientific evidence along with archaeologic evidence when possible.)

Quote
Ever see the bones of modern-day animals after predators and scavengers have had at them?  They get scattered and would require forensic archeologists to identify what critter the bones came from.  Same thing for dinosaur bones, (and if you're inherently implying that dinosaurs didn't exist by your comment regarding evolution and finding bones, that's a separate debate).

I never meant to imply that dinosaurs didn't exist (I'm not sure how that was 'implied'), I believe they surely did and they are also mentioned in the Bible (Job).  What I meant was evolutionary scientists simply have a theory, and then they force the evidence to fit the theory.  They believe they can find a fossil and it proves the existence of  the bent-over, primitive "half ape/half man caveman".  I believe God created Adam & Eve fully-formed, intelligent and upright.  I agree, that's a separate debate.

Quote
You mean history OR the "bible"; the two are not the same thing.  They both contain historical fictions however, the "bible" contains far more of these than any secular accounts.

Time and again, the historicity of the Bible has been confirmed by biology, geology, and astronomy.  The Bible has never been proven to be in any conflict with any true, established historical facts.   "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a Biblical Reference"---Renowned Archaeologist Nelson Gluek
Quote
Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 06:57:27 am
Archaeology has found things that without the Bible...noone would know what they found because there would be no explanation, no record.
Quote
That is an incorrect contention.  There are numerous non-biblical records, (Aegyptian, Sumarian, Babylonian, Greek, Chinese, etc.), which provide some historical context unrelated to 'biblical' fictions.  Specifically, Aegyptian records do not corroborate hebrew religious fictions for the same time period.  While some of this is no doubt due to biased perspectives, (history is riddled with those), some are more mundanely-based, (such as logistical records concerning military deployments which have been found for other engagements but, not for chasing jews across the desert and losing an entire task force in a 'magical parting of the Red Sea' - something the Aeyptians would have noticed).

That former quote of mine wasn't just my observation--- the same thing has been stated repeatedly in some of the sources I had listed from the "archaeologic finds". 


Quote
Again, your contention is strongly disputed in that your reference source, (biblical), does NOT contain "much incredible accurate historical information".  Your argument is circular because the assumed premise is inaccurate; the conclusion is therefore inaccurate, (false).

I guess it depends on how you interpret the available evidences and how you view the world around you.   When scientists are looking at archaeological finds and validating the dates and their place in history and that information is in line with what is written in the Bible...sure a person can still dispute it, but it doesn't mean they are correct.  It just means they have chosen what they are going to believe (or not) in spite of the evidence/and or facts.  “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” ---Pascal

Quote
Jdog addressed this point however, my point was that biblical references are an invalid, (inaccurate), source.
You have an 'invalid' point.  If you had started a thread "Archaeology and Grimms' Fairy Tales" then "Grimms' Fairy Tales" would have been the source regardless of how "invalid/inaccurate" one would deem them to be.  To keep bringing "tales of Mother Goose" to the table is an attempt to stray from the topic...no matter how much one loves Mother Goose.
   
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 27, 2012, 05:17:08 pm
The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.

What is your definition of a "fundamentalist"?  (for clarification purposes as I keep seeing it in various places in the FC forum).

What actual archaeologic evidence is there that contradicts "what a fundamentalist believes in"?

Hypothetically speaking, if I were a "fundamentalist" that believed in something false and that was contradicted by actual evidence...to stop searching for the real answers and focus on my own wants would be to go to one of the movies by James Cameron and believe every word said about the evidence of the Red Sea parting and the finding of Jesus' family tomb...and that would be my "sole source".  However, while I respect the mountains of evidence that archaeologists collect, at the same time I understand that their conclusions are only theory produced by their own inductive methods. 

Again, I think it depends on how one interprets the available evidences and how one views the world around them.  I look at all 'evidences' skeptically and more importantly Biblically.  I've never stopped searching for answers as to "how it all works" scientifically and historically.  My conclusion is God is beyond the reach of science.  God created the world (Genesis 1).  And, despite their existence, He didn’t need scientists to do it.

Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 27, 2012, 05:21:25 pm
The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.

There is that, in addition to religious adherents trying to make some 'square pegs' of archeological finds force-fit the 'round holes' of biblical references, (which is a logically invalid reasoning process, devoid of reasoning).

That can happen with some, I agree.  It also happens with the 'non-religious' trying to make a quick buck such as Director James Cameron. 
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 27, 2012, 07:35:36 pm
The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.

There is that, in addition to religious adherents trying to make some 'square pegs' of archeological finds force-fit the 'round holes' of biblical references, (which is a logically invalid reasoning process, devoid of reasoning).

That can happen with some, I agree.  It also happens with the 'non-religious' trying to make a quick buck such as Director James Cameron. 

Let's not forget Mel Gibson's profit motive in the fictional Passion of Christ movie.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: techwreck8870 on April 28, 2012, 05:14:27 am
topic sounds like someone triing to rationalize science and religion in the same thread
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 28, 2012, 08:46:24 am
topic sounds like someone triing to rationalize science and religion in the same thread

That's essentially the basis of the debate however, the underlying motivation stems from a previous premise.  The proponent(s) being religious adherent(s) who want to justify the "bible" as an accurate reference source while opponents, (non-religious persons), maintain that the reference source is not a valid one.

So far, (which would be for the last few thousand years), the religious adherents have been grasping at rationalizing straws and been unable to support their claims that the "bible" is substantially either historical or, factually accurate. 
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on April 28, 2012, 01:22:55 pm
Quote
What is your definition of a "fundamentalist"?  (for clarification purposes as I keep seeing it in various places in the FC forum).

Someone who takes the myths as truth-- believes the bible as a realistic interpretation of what happened in the past and tries to apply/spread the stories in the present as truth rather than focusing on current evidences and issues.

Quote
What actual archaeologic evidence is there that contradicts "what a fundamentalist believes in"?

I thought you said you'd watch the video. You've already brought up examples that Falcon9 has shown contradictions or biased results from xtians. And I recall in past threads you showing "evidences" of Noah's Ark, which were almost cartoonish in retrospect seeing how there was a bible-themepark built near the supposed site of the mythological boat. I remember posting a news report with archaeologist's getting frustrated with the religious attempting to align finds with what the bible says and how it's a waste of time when they have to step up and set the record straight.

Quote
Hypothetically speaking, if I were a "fundamentalist" that believed in something false and that was contradicted by actual evidence...to stop searching for the real answers and focus on my own wants would be to go to one of the movies by James Cameron and believe every word said about the evidence of the Red Sea parting and the finding of Jesus' family tomb...and that would be my "sole source".  However, while I respect the mountains of evidence that archaeologists collect, at the same time I understand that their conclusions are only theory produced by their own inductive methods.

Granted archaeology can be a guessing game at times, I'd rather have someone unbiased who says "This ancient trinket might have been a children's toy or a tool used in religious ceremonies." rather than a biased person going "This trinket is specifically talked about in Luke _:__ and therefore the bible is completely accurate!" which seems to be an example of what Falcon and I are stressing and what you're pretty much doing.

Quote
Again, I think it depends on how one interprets the available evidences and how one views the world around them.

I agree, though one who falls for magical thinking will be vastly different from people who interpret the world as...realistic.

Quote
I look at all 'evidences' skeptically and more importantly Biblically.

This is a completely contradictory statement though- putting biblical sources in front of skepticism immediately cancels out your ability to be skeptical. It's like saying "I'm a skeptic, but without a doubt fairies exist". You've already demonstrated your lack of skepticism towards this subject (as Falcon9 has pointed out), so you are not looking at evidences skeptically since you constantly lean towards mythology.

Quote
I've never stopped searching for answers as to "how it all works" scientifically and historically.  My conclusion is God is beyond the reach of science.  God created the world (Genesis 1).  And, despite their existence, He didn’t need scientists to do it

Another complete contradictory statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a creationist (or something fairly close to one), you lean towards mythology rather than actual science and history, and therefore you haven't searched for answers to how it 'all' works. The amount of bias here is ludicrous, so I feel reposting my previous post is important-

The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 28, 2012, 03:54:40 pm
For instance, there have been several claims made that pieces of the "true cross" and "noah's ark" have been found, (either by religious amateurs or religiously-biased archeologists).  None of these were considered scientifically-valid finds. Your assertion is vague; what precisely has been found that's been considered valid/plausible, (the Aegyptian chariot wheel is an Aegyptian chariot wheel and does not corroborate a fictional religious account).


It is true.

I've previously mentioned that if you're going to snip the context of what you are replying to and then reply out of that context that I'll be reciprocating in kind.  With that said, the refutations which you'll be snipping should you choose to reply out of context again, follow:

Not every archaeologic find has been proven to be real (ie: "noah's ark", "true cross", etc.) but not all finds have been proven to be fake either.

The suspect evidence purported to be "ark wood" and "true cross wood" have not been validated as what they are claimed to be, (it is a logical fallacy to assert that "...not all finds have been proven to be fake either" since the burden of proof supporting the claims that these are evidence of the 'real things' claimed remains with the claimant).

...they now see scientific evidence that not only would have permitted such an event to happen ...

No, you are confusing hypothetical possibilities with "scientific evidence", (apparently when it suits your own argument and disregarding such when it counters your arguments); the two are not synonymous.
 
... in line with the Biblical timing of the events. (Which was included in my former posts in this topic as I chose the sources that mentioned scientific evidence along with archaeologic evidence when possible.)

No; once again, the time period _range_ is not equivalent to being "...in line with the Biblical timing of the events", nor does the example from a biased religious 'archeologist' support any purely religious claims about the find, (e.g., chariot wheel does NOT = Red Sea parted).

I never meant to imply that dinosaurs didn't exist (I'm not sure how that was 'implied'), I believe they surely did and they are also mentioned in the Bible (Job).  What I meant was evolutionary scientists simply have a theory, and then they force the evidence to fit the theory.

This is incorrect; secular forensic archeologists who study such bones attempt to reassemble them into whatever critter they once formed, (they aren't trying to make a T-Rex out of hominid bones and thus 'force-fit' them to a pre-concluded theory).  On the other hand,  we have you attempting to present a religious archeologist's force-fitting a chariot wheel to fit a religious hypothesis about the Red Sea parting.

They believe they can find a fossil and it proves the existence of  the bent-over, primitive "half ape/half man caveman".

No, they don't "believe" they can find such, they've found such bones which _do_ form early hominids, (the bones of more than 500 early hominins have been found, such as cro-magnon and australopithecines).  

I believe God created Adam & Eve fully-formed, intelligent and upright.

Unfortunately, your superstitious religious belief is contradicted by the solid evidence mentioned above.

Quote
You mean history OR the "bible"; the two are not the same thing.  They both contain historical fictions however, the "bible" contains far more of these than any secular accounts.

Time and again, the historicity of the Bible has been confirmed by biology, geology, and astronomy.  

No, the historic authenticity of 'biblical accounts has not been confirmed by the scientific disciplines of biology, geology and astronomy and has in fact, been contradicted by those disciplines time and again.  Your simple declaration making these initial claims lacks specifics and evidence to support them.  If you'd care to wheel any out into the cross-fire, that can be obliged.

The Bible has never been proven to be in any conflict with any true, established historical facts.  

What?  That's a pretty outrageous claim, (and I suppose the intent was to get opponents to do the work of providing evidence contrary to such a claim however, the burden of proof remains with the claimant - you - even if the diversion of quoting someone else to palm-off that burden is attempted below).

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a Biblical Reference"---Renowned Archaeologist Nelson Gluek

"Nelson Glueck (1900–1971) was an American rabbi, academic and archaeologist. Dr Glueck served as president of Hebrew Union College from 1947 until his death, and his pioneering work in biblical archaeology ..." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Glueck

No religiously-biased source is considered valid in this discussion due to inherent vested interest.

There are numerous non-biblical records, (Aegyptian, Sumarian, Babylonian, Greek, Chinese, etc.), which provide some historical context unrelated to 'biblical' fictions.  Specifically, Aegyptian records do not corroborate hebrew religious fictions for the same time period.  While some of this is no doubt due to biased perspectives, (history is riddled with those), some are more mundanely-based, (such as logistical records concerning military deployments which have been found for other engagements but, not for chasing jews across the desert and losing an entire task force in a 'magical parting of the Red Sea' - something the Aeyptians would have noticed).
[/quote]

That former quote of mine wasn't just my observation--- the same thing has been stated repeatedly in some of the sources I had listed from the "archaeologic finds".  

Those biased religious sources are rejected under an inherent conflict of interest in 'justifying' a pre-existing religious belief.  Sorry.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the available evidences and how you view the world around you.  

An important distinction in the field of evidence is teh difference between some circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference. Generally, hard evidence is not open to 'interpretation' in regards to what it directly is, scientifically, (as opposed to interpreting what it _may_ 'represent' - a far more subjective judgement).

When scientists are looking at archaeological finds and validating the dates and their place in history and that information is in line with what is written in the Bible...sure a person can still dispute it, but it doesn't mean they are correct.

The reason that such is disputed is because such finds _Do Not_validate biblical claims, (and in fact are contrary to such biblical claims made by religiously-biased archeologists' pre-existing religious beliefs).  The predisposition of those who dispute such religious claims is a perspective of skepticism and requiring reasonable evidence to support outrageous claims.  No such evidence having veracity has been presented without stretching credibility to the breaking point.

It just means they have chosen what they are going to believe (or not) in spite of the evidence/and or facts.   “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” ---Pascal

If you're talking about religious adherents/fundamentalists there, I fully agree.  If you're trying to shift such onto those who are still waiting for valid evidence to support religious adherents'/fundie claims to be presented, (which is not a matter of any pre-existing 'beliefs'), then you're off-base.

If you had started a thread "Archaeology and Grimms' Fairy Tales" then "Grimms' Fairy Tales" would have been the source regardless of how "invalid/inaccurate" one would deem them to be.

There's no reasoning at at behind your assertion; it is completely illogical. If the reference source  is fictional/disputed as such, then it is immaterial what you choose to entitle the thread and can/will be disputed despite your objections, (since the disputed source is NOT being taken for granted as accurate).  If you want to concede that your source is inaccurate/fictional then the contention about that point would cease.  If not, it'll continue regardless of your attempts to characterize your own inherent premise/thread title as "straying from the topic", (especially when the content of the discussion clearly shows that that aspect is directly on-topic). Everytime you quoted the disputed source, it'll be contended.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 28, 2012, 04:03:14 pm
Granted archaeology can be a guessing game at times, I'd rather have someone unbiased who says "This ancient trinket might have been a children's toy or a tool used in religious ceremonies." rather than a biased person going "This trinket is specifically talked about in Luke _:__ and therefore the bible is completely accurate!" which seems to be an example of what Falcon and I are stressing and what you're pretty much doing.

Quote


In support of your point, (excerpt follows):

"In 1936, while excavating ruins of a 2000-year-old village near Baghdad, workers discovered mysterious small vase. A 6-inch-high pot of bright yellow clay dating back two millennia contained a cylinder of sheet-copper 5 inches by 1.5 inches. The edge of the copper cylinder was soldered with a 60-40 lead-tin alloy comparable to today's solder. The bottom of the cylinder was capped with a crimped-in copper disk and sealed with bitumen or asphalt. Another insulating layer of asphalt sealed the top and also held in place an iron rod suspended into the center of the copper cylinder. The rod showed evidence of having been corroded with an acidic agent.

Although the find was originally classified as "misc. religious artifact" when it was cataloged at the Baghdad Museum, a German archaeologist , Wilhelm König, examined the object and came to a surprising conclusion that the clay pot was nothing less than an ancient electric battery."
-- http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_11.htm
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 30, 2012, 05:09:45 pm
The problem here with the fundamentalists is that when they believe in something false that is contradicted by actual evidence, they stop searching for the real answers and focus on their own wants.

There is that, in addition to religious adherents trying to make some 'square pegs' of archeological finds force-fit the 'round holes' of biblical references, (which is a logically invalid reasoning process, devoid of reasoning).

That can happen with some, I agree.  It also happens with the 'non-religious' trying to make a quick buck such as Director James Cameron. 

Let's not forget Mel Gibson's profit motive in the fictional Passion of Christ movie.

Mel Gibson's movie wasn't about archaeology...
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 30, 2012, 05:12:23 pm
Mel Gibson's movie wasn't about archaeology...

I'm aware of that.  It did however, concern a character mentioned on 'the bible', (which means it's in context within this thread). Did you have a good weekend?
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 30, 2012, 05:39:18 pm
Mel Gibson's movie wasn't about archaeology...

I'm aware of that.  It did however, concern a character mentioned on 'the bible', (which means it's in context within this thread). Did you have a good weekend?

What?  :dontknow: James Cameron was a director for "The Titanic" and then he decided to direct a movie about the parting of the Red Sea and finding the tomb of Jesus.  His efforts have the scholars laughing, his "facts" don't add up.  They don't add up historically or Biblically.  Mel might have made a movie about a Bible character...it doesn't add anything of any particular interest to this thread as there have been many movies made on various Bible characters including one about Jezebel played by Betty Davis...

How was your weekend?  You having nice, sunny, warm weather yet?  All we have is cold, gloomy and rainy days.  I've noticed you have another FC thread devoted just to you and some new admirers fans...lucky you!! ;D  My weekend wasn't that exciting.  Have had a BAD sinus infection since Friday, (I think my immune system is entirely shot) but had to go to work anyway.  Had my promotion made official finally (will be 'in training' until June) but it was 'bittersweet' because my friend was "let go" due to "company b.s."  We're all mad, sad and miss her.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: walksalone11 on April 30, 2012, 05:44:22 pm
coughgotothedoctorcoughcough
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 30, 2012, 05:50:25 pm
coughgotothedoctorcoughcough

I know...I'm a procrastinator...   I was told there's a 2 month wait and that was a few weeks ago, still haven't made an appointment.   :-   I worry that the doctor is going to run some tests, slap me with an outrageous bill and tell me that I died three years ago...lol
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 30, 2012, 05:53:03 pm
James Cameron was a director for "The Titanic" and then he decided to direct a movie about the parting of the Red Sea and finding the tomb of Jesus.  His efforts have the scholars laughing, his "facts" don't add up.  They don't add up historically or Biblically.  Mel might have made a movie about a Bible character...it doesn't add anything of any particular interest to this thread as there have been many movies made on various Bible characters including one about Jezebel played by Betty Davis...

While I can't speak for Cameron, I still somehow doubt that he was trying to be historically or, factually accurate in the flim's portrayal of a fictional event.

How was your weekend?  You having nice, sunny, warm weather yet? All we have is cold, gloomy and rainy days.

It's been too hot but, I don't think an offer to swap temperatures would be effective, (also, there's that 'well now it's too hot' aspect).  Personally, I enjoy cooler rainy days, (and I soundly miss them from the Puget Sound area).

I've noticed you have another FC thread devoted just to you and some new admirers fans...lucky you!! ;D 

Yep, an associate of mine insightfully-observed in reference to that effect; 'a fire draws moths and other bugs'.  Everyone laughed.

My weekend wasn't that exciting.  Have had a BAD sinus infection since Friday, (I think my immune system is entirely shot) but had to go to work anyway.  Had my promotion made official finally (will be 'in training' until June) but it was 'bittersweet' because my friend was "let go" due to "company b.s."  We're all mad, sad and miss her.

There's some new form of influenza going around, (again), which takes fairly strong antibiotics to kick too.  I'm told that this strain can result in sinus infections and even pnemonia.

The sort of 'office politics' you hint at occurs everyone but, seems to be more pronounced where women in the office are concerned, (this was not intended as sexist; on the contrary, the reference was to how women interact with otehr women in the workplace ... if you know what I mean?).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 30, 2012, 05:55:16 pm
I know...I'm a procrastinator...   I was told there's a 2 month wait and that was a few weeks ago, still haven't made an appointment.   :-   I worry that the doctor is going to run some tests, slap me with an outrageous bill and tell me that I died three years ago...lol

Come to think of it, that _does_ seem to be the usual medical procedure all around.  Still, a "2 MONTH WAIT" for that!?!?  Outrageous.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on April 30, 2012, 06:54:55 pm
Quote
While I can't speak for Cameron, I still somehow doubt that he was trying to be historically or, factually accurate in the flim's portrayal of a fictional event.

From what I've read about it, it seemed to be a hastily put-together for the money.  There seems to be people that think he would be "the authority" since "The Titanic" was such a hit.  Go figure...

 Quote from: SherylsShado on Today at 05:39:18 pm
I've noticed you have another FC thread devoted just to you and some new admirers fans...lucky you!! 

Quote
Yep, an associate of mine insightfully-observed in reference to that effect; 'a fire draws moths and other bugs'.  Everyone laughed.

 ;D

Quote
  Personally, I enjoy cooler rainy days, (and I soundly miss them from the Puget Sound area).
 
Alot of people here get very cranky when it's been rainy all week...it's not much fun dealing with them.  At least there's "Neuro Water" now, there's one with Vitamin D added, "sunshine in a bottle"...I tell these cranky people ever so subtly to get themselves some.

Quote
There's some new form of influenza going around, (again), which takes fairly strong antibiotics to kick too.  I'm told that this strain can result in sinus infections and even pnemonia.

That's a relief...the flu is going around here too but no one said anything about sinus infections/pnemonia.  I had some flu-symptoms along with it and had wondered "what in-the-world".

Quote
The sort of 'office politics' you hint at occurs everyone but, seems to be more pronounced where women in the office are concerned, (this was not intended as sexist; on the contrary, the reference was to how women interact with otehr women in the workplace ... if you know what I mean?).
Funny how you got that one "right on".   If we still had our male managers, I doubt this would have happened.  They didn't "play games", they were more fair.  They knew who worked and what kind of job they did and that's what mattered ...not petty games.

Quote
Come to think of it, that _does_ seem to be the usual medical procedure all around.  Still, a "2 MONTH WAIT" for that!?!?  Outrageous.
It's probably just a 2 month wait for ME.  We have alot of medical people come into my workplace and I tend to give them a "hard time" like I do with everyone else (all in joking good fun of course).  I'm kinda scared what they'd do with all their "pins & needles" if they ever got the chance to get ahold of me...lol  :binkybaby:





Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on April 30, 2012, 09:56:10 pm
From what I've read about it, it seemed to be a hastily put-together for the money.  There seems to be people that think he would be "the authority" since "The Titanic" was such a hit.  Go figure...

That's one 'o them there appeals to authority alright.  Now I'm not even sure Cameron got the historical, (and other), details right for Titanic - and that was much more recent.

Alot of people here get very cranky when it's been rainy all week...it's not much fun dealing with them.  At least there's "Neuro Water" now, there's one with Vitamin D added, "sunshine in a bottle"...I tell these cranky people ever so subtly to get themselves some.

No doubt at least some people here believe that I could use a barrel/swimming pool full of that Neuro Water?  :-X

...the flu is going around here too but no one said anything about sinus infections/pnemonia.  I had some flu-symptoms along with it and had wondered "what in-the-world".

Better to check and not have than to not check and have it?

Quote
The sort of 'office politics' you hint at occurs everyone but, seems to be more pronounced where women in the office are concerned, (this was not intended as sexist; on the contrary, the reference was to how women interact with otehr women in the workplace ... if you know what I mean?).

Funny how you got that one "right on". 

Not all that difficult to assess; I've experienced very similar situations time and again.
  
If we still had our male managers, I doubt this would have happened.  They didn't "play games", they were more fair.  They knew who worked and what kind of job they did and that's what mattered ...not petty games.

Not necessarily; unfortunately, there are also game-playing male managers out there, (maybe not as many as female - I haven't done any statistical research in that regard).

It's probably just a 2 month wait for ME.  We have alot of medical people come into my workplace and I tend to give them a "hard time" like I do with everyone else (all in joking good fun of course).  I'm kinda scared what they'd do with all their "pins & needles" if they ever got the chance to get ahold of me...lol  :binkybaby:

That's even worse, not to mention unprofessional.  Some people manage to arrive on-scene without a sense of humor.








[/quote]
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on May 01, 2012, 03:44:03 pm
I saw this quote on another thread and I'm re-posting it here: « Reply #13 on: April 30, 2012, 08:17:49 pm » Message ID: 529601 Quote byd1cheetah

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote
I stop by for light chat, helpful info, and sometimes to vent when I've had a crazy time on the offers.  I don't come here to get caught up in heated debate, or a fact finding mission about everything from the history of politics to the obstacles of the reality of faith.  I comment when it's light and friendly, but don't have the time or endurance to debate another person's beliefs.

  If that's what others come here for, then they can have at it.

"Light & friendly" chit-chat is about all I have time & endurance for these days as well.  I just don't have the time for the research needed to keep the debate/discussion going in d&d.  I'll lock this topic if anyone wishes, for now it's open if there's anyone else that would wish to keep on it.  Once in awhile I pop in d&d but it's not where I wish to be spending so much time.  I've mentioned before in posts that I just don't discuss religious topics ALL the time with my friends.  They know what/why I believe and if they have questions, they know I'm there for them.  They know I care about them and they know that I believe in them.  I have fun with them and enjoy whatever time we have.  Same for FC-friends.  

 
As for falcon9's quote
Quote
No doubt at least some people here believe that I could use a barrel/swimming pool full of that Neuro Water?  
I hope you didn't think that I was implying that you needed some of that water, I have not found you to be cranky at all, in spite of the b.s. on FC lately.  (IMO, that "thread"-bashing going on against you needs to stop.)

Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 01, 2012, 03:58:38 pm
"Light & friendly" chit-chat is about all I have time & endurance for these days as well.  I just don't have the time for the research needed to keep the debate/discussion going in d&d.  I'll lock this topic if anyone wishes, for now it's open if there's anyone else that would wish to keep on it.  Once in awhile I pop in d&d but it's not where I wish to be spending so much time.  

That's understandable as it can be time-consuming when there are other things that need doing.  However, that's not to imply that this is a 'agrre to disagree' situation because that's never my policy.  Other than that, you can leave the thread open to allow anyone else who has something to add to the d+d to do so as far as I'm concerned.

As for falcon9's quote, "No doubt at least some people here believe that I could use a barrel/swimming pool full of that Neuro Water?"  

I hope you didn't think that I was implying that you needed some of that water, I have not found you to be cranky at all, in spite of the b.s. on FC lately.  

I didn't intend to necessarily imply that by not naming 'nyms however, you had previously 'hinted' at it a time or two. ;)

(IMO, that "thread"-bashing going on against you needs to stop.)

Well, this isn't the first time that's happened, (it may be the 2nd or 3rd on FC), but the last time it occurred, an FC moderator moved the thread from the off topic forum over here to d+d.  Apparently, the instigator of what the mod termed as a "calling-out" thread, (e.g., trolling someone), lacked the fortitude and courage of their 'convictions', (or maybe it was merely false bravdo, who knows?).  At any rate, the ones who initiate such "calling-out" threads can hardly expect anyone to fail to see the hypocrisy of doing so and then whining when they're slapped-down.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: SherylsShado on May 01, 2012, 04:06:08 pm
As for falcon9's quote, "No doubt at least some people here believe that I could use a barrel/swimming pool full of that Neuro Water?"  

I hope you didn't think that I was implying that you needed some of that water, I have not found you to be cranky at all, in spite of the b.s. on FC lately.  

Quote
I didn't intend to necessarily imply that by not naming 'nyms however, you had previously 'hinted' at it a time or two. ;)
not within the past couple of weeks, I haven't...not intentionally at any rate.

(IMO, that "thread"-bashing going on against you needs to stop.)

Quote
Well, this isn't the first time that's happened, (it may be the 2nd or 3rd on FC), but the last time it occurred, an FC moderator moved the thread from the off topic forum over here to d+d.  Apparently, the instigator of what the mod termed as a "calling-out" thread, (e.g., trolling someone), lacked the fortitude and courage of their 'convictions', (or maybe it was merely false bravdo, who knows?).  At any rate, the ones who initiate such "calling-out" threads can hardly expect anyone to fail to see the hypocrisy of doing so and then whining when they're slapped-down.
I agree!! :thumbsup:(http://dl4.glitter-graphics.net/pub/314/314904m22yuc1adq.gif) (http://www.glitter-graphics.com)
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 01, 2012, 04:12:54 pm
As for falcon9's quote, "No doubt at least some people here believe that I could use a barrel/swimming pool full of that Neuro Water?"  

I hope you didn't think that I was implying that you needed some of that water, I have not found you to be cranky at all, in spite of the b.s. on FC lately.  

I didn't intend to necessarily imply that by not naming 'nyms however, you had previously 'hinted' at it a time or two. ;)

not within the past couple of weeks, I haven't...not intentionally at any rate.

Subconsciously, while tipsy, under hypnosis, unintentionally ... it's okay, if "cranky" is the worse thing I get called on any given day, I can live with that.  :thumbsup:

(IMO, that "thread"-bashing going on against you needs to stop.)

Well, this isn't the first time that's happened, (it may be the 2nd or 3rd on FC), but the last time it occurred, an FC moderator moved the thread from the off topic forum over here to d+d.  Apparently, the instigator of what the mod termed as a "calling-out" thread, (e.g., trolling someone), lacked the fortitude and courage of their 'convictions', (or maybe it was merely false bravdo, who knows?).  At any rate, the ones who initiate such "calling-out" threads can hardly expect anyone to fail to see the hypocrisy of doing so and then whining when they're slapped-down.

I agree!! :thumbsup:(http://dl4.glitter-graphics.net/pub/314/314904m22yuc1adq.gif) (http://www.glitter-graphics.com)

That's twice in one day, and from two, (maybe three), different people ... astounding, (given my alleged 'crankiness' and all).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: healthfreedom on May 01, 2012, 07:10:31 pm
TRue archaeology supports the Bible. It's amazing how the two complement each other. Biblical history and archeaology can stand side by side.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 01, 2012, 07:34:42 pm
Quote
TRue archaeology supports the Bible. It's amazing how the two complement each other. Biblical history and archeaology can stand side by side.

A completely false statement from someone who obviously knows nothing about archaeology. Next time you should maybe read the thread, ok?
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 01, 2012, 08:09:59 pm
Typical arrogance. ::) The first several posts of this thread alone should be enough to silence critics.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 01, 2012, 10:54:43 pm
Typical arrogance. ::) The first several posts of this thread alone should be enough to silence critics.

Typical arrogance caused by blind faith.  The bulk of the refutations should be enough to silence the superstitiously-religious, (if only more of them had functioning reasoning abilities - which demonstrably leaves "johnnie" out).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 01, 2012, 11:01:47 pm
TRue archaeology supports the Bible. It's amazing how the two complement each other. Biblical history and archeaology can stand side by side.

A completely false statement from someone who obviously knows nothing about archaeology. Next time you should maybe read the thread, ok?

Supposedly "true archeology" is presumed by xtians to be that which religiously-biased 'archeologists' force-fit to fictional biblical accounts. That's not archeology, it's closed-minded fundamentalism intended to support preconceived, (and ill-conceived notions).

The only "amazing" thing about such an empty proclamation from the "healthfreedom" 'nym would be the extent of their self-deception, were it not so rampant among the 'faith-blinded'.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 01, 2012, 11:45:57 pm
Quote
Typical arrogance.  The first several posts of this thread alone should be enough to silence critics.

*sigh* As usual, you seem to favor spite rather than knowledge. Care to clarify what hasn't been addressed? Care to add to the debate+discussion or are you just going to cower away like the poor example of a christian you tend to be? Perhaps you should read your bible more. 1 Peter 3:15 . Now, kindly answer my question please...or back away while you incorrectly label people. We'll all know how strong you are in your beliefs then.  ;)
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 02, 2012, 12:03:16 am
Typical arrogance.  The first several posts of this thread alone should be enough to silence critics.

Well someone didn't read the original posts...or just about anything in the thread afterwards!

Just to see what 'blind-johnnie' was being closed-minded about, I returned to the "first several posts of this thread".  It turns out that the first Seven posts were the original presentation from the OP, (without any objections, challenges or refutations posted until the eighth post on; whereupon 'jumbledjohnnie' apparently stopped reading).

Care to post any credible sources, or are you ['jumbledjohnnie'] going to back off like the typical weak poster you tend to be? Pick up a book, read the news, or do some basic research and debate or discuss with us in the future if you think you consider yourself able to do so. Because currently, with your immature tactics, you've displayed that you're a useless poster to be in this forum (you're hear to mock, and not to learn. How xtian of you).

If 'jumbledjohnnie' actually manages to attempt to produce ANY evidence whatsoever as sources, I would register extreme surprise.

I think you've ['jumbledjohnnie'] already shown enough humorous gullibility in this thread to damage the credibility of your beliefs. If you don't want to debate, it's understandable. You may say it's because of the freethinkers, but the real answer is obvious- you can't.

I can find no evidence, (in the form of archived posts), in which 'jumbledjohnnie' has ever "debated".  Oh, he's made empty proclamations and run away without backing them up with anything except his specious opinion; he's "bible-thumped", (quoted biblical passages which do not support his dubious positions), however these do not constitute hard evidence - being unsupported by factual evidence, (which brought us to this thread), and he's put those who debated/challenged/questioned assumptions/posted opposing viewpoints on the basis of reasoning on "ignore", (so that he alone wouldn't be able to even *see* the counter-arguments).  That's not "debating", it's weaseling out.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 02, 2012, 12:05:43 pm
Quote
If 'jumbledjohnnie' actually manages to attempt to produce ANY evidence whatsoever as sources, I would register extreme surprise

Wishful thinking. It's an impossible concept given his debating disabilities he proudly shines at debaters. However since the book he so proudly and 'offensively' defends commands him to kindly explain his beliefs, let's see if he can live up to his religion's standards by answering my simple questions. Of course I predict cowardly behavior blossoming and he'll say something like I'm not interpreting the bible the way he does, and therefore he won't have to debate.  ::)
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 02, 2012, 12:22:19 pm
Quote
Typical arrogance.  The first several posts of this thread alone should be enough to silence critics.

*sigh* As usual, you seem to favor spite rather than knowledge. Care to clarify what hasn't been addressed? Care to add to the debate+discussion or are you just going to cower away like the poor example of a christian you tend to be? Perhaps you should read your bible more. 1 Peter 3:15 . Now, kindly answer my question please...or back away while you incorrectly label people. We'll all know how strong you are in your beliefs then.  ;)

As I said,The first several posts speak for themselves.You may not like it,but the fact remains that Judeo-Christianity didn't survive for thousends of years by superstitious primitives.The facts are cold hard evidence.

Jesus of Nazarath lived,died and the empty tomb was found.All this is fact supported by several historical writings by Josephus and Eusebius among others,and the aformentioned archeololgical evidence supports the Bible as to the existence of Pilate,caiaphas,and so on.

Considering that the Bible's manuscript evidence is stronger than that of Homer,Plato and Aristotle and it has been virtually unaltered since the original writing,I continue to wonder to what end will you ignore the facts?Do you believe Columbus "discovered" America? Hearsay! Hearsay,I tell you! ;D
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 02, 2012, 12:26:27 pm
Quote
If 'jumbledjohnnie' actually manages to attempt to produce ANY evidence whatsoever as sources, I would register extreme surprise

Wishful thinking. It's an impossible concept given his debating disabilities he proudly shines at debaters. However since the book he so proudly and 'offensively' defends commands him to kindly explain his beliefs, let's see if he can live up to his religion's standards by answering my simple questions. Of course I predict cowardly behavior blossoming and he'll say something like I'm not interpreting the bible the way he does, and therefore he won't have to debate.  ::)

There's not much point in debating,when you clearly show a lack of respect toward Believers,as has been shown several times in the past.I chose to respond this time.I'm sure it will give you much fodder to pick apart line-by-line as is the custom around here.

I have to admit,you've come a long way since our first "debate",when you invented some non-sense about the early Christian's creating the term "Hell" for a "Mass Grave". lol.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 02, 2012, 01:20:32 pm
As I said,The first several posts speak for themselves.

The first Seven posts are all presentations of the subject under debate by the OP.  These do Not include any opposing viewpoints or challenges to the presented material, (those began at the 8th post - where "jumbledjohnnie" apparently stopped having someone else read them to him).

You may not like it,but the fact remains that Judeo-Christianity didn't survive for thousends of years by superstitious primitives.The facts are cold hard evidence.

Those aren't "facts" and you abuse the term in your oblivious misusage of it.  Neither do unsubstantiated religious superstitions constitute "cold hard evidence".  Thank you, however, for offering 'cold, hard evidence' in the form of your posts which clearly shows that your ignorance has an unbreachable underLYING layer of unabashed stupidity so simple and yet, sublime in nature as to be almost unnatural.

Jesus of Nazarath lived,died and the empty tomb was found.All this is fact supported by several historical writings by Josephus and Eusebius among others,and the aformentioned archeololgical evidence supports the Bible as to the existence of Pilate,caiaphas,and so on.

"Apparently these passages have been disputed since the sevententh century. The theory is that either these portions were interpolated into the text of Josephus by Christian copyists at some later date.(But before Eusibius) or both Josephus and Eusebius texts were tampered with."  Josephus turned out to be a 1st century romano-jewish historian, (the inherent bias of "jewish" isn't being overlooked by others). None of those writings in dispute do more than repeat unsupported biblical claims.  Calling them "extra-biblical" merely because such mimicking isn't a 'biblical chapter & verse' is extremely disingenious. Lastly, there isn't any "aformentioned archeololgical evidence" which "supports the bible"; there are only claims without evidence and 'faith', (also being inherently a lack of evidence), presented.

Considering that the Bible's manuscript evidence is stronger than that of Homer,Plato and Aristotle and it has been virtually unaltered since the original writing,I continue to wonder to what end will you ignore the facts?

What do you mean, "virtually unaltered?  Although you might be as completely unaware of the Dead Sea scrolls, the Council of Nicea's 'editing' or, certain "biblical-agnostic" texts, others are not.  Not only has the "bible" gone through many revisions, translations of other translations, extensive editing to such a degree that one must inquire 'which bible?' when others blithly reference the several versions available, (or had been available in the past).  These are documented facts which oppose your false claim of "facts" which would support your contention were they not completely false.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 02, 2012, 01:24:01 pm
There's not much point in debating,when you clearly show a lack of respect toward Believers,as has been shown several times in the past.I chose to respond this time.

Good call, "Falconer02".  It may have been predictible however, at least "jumbledjohnnie" was true to form in his dissembling response.  Even when he tried to present non-facts as "facts", he still failed to debate the contentions.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 02, 2012, 01:37:08 pm
Quote
As I said,The first several posts speak for themselves.You may not like it,but the fact remains that Judeo-Christianity didn't survive for thousends of years by superstitious primitives.The facts are cold hard evidence

I'll state that it survives today with superstitious people who can use computers. But my question remains- sources plz.  :)

Quote
Jesus of Nazarath lived,died and the empty tomb was found.All this is fact supported by several historical writings by Josephus and Eusebius among others,and the aformentioned archeololgical evidence supports the Bible as to the existence of Pilate,caiaphas,and so on.

Please answer my question- any credible sources for this? Non-xtian ones just to show an unbiased approach and an avoidance to circular-reasoning?  :)

Quote
Considering that the Bible's manuscript evidence is stronger than that of Homer,Plato and Aristotle and it has been virtually unaltered since the original writing,I continue to wonder to what end will you ignore the facts?Do you believe Columbus "discovered" America? Hearsay! Hearsay,I tell you

The bible has been altered countless times both accidentally and deliberately. Saying otherwise would show a complete lack of education on the subject.What facts have you presented? Please answer my question.  :)

Quote
There's not much point in debating,when you clearly show a lack of respect toward Believers,as has been shown several times in the past.I chose to respond this time.I'm sure it will give you much fodder to pick apart line-by-line as is the custom around here.

Lack of respect would require pointless or untruthful attacks, which is what we're constantly calling you on because they're quite humorous since you wish to stray from the debate due to your lack of elementary argumentative skills. Or did I just disrespect you by pointing out the obvious?

Quote
I have to admit,you've come a long way since our first "debate",when you invented some non-sense about the early Christian's creating the term "Hell" for a "Mass Grave". lol.

You mean that debate in which you ran away from? That was where some of the terminology for it came from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell
Gehenna refers to the "Valley of Hinnon", which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there was always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation (such as people who committed suicide) were thrown there to be destroyed.[26] Gehenna is used in the New Testament as a metaphor for the final place of punishment for the wicked after the resurrection

Please do not try to stray from the current subject though as I will do the same and try to not bring up your humorous argument about Jonah and the whale from earlier.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 02, 2012, 02:05:36 pm
Quote
As I said,The first several posts speak for themselves.You may not like it,but the fact remains that Judeo-Christianity didn't survive for thousends of years by superstitious primitives.The facts are cold hard evidence

I'll state that it survives today with superstitious people who can use computers. But my question remains- sources plz.  :)

Quote
Jesus of Nazarath lived,died and the empty tomb was found.All this is fact supported by several historical writings by Josephus and Eusebius among others,and the aformentioned archeololgical evidence supports the Bible as to the existence of Pilate,caiaphas,and so on.

Please answer my question- any credible sources for this? Non-xtian ones just to show an unbiased approach and an avoidance to circular-reasoning?  :)

Quote
Considering that the Bible's manuscript evidence is stronger than that of Homer,Plato and Aristotle and it has been virtually unaltered since the original writing,I continue to wonder to what end will you ignore the facts?Do you believe Columbus "discovered" America? Hearsay! Hearsay,I tell you

The bible has been altered countless times both accidentally and deliberately. Saying otherwise would show a complete lack of education on the subject.What facts have you presented? Please answer my question.  :)

Quote
There's not much point in debating,when you clearly show a lack of respect toward Believers,as has been shown several times in the past.I chose to respond this time.I'm sure it will give you much fodder to pick apart line-by-line as is the custom around here.

Lack of respect would require ad hom fallacies, which is what we're constantly calling you on because they're quite humorous since you wish to stray from the debate due to your lack of elementary argumentative skills. Or did I just disrespect you by pointing out the obvious?

Quote
I have to admit,you've come a long way since our first "debate",when you invented some non-sense about the early Christian's creating the term "Hell" for a "Mass Grave". lol.

You mean that debate in which you ran away from? That was where some of the terminology for it came from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell
Gehenna refers to the "Valley of Hinnon", which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there was always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation (such as people who committed suicide) were thrown there to be destroyed.[26] Gehenna is used in the New Testament as a metaphor for the final place of punishment for the wicked after the resurrection


I wouldn't exactly use wikipedia as a "trusted source" for one thing.lol.And for the record,I stuck around that debate for quite a few replies.Long after you dropped that subject and long enough to see you play the same tired "debate games" that you're doing now.

Several sources have been provided by the OP.That was the point.You don't want to except them because of the same old "tainted source" fears.

The Bible hasn't been significantly altered.I'm afraid I'll have to turn to you to provide proof for that claim.(and yes,I imagine I won't except it any more than you'd except my claims/sources.Ain't it always the way?)

The fact remains that not everyone makes it their life's work to defend (or in your and Falcon's case attempt to destroy) the Faith.Those of us who don't have the resources at our fingertips to post (only in a futile attempt to get some of you hard headed skeptics to concede even the smallest claim) should not be mocked any more than the several atheists who post here with nothing to back themselves up.

I for one,have "a life" and have no desire to spend a significant part of it in endless debates that can hardly be considered won or lost.If you want to consider anybody that leaves the topic before you say the discussion is over "running away",that's your problem.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 02, 2012, 02:06:58 pm
[quote from "Jumbledjohnnie"]
As I said,The first several posts speak for themselves.You may not like it,but the fact remains that Judeo-Christianity didn't survive for thousends of years by superstitious primitives.The facts are cold hard evidence
[/quote]

I'll state that it survives today with superstitious people who can use computers. But my question remains- sources plz.  :)

Apparently, he's expressing the implicit belief that, just because a religious superstition survived, (albeit, after undergoing several changes and sectarian schisms along the way), that such 'survival' somehow constitutes evidence of validity.  That does not logically-follow, however.

Quote
Jesus of Nazarath lived,died and the empty tomb was found.All this is fact supported by several historical writings by Josephus and Eusebius among others,and the aformentioned archeololgical evidence supports the Bible as to the existence of Pilate,caiaphas,and so on.

Please answer my question- any credible sources for this? Non-xtian ones just to show an unbiased approach and an avoidance to circular-reasoning?  :)

  *crickets loudly chirping*

Quote
Considering that the Bible's manuscript evidence is stronger than that of Homer,Plato and Aristotle and it has been virtually unaltered since the original writing,I continue to wonder to what end will you ignore the facts?Do you believe Columbus "discovered" America? Hearsay! Hearsay,I tell you

The bible has been altered countless times both accidentally and deliberately. Saying otherwise would show a complete lack of education on the subject.What facts have you presented? Please answer my question.  :)

Quote
There's not much point in debating,when you clearly show a lack of respect toward Believers,as has been shown several times in the past.I chose to respond this time.I'm sure it will give you much fodder to pick apart line-by-line as is the custom around here.

Lack of respect would require pointless or untruthful attacks, which is what we're constantly calling you on because they're quite humorous since you wish to stray from the debate due to your lack of elementary argumentative skills. Or did I just disrespect you by pointing out the obvious?

Quote
I have to admit,you've come a long way since our first "debate",when you invented some non-sense about the early Christian's creating the term "Hell" for a "Mass Grave". lol.

You mean that debate in which you ran away from? That was where some of the terminology for it came from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell
Gehenna refers to the "Valley of Hinnon", which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there was always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation (such as people who committed suicide) were thrown there to be destroyed.[26] Gehenna is used in the New Testament as a metaphor for the final place of punishment for the wicked after the resurrection

Please do not try to stray from the current subject though.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 02, 2012, 02:12:32 pm
So.....did Columbus discover America or not?We didn't SEEEEE him do it,did we?How can we trust what was written back in 1492?Some mad man came up with the whole story!Hearsay!Hearsay,I say!!!! ;D
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 02, 2012, 02:23:57 pm
The Bible hasn't been significantly altered.I'm afraid I'll have to turn to you to provide proof for that claim.

"The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are a collection of 972 texts from the Hebrew Bible and extra-biblical documents found between 1947 and 1956 on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea Scrolls are traditionally divided into three groups: "Biblical" manuscripts (copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 40% of the identified scrolls; "Apocryphal" or "Pseudepigraphical" manuscripts (known documents from the Second Temple Period like Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, additional psalms, etc., that were not ultimately canonized in the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls; and "Sectarian" manuscripts (previously unknown documents that speak to the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups."  These scrolls are not exact copies of "bibles" currently extant, (re: 40%), and therefore extant bibles reflect omissions, alterations, errors & variations resulting from mistranslations.

... should not be mocked any more than the several atheists who post here with nothing to back themselves up.

The signficant difference is that several non-religious posters Have backed up their contentions with reasoning and valid factual evidence whereas the religious adherents have not done the same.

I for one,have "a life" and have no desire to spend a significant part of it in endless debates that can hardly be considered won or lost.

If you do not have the time nor inclination to defend the specious pronouncements you have a prepondering tendency to make so often, why make them?  If you're just going to 'hit-and-run', you're a coward lacking the courage of your own supersititious convictions.  Claiming to not have the time for debate while nonetheless poking in to fire-off non sequiturs before dashing off to hide IS running away, no matter what the excuse.  Hey, no one is forcing you to do so therefore, your excuses ring more hollowly than your skull must when lightly-tapped.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 02, 2012, 02:29:03 pm
So.....did Columbus discover America or not?We didn't SEEEEE him do it,did we?How can we trust what was written back in 1492?Some mad man came up with the whole story!Hearsay!Hearsay,I say!!!! ;D

Your diversionary tactic fails.  It's still apparent that you 'ran away' from debating the subject matter emphasized by "Falconer02".

As an aside, (and then back on track); the 'discovery' of america is a misnomer.  Other folks 'discovered' it long before Columbus first assumed he'd landed in India, (which is why the inhabitants of america at that time came to be mislabeled as "indians").

Now, why don't the Dead Sea scrolls and current 'bibles', (or even the toran), match exactly?  Could it be due to those alterations you've claimed don't exist or, are the Scrolls not considered to be "cold, hard evidence" somehow?
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 02, 2012, 02:31:44 pm
I am very happy to explain passages in the Bible for folks who have questions.Unfortunatly,one rarely gets the chance to talk theology here.It always comes back to "prove it to me/what's the source" and other time wasting topics.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 02, 2012, 02:40:27 pm
I am very happy to explain passages in the Bible ... and other time wasting topics.

This is the "debate+discuss" forum, not the 'bible-thumping' forum, (which doesn't exist as a catagory and gets heaped upon the pile of "off topic" subjects unless the 'thumper is spamming the other forums).

Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 02, 2012, 03:11:51 pm
Quote
I wouldn't exactly use wikipedia as a "trusted source" for one thing.lol.And for the record,I stuck around that debate for quite a few replies.Long after you dropped that subject and long enough to see you play the same tired "debate games" that you're doing now.

I can agree with you on wikipedia not always being a solid source, though pertaining to what I quoted- it's quite common for historians to know this fact. Your argument here amounts to "Apples are usually red or green, but since wikipedia says this, it's probably not true."

Quote
Several sources have been provided by the OP.That was the point.You don't want to except them because of the same old "tainted source" fears.

You're failing very badly here-- those sources were heavily refuted and anyone who actually read the thread would know this. To save you some time, those sources were dressed up to look legitimate (by the OP), but were actually just as credible as your Yacht-club myth link about the whale eating a man. If you could, please refute this with some credible knowledge of the subjects discussed. Actually I know you won't do this, so please stop backtracking and answer my original questions.

Quote
The Bible hasn't been significantly altered.I'm afraid I'll have to turn to you to provide proof for that claim.(and yes,I imagine I won't except it any more than you'd except my claims/sources.Ain't it always the way?)

The major difference here (as is presented throughout the thread) is bias. People searching for answers without a preconceived want is what real archaeology is. As you said, you were in this thread for quite some time. We've already proven the xtian arch's are being completely biased in their findings. However, if you are not to take something as legitimate as the Dead Sea Scrolls as truth (something I fortunately have seen up close), I suggest you kindly keep your bronze-aged mythology to yourself before you end up looking like a buffoon as you have here.

Quote
The fact remains that not everyone makes it their life's work to defend (or in your and Falcon's case attempt to destroy) the Faith.Those of us who don't have the resources at our fingertips to post (only in a futile attempt to get some of you hard headed skeptics to concede even the smallest claim) should not be mocked any more than the several atheists who post here with nothing to back themselves up.

Name an atheist here that refuses to back up their claims. Because I can name a xtian who refuses such simple requests...

Quote
So.....did Columbus discover America or not?We didn't SEEEEE him do it,did we?How can we trust what was written back in 1492?Some mad man came up with the whole story!Hearsay!Hearsay,I say!!!!

Columbus did not discover America. That would be impossible unless he was the first human on the shore of this continent. Considering natives were already there 20,000+ years earlier and he (negatively) interacted with them, your question needs to carefully be restated. Columbus did exist though, as there are countless valid and credible sources to his existence. Unfortunately such characters as Jesus do not share such parallels. Also, my first questions still remain unanswered.

*crickets still chirping*

Quote
for one,have "a life" and have no desire to spend a significant part of it in endless debates that can hardly be considered won or lost.If you want to consider anybody that leaves the topic before you say the discussion is over "running away",that's your problem.

Okay...then...bye?  :dontknow: Thanks for failing to answer my questions and show you can't follow your own belief system. It's always a pleasure! lol :wave:
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 02, 2012, 03:19:11 pm
Quote
Several sources have been provided by the OP.That was the point.You don't want to except them because of the same old "tainted source" fears.

You're failing very badly here-- those sources were heavily refuted and anyone who actually read the thread would know this. To save you some time, those sources were dressed up to look legitimate (by the OP), but were actually just as credible as your Yacht-club myth link about the whale eating a man. Also, please stop backtracking and answer my questions.

Quote
The Bible hasn't been significantly altered.I'm afraid I'll have to turn to you to provide proof for that claim.(and yes,I imagine I won't except it any more than you'd except my claims/sources.Ain't it always the way?)

The major difference here (as is presented throughout the thread) is bias. People searching for answers without a preconceived want is what real archaeology is. As you said, you were in this thread for quite some time. We've already proven the xtian arch's are being completely biased in their findings. However, if you are not to take something as legitimate as the Dead Sea Scrolls as truth (something I fortunately have seen up close), I suggest you kindly keep your bronze-aged mythology to yourself before you end up looking like a buffoon as you have here.

Quote
The fact remains that not everyone makes it their life's work to defend (or in your and Falcon's case attempt to destroy) the Faith.Those of us who don't have the resources at our fingertips to post (only in a futile attempt to get some of you hard headed skeptics to concede even the smallest claim) should not be mocked any more than the several atheists who post here with nothing to back themselves up.

Name an atheist here that refuses to back up their claims. Because I can name a xtian who refuses such simple requests...

Quote
So.....did Columbus discover America or not?We didn't SEEEEE him do it,did we?How can we trust what was written back in 1492?Some mad man came up with the whole story!Hearsay!Hearsay,I say!!!!

Columbus did not discover America. That would be impossible unless he were the first human on the shore of this continent. Considering natives were already there 20,000+ years earlier and he (negatively) interacted with them, your question needs to carefully be restated. Columbus did exist though, as there are countless valid and credible sources to his existence. Unfortunately such characters as Jesus do not share such parallels. Also, my first questions still remain unanswered.

*crickets still chirping*

Quote
for one,have "a life" and have no desire to spend a significant part of it in endless debates that can hardly be considered won or lost.If you want to consider anybody that leaves the topic before you say the discussion is over "running away",that's your problem.

Okay...then...bye? Thanks for failing to answer my questions and show you can't follow your own belief system. It's always a pleasure! lol :wave:

*standing ovation*
{not to be confused with sitting ovulation since I'm a straight guy and am content to applaud your superb reply thusly}
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 03, 2012, 12:10:34 pm
yup i can't respect you at all johnnie...
you say oh its true theres evidence or stuff along that lines but you won't show it
ARENT CHRISTIANS SUPPOSED TO SHARE WITH NON BELIEVERS? SO IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS OR DOUBTS WOULDNT YOU WANT TO "CURE" THEM SO WE COULD GO TO HEAVEN? oh wait you are too wrapped up in your life for debates right?
maybe you just don't know and if so you should just say that instead of acting like your too good for debate
yah you got a life serving a god whos main agenda is give your life to me so i can take it back haha

Respect is a two way street.It should be given if it's to be earned.

I'm happy to answer any questions about my faith that you might have.The problem with debating (here,anyway) is it becomes a game of "stump the christian" by people like Falconeer who pull "facts" out of thin air and expect you seach the land and sea for something to refute him.Something he wouldn't except as fact if it bit him on the hand.That's why I say it's a time waster.But if you have an honest question,go for it.

Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 03, 2012, 12:15:17 pm
I'm still wondering what evidence we really have that Columbus came here in 1492.I need to see a photo of him stepping off the Santa Maria,an affidavit by Queen Isabella & King Ferdinand and the serial number off the hull of the Pinta!Unless you can furnish that,I don't believe it!Hearsay!Hearsay,I say!
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 03, 2012, 01:38:57 pm
I'm still wondering what evidence we really have that Columbus came here in 1492.I need to see a photo of him stepping off the Santa Maria,an affidavit by Queen Isabella & King Ferdinand and the serial number off the hull of the Pinta!Unless you can furnish that,I don't believe it!Hearsay!Hearsay,I say!


"Why Johnnie Can't Read"
--Rudolf Flesch, Harpercollins Publishing
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 03, 2012, 01:51:32 pm
The problem with debating (here,anyway) is it becomes a game of "stump the christian" by people like Falconeer who pull "facts" out of thin air ...

That's completely false.  What xtian would continue to "... bear false witness against their neighbor"?  The facts and logical reasoning presented by those who challenge the non-factual proclamations which xtians "pull out of thin air", (based upon 'faith' alone with no evidentiary basis), are not merely "a game of stump the christian".  That would be a short and relatively easy "game", were that the case.  No, one of the purposes of challenging the specious claims of religious adherents is to increase general awareness levels, (rather than decrease them through blind faith).

... and expect you seach the land and sea for something to refute him.Something he wouldn't except as fact if it bit him on the hand.That's why I say it's a time waster.

That's overtly hypocritical of you, "jumbledjohnnie" since you remain blinded by 'faith' despite solid evidence and reasoning which disputes, (and generally refutes), what that 'faith' is placed in.  That's what make you a fundie who clings to superstition, rather than reason.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 03, 2012, 02:11:18 pm
Quote
I'm happy to answer any questions about my faith that you might have.The problem with debating (here,anyway) is it becomes a game of "stump the christian" by people like Falconeer who pull "facts" out of thin air and expect you seach the land and sea for something to refute him.Something he wouldn't except as fact if it bit him on the hand.That's why I say it's a time waster.But if you have an honest question,go for it.

It's enjoyable to research claims as I gain knowledge of things I previously did not know about- such as your whale claim. At first it seems somewhat legit until I furthered my research on the subject, found that there was a lot of misconceptions about whale anatomy and how the story held very little documentation to the apparent claim. That's how you research things. Potentially disproving a claim and finding yourself stumped is part of doing research on a subject. And that is why, since we've already disproved the claims in this thread through basic research, we are awaiting you to refute our claims. If you admit to not wanting to do this, there seriously is no reason for you to be in this thread. This is a thread about archaeology mixing with biblical mythology, not your own take on faith. So, again, stop trying to change the subject.

Quote
I'm still wondering what evidence we really have that Columbus came here in 1492.I need to see a photo of him stepping off the Santa Maria,an affidavit by Queen Isabella & King Ferdinand and the serial number off the hull of the Pinta!Unless you can furnish that,I don't believe it!Hearsay!Hearsay,I say!

Irrational demands ("I want pictures in a time photography didn't exist!"  :dontknow:), unlike mine which are simple rational demands-- I'm not asking for pictures, just references from unbiased sources speaking of evidences of what you claim (mainly to avoid circular reasoning). Speaking of which, I am kindly awaiting you to answer my questions rather than discuss other topics that you, again, have done. If you don't want to, and continue to do cowardly hit-and-run posts in the future, I will definitely be linking this thread afterwards to show the blatant hypocrisy to your religious belief system and how you show the traits of a diehard fan of christianity rather than actually being a decent respectable christian.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 03, 2012, 03:25:31 pm
Quote
I'm happy to answer any questions about my faith that you might have.The problem with debating (here,anyway) is it becomes a game of "stump the christian" by people like Falconeer who pull "facts" out of thin air and expect you seach the land and sea for something to refute him.Something he wouldn't except as fact if it bit him on the hand.That's why I say it's a time waster.But if you have an honest question,go for it.

It's enjoyable to research claims as I gain knowledge of things I previously did not know about- such as your whale claim. At first it seems somewhat legit until I furthered my research on the subject, found that there was a lot of misconceptions about whale anatomy and how the story held very little documentation to the apparent claim. That's how you research things. Potentially disproving a claim and finding yourself stumped is part of doing research on a subject. And that is why, since we've already disproved the claims in this thread through basic research, we are awaiting you to refute our claims. If you admit to not wanting to do this, there seriously is no reason for you to be in this thread. This is a thread about archaeology mixing with biblical mythology, not your own take on faith. So, again, stop trying to change the subject.

Quote
I'm still wondering what evidence we really have that Columbus came here in 1492.I need to see a photo of him stepping off the Santa Maria,an affidavit by Queen Isabella & King Ferdinand and the serial number off the hull of the Pinta!Unless you can furnish that,I don't believe it!Hearsay!Hearsay,I say!

Irrational demands ("I want pictures in a time photography didn't exist!"  :dontknow:), unlike mine which are simple rational demands-- I'm not asking for pictures, just references from unbiased sources speaking of evidences of what you claim (mainly to avoid circular reasoning). Speaking of which, I am kindly awaiting you to answer my questions rather than discuss other topics that you, again, have done. If you don't want to, and continue to do cowardly hit-and-run posts in the future, I will definitely be linking this thread afterwards to show the blatant hypocrisy to your religious belief system and how you show the traits of a diehard fan of christianity rather than actually being a decent respectable christian.


The point I'm making (that I'm willing to bet didn't go over most people's heads) is that you can pick apart ANY old/ancient text for proof of validity.The Bible should be judged by the same standards.Many take Plato,Homer -even early American history at face value.The Bible,however requires some strange "iron clad" evidence.The burden of proof is on you to disprove,not me to prove.

Again,the evidence in archeology speaks for itself.I have much the same articles as the original poster in books in my basement.Forgive me if I have better uses for my time than to rummage through boxes to scan some pages that will be pooh-poohed 3 minutes after I've posted them.(the books are Time-Life,BTW.I'm sure they'de be considered biased as well. ::))

And again,your resorting to name-calling/calling out is childish at best. ::)
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 03, 2012, 03:50:30 pm
The point I'm making ...

How about responding to the points which "Falconer02" raised before going off on diverting tangents?  If you cannot do so, (and feel compelled to diversions), then you are engaging in disingenious 'debate' tactics.  If you can do so but, choose not to, the same conclusion applies.

(that I'm willing to bet didn't go over most people's heads) is that you can pick apart ANY old/ancient text for proof of validity.The Bible should be judged by the same standards.

No other ancient texts have been introduced into 'evidence' to test for validity thus far, (although the Dead Sea scrolls were mentioned by me only as extant evidence that what is called "the bible" isn't what was originally written and NOT as evidence of the validity of the concepts contained Scrolls themselves).  The various versions of 'the bible' have consistantly failed evidentiary challenges to their 'religious' validity.

Many take Plato,Homer -even early American history at face value.The Bible,however requires some strange "iron clad" evidence.The burden of proof is on you to disprove,not me to prove.

Plato's writing concering philosophy and some religion.  Both can be agreed to or, disputed.  Neither are taken at face value by all.  Once again, you, "jedijohnnie", do not have an accurate concept of logic; the burden of proof falls upon those who make an initial claim, ('positive' assertion), and does Not require a dissenting viewer to "disprove" the initial claimaint's claim.  Not only is that lazy on the part of the initial claimaint but, is a dishonest dodging of the actual burden of proof requirement.  For instance, you'd be unable to "disprove" a claim made regarding invisible pink unicorns however, it cannot be conclude from your failure to do so that IPUs exist. There is absolutely no confidence that you'll acquire the ability to reason any time soon so, one can conclude that you'' continue using illogical 'arguments' to prop up your specious religious beliefs.

Again,the evidence in archeology speaks for itself.

Yep, and so far, none of the non-biased, (secular), archeological evidence supports the tenuous claims by by biased/vested interest/religious 'archeologists'.

I have much ... books in my basement.

Doubtless most, (if not all), of them are from religiously-biased and therefore, dubious sources.

And again,your resorting to name-calling/calling out is childish at best. ::)

Since you are falsely claiming both "name-calling" and "calling out"; the burden of proof falls on you as the claimaint.  Post quoted evidence of the "names" you were called, (and if you can find any, evidence supporting the accuracy of those descriptions can be produced subsequently), and quotes verifying where this you have been 'called out'.  If you fail to or, cannot do so then your claims are specious, (without merit), and the default conclusion drawn is that you've lied.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 03, 2012, 04:06:05 pm
Quote
The point I'm making (that I'm willing to bet didn't go over most people's heads) is that you can pick apart ANY old/ancient text for proof of validity.The Bible should be judged by the same standards.Many take Plato,Homer -even early American history at face value.The Bible,however requires some strange "iron clad" evidence.The burden of proof is on you to disprove,not me to prove.

The burden on proof is on the original claimant, not the skeptic. I'm stunned that you cannot see the simple logical fallacy here. This is like the 12th time we've called you on being an uneducated debater so far. Again, please answer my question.

Quote
Again,the evidence in archeology speaks for itself.I have much the same articles as the original poster in books in my basement.Forgive me if I have better uses for my time than to rummage through boxes to scan some pages that will be pooh-poohed 3 minutes after I've posted them.(the books are Time-Life,BTW.I'm sure they'de be considered biased as well. )

Translation:
"I got proof, many of which are probably reliable souces and would silence you guys, but I'm too lazy to show you so I'm gonna divert the topic and be spiteful!"
How convenient. So you're not here to debate or discuss the topic, but instead you are here just to be spiteful, claim stuff, and then fold your arms and frown. How positively christian. I think we can conclude that you are uneducated (your answers below are written how I sounded when I was 9) and to compensate for it, you attempt to throw nonsensical insults at the people who are willing to listen or are skeptical of your claims.

Quote
And again,your resorting to name-calling/calling out is childish at best

Explain how any of my 'offensive' comments do not apply to you. Because anyone reading will surely agree that you're being an extremely poor example of a christian right now. Dodging questions, being spiteful, and acting as if you know more than you say. These are traits of a child.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 03, 2012, 04:13:30 pm

i think your religion is false and i have alot too back it up!
now you go around on here preaching it... so if i am pretty confident i know its false i'm going to point that out... cus if i'm wrong you can correct me or someone else can specifically where i'm wrong and i'll learn... otherwise you can learn... unless you are blind...


That's quite a few questions!I'll try to get to some of them.
heres some questions most of which you probably cant answer

Oh,I can answer them,I'm doubtful everyone will like/agree with my answers.

why isnt christianity the first religion? Judaism would be before Christianity.Christianity resulted from the jews that excepted Jesus as the Messiah


where in bible does it say mentally retarded or insane ppl go to heaven?Where does it say that they don't?The heart of the Lord is mercy.


why would god put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of eden, how is that not testing and tempting them? There is no wrong in allowing them to be tempted.If you put a knife on the table before me,I can choose not to use it to kill.

 does god urge his believers to live in peace with ppl but he says jesus didnt come for peace but for division, and that peace among men is an adbomination to god? The reality is that, do to free will there will be many who disagree about Christ's Divinity,which leads many to strife.

why should we have to earn gods approval into heaven but he was just given the title of god and didnt earn it?This doesn't really make sense.Godhood is not "earned".

if we have a choice why was he just automatically good? how is that created in his image?Adam,you mean? I don't believe he was any different than us.He was born "innocent" until he sinned.

if the puritans didnt kill the indians then how did america get founded on christianity? its shown those puritans were the ones who brought it over I never said puritans didn't kill indians.It's a sad fact that the Indians were treated pretty uncool through early American history.

its a sin to murder but you can go to war?Murder and killing are two different things.You have the right to defend yourself/country,but not to commit murder.

bible says god puts all government in place, do you agree with that? Yes,but that doesn't mean that that government is "ordained" by God.

bible says submit to your husbands and that divorce is sin... where does it say you can leave your husband if he hits you and not be sinning? I know this is a dicey subject that deserves more than just a sentence or two answer.Suffice for now to say 1 Corinthians 7 talks about how a woman may leave her husband,but remain unmarried.It doesn't say that makes her a sinner.

bible says god hardened pharaohs heart... makes point that god predestines ppl to hell... how would it not? because think if god is all knowing and he say how the world was going to play out knowing who was going to hell but he did it anyway... so if he knows your going to hell how could you change it? its predestined It's not quite that easy.It's more correct to say the Lord allowed Pharohs heart to be hardened.God gives Free Will to everyone.He doesn't cause people to do something,yet he allows things to happen that may shape a person's actions.Again,more could be said,but that should do for now.

if lucifer tempts our hearts who tempted lucifers in heaven?We don't always recieve temptation from Satan.Man's heart is often wicked enough without his help.In the same way,Satan can sin without an external tempter.

if no sin can go into heaven and kids are excused cus they arent old enough then why does bible tells kids its a sin to disobey parents and if they do nd die how could they go to heaven? god would have to cleanse them... therefore why couldnt he do that for every sinner?None of us are without sin.We sin at an early age and keep at it all our lives.Most would agree there is an age of accountability,when God holds you accountable for your sin.

god wants all the cancer and bad things and demons... how could he not? because without those things his chrisitians couldnt be tested... and why else would he make man seperate from himself if he didnt intend to test them? and hes all knowing so he already knew that would happen and agreed to make it anyways This is a fairly broad question.Demons are fallen Angles who chose to rebel.Cancer,AIDS and other diseases are the result of the cursed creation we live in.I for one, don't believe they are created to test mankind,but as a result of a chosen lifestyle.


Whew!

That's all for now!





Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: quietpal on May 03, 2012, 04:40:42 pm
Thank you JediJohnnie for your above post and your willingness to answer questions.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 03, 2012, 04:46:21 pm
i think your religion is false and i have alot too back it up!
now you go around on here preaching it...
why isnt christianity the first religion?

Judaism would be before Christianity.Christianity resulted from the jews ...

There were quite of few extant 'religions' before the advent of the xtian cult, (and yes, it was seen as a new 'cult' at the time). Your answer avoided mention those other religions perhaps because you remain ignorant of the fact that xtianity derived not only from the hebrew religion but, dishonestly incorporated aspects of several pre-existing and contemporary, (with the xtian cult of the time), pagan religions such as Aegyptian, Sumarian, Zoasterism, Odinism and native peoples' beliefs, (to name a few).  That means not only that xtianity is a 'johnnie-come-lately' religion compared to ones which were thousands of years old before the hebrew's popped up but, that xtianity is a plaguaristic religion whose authors demonstrated little originality.

... that excepted Jesus as the Messiah[/b]

Since you keep misusing the word 'accepted' and continue to use "excepted" as a contextual error, I'll go ahead and point out that orthodox jews claim to Not 'accept' "jesus as _the_ messiah" because of an additional claim.  That is, the stated position of the orthodox jewish religion is that "messiah" is a title meaning "the Christos" and that it doesn't necessarily refer only to "jesus".  Regardless, evidence of hebrew plaguarism of the Aegyptian religions they found themselves immersed in at the time is extant.  There is no reciprocal evidence available which would indicate that the Aegyptians, (who already held their religious beliefs for thousands of years before hebrew migrant laborers wandered through to rip-off their culture), plaguarized anyone else's cultural-religious beliefs.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 03, 2012, 04:47:18 pm
Thank you JediJohnnie for your above post and your willingness to answer questions.

That post was a load of vague religious nonsense and the fact that you approved of it is revealing in itself.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 03, 2012, 04:51:34 pm
Quote
Thank you JediJohnnie for your above post and your willingness to answer questions

Now THIS is internet gold right here. Am I the only one that laughed?
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 03, 2012, 04:53:21 pm
Quote
Thank you JediJohnnie for your above post and your willingness to answer questions

 
Now THIS is internet gold right here. Am I the only one that laughed?

I gaffawed and posted the textual version of it, does that count?
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: walksalone11 on May 03, 2012, 04:58:24 pm
Quote
Thank you JediJohnnie for your above post and your willingness to answer questions

 
Now THIS is internet gold right here. Am I the only one that laughed?

I gaffawed and posted the textual version of it, does that count?
I furrowed my eyebrows and said out loud "he did?"
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 03, 2012, 05:03:30 pm
Quote
I gaffawed and posted the textual version of it, does that count?

I suppose so. I was slightly dumbstruck for a moment and then literally chuckled. I think this thread is dying though, but I eagerly await Waterbearer's response to Jumblejohnnie (I'm sure your informing post was ignored just like what any good xtian would do). That, and I'm beginning to think we're arguing with someone who has not matured yet considering his answers to Waterbearer were very....uninformed. Like I said earlier, I was giving answers like that when I was a youngling.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 03, 2012, 05:09:41 pm
I think this thread is dying though, but I eagerly await Waterbearer's response to Jumblejohnnie (I'm sure your informing post was ignored just like what any good xtian would do).

As I recall, "johnnie" previously claimed to put my posts on "ignore", (which means that he can't see them while all those who haven't pulled the wool over their own eyes can).  Since he hasn't done this with your posts, people, (like you), can always quote my responses to "johnnie" as part of their reply and - shazzam - he sees that he can't respond coherently to them once again.

That, and I'm beginning to think we're arguing with someone who has not matured yet considering his answers to Waterbearer were very....uninformed. Like I said earlier, I was giving answers like that when I was a youngling.

Your hypothesis has merit given one of "johnnie's" slips about books being down in the basement, (which could be a reference to living in his parent's basement and those being books belonging to them, not to "johnnie").
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 08, 2012, 03:38:49 pm
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 09, 2012, 12:43:45 am
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.

Could be a toss-up there since 'johnnie' enjoys arguing such 'how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin' nonsense but, there's that propensity for him to bible-thump-and-bail too, quickly change the subject, or silently back out, (rather than back up).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Abrupt on May 09, 2012, 06:55:58 am
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.

Could be a toss-up there since 'johnnie' enjoys arguing such 'how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin' nonsense but, there's that propensity for him to bible-thump-and-bail too, quickly change the subject, or silently back out, (rather than back up).

That coming from a child that would actually change the name of the person indicated in the quote for no purpose other than Ad Hominem.  You cannot win your argument or prove what you are saying so you stoop to personal attacks upon JediJohnie while you spend all too much time patting others on the butt that agree with you (which demonstrates weakness on your behalf).  It doesn't get any more pathetic than that. 
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 09, 2012, 10:58:50 am
Quote
That coming from a child that would actually change the name of the person indicated in the quote for no purpose other than Ad Hominem.  You cannot win your argument or prove what you are saying so you stoop to personal attacks upon JediJohnie while you spend all too much time patting others on the butt that agree with you (which demonstrates weakness on your behalf).  It doesn't get any more pathetic than that.  

Abrupt- you do not have to if you don't want to, but I'd recommend staying out of this one since we're purposefully putting Jedijohnnie in the spotlight as he has found himself in a corner. As you may have noticed, he's constantly doing drive-by irrational ad hom attacks in threads without adding anything to them, but we were able to get him to respond here after showing how he must as his beliefs command it. This is just a unique situation and, given this specific user's history, I think it's fair game to say whatever considering his record here. Your thoughts do count though, so don't think they will be disregarded if you disagree. I do recommend reading the last 3-4 pages though for some entertaining proof of what I mean here.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 09, 2012, 11:18:58 am
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.

As much as it pains me to remind you of this yet again,you and this forum are not the center of my universe.Again,you resort to name calling and calling out.Your childishness has become unrelenting.

The only reason I post in this area with you clowns at all,is to (I hope) inspire Believers who see the constant bashing of their beliefs,and know there is at least one person who will stand up and speak out.

If some would actually put children like you in their place often enough,like Abrupt has,you'd see more people defend the faith in this forum.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 09, 2012, 11:53:17 am
ok you answered them... and i'm not just disagreeing... i'll show you were i think those answers or at least some of them are false...

as for the first religion in the first question... hinduism was the first religion! you can look it up or ask your pastor so you were mistaken in your answerIdol worship was popular as well in those days.That doesn't make it a true religion.

also if a mentally challenged person did things such as sin... it no where says they would have an excuse... it says no man is left without excuse... but what if you cant percept it right and your mind cant grasp it... maybe back then all mental disabilities were looked at as demonic possession or maybe there werent as many due to all the new diseases we have today... you can so oh god is good he would do that... but if he doesnt say then you are making up his actions and adding to the words in his book which is a sin!!!Demonic possession is not the same as mental illness

and god says he doesnt tempt man so you are wrong there... you are agreeing he was tempting... so you are either mistaken or calling him a liar Read what I said again.God ALLOWED them to be tempted.He did not tempt them by putting the Tree in the Garden. That's like blaming a father for having a stove in the house as the reason his kid burned his hand.

and you say what the puritans did was messed up... well how did your christianty start here??? (i'm pretty sure they brought it over)
The relationship between the settelers and Indians were not always contentious.Read the "Thanksgiving" story.
ok what if there is a christian who is in another county we are at war with? should he kill the christians here or should the christians here kill him?

and as for pharoah... if you really think about it... he was predestined and as a baby god could have basically told him you are going to hell when you are older... so say if god knew you were gunna fall and go to hell later in life, how could you change what he knew? he saw how his plan was going to turn out before he did it because he is all knowing... therefore it was like a movie script he could of editied it or he could have not made it but he did and it can't be changed... so how could someone change what he knows... say he made one more man named james who was gunna go to hell... james cant change what god knows... sure god knows james is gunna "choose" hell but GOD HIMSELF DIDNT HAVE TO CHOOSE TO MAKE JAMES... so god curses him cus james has no say in it The fact that God knows the beginning from the end in no way takes away Free Will.As the Bard put it "The fault lies not in the stars,but in ourselves."

and as for the wife beating it says a wife must now leave but if she does she must stay unmarried... so she must but she doesnt have too? sounds hypocritical... so its basically a sin How do you get it's a Sin? ??? God is very strict on marriage and divorce,because an Oath is taken in His name.That is something that is meant to be honored.That's why you should consider marriage very seriously before committing to it.

and god could have peace... why couldnt he just have the nonbelievers go to the grave and have no consciousness for eternity? or does he have to make his point and be a tyrant... Because there must be Justice.If you don't want to except Jesus taking away your sins,you must pay for them yourself.How could a just God not punish the guilty?

exactly godhood is not earned he just is... but i'm made up and i have to earn his respect? why should i earn somethings respect that hasnt earned its own title?? God doesn't need to earn his title of godhood any more than you have to earn the title of "human being".It is self evident

so there was wickedness in heaven inside of lucifers heart? i thought evil couldnt go in heaven?There will be no evil in Heaven after the Final Judgement

and for the government ours is one nation under god and its had corrupt ways for a long whileMan is fallible

what i'm saying about the age is... if no sin is allowed in heaven and all kids who die and are sinners are just washed clean before they go in... why cant everybody be washed clean like that? if everyone died as a kid then everyone would go to heaven even the ones who are devil worshippers so i dont think thats fair... i would have rather been killed as a babyThe sins of a child are usually not very severe.

and as for all the bad things.. think about this... why did god make us seprate from him like heaven and earth??? its a test to get to him! and without the tree of knowledge tempting there was no test... then once that was gone there needed to be new tests... god knew he was going to use lucifer and the demons to do his dirty work before he ever made them into angels... and god says he gives ppl trials to make them stronger... how could there be a trial without things like sickeneess and cancer? if the world is perfect and its all goody goodies and there is no things to tempt then there is no test... the bad are gods pawns Well,I wouldn't put it that way,but the Bible tells us Job was tested for example.God makes use of many things to strengthen our faith.

and as for the cursed generation... do you think it was fair for god to curse the ppls next generation who werent even born and hadnt done anything to him??? how is that just?The curse of "Original Sin" was caused by Adam & Eve.He allowed tham to choose to obey or disobey and the world was shaped by their action.

i think i got every single one of your answers pretty much rebuttaled
most of yours werent biblically answered just what you think god would do

I don't know where you get that reasoning,but you're intitled to your opinion.


















Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: walksalone11 on May 09, 2012, 12:00:07 pm
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.

As much as it pains me to remind you of this yet again,you and this forum are not the center of my universe.Again,you resort to name calling and calling out.Your childishness has become unrelenting.

The only reason I post in this area with you clowns at all,is to (I hope) inspire Believers who see the constant bashing of their beliefs,and know there is at least one person who will stand up and speak out.

If some would actually put childeren like you in their place often enough,like Abrupt has,you'd see more people defend the faith in this forum.
D&D, is debate and discuss. It's not defend any thing. Since coming on this site a couple years ago, I have encountered exactly 2 xtians who wished to do either in an reasonable manner. Everyone else just wants to make dead end statements, of the "I have the only right answer and everyone else is wrong, period" variety. If you want to defend your belief system in here, you should come up with some intelligent answers and not get all butt hurt when you can't and resort to "spinning" in circles.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 09, 2012, 12:06:33 pm
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.

...resort to... name calling and calling out.Your childishness has become unrelenting.

It isn't name-calling if it's accurate, (and it is an accurate description of your usual response patterns).  It isn't a "calling out" thread since it doesn't target a particular member by 'nym, (and isn't a "calling out" post because individual members are often addressed by 'nym within a on-going discussion on a thread).  The only "unrelenting" thing about my challenges to your specious claims has been their consistancy.  No known 'child' has employed the lines of reasoning which I have herein therefore, your characterization is as false as your others.

The only reason I post in this area with you clowns at all,is to (I hope) inspire Believers who see the constant bashing of their beliefs,and know there is at least one person who will stand up and speak out.

In other words, you reply not to respond to content so much as to evangelize religious superstitions.

If some would actually put childeren like you in their place often enough,like Abrupt has,you'd see more people defend the faith.

Now who's name-calling, ("childeren"[sic] indeed, that's the pot calling the kettle black).  Neither has "Abrupt" put anyone "in their place" by using failed arguments, strawman arguments, unsubstantiated premises, (like the false premise of "atheism is a religion"), and specious rhetoric.

It's noted that you opted for the predicted 'change the subject' and 'pin-dancing-angels' options.  That's your perrogative.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 09, 2012, 12:21:14 pm
I wanted to save this thread before it dies just to remind Jedijohnnie to answer Waterbearer's rebuttal like a good christian would, rather than cowardly disappear and then continue posting nonsensical attacks as he always does.

Could be a toss-up there since 'johnnie' enjoys arguing such 'how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin' nonsense but, there's that propensity for him to bible-thump-and-bail too, quickly change the subject, or silently back out, (rather than back up).

That coming from a child that would actually change the name of the person indicated in the quote for no purpose other than Ad Hominem.

How can that be an ad hom when "johnnie" is included in his 'nym and he's certainly no "Jedi"?  Although falsely characterizing me as a "child" is definitely an ad hominem since your premise is an unsupported one and my refutations of it have not been presented by any known "child".  If what you stated concerning ad hom being a 'weak form of argument' is valid, surely that applies to your usage of ad hominem as well.

You cannot win your argument or prove what you are saying ...

False; I've previously done both and have the ability to continue doing so, (despite your baseless nay-saying, the archived record of my doing so contradicts your 'bearing false witness').

so you stoop to personal attacks upon JediJohnie ...

Nope, I posted some options extrapolated from "johnnie's" previous posting patterns, (and wouldn't you know, he selected two of them when he did reply) so, how does an accurate extraploation constitute "personal attacks"?  Further, how are you 'justifying' the "personal attacks" you weakly fling my way?  They can't be 'retalitory' since you initiated them, (it's archived but, deny it if you wish).  I could speculate however, your dissembling tangential diversionary attempts nominally speak for themselves.

It doesn't get any more pathetic than that.  

Regarding your "Black Knight" from Monty Python contentions, I'd agree, ("... no you haven't, it's just a flesh wound ..." self-deceptions).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 09, 2012, 01:30:34 pm
I dug up an old book to add to the discussion-just for kicks I suppose,since the agenda of several here are likely to attempt to discredit it from the first word.lol

This is from Dr Simon Greenleaf who was one of the founders of Harvard,who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible.Eventually,he found the evidence for the Gospel so great,it would be admissible in a court of law.Some exerpts,


"That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior, and were commonly received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.
The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts, is said to come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place where, and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it. If they come from such a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes that they are genuine, and they are permitted to be read in evidence, unless the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them.The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection.  The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes every many is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings.

These copies of the Holy Scriptures having thus been in familiar use in the churches, from the time when the text was committed to writing; having been watched with vigilance by so many sects, opposed to each other in doctrine, yet all appealing to these Scriptures for the correctness of their faith; and having in all ages, down to this day, been respected as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government, and submitted to, and acted under in regard to so many claims of right, on the one hand, and so many obligations of duty, on the other; it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity. It is for the objector to show them spurious; for on him, by the plainest rules of law, lies the burden of proof.

 In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.

In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.  

Let the evangelists be tried by these tests.

And first, as to their honesty.They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for this fabrication.


There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events actually occurred.

 Thus much, however, may here be remarked; that in almost every miracle related by the evangelists, the facts, separately taken, were plain, intelligible, transpiring in public, and about which no person of ordinary observation would be like to mistake. Persons blind or cripple, who applied to Jesus for relief, were known to have been crippled or blind for many years; they came to be cured; he spake to them; they went away whole. Lazarus had been dead and buried four days; Jesus called him to come forth from the grave; he immediately came forth, and was seen alive for a long time afterwards. In every case of healing, the previous condition of the sufferer was known to all witnessed the act of Jesus in touching him, and heard his words. All these, separately considered, were facts, plain and simple in their nature, easily seen and fully comprehended by persons of common capacity and observation. If they were separately testified to, by different witnesses of ordinary intelligence and integrity, in any court of justice, the jury would be bound to believe them; and a verdict, rendered contrary to the uncontradicted testimony of credible witnesses to any of these plain facts, separately taken, would be liable to be set aside, as a verdict against evidence. If one credible witness testified to the fact, that Bartimeus was blind, according to the uniform course of administering justice, this fact would be taken as satisfactorily proved. So also, if his subsequent restoration to sight were the sole fact in question, this also would be deemed established, by the like evidence. Nor would the rule of evidence be at all different, if the fact to be proved were the declaration of Jesus, immediately preceding his restoration to sight, that his faith had made him whole. In each of these cases, each isolated fact was capable of being accurately observed, and certainly known; and the evidence demands our assent, precisely as the like evidence upon any other indifferent subject. The connection of the word or the act of Jesus with the restoration of the blind, lame and dead, to sight, and health, and life, as cause and effect, is a conclusion which our reason is compelled to admit, from the uniformity of their concurrence, in such a multitude of instances, as well as from the universal conviction of all, whether friends or foes, who beheld the miracles which he wrought. Indeed, if the truth of one of the miracles is satisfactorily established, our belief cannot reasonably be withheld from them all.


Miracles, say the objectors, are impossible; and therefore the evangelists were either deceivers or deceived; and in either case their narratives against the possibility of miracles, was founded on the board and bold assumption that all things are governed by immutable laws, or fixed modes of motion and relation, termed the laws of nature, by which God himself is of necessity bound. This erroneous assumption is the tortoise, on which stands the elephant which upholds his system of atheism. He does not inform us who made these immutable laws, nor whence they derive their binding force and irresistible operation. The argument supposes that the creator of all things first made a code of laws, and then put it out of his own power to change them. the scheme of Mr. Hume is but another form of the same error. He deduces the existence of such immutable laws from the uniform course of human experience. This, he affirms, is our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact; and whatever is contrary to human experience, he pronounces incredible. Without stopping to examine the correctness of this doctrine, as a fundamental principle in the law of evidence, it is sufficient in this place to remark, that it contains this fallacy: it excludes all knowledge derived by inference or deduction from facts, confining us to what we derive from experience alone, and thus depriving us of any knowledge, or even rational belief, or the existence or character of God. Nay more, it goes to prove that successive generations of men can make no advancement in knowledge, but each must begin de novo, and be limited to the results of his own experience. But if we may infer, from what we see and know, that there is a Supreme Being, by whom this world was created, we may certainly, and with equal reason, believe him capable of works which we have never yet known him to perform. We may fairly conclude that the power which was originally put forth to create the world is still constantly and without ceasing exerted to sustain it; and that the experienced connection between cause and effect is but the uniform and constantly active operation of the finger of God. Whether this uniformity of operation extends to things beyond the limits of our observation, is a point we cannot certainly know. Its existence in all things that ordinarily concern us may be supposed to be ordained as conducive to our happiness; and if the belief in a revelation of peace and mercy from god is conducive to the happiness of man, it is not irrational to suppose that he would depart from his ordinary course of action, in order to give it such attestations as should tend to secure that belief. "A miracle is improbable, when we can perceive no sufficient cause, in reference to his creatures, why the Deity should not vary his modes of operation; it ceases to be so, when such cause is assigned."

"Had the evangelists been false historians," says Dr. Chalmers, "they would not have committed themselves upon so many particulars.   They would not have furnished the vigilant inquirers of that period with such an effectual instrument for bringing them into discredit with the people; nor foolishly supplied, in every page of their narrative, so many materials for a cross-examination, which would infallibly have disgraced them.  Now, we of this age can institute the same cross-examination.  We can compare the evangelical writers with contemporary authors, and verify a number of circumstances in the history, and government, and peculiar economy of the Jewish people.  We therefore have it in our power to institute a cross-examination upon the writers of the New Testament; and the freedom and frequency of their allusions to these circumstances supply us with ample materials for it.  The fact, that they are borne out in their minute and incidental allusions by the testimony of other historians, gives a strong weight of what has been called circumstantial evidence in their favor.  As a specimen of the argument, let us confine our observations to the history of our Savior's trial, and execution, and burial.  They brought him to Pontius Pilate.  We know both from Tacitus and Josephus, that he was at that time governor of Judea.

A sentence from him was necessary before they could proceed to the execution of Jesus; and we know that the power of life and death was usually vested in the Roman governor.  Our Savior. was treated with derision; and this we know to have been a customary practice at that time, previous to the execution of criminals, and during the time of it.  Pilate scourged Jesus before he gave him up to be crucified.  We know from ancient authors, that this was a very usual practice among Romans.  The accounts of an execution generally run in this form:  he was stripped, whipped, and beheaded or executed.  According to the evangelists, his accusation was written on the top of the cross; and we learn from Suetonius and others, that the crime of the person to be executed was affixed to the instrument of his punishment.   According to the evangelists, this accusation was written in three different languages; and we know from Josephus that it was quite common in Jerusalem to have all public advertisements written in this manner.  According to the evangelists, Jesus had to bear his cross; and we know from other sources of information, that this was the constant practice of those times.  According to the evangelists, the body of Jesus was given up to be buried at the request of friends. We know that, unless the criminal was infamous, this was the law or the custom with all Roman governors."

It should be remembered, that very little of the literature of their times and country has come down to us; and that the collateral sources and means of corroborating and explaining their writings are proportionally limited.  The contemporary writings and works of art which have reached us, have invariably been found to confirm their accounts, to reconcile what was apparently contradictory, and supply what seemed defective or imperfect. We ought therefore to conclude, that if we had more of the same light, all other similar difficulties and imperfections would vanish.   Indeed they have been gradually vanishing, and rapidly too, before the light of modern research, conducted by men of science in our own times.  And it is worthy of remark, that of all the investigations and discoveries of travelers and men of letters, since the overthrow of the Roman empire, not a vestige of antiquity has been found, impeaching, in the slightest degree, the credibility of the sacred writers; but, on the contrary, every result has tended to confirm it.

All Christianity asks of men on this subject, is that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat the evidence of other things;; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals.   Let the the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination.  The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.  In the course of such an examination, the undesigned coincidences will multiply upon us at every step in the witnesses and of the reality of the occurrences which they relate will increase, until it acquires, for all practical purposes, the value and force of demonstration."

 :wave:
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: ptfunds on May 09, 2012, 01:48:12 pm
Thank you for posting this interesting article.  Yes, Archaeology is enabling us to confirm and correct a lot of historical information which has been passed down through the generations.  It is wonderful and amazing to have an opportunity centuries and centuries later to know more of our history not just around religious writings, but many other historical writings as well. I think we live in an amazing time and are so fortunate to see these wonderful secrets being unlocked for our knowledge today.   
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 09, 2012, 02:19:53 pm
This is from Dr Simon Greenleaf who was one of the founders of Harvard,who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible.

"Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief. Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists."

Hardly someone "who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible", (being a xtian apologetic).  He may be a potential source of the misapprehension/misapplication of the burden of proof requirement which some religious adherents are desparately grasping at, however.

Some exerpts,


"That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior, and were commonly received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.

The 'uncorrupted and unaltered' Dead Sea scrolls refute Greenleaf's contention in that they don't match either the toran or, "old testiment' variations of latter "bibles".  Contention refuted.


"The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever."
Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.


This presumption would be contested in any court on the basis of being an illogical premise since an "ancient document", whether unforged or not, cannot be assumed to be non-fictional just because it appears to be unaltered. An unaltered work of fiction does not confer accuracy to its contents by dint of being a "genuine ancient document, (e.g. Homer's Odyssey is a genuine work of poetic fiction however, the events described cannot be substantiated as genuine themselves).  The same applies to 'biblical content' in that the burden of proof regarding the genuine accuracy of its contents rests with those who either claim those contents are accurate, (religious adherents), or those who make a positive assertion that they are not, (which does Not include those who question the validity nor, apply the burden of proof as a challenge to those who do make such positive assertions).


The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection.
[/quote]

Conversely, the burden of proof devolves onto the party making the initial assertion/claim to support the validity of that asserted claim.  An "objection" can only arise after such initial claims are made, (since there needs to be a prior contention/assertion to object to).  Therefore, the initial burden of proof remains with the party who initiated an asserted claim.


" ...as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government ..."
[/quote]

I'm surprised Greenleaf resorted to such an obvious appeal to authority fallacy, (and this guy was a law professor? sheesh).


it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity.
[/quote]

That's a nice 'legalistic' dodge however, it isn't just the "genuineness or authenticity" of the religious "documents" which are being questioned, it's mainly been the "genuineness or authenticity" of their content which has been challenged on the basis of lack of supporting evidence. If the 'esteemed law professor' is inherently suggesting that the burden of proof requires that challengers produce evidence that there is a lack of evidence supporting the validity of the content of 'biblical documents', then that's inherently a logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion.

 
"In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector."

Since such 'witness testimony' does "generate suspicion" as to the credibility of what was allegedly witness in the first place, (which constitutes making an initially asserted claim and therefore, falls under the burden of proof requirement), such challenges are not made regarding whether or not the 'witness' "believes" their testimony to be accurate - especially when such 'testimony' relies entiely upon "faith" being an opinion which lacks evidence - they challenge the ones making such asserted claims to produce evidence supporting them.  Essentially, the one making an initially-asserted claim in a debate, (not a "court of law"; which is why "religion" itself isn't "tried" in such courts), in a debate isn't presumed to be telling the 'truth' by default.  The burden of proof remains with the claimant in a debate.


"And first, as to their honesty.They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted ..."

The "ground of their faith" assertion invalidates itself due to being based upon beliefs which lack evidence to support them.

"There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them ..."

Any discrepencies in 'testimony' cast considerable doubt as to the validity of such testimonies. This constitutes "circumstances which generate suspicion" under Greenleaf's own parameters.

I'm relieved that I didn't go to Harvard and have Greenleaf spouting such dubious nonsense as one of my law professors when I aced torts and my first year of law school elsewhere.  I would probably would have 'flunked' Greenleaf's class since the same refutations made here would have been made there.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 09, 2012, 02:28:32 pm
Yes, Archaeology is enabling us to confirm and correct a lot of historical information which has been passed down through the generations.  

Neither the excerpts from Greenleaf's legal opinions applied to "ancient documents", nor nonsecular (religiously-biased) 'archeologists' "confirm or correct" religious assumptions/contentions made.  Greenleaf danced around confirming the validity of the content of religious documents by talking about whether or not the documents themselves were "genuine", (again, not whether their contents were genuine).  It's a sophist dodge sometimes used by xtian apologetics. Greenleaf is an outspoken figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of xtian belief.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 09, 2012, 02:49:34 pm
Quote
As much as it pains me to remind you of this yet again,you and this forum are not the center of my universe.Again,you resort to name calling and calling out.Your childishness has become unrelenting.

Oh good! Now you know how we feel about you whenever you rear your head in argumentative threads. The only difference here is I call them as I see them (you are and have been childish constantly), whereas I'm telling the truth about your ridiculous record here.

Quote
The only reason I post in this area with you clowns at all,is to (I hope) inspire Believers who see the constant bashing of their beliefs,and know there is at least one person who will stand up and speak out.

I'm sure all the logic and reason being presented has only strengthened your ability to be irrational (considering your responses to waterbearer again).

Quote
If some would actually put children like you in their place often enough,like Abrupt has,you'd see more people defend the faith in this forum.

Abrupt and I are on good terms with eachother (I hope he can say the same with me), even if we do get in heated debates. Him and Falcon9 though...I'm uncertain if I can say the same. I'm under the impression that he is not aware of your irrational and childish behavior, and that's why I responded to him to give him the quick story of what's going on.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 09, 2012, 02:57:27 pm
Abrupt and I are on good terms with each other (I hope he can say the same), even if we do get in heated debates. Him and Falcon9 though...I'm uncertain if I can say the same. I'm under the impression that he is not aware of your irrational and childish behavior, and that's why I responded to him to give him the quick story of what's going on.

While I used wonder sometimes whether someone else occassionally used "Abrupt's" 'nym in the earlier stages of d+d, (in which he indicated that his intention was to facilitate and hone his debate and reasoning skills by using mine as a foil), that is no longer speculated more recently.  Either I'm a poor 'teacher' or, "Abrupt" is a poor student, (perhaps a combination of both - or, neither since it was not my intention to 'teach' a course in logic, even by example).  No doubt having such an 'ally' as 'johnnie' bolsters "Abrupt's" position by leaps and bounds.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 09, 2012, 02:59:56 pm
Quote
No doubt having such an 'ally' as 'johnnie' bolsters "Abrupt's" position by leaps and bounds.

Any group that aligns and agrees with Jedijohnnie's argumentative skills is truly a force to be reckoned with!
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 09, 2012, 03:14:14 pm
No doubt having such an 'ally' as 'johnnie' bolsters "Abrupt's" position by leaps and bounds.

Understatement of the year.

Although that was intended as sardonic sarcasm, doubtless it remains for someone else to make the " ... who needs enemies?" observation.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 09, 2012, 05:22:11 pm
Quote
Although that was intended as sardonic sarcasm, doubtless it remains for someone else to make the " ... who needs enemies?" observation.

Oh haha sorry. I read it wrong. I understood your original message though, I just responded with the wrong words. Correction has been made.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 09, 2012, 05:27:27 pm

Although that was intended as sardonic sarcasm, doubtless it remains for someone else to make the " ... who needs enemies?" observation.

Oh haha sorry. Sarcasm is hard to convey over text.

It often is a bit subtle.  If applied to someone who responds speciously, (not you), I sometimes will use the term "sarchasm" instead, (which has an additional subtle connotation).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: JediJohnnie on May 10, 2012, 11:31:59 am
Ah well.24 hours and no rebuttle from Falconer on Dr Greenleafs claims.Should I brand him a coward and an unfit atheist?Turnabout is fail play,but I prefer to take the high road.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 10, 2012, 11:58:53 am
Ah well.24 hours and no rebuttle from Falconer on Dr Greenleafs claims.Should I brand him a coward and an unfit atheist?Turnabout is fail play,but I prefer to take the high road.

"Fail play" indeed.  The xtian aplogetic's legalistic smoke-and-mirrors cut&paste which you posted was rebutted in detail.  Summarily, Greenleaf, (a xtian apolgetic), unsuccessfully attempts to equate the "genuiness" of the physical form of an ancient document with the contents of that document.

Since "johnnie" has blinded himself to my posts using the "ignore" function, (just as he's mind-blinded himself with blind-faith), maybe "Falconer02" will quote my previous rebuttal when/if he replies in order to debate the points.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: walksalone11 on May 10, 2012, 12:11:29 pm
This is from Dr Simon Greenleaf who was one of the founders of Harvard,who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible.

"Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief. Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists."

Hardly someone "who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible".  He may be a potential source of the misapprehension/misapplication of the burden of proof requirement which some religious adherents are desparately grasping at, however.

Some exerpts,


"That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior, and were commonly received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.

The 'uncorrupted and unaltered' Dead Sea scrolls refute Greenleaf's contention in that they don't match either the toran or, "old testiment' variations of latter "bibles".  Contention refuted.


"The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever."
Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.


This presumption would be contested in any court on the basis of being an illogical premise since an "ancient document", whether unforged or not, cannot be assumed to be non-fictional just because it appears to be unaltered. An unaltered work of fiction does not confer accuracy to its contents by dint of being a "genuine ancient document, (e.g. Homer's Odyssey is a genuine work of poetic fiction however, the events described cannot be substantiated as genuine themselves).  The same applies to 'biblical content' in that the burden of proof regarding the genuine accuracy of its contents rests with those who either claim those contents are accurate, (religious adherents), or those who make a positive assertion that they are not, (which does Not include those who question the validity nor, apply the burden of proof as a challenge to those who do make such positive assertions).


The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection.

Conversely, the burden of proof devolves onto the party making the initial assertion/claim to support the validity of that asserted claim.  An "objection" can only arise after such initial claims are made, (since there needs to be a prior contention/assertion to object to).  Therefore, the initial burden of proof remains with the party who initiated an asserted claim.


" ...as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government ..."
[/quote]

I'm surprised Greenleaf resorted to such an obvious appeal to authority fallacy, (and this guy was a law professor? sheesh).


it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity.
[/quote]

That's a nice 'legalistic' dodge however, it isn't just the "genuineness or authenticity" of the religious "documents" which are being questioned, it's mainly been the "genuineness or authenticity" of their content which has been challenged on the basis of lack of supporting evidence. If the 'esteemed law professor' is inherently suggesting that the burden of proof requires that challengers produce evidence that there is a lack of evidence supporting the validity of the content of 'biblical documents', then that's inherently a logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion.

 
"In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector."

Since such 'witness testimony' does "generate suspicion" as to the credibility of what was allegedly witness in the first place, (which constitutes making an initially asserted claim and therefore, falls under the burden of proof requirement), such challenges are not made regarding whether or not the 'witness' "believes" their testimony to be accurate - especially when such 'testimony' relies entiely upon "faith" being an opinion which lacks evidence - they challenge the ones making such asserted claims to produce evidence supporting them.  Essentially, the one making an initially-asserted claim in a debate, (not a "court of law"; which is why "religion" itself isn't "tried" in such courts), in a debate isn't presumed to be telling the 'truth' by default.  The burden of proof remains with the claimant in a debate.


"And first, as to their honesty.They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted ..."

The "ground of their faith" assertion invalidates itself due to being based upon beliefs which lack evidence to support them.

"There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them ..."

Any discrepencies in 'testimony' cast considerable doubt as to the validity of such testimonies. This constitutes "circumstances which generate suspicion" under Greenleaf's own parameters.

I'm relieved that I didn't go to Harvard and have Greenleaf spouting such dubious nonsense as one of my law professors when I aced torts and my first year of law school elsewhere.  I would probably would have 'flunked' Greenleaf's class since the same refutations made here would have been made there.
[/quote]Hey Johnnie...... look up......not at your ceiling Gumby, in this post.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 10, 2012, 12:14:26 pm
This is from Dr Simon Greenleaf who was one of the founders of Harvard,who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible.

"Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. This school of thought is typified by legally trained scholars applying the canons of proof and argument to the defense of Christian belief. Greenleaf's Testimony of the Evangelists set the model for many subsequent works by legal apologists."

Hardly someone "who was a skeptic who set out to disprove the Bible", (being a xtian apologetic). He may be a potential source of the misapprehension/misapplication of the burden of proof requirement which some religious adherents are desparately grasping at, however.

Some exerpts,


"That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are genuine; that they existed in the time of our Savior, and were commonly received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown.

The 'uncorrupted and unaltered' Dead Sea scrolls refute Greenleaf's contention in that they don't match either the toran or, "old testiment' variations of latter "bibles".  Contention refuted.


"The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever."
Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.


This presumption would be contested in any court on the basis of being an illogical premise since an "ancient document", whether unforged or not, cannot be assumed to be non-fictional just because it appears to be unaltered. An unaltered work of fiction does not confer accuracy to its contents by dint of being a "genuine ancient document, (e.g. Homer's Odyssey is a genuine work of poetic fiction however, the events described cannot be substantiated as genuine themselves).  The same applies to 'biblical content' in that the burden of proof regarding the genuine accuracy of its contents rests with those who either claim those contents are accurate, (religious adherents), or those who make a positive assertion that they are not, (which does Not include those who question the validity nor, apply the burden of proof as a challenge to those who do make such positive assertions).


The burden of showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the party who makes that objection.
[/quote]

Conversely, the burden of proof devolves onto the party making the initial assertion/claim to support the validity of that asserted claim.  An "objection" can only arise after such initial claims are made, (since there needs to be a prior contention/assertion to object to).  Therefore, the initial burden of proof remains with the party who initiated an asserted claim.


" ...as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power and government ..."
[/quote]

I'm surprised Greenleaf resorted to such an obvious appeal to authority fallacy, (and this guy was a law professor? sheesh).


it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity.
[/quote]

That's a nice 'legalistic' dodge however, it isn't just the "genuineness or authenticity" of the religious "documents" which are being questioned, it's mainly been the "genuineness or authenticity" of their content which has been challenged on the basis of lack of supporting evidence. If the 'esteemed law professor' is inherently suggesting that the burden of proof requires that challengers produce evidence that there is a lack of evidence supporting the validity of the content of 'biblical documents', then that's inherently a logical fallacy of requiring proof of a negative assertion.

 
"In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector."

Since such 'witness testimony' does "generate suspicion" as to the credibility of what was allegedly witness in the first place, (which constitutes making an initially asserted claim and therefore, falls under the burden of proof requirement), such challenges are not made regarding whether or not the 'witness' "believes" their testimony to be accurate - especially when such 'testimony' relies entiely upon "faith" being an opinion which lacks evidence - they challenge the ones making such asserted claims to produce evidence supporting them.  Essentially, the one making an initially-asserted claim in a debate, (not a "court of law"; which is why "religion" itself isn't "tried" in such courts), in a debate isn't presumed to be telling the 'truth' by default.  The burden of proof remains with the claimant in a debate.


"And first, as to their honesty.They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted ..."

The "ground of their faith" assertion invalidates itself due to being based upon beliefs which lack evidence to support them.

"There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them ..."

Any discrepencies in 'testimony' cast considerable doubt as to the validity of such testimonies. This constitutes "circumstances which generate suspicion" under Greenleaf's own parameters.

I'm relieved that I didn't go to Harvard and have Greenleaf spouting such dubious nonsense as one of my law professors when I aced torts and my first year of law school elsewhere.  I would probably would have 'flunked' Greenleaf's class since the same refutations made here would have been made there.

[/quote]
Hey Johnnie...... look up......not at your ceiling Gumby, in this post.
[/quote]

Thanks, 'walks'.  What do you estimate as a response; spin-mode or, gloss-over the refutations?
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: walksalone11 on May 10, 2012, 12:18:06 pm

Hey Johnnie...... look up......not at your ceiling Gumby, in this post.

Thanks, 'walks'.  What do you estimate as a response; spin-mode or, gloss-over the refutations?
[/quote]No charge. My guess would be something totally lacking in any thing close to an intelligent rebuttal(to anyone with any common sense), if anything at all.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 10, 2012, 12:23:53 pm
Thanks, 'walks'.  What do you estimate as a response; spin-mode or, gloss-over the refutations?

No charge. My guess would be something totally lacking in any thing close to an intelligent rebuttal(to anyone with any common sense), if anything at all.

Ah, a combination of both spin-mode and some glossing-over diversion then.  Seems par for the course when they are refuted when they could address the debated points in a rebuttal, (and at least pretend that they were actually debating).
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: Falconer02 on May 10, 2012, 06:14:09 pm
Quote
Ah well.24 hours and no rebuttle from Falconer on Dr Greenleafs claims.Should I brand him a coward and an unfit atheist?Turnabout is fail play,but I prefer to take the high road.

As much as it pains me to remind you of this yet again,you and this forum are not the center of my uni--OH WAIT! Sorry! Sounded like a whiner there for a sec. Fortunately atheism holds no ancient texts or commandments I must blindly obey, so I don't understand how one could label me a coward or an "unfit" atheist when there's really not much there to cling to aside from rational thinking. I'm just a bit late to the ongoing debate, and I apologize for that if time was of the essence on your side. However I must point out that if you preferred the high road, your post count would be miniscule compared to what it is now from all those irrational drive-by attack posts one could easily find in your record here.

Unfortunately and fortunately due to my absence, Falcon9 and Walksalone have provided you with more than enough refutions to your claims. I would highly recommend you take Falcon9 off of ignore just for those posts atleast if you plan to explain why our viewpoints are incorrect. I will mention that we did ask you for unbiased sources (mainly pertaining to people), and you failed to do that from the get-go.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on May 10, 2012, 11:07:53 pm
Quote
Ah well.24 hours and no rebuttle from Falconer on Dr Greenleafs claims.Should I brand him a coward and an unfit atheist?Turnabout is fail play,but I prefer to take the high road.

As much as it pains me to remind you of this yet again,you and this forum are not the center of my uni--OH WAIT! Sorry! Sounded like a whiner there for a sec. Fortunately atheism holds no ancient texts or commandments I must blindly obey, so I don't understand how one could label me a coward or an "unfit" atheist when there's really not much there to cling to aside from rational thinking. I'm just a bit late to the ongoing debate, and I apologize for that if time was of the essence on your side. However I must point out that if you preferred the high road, your post count would be miniscule compared to what it is now from all those irrational drive-by attack posts one could easily find in your record here.

Unfortunately and fortunately due to my absence, Falcon9 and Walksalone have provided you with more than enough refutions to your claims. I would highly recommend you take Falcon9 off of ignore just for those posts atleast if you plan to explain why our viewpoints are incorrect. I will mention that we did ask you for unbiased sources (mainly pertaining to people), and you failed to do that from the get-go.


It's alright if he doesn't take me off of "ignore" while not ignoring me, (hypocritical as that is), because 'walks' kindly quoted the relavent post.  :-X
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: healthfreedom on June 10, 2012, 06:12:33 pm
The Bible is the inspired word of God, and we can  trust in what it claims to be true. I'm so glad that archaelogical discoveries support the biblical accounts.
Title: Re: Archaeology and the Bible
Post by: falcon9 on June 10, 2012, 06:20:08 pm
The Bible is the inspired word of God, and we can  trust in what it claims to be true. I'm so glad that archaelogical discoveries support the biblical accounts.

There's no evidence to support the first claim and the second indicates a failure to discern what constitutes eveidence.  Implicitly claiming that 'the bible says the bible is true' is circular illogic.  Finding ruins is not equivalent to concluding that the far-fetched religious claims have any validity; that's a logical fallacy.

"Kissing Hank's Butt*;
A parable by Rev. Jim Huber:

   This morning there was a knock at my door.   When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple.   The man spoke first, saying "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

MARY:  Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's butt* with us.
ME:  Pardon me? What are you talking about? Who is Hank, and why would I
want to kiss his butt*?
JOHN:  If you kiss Hank's butt*, he will give you a million dollars; and if
you don't, he will kick the crap** out of you.
ME:  What is this, some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?
JOHN:  Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town.  Hank
owns this town.  He can do what ever he wants and what he wants is to give
you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his butt*.
ME:  That doesn't make any sense. Why would ...
MARY: Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars?  Isn t it worth a little kiss on the butt*?
ME:  Well I don't know, even if this is legit and all, but...
JOHN:  Then come kiss Hank's butt* with us.
ME:  Tell me, do you kiss Hank's butt* often?
MARY:  Oh yes, all the time...
ME:  And has he given you a million dollars?
JOHN:   Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town.
ME:  So why don't you just leave town now?
MARY:   You can't leave until Hank tells you to or you don't get the
money and he kicks the crap** out of you.
ME:  Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's butt*, left town, and got
the million dollars?
JOHN:    My mother kissed Hank's butt* for years.  She left town last year
and I'm sure she got the money.
ME:  Haven't you talked to her since then?
JOHN:    Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it.
ME:  So what makes you think he will actually give you the money if
you have never talked to anyone who got the money?
MARY:   Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you will
get a raise; maybe you will win a small lotto; maybe you will just find
a twenty dollar bill on the street.
ME:  What does that got to do with Hank?
JOHN:    Hank has certain ...  connections.
ME:  I'm sorry but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game.
JOHN:    But it IS a million dollars.  Can you really take the chance? And
remember, if you DON'T kiss Hank's butt* he will kick the crap** of you.
ME:  Maybe if I could see Hank; talk to him and get the details straight
from him...
MARY:   No one sees Hank.  No one talks to Hank.
ME:  Then how do you kiss his butt*?
JOHN:   Sometimes we just blow him a kiss and think of his butt*.  Other
times we kiss Karl's butt*, and he passes it on.
ME:   Who is Karl?
MARY:   A friend of ours and a personal friend of Hank's.  He's the
one who taught us all about kissing Hank's butt*.  All we had to do was
take him out to dinner a few times.
ME:   And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank,
that Hank wanted you to kiss his butt* and that Hank would reward you?
JOHN:    Oh no! Karl has got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining
the whole thing. Here is a copy; see for your self.
  John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on - From the desk of
  Karl - letterhead.  There were eleven items listed:
    1.)  Kiss Hank's butt* and he will give you a million dollars when you
         leave town.
    2.)  Use alcohol in moderation.
    3.)  Kick the crap** out of people who do not believe as you do.
    4.)  Eat right.
    5.)  Hank dictated this list himself.
    6.)  The moon is made of green cheese.
    7.)  Everything Hank says is right.
    8.)  Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
    9.)  Do not drink alcohol.
    10.)  Eat your hotdogs on buns, no condiments.
    11.)  Kiss Hank's butt* or he will kick the crap** out of you.
ME:  This would appear to be written on Karl's Letterhead.
MARY:  Hank did not have any paper.  Or, a pen.
ME:  I have a hunch that if we checked we would find this is Karl's handwriting.
JOHN:   Of course, Hank dictated it to Karl.
ME:  I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?
MARY:   Not now;  but years ago he would talk to some people.
ME:   I thought you said Hank was a philanthropist. What sort of
philanthropist kicks the crap** out of people just because they are
different?
MARY:  It's what Hank wants and Hank is always right.
ME:   How do you figure that?
MARY:  Item 7 says - Everything Hanks says is right.-  That's good enough
for me!
ME:  Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up.
JOHN (gasping)  No way!  Item 5 says, - Hank dictated this list himself.- Besides,
item 2 says, - Use alcohol in moderation. - Item 4 says, - Eat right.- And
item 8 says, - Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.- Everyone
knows *those* things are right; so the rest must be true, too.
ME:  But 9 says, - Do not drink alcohol - which does not quite go with item 2.
     And 6 says, - The moon is made of green cheese. - which is just plain wrong.
JOHN:  There is no contradiction between 9 and 2.  9 just clarifies 2. As far as
6 goes, you have never been to the moon; so you cannot say for sure.
ME:  Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock.
MARY:  But they do not know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of
space, so it could just as easily be green cheese.
Me:  I am not really an expert but I think the theory that the Moon came
from the Earth has been discounted.  Besides, not knowing *where* the rock
came from doesn't mean it *could* be green cheese rather than rock.
JOHN:   Aha!  You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know
Hank is always right!
ME:  We do?
MARY:   Of course we do, Item 5 says so.
ME:  So, you're saying that Hank is always right because the list
says so? The list is right because Hank dictated it and we know that Hank
dictated it because the list says that he dictated says so?
JOHN:   Now you're getting it!  It's so rewarding to see someone come around
to Hank's way of thinking.
ME:  But...Oh,  never mind.  What's the deal with the hotdogs?
Mary blushes.
JOHN:   Hotdogs; in buns, no condiments.  It's Hank's way. Anything else
is wrong.
ME:  What if I don't have a bun?
JOHN:   No bun, no weiner.  A weiner without a bun is wrong.
ME:  No relish? No Mustard?
Mary looks positively stricken.
JOHN shouts, "There's no need for such language!  Condiments of any
kind are wrong!"
ME:  So a big pile of sauerkraut with some weiners chopped up in it
would be out of the question?
MARY (sticking her fingers in her ears):   I am not listening to this!  
La la la, la la, la la la.....
JOHN:   That is disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that.
ME:  But it's good! I eat it lots of times.
Mary faints.  John catches her.
JOHN:   Well, if I had known you were one of THOSE, I wouldn't have wasted
my time.  When Hank kicks the *bleep* out of you, I want to be there.

John drags Mary to their waiting car and speeds off to another house down the way."
{* - euphemism   ** - another eumphemism}