Biblical Archaeology; the most stunning proof of God.

[angellous_evangellous]

Well I think fish and water are proof of God, but I won't go into them until next year. Both are incredible proofs of God in fact. Espically water. Now, a sunny day is also proof of God, and I will go into that next year also.

Just for you.

Peace.

Oh goodness, please don't.

 

[mickiel]

Oh goodness, please don't.

Oh no man, I promise, I am going to go into Fish, the proof of God. Water, the proof of God, and a sunny day a proof of God. And Iam going to dedicate each thread to you.

Because you gave me the idea. But don't worry, they will be fascinating studys.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

The Sea of Galilee is a main body of water mentioned in scripture which still exist today.

Its academic.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

Nimrod is a famous biblical characther, did you know they have found his castle? Found it, we have it as evidence of the bibles relevancy.

Peace.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Biblical Archaeology; the most stunning proof of God.

"If future archeologists one day uncover New York, that won't prove there was a Spider-Man." - Matt Dillahunty

 

[mickiel]

"If future archeologists one day uncover New York, that won't prove there was a Spider-Man." - Matt Dillahunty

Disprove ANY of the findings I have listed. There is no " If" about them, they are real, validated, professional findings. And I challange you to prove otherwise.

Peace.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Disprove ANY of the findings I have listed. There is no " If" about them, they are real, validated, professional findings. And I challange you to prove otherwise.

Peace.

Finding a location or a person from the Bible does not prove the existence of god. It simply proves that the location or person actually existed. On top of that, finding a tomb marked "Simon Peter" or "Paul of Tarsus" is not proof that the things written about those people in the Bible are true.

1. "The Bible says God exists."
2. "The Bible also says Nineveh exists"
3. "They found proof of Nineveh."
4. "Therefore the Bible must be right about God too."

That is a logical fallacy.

Look at it this way:

1. Harry Potter talks about Hogwarts.
2. Harry Potter talks about London.
3. London actually exists.
4. Therefore, Hogwarts must be real too.

 

[mickiel]

Finding a location or a person from the Bible does not prove the existence of god. It simply proves that the location or person actually existed. On top of that, finding a tomb marked "Simon Peter" or "Paul of Tarsus" is not proof that the things written about those people in the Bible are true.

1. "The Bible says God exists."
2. "The Bible also says Nineveh exists"
3. "They found proof of Nineveh."
4. "Therefore the Bible must be right about God too."

That is a logical fallacy.

I disagree, if what the bible claims couldnot be proven, you would jump all over it, to support your habit. If its location, persons , places and things were not accurate, you would have a leg to stand on. They are accurate, your fear then is that the God it reveals is accurate. The God you deny.

But the bible is accurate in history and it records Gods existence.

Its academic, and no way around it.

Peace.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I disagree, if what the bible claims couldnot be proven, you would jump all over it, to support your habit. If its location, persons , places and things were not accurate, you would have a leg to stand on. They are accurate, your fear then is that the God it reveals is accurate. The God you deny.

But the bible is accurate in history and it records Gods existence.

Its academic, and no way around it.

Peace.

Note the Harry Potter example in my earlier post.

 

[mickiel]

Note the Harry Potter example in my earlier post.

I do not accept the use of myths to prove or support actual facts.

Peace.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I disagree, if what the bible claims couldnot be proven, you would jump all over it,

There are things in the Bible that can't be proven, but we're not talking about them. This thread is about biblical archaeology so I'm limiting my discussion to that.

to support your habit.

What habit might that be?

If its location, persons , places and things were not accurate, you would have a leg to stand on. They are accurate, your fear then is that the God it reveals is accurate. The God you deny.

I need have no fear of that. As I said before, it's a logical fallacy.

But the bible is accurate in history

That's debatable.

and it records Gods existence.

Its academic, and no way around it.

As I said before, fallacy.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I do not accept the use of myths to prove or support actual facts.

Peace.

You missed the point entirely.

 

[mickiel]

What habit might that be?



I.

Your habit, your platform is to deny the existence of God, because you do not support that. You can't get to it, because your preprogramed not to get to it, and I understand that, its all you are able to think. You have a limited sight of God, and that is your normal function. Biblical archaeology is proving the bible every month. Month after month we unearth the truth, and your disbelief willnot stop this process.

I have listed plenty of finds on this thread, NONE of which can be disproven. ALL of which hold meaning and direct implications of God being real.

Face it, its academic, history is more important and relevant than your denial of Gods existence.

Peace.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Your habit, your platform is to deny the existence of God, because you do not support that.

I reject theistic claims because they haven't met their burden of proof. That's the only reason.

Biblical archaeology is proving the bible every month. Month after month we unearth the truth, and your disbelief willnot stop this process.

I have listed plenty of finds on this thread, NONE of which can be disproven. ALL of which hold meaning and direct implications of God being real.

So then Hogwarts must be real too.

Using your logic we can also prove the existence of Narnia, Godzilla, Santa Claus, The Great Green Arkleseizure, Huckleberry Finn, and Superman.

 

[mickiel]

I reject theistic claims because they haven't met their burden of proof. That's the only reason.



So then Hogwarts must be real too.

Using your logic we can also prove the existence of Narnia, Godzilla, Santa Claus, The Great Green Arkleseizure, Huckleberry Finn, and Superman.

You resort again to the use of myths to support your points, because YOUR foundational points are mythical. You offer only myths in rebuttal, because you have no facts. You then NEED myths to rebut Gods existence. Your facts and figures are myths, yet you seek to equate that as proof that God is also a myth. Biblical archaeology is a fact, prove those facts wrong, or swallow your rebuttal for what it is.

A dependance on myths as a defense against facts.

Peace.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

You resort again to the use of myths to support your points, because YOUR foundational points are mythical. You offer only myths in rebuttal, because you have no facts. You then NEED myths to rebut Gods existence. Your facts and figures are myths, yet you seek to equate that as proof that God is also a myth. Biblical archaeology is a fact, prove those facts wrong, or swallow your rebuttal for what it is.

A dependance on myths as a defense against facts.

Peace.

And yet you keep missing the point of why I'm delving into mythology. They find a place called Nimrod's castle, so what? They find Jacob's well, so what? They find Nineveh, so what?

None of these things prove the existence of god. The bible mentions places that actually exist, yes. I'm not debating that. What I'm debating is that these places somehow prove god. If all you have is, "Well, the Bible mentions Nineveh and god. Nineveh is real so god must be real too." then you're committing a fallacy. The logic doesn't follow. That's why I mentioned Harry Potter, Narnia and the rest. These works mention real places too, but no one in their right mind would try to use that fact to suggest that the events portrayed in those works actually happened or that the fictional characters within those works are real.

"Nineveh's existence = god's existence" doesn't work anymore than "London's existence = Hogwarts' existence" or "New York's existence = Spider-man's existence"

If you're trying to prove god, you need to do better.

 

[mickiel]

If you're trying to prove god, you need to do better.

I am not trying to prove God, I couldcareless what others believe.

Peace.

 

[james2ko]

And yet you keep missing the point of why I'm delving into mythology. They find a place called Nimrod's castle, so what? They find Jacob's well, so what? They find Nineveh, so what? If all you have is, "Well, the Bible mentions Nineveh and god. Nineveh is real so god must be real too." then you're committing a fallacy.

Just gives credence to the point that the biblical writers were writing actual facts not fiction as so many skeptics proclaim. And if that's the case, one can conclude that everything else written is worth further examination.

None of these things prove the existence of god. The bible mentions places that actually exist, yes. I'm not debating that. What I'm debating is that these places somehow prove god. The logic doesn't follow.

Not only places, but characters and events. There is some faith involve in believing in the existence of God, there is no denying that. But such is the case for evolution. Evolutionists attempt to intellectualize their way around faith. When you strip away all the fancy arguments and logic, believing in evolution comes to the same ironic conclusion as believing in God---Faith. It takes just as much faith to conclude the Miller Urey experiment proves that life evolved from primordial ooze.

 

[JustAsking]

You resort again to the use of myths to support your points, because YOUR foundational points are mythical. You offer only myths in rebuttal, because you have no facts. You then NEED myths to rebut Gods existence. Your facts and figures are myths, yet you seek to equate that as proof that God is also a myth. Biblical archaeology is a fact, prove those facts wrong, or swallow your rebuttal for what it is.

A dependance on myths as a defense against facts.

Peace.

Pretend I'm from the past. From a jungle in the middle of the Amazon. Say I'm writing as one of the sons of my father who was a born leader and eventually led his tribe.

My father's father was born into a tribe of nearly two thousand people. His father (my great grandfather) had trouble keeping a rule of law. His people would do things the others didn't appreciate. Many animals were stolen from each others neighbors during times of famine. Land would be seized when convenient. Wives would from time to time get stolen.

When my great grandfather decided enough was enough. He wrote down some simple rules. He published these rules at the main hut for all to read. Anyone found to be breaking these rules was to be punished. The problem was, there weren't many people able to take time to carry out anything but the most severe punishments for the most severe crimes. What was most unsettling was how bad events seemed to follow actions of bad people. Droughts would seem to follow murders. Fires would spread seemingly every time someone stole from another...

Over time, some people stepped up to help. Some helped deal with land disputes. Some helped with issues of family. Some helped with issues of property. It also seemed to help when these "helpers" made a ritual sacrifice during times of dispute. Say they burned a small amount of hay during a property dispute and if the smoke arose in a straight column the new owner was deemed to be the rightful owner. If the smoke flew sideways, it was natures way of saying the land was stolen. No one really knew who was the rightful owner and this seemed to be the only way to quickly and efficiently deal with the question. It was not fair, by any means, but it served the tribe well.

Over the next 50 years, it became accepted to look towards nature to determine the outcomes of disputes. Nature was personified through spirits or beings that watched and judged the people. They also helped settle disputes. Furthermore, if you were to do something that could cause a dispute, you were going against these spirits wishes. Punishments were hard to carry out. No police. It was a messy situation. So the idea was born to publicly acknowledge these spirits to show the people that bad things can happen to you, or worse, all of us if you don't keep the spirits happy.

During all this time, a truly talented and gifted writer was keeping track of all these events. He also understood the importance of keeping the idea of spirits in his writing to ingrain a little bit of self responsibility for those reading it in the future. If you don't follow the laws not only will your people be unhappy, but in case you might get away with it, the spirits will still be unhappy.

Over the next many years this book is added to and added to as society needed additions. Eventually, those that were merely helpers in the past were recorded as having consorted with the spirits directly in dealing with disputes. It was necessary to help make this book interesting. In schools, it was necessary reading and to help keep it not only interesting, but memorable, a little exaggeration and embellishment helped!

By this time, my time has come and past. But this book still lives on and it helps to serve as a guide to all those who live in our tribe. Some events were embellished, admittedly, with a little fairy tale here and there to keep the people in line through self responsibility. I mean, who wants to be responsible for the next famine?

Fast forward to today and a copy of this book is still used. Mind you, it has been translated many times but, not only is it still used, many people profess it as a guide to how we should live today, on a planet not of thousands, but of billions of people. Many people have studied this book and they not only believe in these spirits and "helpers" of the past, but they have actually uncovered ruins of the places told of and graves of these very "helpers" (now called saints).

The book states these spirits are real. To help prove, to those of today, whether or not they really are we try and uncover if these fabled places exist. We find they do. Next we try to find proof of these great people that existed. We find they did.

The problem is, proving a person or place existed, doesn't prove the spirits existed.

This isn't an attack against the bible (or any book) or a way to dismiss it. It's merely to illustrate the point that a work from centuries ago may have been exaggerated a bit here and there (or potentially a lot, who knows). But make no mistake about it, persons and places in it could very well exist and be proven so.

Sorry for the huge post... I'm just trying to give a little objective thought to how some things can be true while others can be.. embellishments. The proof of one point doesn't necessarily prove the others must be real/true.

 

[mickiel]

, persons and places in it could very well exist and be proven so.

.

Could exist--- no man there is no " Could exist" with the bible, its been
Proven" that they did exist, and DO exist.

Its been proven and its academic.

Peace.