Nine Pieces Of Evidence That Confirm The Historical Accuracy Of The Bible

[joelr]

Don't even get me started on Mithras hahaha when your core mythological figure is almost a carbon copy of a pagan god/hero, and you stick with it because "bible," you've gone wrong somewhere.

Definitely pagan influences and there were other dying/rising savior cults, Mithras was not a resurrecting god himself but others did fit the model .

PhD Richard Carrier:

"Not all these savior gods were dying-and-rising gods. That was a sub-mytheme. Indeed, dying-and-rising gods (and mere men) were a broader mytheme; because examples abounded even outside the context of known savior cults (I’ll give you a nearly complete list below). But within the savior cults, a particular brand of dying-and-rising god arose. And Jesus most closely corresponds to that mythotype.

Other savior gods within this context experienced “passions” that did not involve a death. For instance, Mithras underwent some great suffering and struggle (we don’t have many details), through which he acquired his power over death that he then shares with initiates in his cult, but we’re pretty sure it wasn’t a death. Mentions of resurrection as a teaching in Mithraism appear to have been about the future fate of his followers (in accordance with the Persian Zoroastrian notion of a general resurrection later borrowed by the Jews). So all those internet memes listing Mithras as a dying-and-rising god? Not true. So do please stop repeating that claim. Likewise, so far as we can tell Attis didn’t become a rising god until well after Christianity began (and even then his myth only barely equated to a resurrection; previous authors have over-interpreted evidence to the contrary). Most others, however, we have pretty solid evidence for as actually dying, and actually rising savior gods."

 

[MJFlores]

And because gods are written about in the collection of stories in the bible does not mean they are real either.

The Book by itself wouldn't stand.
But the Book with its power would.

Next, the Book wasn't for all people to read
It was only meant for God's chosen people
For instance the OT was for the Israelites
And then the NT was for the church established by Christ

The horse prophecies have been debunked, you couldn't challenge one single point.

Then there is also the hundreds of prophecies made in the bible that never happened.
Bible: Prophecy and Misquotes

I am happy to discuss one of them if you will pick your favorite
It is not worth to discuss something if the other doesn't know what is being presented.

God promised many times that the Jews would be the master race who all other cultures bowed down to. Instead they just kept being invaded.
There are over 200 predictions, prophecies and things god said would happen that did not happen.
Cherry picking 7 horses and matching then to vague random events over 1000's of years is a terrible attempt at trying to demonstrate a prophecy being fulfilled.
Each event you chose was not even the largest example of that event. But this isn't really a thing anyways, Christians do not use revelations as "proof of prophecies", no scholar or otherwise would be silly enough to try. It would just ruin their credibility right away.
Especially when they are supposed to appear in a sequence as written in revelations and your order of events has to go back in time !!! Ha!

There are only 4 horses not 7.
There are 7 seals.

The only thing that Christian scholars sometimes take away from revelations is that someday an end of times will happen. They don't map horses onto random events and pretend like that's a prophecy being fulfilled.

Christian scholars?
Those baloney works?
I don't read them.

 

[MJFlores]

No, I'm pissed about your claim that just because you believe something other than what I do, I'll be tortured forever and deserve it. And you will get paradise and deserve it.

If you honestly don't understand why that is so offensive, I'm going to disengage from the conversation.

My point wasnt that there are no bad buddhists. Of course there are. But you seem to be saying that because there are bad buddhists, that all of them are bad. That's a very big rock to be throwing in that glass house of yours. Would you like to talk about the sexual preferences of hundreds of christian priests? What about the crusades? Gay conversion camps? Or maybe the suggestion that condoms are worse than aids? Oh yeah! I forgot about the picketting of soldiers funerals!

But anyone with an iota of common sense won't equate those actions with all christians.

Religion makes people say and believe incredibly offensive things and lets them feel safe in the fact that theyre just 'right'

That is a fact and it is happening world wide.

Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country - Wikipedia

Surprisingly en.wiki failed to list what is happening in my country.

Even our president was a victim when he was young.

The point I am driving at is - there is no one who is righteous, all deserve to be condemned.

 

[Dan Mellis]

That is a fact and it is happening world wide.

Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country - Wikipedia

Surprisingly en.wiki failed to list what is happening in my country.

Even our president was a victim when he was young.

The point I am driving at is - there is no one who is righteous, all deserve to be condemned.

I am going to end this conversation, because I find your beliefs abhorrent and not worth the argument. If you're going to reject all logic and reason in favour of hatred and depreciation, then there is no point in this conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am going to end this conversation, because I find your beliefs abhorrent and not worth the argument. If you're going to reject all logic and reason in favour of hatred and depreciation, then there is no point in this conversation.

When someone can't learn because he refuses to even try then trolling may be a reasonable response. Trolling the troll, so to speak.

 

[Dan Mellis]

When someone can't learn because he refuses to even try then trolling may be a reasonable response. Trolling the troll, so to speak.

As much as I'd like to, I don't think it would achieve anything other than raising my blood pressure

 

[joelr]

The Book by itself wouldn't stand.
But the Book with its power would.

Next, the Book wasn't for all people to read
It was only meant for God's chosen people
For instance the OT was for the Israelites
And then the NT was for the church established by Christ

My D.C, comics have "the power" as well. Doesn't make them real. You're just stating your beliefs for which you have no evidence for.

I am happy to discuss one of them if you will pick your favorite
It is not worth to discuss something if the other doesn't know what is being presented.

I know exactly what's being presented. I know what revelations says and I know mapping them onto random events is simply not fulfillment of even the lamest and most vague prophecy. This is why Christians do not use revelations to suggest their book has magic powers. They go with the prophecies of a coming messiah.
What you are suggesting is prophecy just doesn't work at all. I suspect you know this as well.

There are only 4 horses not 7.
There are 7 seals.

Whatever, mapping a horse/seal onto a forest fire is an embarrassment to all prophecy enthusiasts.
The sky turns red annually from fires and many other atmospheric phenomenon. Earthquakes happen every year. Wars are everywhere.
Your 20 years of peace was BS, there were not only dozens of wars happening some of them were part of WW 1.

None of the events you used were the greatest of each event, just random bad stuff that happens often, especially in those times.

Christian scholars?
Those baloney works?
I don't read them.

Obviously.
I don't know why you wouldn't want to learn what actual smart people have to say when it's obvious you are all ears when it comes to some conspiracy theory church that thinks revelations fits into history?
You might want to consider expanding a bit with your knowledge?

 

[MJFlores]

My D.C, comics have "the power" as well. Doesn't make them real. You're just stating your beliefs for which you have no evidence for.



I know exactly what's being presented. I know what revelations says and I know mapping them onto random events is simply not fulfillment of even the lamest and most vague prophecy. This is why Christians do not use revelations to suggest their book has magic powers. They go with the prophecies of a coming messiah.
What you are suggesting is prophecy just doesn't work at all. I suspect you know this as well.


Whatever, mapping a horse/seal onto a forest fire is an embarrassment to all prophecy enthusiasts.
The sky turns red annually from fires and many other atmospheric phenomenon. Earthquakes happen every year. Wars are everywhere.
Your 20 years of peace was BS, there were not only dozens of wars happening some of them were part of WW 1.

None of the events you used were the greatest of each event, just random bad stuff that happens often, especially in those times.




Obviously.
I don't know why you wouldn't want to learn what actual smart people have to say when it's obvious you are all ears when it comes to some conspiracy theory church that thinks revelations fits into history?
You might want to consider expanding a bit with your knowledge?

How can I react to that?

Prophecies to me are maps. Like the ones you see on the mall. It tells you where you are and where you want to go. At least I know where we are and what is bound to happen next.

 

[Dan Mellis]

How can I react to that?

Prophecies to me are maps. Like the ones you see on the mall. It tells you where you are and where you want to go. At least I know where we are and what is bound to happen next.

View attachment 28363

Calling someone a clown isn't an argument worth making. In fact, it's just an attack.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Hello Skwim,

POINT? In posting this thread?

If you can dismiss out of hand something which something you have no interesting in believing, then I wonder how you believe whatever you do?

Certainly you have done yourself no favours in your representation of this video and the information contained.

You have proved no amount of evidence or even suggested evidence would make you change your stance and beliefs.
In which case you need no evidence for whatever you want to believe. Blind faith works both ways.

.

Or so the video below claims.

The List of Nine, which supposedly verify claims made in the Bible. (The narrator provides the relevant chapters and verses.)

1) A stone that confirms that Pontius Pilatus was the Prefect of Judea.

2) A tunnel was created under the city of David to carry water.

3) A clay cylinder describes how Sennacherib laid siege against various cities

4) A stone mentioning there was an Israelite king of the house of David.

5) A stone cites Omri as the king of Israel.

6) The remnants of a house was found that verifies the town of Nazareth existed in the first century AD.

7) A clay cylinder recounts Cyrus II declaration of human rights

8) The discovery of the pool of Siloam

9) A stone tablet shows the existence of the Hittites


​

Of course our young presenter in the video conveniently ignores all the evidence that disproves the Bible's historical accuracy, but this is to be expected. When cherry picking one never picks the "bad" cherries.

In any case, even if all nine of the examples are true, one can only say, SO WHAT? What's so amazing (as the narrator would like the viewer to believe) about historical events showing up in the Bible? Heck, even if the Bible was a pure fabrication from Genesis to Revelation, the fabricator would certainly have been astute enough to include historical facts to make the thing appear genuine---it's why counterfeiters go to such extremes to make their money appear real. In this case it's like expecting the viewer to get excited because the Bible mentions the Mediterranean Sea, or that the Sun sets in the west. SO WHAT?

Nope, it's stupid stuff like this video that fill the believer with unjustified confidence in his faith. Do Christians really need to be duped so as to hold onto their faith? . . . . . . . . . . . . . maybe so, but it's not pretty.

.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Hello Skwim,

POINT? In posting this thread?

If you can dismiss out of hand something which something you have no interesting in believing, then I wonder how you believe whatever you do?

Certainly you have done yourself no favours in your representation of this video and the information contained.

You have proved no amount of evidence or even suggested evidence would make you change your stance and beliefs.
In which case you need no evidence for whatever you want to believe. Blind faith works both ways.

No, what happened here was a fair analysis of a flawed interpretation of evidence.

In order to be logical, we have to weigh up the amount and standard of evidence required to back up a claim.

The more extraordinary the claim, the higher standard of evidence and amount of it is required.

The assertions contained in the bible and made by Christians are extraordinary in nature. To hold up a piece of evidence which is flawed or contradictory to/weakened by other evidence isn't good enough. Ommitting the evidence which harms your argument is dishonest, or at the very least ignorant.

He wasn't rejecting it out of hand, but fairly weighing it up and exposing the bias of the source.

Your commentary of this reveals that you don't necessarily understand how to critically analyse situations - a trait shared by many believers.

EDIT: I accept that skwim didn't offer up any evidence, however since the claim is being made by the other side, the burden of proof isn't on skwim. They can reject the claim outright if the evidence isn't satisfactory and doesn't have to explain why - it is on you as a supporter to defend those claims.

 

[Skwim]

Hello Skwim,

POINT? In posting this thread?

To generate discussion and debate, the goal of RF, which so far has been quite substantial---611 posts and counting.

If you can dismiss out of hand something which something you have no interesting in believing, then I wonder how you believe whatever you do?

A strange thing to wonder about, but okay.

Certainly you have done yourself no favours in your representation of this video and the information contained.

I consider it a sacrifice on my part to help educate the rest of the RF membership.

You have proved no amount of evidence or even suggested evidence would make you change your stance and beliefs.

Could it be that I've found none? SURE IT COULD!

In which case you need no evidence for whatever you want to believe. Blind faith works both ways.

My "belief," as you so strangely put it, is a position of agnosticism:

"Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable"
source: Wikipedia​

And I take the "unknown" position. So what I "believe" is based on a lack of evidence, rather than having evidence to support my position.

You do understand how that works, don't you?

.

 

[charlie sc]

I am going to end this conversation, because I find your beliefs abhorrent and not worth the argument. If you're going to reject all logic and reason in favour of hatred and depreciation, then there is no point in this conversation.

It’s good to end arguments when you think they’re going nowhere. This is particularly why I use an aggressive approach if I begin a discussion, so I can measure how reciprocal I need to be. Civil discourse has no place in discussions if one individual cannot reciprocate or has some strange notion that pie throwing is the way to get their point across. In short, might as well have fun with it

 

[RESOLUTION]

Hi Dan,

No, what happened here was a fair analysis of a flawed interpretation of evidence.

In order to be logical, we have to weigh up the amount and standard of evidence required to back up a claim.

The more extraordinary the claim, the higher standard of evidence and amount of it is required.

The assertions contained in the bible and made by Christians are extraordinary in nature. To hold up a piece of evidence which is flawed or contradictory to/weakened by other evidence isn't good enough. Ommitting the evidence which harms your argument is dishonest, or at the very least ignorant.

He wasn't rejecting it out of hand, but fairly weighing it up and exposing the bias of the source.

Your commentary of this reveals that you don't necessarily understand how to critically analyse situations - a trait shared by many believers.

EDIT: I accept that skwim didn't offer up any evidence, however since the claim is being made by the other side, the burden of proof isn't on skwim. They can reject the claim outright if the evidence isn't satisfactory and doesn't have to explain why - it is on you as a supporter to defend those claims.

Some old chestnuts never change.

What it does not do is prove the none existence of God.
Nor does it disprove God as creator of the world.
It points to the bible being correct in that which is written.
What it does not do or attempt to do is prove the existence of God or anything written in the bible to be false.
So instead of telling me what you believe I can or cannot do. Maybe you should address the video for it's real purpose and content.
A sharing of what has been discovered and why it has no bearing on the real power of God and his being.

Believers do not need videos to support their claims. Until people like yourself Dan Mellis can prove God not real or his words untrue then there is nothing you or other atheists can offer which needs defending.

 

[RESOLUTION]

To generate discussion and debate, the goal of RF, which so far has been quite substantial---611 posts and counting.


A strange thing to wonder about, but okay.


I consider it a sacrifice on my part to help educate the rest of the RF membership.


Could it be that I've found none? SURE IT COULD!


My "belief," as you so strangely put it, is a position of agnosticism:

"Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable"
source: Wikipedia​

And I take the "unknown" position. So what I "believe" is based on a lack of evidence, rather than having evidence to support my position.

You do understand how that works, don't you?

.

Please see post above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi Dan,




Some old chestnuts never change.

What it does not do is prove the none existence of God.
Nor does it disprove God as creator of the world.
It points to the bible being correct in that which is written.
What it does not do or attempt to do is prove the existence of God or anything written in the bible to be false.
So instead of telling me what you believe I can or cannot do. Maybe you should address the video for it's real purpose and content.
A sharing of what has been discovered and why it has no bearing on the real power of God and his being.

Believers do not need videos to support their claims. Until people like yourself Dan Mellis can prove God not real or his words untrue then there is nothing you or other atheists can offer which needs defending.

This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It is a tactic used by those that know that they have a false belief.

 

[Skwim]

Please see post above.

Why? It has nothing to do with your conclusions about me:

"Certainly you have done yourself no favours in your representation of this video and the information contained.

You have proved no amount of evidence or even suggested evidence would make you change your stance and beliefs.
In which case you need no evidence for whatever you want to believe. Blind faith works both ways."
​

As I see it, you're grasping at straws here to avoid the issue, which is:

Irrelevant claims about the historical accuracy of the Bible is simply stupid stuff that fills the believer with unjustified confidence in his faith.

.

.​

.​

 

[RESOLUTION]

This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It is a tactic used by those that know that they have a false belief.

Prove it! See how easily you show yourself to be a victim of your own error and judgment in your thinking? There is no burden of proof to shift. You repeat what you read and have no individual knowledge to form a competent argument. To debate it requires you to have formed opinions which show knowledge of both sides of the argument. You lack knowledge on the subject and more so the ability to form an argument on the subject you can use.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Why? It has nothing to do with your conclusions about me:

"Certainly you have done yourself no favours in your representation of this video and the information contained.

You have proved no amount of evidence or even suggested evidence would make you change your stance and beliefs.
In which case you need no evidence for whatever you want to believe. Blind faith works both ways."
​

As I see it, you're grasping at straws here to avoid the issue, which is:

Irrelevant claims about the historical accuracy of the Bible is simply stupid stuff that fills the believer with unjustified confidence in his faith.

.
View attachment 28449
.​

.​

Words which are unrelated to the statement I made concerning the Video. Your changing the subject to address that which is not the issue shows a defined lack of skill in understanding the task before you. It requires knowledge of the bible and knowledge of what they are referring to in the video not mere personal opinion which is unfounded and unsubstantiated at best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prove it! See how easily you show yourself to be a victim of your own error and judgment in your thinking? There is no burden of proof to shift. You repeat what you read and have no individual knowledge to form a competent argument. To debate it requires you to have formed opinions which show knowledge of both sides of the argument. You lack knowledge on the subject and more so the ability to form an argument on the subject you can use.

It was an observation. Do you know who has the burden of proof? Anyone that makes a positive assertion. And I can support that if you wish. If someone makes a claim about how someone proved the existence of God that person has taken on a HUGE burden of proof.

You sound rather emotional. Relax a bit and see if you can support the claims that you make.