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

[Subduction Zone]

No, I disagree strongly with LIBERALS trying to trash or rewrite the Gospels.

That is not happening. Understanding the flaws in those books is not trashing. And I don't know of anyone trying to rewrite them.

 

[sooda]

No, I disagree strongly with LIBERALS trying to trash or rewrite the Gospels.

You have invented your own scenario... The Gospels are meant to be studied and questioned.

 

[Spartan]

You have invented your own scenario... The Gospels are meant to be studied and questioned.

Yes. Do it, but don't let the liberal theologians screw it up for you.

 

[Spartan]

That is not happening. Understanding the flaws in those books is not trashing. And I don't know of anyone trying to rewrite them.

I do. The heretical, liberal Bishop John Shelby Spong - a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And there's no flaws in the Resurrection.

 

[joelr]

FIrst of all, the only "widespread consensus" that the Biblical accounts of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are incorrect are among Biblically-challenged liberal theologians. Conservative theologians are in the opposite camp.

Wrong again.
Your link was not even 1 scholar but a crank who no actual scholar agrees with.
What conservative biblical archeologists actually says is it's not known where the city even was but there are theories among biblical archeologists

"The stories of Sodom and its destruction, whether historical or not,.."

Biblical archaeologist Steven Collins suggests Tall el-Hammam
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...es/biblical-archaeology-sites/where-is-sodom/


professor Todd Bolen disagrees
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...nts-against-locating-sodom-at-tall-el-hammam/


and archaeologist Steven Collins disagrees
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...ay/biblical-archaeology-topics/locating-zoar/

but ALL are part of the Biblical Archeology Society staff and would be what you like to call "conservative" and "not-biblically challenged".

As if that matters and as if no one can see through shallow attempts at ad-hom and ridiculous ways to try and discredit someone.
Your immediate labeling and lashing out at anyone who has knowledge that discredits your religious beliefs shows you are afraid of knowledge.
Using the word "liberal" as if it's a negative quality is further proof that you fear knowledge.

Second, there is a Biblical foundation for the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah to be sexual in nature. Jude 7: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Still debated, it actually says "strange flesh" and "fornication".

Strange flesh is debated, you have to look at the Greek.
Jude 7 - What Does "Strange Flesh" Mean?

Third, Jesus (God Himself), instead of buying into the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were only a myth, confirmed the reality of the cities - Matthew 10:15 - "I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day." NLT

Of course when people wrote the mythology that became the NT they considered the OT to be literal events? When people write religious myths they write them as if they were real gods.
Matthew is written as religious myth, that isn't even in question. It's easy to demonstrate.

And to close: "Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point.

And yet 2 verses earlier in Jude 5 god destroys everyone from Egypt who simply doesn't believe? So that negates that point. But you know that it wasn't just inhospitality?
You just said it? Gang rape? You made the point for me than tried to argue against it?

While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically." What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Genesis says that all of the city of Sodom “to the last man” came out to surround Lot and his visitors (19:4). Was it a city comprised exclusively of homosexual men? Nope.

Now you're just making crap up. Like the gang rape was one thing, but once the butt pirates started then god decided to throw salt on it?

That's hilarious.

And no real archeologists can agree on the actual site of the city.

 

[joelr]

I believe there is no evidence to support that view.

there is plenty of evidence?

One of the world's leading biblical archeologist:

Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years

"The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try."
"We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories."

Christian mythology - Wikipedia
"Christian mythology is the body of myths associated with Christianity. The term encompasses a broad variety of legends and stories, especially those considered sacred narratives. Mythological themes and elements occur throughout Christian literature, including recurring myths such as ascending to a mountain, the axis mundi, myths of combat, descent into the Underworld, accounts of a dying-and-rising god, flood stories, stories about the founding of a tribe or city, and myths about great heroes (or saints) of the past, paradises, and self-sacrifice."




In the 1970's Thomas Thompson's PhD work was eventually accepted and peer-reviewed and is considered to demonstrate that the Patriarchal narratives are myth.

https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=Z5J15NAF44X1DMARDENF


"Completely dismantles the historic patriarchal narratives. His impeccable scholarship, his astounding mastery of the sources, and rigorous detailed examination of the archaeological claims makes this book one I will immediately take with me in case of a flood. And it still hasn't been refuted. "

"Having stated, on page 1 of the Introduction of his book, the existing paradigm as it was in the early 1970s viz ""Nearly all [authors] accept the general claim that the historicity of the biblical traditions about the patriarchs has been substantiated by the archaeological and historical research of the last half-century" - Thompson then proceeds chapter by chapter to methodically and in great detail and with intricate scholarship to demolish that paradigm.
By the end of the book nothing remains of the assertion that the patriarchs actually existed as historical figures.
They are, as Thompson shows [and many other scholars since] part of a literary tradition written as expressions of religious faith, neither history nor ever intended to be so.
Thompson so conclusively demonstrated in this classic paradigm changing book that not only did archaeological research not substantiate the patriarchal stories, as described by apologists who allowed their faith to distort their research and conclusions, but that archaeology had actually refuted such claims."

 

[joelr]

Nuts.

Still waiting on you to show me one person, place, or event in the Gospels that has been unequivocally shown to be false. Provide the scripture # and your argument.

You're not looking for that information. There are plenty of ways to use scholarship to show the gospels are not history, mythical, all copied from Mark or one source, copies of pagan cults and even events like the sun going out and zombies roaming around that are not recorded in any other historical records.
But you are not being truthful. Any information that anyone puts forth you can't challenge you'll start by calling "liberal" and then move right to "satanic" and end the conversation.
You are not looking to debate but to make claims and when you can't respond you'll start shouting names at the source.
I already proved to you the gospels were anonymous, we just started there and you couldn't handle it and shouted "heretic" and "satanic" and ran away. So your request for information is a load.

Your already off on Carrier's sex life as if you or anyone else really believes that having sex with the same person every week or a different person makes any difference in the quality of their scholarship? Absurd?
Einstein married his cousin, oh no I guess relativity(s) are wrong because he wasn't pious?

You know Carrier can prove the gospels are fiction so you're off trying to attack him personally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do. The heretical, liberal Bishop John Shelby Spong - a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And there's no flaws in the Resurrection.

Never heard of him.

And there are quite a few flaws. I doubt if you will allow yourself to understand them.

EDIT: John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia

Interesting man. I can see why fundamentalists might hate him. He tries to return a message of love to Christianity.

 

[sooda]

You're not looking for that information. There are plenty of ways to use scholarship to show the gospels are not history, mythical, all copied from Mark or one source, copies of pagan cults and even events like the sun going out and zombies roaming around that are not recorded in any other historical records.
But you are not being truthful. Any information that anyone puts forth you can't challenge you'll start by calling "liberal" and then move right to "satanic" and end the conversation.
You are not looking to debate but to make claims and when you can't respond you'll start shouting names at the source.
I already proved to you the gospels were anonymous, we just started there and you couldn't handle it and shouted "heretic" and "satanic" and ran away. So your request for information is a load.

Your already off on Carrier's sex life as if you or anyone else really believes that having sex with the same person every week or a different person makes any difference in the quality of their scholarship? Absurd?
Einstein married his cousin, oh no I guess relativity(s) are wrong because he wasn't pious?

You know Carrier can prove the gospels are fiction so you're off trying to attack him personally.

Bullies rarely think or discuss anything. Bullying others usually is enough for them to get by .

 

[Spartan]

Never heard of him.

And there are quite a few flaws. I doubt if you will allow yourself to understand them.

EDIT: John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia

Interesting man. I can see why fundamentalists might hate him. He tries to return a message of love to Christianity.

That's bull. He denies the resurrection. He makes false arguments. He pushes sexual immorality. He denies the basic truths of the faith. And he wears a white collar like he's a priest. A priest for Satan, not for God. He claims that there are no absolutes. This is self-refuting, as that statement is itself an absolute claim.

Here's the real run down on that heretic:

What's Wrong With Bishop Spong? - creation.com

 

[Spartan]

You're not looking for that information. There are plenty of ways to use scholarship to show the gospels are not history, mythical, all copied from Mark or one source, copies of pagan cults and even events like the sun going out and zombies roaming around that are not recorded in any other historical records.
But you are not being truthful. Any information that anyone puts forth you can't challenge you'll start by calling "liberal" and then move right to "satanic" and end the conversation.
You are not looking to debate but to make claims and when you can't respond you'll start shouting names at the source.

Nuts.

I already proved to you the gospels were anonymous, we just started there and you couldn't handle it and shouted "heretic" and "satanic" and ran away. So your request for information is a load.

I don't know where you get your information that you've proven the Gospels to be anonymous, but your claim is patently false. To the contrary, we do have credible evidence that supports the traditional Gospel authors as the writers of their Gospels. And here it is:

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

Your already off on Carrier's sex life as if you or anyone else really believes that having sex with the same person every week or a different person makes any difference in the quality of their scholarship? Absurd?

If they cheat on their wife why should we believe they won't cheat on other things?

You know Carrier can prove the gospels are fiction so you're off trying to attack him personally.

That's hilarious!

 

[Spartan]

Wrong again.
Your link was not even 1 scholar but a crank who no actual scholar agrees with.
What conservative biblical archeologists actually says is it's not known where the city even was but there are theories among biblical archeologists

"The stories of Sodom and its destruction, whether historical or not,.."

Biblical archaeologist Steven Collins suggests Tall el-Hammam
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...es/biblical-archaeology-sites/where-is-sodom/


professor Todd Bolen disagrees
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...nts-against-locating-sodom-at-tall-el-hammam/


and archaeologist Steven Collins disagrees
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...ay/biblical-archaeology-topics/locating-zoar/

but ALL are part of the Biblical Archeology Society staff and would be what you like to call "conservative" and "not-biblically challenged".

That's the definition of liberal theologians - those who deny the truths of God. Even Jesus (God) confirmed Sodom and Gomorrah was legitimate.

Still debated, it actually says "strange flesh" and "fornication".

Strange flesh is debated, you have to look at the Greek.
Jude 7 - What Does "Strange Flesh" Mean?

Of course when people wrote the mythology that became the NT they considered the OT to be literal events? When people write religious myths they write them as if they were real gods.
Matthew is written as religious myth, that isn't even in question. It's easy to demonstrate.

You have some very strange ideas concerning all that. The New Testament is a myth? Not in a million years, joelr.

Genesis says that all of the city of Sodom “to the last man” came out to surround Lot and his visitors (19:4). Was it a city comprised exclusively of homosexual men? Nope.

Hyperbole. But there was a large gang of those abusers of the flesh in those cities. Remember, God said if there were even ten honest men in the city, he wouldn't destroy it (Genesis 18). So there you have it - a sewer of corruption.

Now you're just making crap up. Like the gang rape was one thing, but once the butt pirates started then god decided to throw salt on it?

That's hilarious.

And no real archeologists can agree on the actual site of the city.

Sorry to burst your little bubble but I've already linked to evidence for the site of that devastation, and the ancient Jewish historian Josephus confirmed the story.

 

[sooda]

That's the definition of liberal theologians - those who deny the truths of God. Even Jesus (God) confirmed Sodom and Gomorrah was legitimate.



You have some very strange ideas concerning all that. The New Testament is a myth? Not in a million years, joelr.



Hyperbole. But there was a large gang of those abusers of the flesh in those cities. Remember, God said if there were even ten honest men in the city, he wouldn't destroy it (Genesis 18). So there you have it - a sewer of corruption.



Sorry to burst your little bubble but I've already linked to evidence for the site of that devastation, and the ancient Jewish historian Josephus confirmed the story.

Referencing the boy who cried wolf doesn't make it a real event.. Referencing Brer Rabbit and the Tarbaby doesn't make it real. The existence of the Grand Canyon doesn't make Pecos Bill and his horse Widowmaker real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's bull. He denies the resurrection. He makes false arguments. He pushes sexual immorality. He denies the basic truths of the faith. And he wears a white collar like he's a priest. A priest for Satan, not for God. He claims that there are no absolutes. This is self-refuting, as that statement is itself an absolute claim.

Here's the real run down on that heretic:

What's Wrong With Bishop Spong? - creation.com

Yes, he denies the resurrection. The resurrection is bad theology at any rate. I sincerely doubt if you can support any of your claims about him. I notice that you had to use a worse site than normal even for you.

 

[Spartan]

Referencing the boy who cried wolf doesn't make it a real event.. Referencing Brer Rabbit and the Tarbaby doesn't make it real. The existence of the Grand Canyon doesn't make Pecos Bill and his horse Widowmaker real.

<yawn>

 

[Spartan]

Yes, he denies the resurrection. The resurrection is bad theology at any rate. I sincerely doubt if you can support any of your claims about him. I notice that you had to use a worse site than normal even for you.

Any site that lays out the truth against your highly questionable views is a bad site? Nope, it's right on the money.

 

[sooda]

That's the definition of liberal theologians - those who deny the truths of God. Even Jesus (God) confirmed Sodom and Gomorrah was legitimate.



You have some very strange ideas concerning all that. The New Testament is a myth? Not in a million years, joelr.



Hyperbole. But there was a large gang of those abusers of the flesh in those cities. Remember, God said if there were even ten honest men in the city, he wouldn't destroy it (Genesis 18). So there you have it - a sewer of corruption.



Sorry to burst your little bubble but I've already linked to evidence for the site of that devastation, and the ancient Jewish historian Josephus confirmed the story.

Josephus says "they say" about Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Spartan]

Josephus says "they say" about Sodom and Gomorrah.

Josephus said he's seen it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any site that lays out the truth against your highly questionable views is a bad site? Nope, it's right on the money.

No, you rely on idiots and liars far too often. Look at your last site, a creationist site that is based upon denying reality. The fact that you can't find anything that comes even close to being reliable makes your posts self refuting.

 

[Spartan]

No, you rely on idiots and liars far too often. Look at your last site, a creationist site that is based upon denying reality. The fact that you can't find anything that comes even close to being reliable makes your posts self refuting.

Please don't bother me with your nonsense anymore.