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

[joelr]

I've listened to spiritually-challenged liberal pundits for decades. And with a few exceptions I REJECT their conclusions.

Ha, I thought you might at least try to make an argument? Denial works I guess.
I don't care about spiritually-challenged liberal pundits, I'm only interested in what scholarship has to say.

The original Greek designation is "Kata", it means "as told to me by". As explained by this PhD in biblical history.

Nonsense. I've seldom seen any conservative scholars reject the traditional authors. That's a liberal position, which has not been compelling to any degree.

It's the position of all biblical scholarship that the gospels are anonymous. It's clear you only rely on apologetics and have no interest in anything outside of what you want to believe is true.
Even the Christian scholars that Carrier debates admit the gospels are anonymous? This isn't even in question?

• Gospel of Mark, 68–70 CE.[85] Mark, like all the gospels, is anonymous. It relies on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, which is evidence against the tradition that its author was John Mark (Mark the Evangelist), the companion of Peter, or that it was based on Peter's preaching.[86] Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Roman Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish, Christian community. The community had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs, and then developed them further independently of Paul the Apostle.[87] References to persecution and to war in Judea suggest that the context in which Mark was written was either Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73 CE).[88]

• Gospel of Matthew, 80–90 CE.[89] The majority of modern scholars believe it is unlikely that this gospel was written by an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus.[90] Internal evidence suggests that the author was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria,[91] and that he used a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus, most importantly Mark and the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source.[92] The date is based on three strands of evidence: (a) the setting of Matthew reflects the final separation of Church and Synagogue, about 85 CE; (b) it reflects the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Roman Empire in 70 CE; (c) it uses Mark, usually dated around 70 CE, as a source.[93]

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia


Being "not compelling" to you means very little as you clearly are not at all interested in anything outside of apologetics.

 

[joelr]

Without the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ there will be entire populations winding up in Hell. But Jesus' blood sacrifice is the last one needed in history.

uh huh, so the mythology goes. Now you're just stating religious doctrine?

it's also hilarious - a god who needs that one final sacrifice? Like that makes it way less archaic?

I don't know where you get this twisted theology from. Everyone who sins needs to repent of their sins, receive Christ as their Savior, and turn from their wicked ways. Or, they will drop down into Hell, along with all unbelievers (Rev. 21:8).

More scripture? Why are you just stating your religious beliefs? They are ancient myths.
I would post sources of older pagan gods and sources where most of this mythology came from but you won't read that.

 

[Spartan]

It's the position of all biblical scholarship that the gospels are anonymous.

Nonsense. Nor have you ever taken a poll.

It's clear you only rely on apologetics and have no interest in anything outside of what you want to believe is true.
Even the Christian scholars that Carrier debates admit the gospels are anonymous? This isn't even in question?

• Gospel of Mark, 68–70 CE.[85] Mark, like all the gospels, is anonymous. It relies on several underlying sources, varying in form and in theology, which is evidence against the tradition that its author was John Mark (Mark the Evangelist), the companion of Peter, or that it was based on Peter's preaching.[86] Various elements within the gospel, including the importance of the authority of Peter and the broadness of the basic theology, suggest that the author wrote in Roman Syria or Palestine for a non-Jewish, Christian community. The community had earlier absorbed the influence of pre-Pauline beliefs, and then developed them further independently of Paul the Apostle.[87] References to persecution and to war in Judea suggest that the context in which Mark was written was either Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73 CE).[88]

• Gospel of Matthew, 80–90 CE.[89] The majority of modern scholars believe it is unlikely that this gospel was written by an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus.[90] Internal evidence suggests that the author was an ethnic Jewish male scribe from a Hellenised city, possibly Antioch in Syria,[91] and that he used a variety of oral traditions and written sources about Jesus, most importantly Mark and the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source.[92] The date is based on three strands of evidence: (a) the setting of Matthew reflects the final separation of Church and Synagogue, about 85 CE; (b) it reflects the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Roman Empire in 70 CE; (c) it uses Mark, usually dated around 70 CE, as a source.[93]

Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia

Being "not compelling" to you means very little as you clearly are not at all interested in anything outside of apologetics.

I'll stick with what I provided previously: Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

As for Richard Carrier, he is a left-wing HERETIC who denies the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's Satanic to deny the resurrection.

 

[Spartan]

uh huh, so the mythology goes. Now you're just stating religious doctrine?

More scripture? Why are you just stating your religious beliefs? They are ancient myths.
I would post sources of older pagan gods and sources where most of this mythology came from but you won't read that.

Listen - please save your liberal theology and heretical blather for some poor sap who hasn't done his homework. You're just wasting my time.

 

[joelr]

Nonsense. Nor have you ever taken a poll.

Biblical PhD state the majority opinion all the time. I could give examples but you won't watch that.
I just gave you a summary of gospel historicity, did you not read it and see the sources?
This is not a question, the gospels are anonymous.

Now obviously, whatever and whomever I post who doesn't agree with your supernatural claims will just be a "heretic" and "satanic" so don't pretend like your actually interested in sources or evidence.

I'll stick with what I provided previously: Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

As for Richard Carrier, he is a left-wing HERETIC who denies the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's Satanic to deny the resurrection.

Of course you'll "stick with" non scholarship apologetics? That's what apologetics is, you disregard the PhD field over amateur nonsense if it supports your belief.
But earlier you said "evidence", I wanted to see if you actually had any. Heh, "I'll stick with it"....

Carrier and every other historian who isn't Christian is a heretic and satanic. Cool, that's what I thought, you've got nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. Nor have you ever taken a poll.



I'll stick with what I provided previously: Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

As for Richard Carrier, he is a left-wing HERETIC who denies the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's Satanic to deny the resurrection.

No, Satan is just your make believe enemy. Carrier is not a heretic. That is a dead idea.

 

[joelr]

Listen - please save your liberal theology and heretical blather for some poor sap who hasn't done his homework. You're just wasting my time.

Again, don't pretend like you've debunked anything. All you've done is called a historian a "heretic" and all scholarship "heretical blather". Wow, that must have taken so much homework. Ignoring facts and name calling, wow that's so impressive.You stopped even trying several posts ago.
That's funny - "liberal", as if it's bad to get your head out of the dark ages.

Hey, how much homework would I have to do before I can say "heretic" to everything I disagree with?

 

[Spartan]

No, Satan is just your make believe enemy. Carrier is not a heretic. That is a dead idea.

You do love your mythology I see!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do love your mythology I see!

I do believe that may be your problem.

Tell me, do you make the error of interpreting Genesis literally?

 

[MJFlores]

There were more airplane attacks AFTER WWI during your "peace" time than in WW!? Your prophecy hunting has made you ignorant of actual history. How dare you disregard all the bloodshed brought on by airplanes after WW!?!?


Post WW1 use of Aircraft in War starting in 1920:

Iraqi revolt against the British
After World War I, there were protests in Iraq against continued British rule. Many Iraqis across a wide spectrum of opinion opposed the British Mandate for Iraq. The Iraqi revolt against the British began, with peaceful demonstrations in May 1920. Initial demands were rejected by the British administration, and fighting broke out in June 1920. This was suppressed, with many deaths, and at very high costs to the Empire. A policy of 'aerial policing', an invention of Winston Churchill's was brought in. This amounted to bombing restive civilians, followed up by pacification by ground troops. This continued up to the mid 1920s.[18] The aerial campaign included Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet, who commanded a Vickers Vernon squadron engaged in the bombing and strafing of recalcitrant civilians.[19] Harris felt that the Arab civilians required this kind of "heavy hand" treatment

Somaliland Campaign
Following the end of World War I, the British stepped up their efforts in their war against the Somali Dervish movement, led by the so-called "Mad Mullah", whom they had been fighting for the control the area formerly known as British Somaliland. However, they had been unable to defeat the Dervish movement for nearly 25 years. In January 1920, the British launched a combined aerial and land attack, bombarding Taleeh, the capital of the revolt.[21] The Somaliland Campaign has been described as one of the bloodiest and longest-running conflicts in the history of sub-Saharan Africa and the Somali forces are noted for concurrently repelling the invading British, Italian and Abyssinian forces for a period of 25 years.

Tulsa race riot
In the United States during the Tulsa race riot of May 31 – June 1, 1921, private aircraft flown by white men dropped kerosene bombs on the Greenwood neighborhood.

Cristero War
Main article: Bombing of Naco
During the Cristero War in Mexico in 1929, Irish pilot and mercenary Patrick Murphy mistakenly dropped several improvised "suitcase bombs" on the border town of Naco, Arizona, while bombing government forces in the adjacent town of Naco, Sonora, for the Cristero revolutionaries. The bombing, which caused damage to many buildings and injured several bystanders on the American side of the international border, became the first aerial bombardment of the Continental United States by a foreign power in American history.[

Iraqi revolt against the British 11 aircraft
Somaliland Campaign 12 aircraft
Tulsa race riot 1 recon aircraft
Cristero War 2 aircraft

Kinda quiet to me compared with WW 1

Aerial warfare of First World War, 1914-1918

 

[MJFlores]

Second Italo-Abyssinian War
The Italians used aircraft against the Ethiopian cities in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. For example, in February 1936, the Italian invasion forces in the south prepared for a major thrust towards the city of Harar. On 22 March, the Regia Aeronautica bombed Harar and Jijiga as a prelude. Both cities were reduced to ruins even though Harar had been declared an "open city"

Spanish Civil War
During the Spanish Civil War, the Nationalists under Francisco Franco made extensive use of aerial bombing on civilian targets. Nazi Germany gave aircraft to Franco to support the overthrow of the Spanish Republican government. The first major example of this came in November 1936, when German and Spanish aircraft bombed Republican-held Madrid; this bombardment was sustained throughout the Siege of Madrid.[28] Barcelona and Valencia were also targeted in this way.[29] On 26 April 1937, the German Luftwaffe (Condor Legion) bombed the Spanish city of Guernica carrying out the most high-profile aerial attack of the war. This act caused worldwide revulsion and was the subject of a famous painting by Picasso,[30] but by the standards of bombings during World War II, casualties were fairly minor (estimates ranging from 500 to 1,500).[31][32]

Shortly after, the front-page headlines of the Diario de Almeria, dated June 3, 1937, referred to the press in London and Paris carrying the news of the "criminal bombardment of Almeria by German planes".[33]

Barcelona was bombarded for three days beginning on 16 March 1938, at the height of the Spanish Civil War. Under the command of the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, Italian aircraft stationed on the island of Majorca attacked 13 times dropping 44 tons of bombs, aimed at the civil population.[34] These attacks were at the request of General Franco as retribution against the Catalan population.[35][dubious – discuss] The medieval Cathedral of Barcelona suffered bomb damage and more than one thousand people died, including many children. The number of people injured is estimated to be in the thousands.[36] Many others Spanish towns and cities were bombed by the German Legion Condor and the Italian Aviazione Legionaria among them Jaen, Durango, Granollers and Alicante.
Second Sino-Japanese War

Casualties of a mass panic during a Japanese air raid in Chongqing (Chungking).
During the Manchurian Incident of 1931, the Japanese widely used airplanes to indiscriminately bomb key targets and cities, such as Mukden. After the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service, in conjunction with the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service, began relentlessly bombing Shanghai, Beijing (Peking), Tianjin (Tientsin) and several cities on the Chinese coast from the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937.

The bombing campaigns on Nanking and Canton which started in September 1937 evoked protests from the Western powers culminating in a resolution by the Far Eastern Advisory Committee of the League of Nations. An example of the many expressions of indignation came from Lord Cranborne, the British Under-Secretary of State For Foreign Affairs:

Words cannot express the feelings of profound horror with which the news of these raids had been received by the whole civilized world. They are often directed against places far from the actual area of hostilities. The military objective, where it exists, seems to take a completely second place. The main object seems to be to inspire terror by the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians .

These are isolated conflicts and one sided victories [Japanese massacre of Nanking]
Still these are not World Wars where all nations are involved and all nations are buzzing their planes in record number of sorties.

From the end of WW 1 and WW 2
The skies were no longer filled with combat aircraft 24/7
Hence there was silence in the heavens
until WW 2 came when the Nazis bombed Poland
ending the silence - proving the seals opened

Bombing of Warsaw in World War II - Wikipedia

Forget the seals, that is history
We now face the trumpets of the Revelation

 

[Spartan]

I do believe that may be your problem.

Tell me, do you make the error of interpreting Genesis literally?

Do I believe God is a giant bird with wings in the 91st Psalm? No. The Bible has all kinds of literature in Genesis and elsewhere. There are parables, poetry, prophetic visions, allegories, imagery and symbolism, etc.. I don't have to believe in every word of Genesis to be a Christian who believes in a Creator God and the resurrection. But IMO God did create the heavens and the earth.

It's always a kick when skeptics dredge up Genesis when they can't even document their own beginnings.

Tell me, what came first with abiogenesis - which is what you have to believe in without a Creator God: What came first - the cell walls or the protoplasm?

None other than Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, dismissed abiogenesis as impossible: “… Life does not evolve from terrestrial nonliving matter nowadays, it may never have done so. Hence… life reached the earth as an ‘infection’ from another planet.”

That last statement - "Hence… life reached the earth as an ‘infection’ from another planet” - is somewhat incredulous, since how did life get to that planet, and back and back and back, until all that's left is the mandate that abiogenesis had to happen on some planet early on in order for life to escape to another planet. And according to Crick, abiogenesis is impossible. Critical thinking, folks.

Then there's Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and former leader of the monumental Human Genome Project, who wrote that “no current hypothesis comes close to explaining how in the space of a mere 150 million years, the prebiotic environment that existed on earth gave rise to life.”

Sir Fred Hoyle, the celebrated English physicist and cosmologist, thought that the appearance of life on earth was all but impossible, from a statistical standpoint. In his 1981 book Evolution from Space, Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10 to the 40,000th power (one followed by 40,000 zeroes). He came up with the fanciful image that the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.

But this is what atheists have to wolf down in order to make their world view fly. And that requires a much greater faith than a religious creationist could possibly muster.

OH YE ATHEISTS OF GREAT FAITH!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do I believe God is a giant bird with wings in the 91st Psalm? No. The Bible has all kinds of literature in Genesis and elsewhere. There are parables, poetry, prophetic visions, allegories, imagery and symbolism, etc.. I don't have to believe in every word of Genesis to be a Christian who believes in a Creator God and the resurrection. But IMO God did create the heavens and the earth.

Well perhaps that is something. So you realize that one does not have to believe the Adam and Eve myth or the Noah's Ark myth to be a Christian?

It's always a kick when skeptics dredge up Genesis when they can't even document their own beginnings.

What do you mean by that? We can "document our beginnings" much better than science deniers can.

Tell me, what came first with abiogenesis - which is what you have to believe in without a Creator God: What came first - the cell walls or the protoplasm?

Since simple cell walls are self forming in nature the answer should be obvious.

None other than Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, dismissed abiogenesis as impossible: “… Life does not evolve from terrestrial nonliving matter nowadays, it may never have done so. Hence… life reached the earth as an ‘infection’ from another planet.”

LOL!! Sorry, but you misunderstood your quote mine. He did not say it was impossible. But since you have debated improperly you will have to ask in a separate post what your error was.

That last statement - "Hence… life reached the earth as an ‘infection’ from another planet” - is somewhat incredulous, since how did life get to that planet, and back and back and back, until all that's left is the mandate that abiogenesis had to happen on some planet early on in order for life to escape to another planet. And according to Crick, abiogenesis is impossible. Critical thinking, folks.

Sorry, but you obviously quoted out of context. Quote mines are a way of trying to lie by not accurately representing the views of the person being quoted. Try again, you need a link to the original source at the very least. Lying creationist sources are not acceptable. You may be simply repeating a lie that was told to you without realizing that you are lying for others by repeating it.

Then there's Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and former leader of the monumental Human Genome Project, who wrote that “no current hypothesis comes close to explaining how in the space of a mere 150 million years, the prebiotic environment that existed on earth gave rise to life.”

Sir Fred Hoyle, the celebrated English physicist and cosmologist, thought that the appearance of life on earth was all but impossible, from a statistical standpoint. In his 1981 book Evolution from Space, Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10 to the 40,000th power (one followed by 40,000 zeroes). He came up with the fanciful image that the probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.

But this is what atheists have to wolf down in order to make their world view fly. And that requires a much greater faith than a religious creationist could possibly muster.

OH YE ATHEISTS OF GREAT FAITH!

Once again, quote mining is almost always a form of lying. and your last sentence is both a lie and a personal insult. If you can debate properly I will give sources that explain further how you are wrong. And even if the answer is "We don't know yet" assuming a natural source of life is not an act of faith. It is a belief that is based upon rational thinking. Every example of "miracles" when investigated fall apart. Whenever "God did it" has been used as an excuse investigation finds that is not the case. Why assume that because we do not have all of the answers of abiogenesis that God did it? That is highly irrational.

 

[joelr]

These are isolated conflicts and one sided victories [Japanese massacre of Nanking]
Still these are not World Wars where all nations are involved and all nations are buzzing their planes in record number of sorties.

From the end of WW 1 and WW 2
The skies were no longer filled with combat aircraft 24/7
Hence there was silence in the heavens
until WW 2 came when the Nazis bombed Poland
ending the silence - proving the seals opened

Bombing of Warsaw in World War II - Wikipedia

Forget the seals, that is history
We now face the trumpets of the Revelation

Air tactics were not a significant part of WW1. From the article you posted.

"By the war’s end, the impact of air missions on the ground war was in retrospect mainly tactical – strategic bombing, in particular, was still very rudimentary indeed."


There were not planes from all nations "buzzing around" at all like in WW2

Interbellum Bombing between WW1-WW2 - Wiki

"Following the war, the concept of strategic bombing developed."

"During the interwar period (1919–1939), the use of aerial bombing was developed as part of British colonial policy,"

"In strikes over Yemen in over a six-month period, sixty tons of bombs were dropped in over 1,200 hours of flying. "

"During the Spanish Civil War, the bombing of Guernica by German aviators including the Condor Legion, under Nationalist command, resulted in the near destruction of that Spanish town, and casualties estimated to be between 500 and 1500 people. Though this figure was relatively small, aerial bombers and their weaponry were continually improving"

"During the Spanish Civil War, the bombing of Guernica by German aviators including the Condor Legion, under Nationalist command, resulted in the near destruction of that Spanish town, and casualties estimated to be between 500 and 1500 people. Though this figure was relatively small, aerial bombers and their weaponry were continually improving"


This is not "silence in the heavens".

Aviation in World War I

"At the start of the war, there was some debate over the usefulness of aircraft in warfare. Many senior officers, in particular, remained sceptical. However the initial campaigns of 1914 proved that cavalry could no longer provide the reconnaissance expected by their generals, in the face of the greatly increased firepower of twentieth century armies, and it was quickly realised that aircraft could at least locate the enemy, even if early air reconnaissance was hampered by the newness of the techniques involved. Early skepticism and low expectations quickly turned to unrealistic demands beyond the capabilities of the primitive aircraft available."


The bombing after WW1 was far more successful which is why planes were even used in WW2. There was no period of "silence". What actually happened is people began realizing how effective bombing runs could be.

So now you're trying to say the prophecy was "pretty much right", if you ignore all the bombing runs and the THOUSANDS OF DEATHS from bombing?!?!?

It's as vague as all the other lame attempts at fitting history onto a book of myths. Even Christians understand that revelations is apocalyptic literature and if literal hasn't yet happened.

Your version of the events isn't even a theory among all the different interpretations?

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - Wikipedia

"Some Christians interpret the Horsemen as a prophecy of a future Tribulation,[8] during which many on Earth will die as a result of multiple catastrophes. The Four Horsemen are the first in a series of "Seal" judgements. This is when God will judge the Earth, and is giving the World a chance to repent before they die"

"Though theologians and popular culture differ on the first Horseman, the four riders are often seen as symbolizing Conquest[2] or Pestilence (and less frequently, the Christ or the Antichrist), War,[3] Famine,[4] and Death.[5] The Christian apocalyptic vision is that the Four Horsemen are to set a divine apocalypse upon the world as harbingers of the Last Judgment.[2][6] One reading ties the Four Horsemen to the history of the Roman Empire subsequent to the era in which the Book of Revelation was written as a symbolic prophecy.["

 

[Milton Platt]

.

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.

.

It is not surprising that people writing in that time period knew the events and places of that time. It would actually have been more surprising if they had not known them.
As an atheist, I have no problem acknowledging that some of the places and events in the Bible are historically accurate.

What lacks evidence is the miraculous claims like walking on water, living inside a giant fish, turning water into wine, being dead for three days and resuscitating, virgins giving birth.

 

[Milton Platt]

I hate these. Yeah, there's evidence that Lincoln was a real person, that doesn't make Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter true. There's evidence that Horsell Common is a real place, that doesn't make War Of The Worlds historical fact.

Wait....are you implying that Harry Potter isn't real????

 

[MJFlores]

Air tactics were not a significant part of WW1. From the article you posted.

"By the war’s end, the impact of air missions on the ground war was in retrospect mainly tactical – strategic bombing, in particular, was still very rudimentary indeed."


There were not planes from all nations "buzzing around" at all like in WW2

Interbellum Bombing between WW1-WW2 - Wiki

"Following the war, the concept of strategic bombing developed."

"During the interwar period (1919–1939), the use of aerial bombing was developed as part of British colonial policy,"

"In strikes over Yemen in over a six-month period, sixty tons of bombs were dropped in over 1,200 hours of flying. "

"During the Spanish Civil War, the bombing of Guernica by German aviators including the Condor Legion, under Nationalist command, resulted in the near destruction of that Spanish town, and casualties estimated to be between 500 and 1500 people. Though this figure was relatively small, aerial bombers and their weaponry were continually improving"

"During the Spanish Civil War, the bombing of Guernica by German aviators including the Condor Legion, under Nationalist command, resulted in the near destruction of that Spanish town, and casualties estimated to be between 500 and 1500 people. Though this figure was relatively small, aerial bombers and their weaponry were continually improving"


This is not "silence in the heavens".

Aviation in World War I

"At the start of the war, there was some debate over the usefulness of aircraft in warfare. Many senior officers, in particular, remained sceptical. However the initial campaigns of 1914 proved that cavalry could no longer provide the reconnaissance expected by their generals, in the face of the greatly increased firepower of twentieth century armies, and it was quickly realised that aircraft could at least locate the enemy, even if early air reconnaissance was hampered by the newness of the techniques involved. Early skepticism and low expectations quickly turned to unrealistic demands beyond the capabilities of the primitive aircraft available."


The bombing after WW1 was far more successful which is why planes were even used in WW2. There was no period of "silence". What actually happened is people began realizing how effective bombing runs could be.

So now you're trying to say the prophecy was "pretty much right", if you ignore all the bombing runs and the THOUSANDS OF DEATHS from bombing?!?!?

It's as vague as all the other lame attempts at fitting history onto a book of myths. Even Christians understand that revelations is apocalyptic literature and if literal hasn't yet happened.

Your version of the events isn't even a theory among all the different interpretations?

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - Wikipedia

"Some Christians interpret the Horsemen as a prophecy of a future Tribulation,[8] during which many on Earth will die as a result of multiple catastrophes. The Four Horsemen are the first in a series of "Seal" judgements. This is when God will judge the Earth, and is giving the World a chance to repent before they die"

"Though theologians and popular culture differ on the first Horseman, the four riders are often seen as symbolizing Conquest[2] or Pestilence (and less frequently, the Christ or the Antichrist), War,[3] Famine,[4] and Death.[5] The Christian apocalyptic vision is that the Four Horsemen are to set a divine apocalypse upon the world as harbingers of the Last Judgment.[2][6] One reading ties the Four Horsemen to the history of the Roman Empire subsequent to the era in which the Book of Revelation was written as a symbolic prophecy.["

I'm not an aircraft enthusiast.
What has happened, happened
It is part of history and is part of the prophecies mentioned in the Bible
Everything is in order
in sequence and
justified mathematically

 

[RESOLUTION]

Top Ten Signs You're a Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

Are you seriously inferring that no other religion claims their god/s to be the only true one/s
Don't other religions deny each others? I guess this refers to more than Christians and so really is futile by debate and exercise.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

Whoops your slip is showing. Truth is if you say the evidence shows no life form has evolved from another other than - cross breeding where two make a new breed. Then I think you need
to go back and readdress the issues in the bible. What I said about studying the subject... Man was indeed created by soil, (soil not cursed at that point) but man never received his life from the soil.
King James Version
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
You see no scientist has been able to form anything from soil and give it life because God did not create human life from soil. He breathed life into human beings from himself.
So we would not be upset by such claims and to be honest in the light of the actual evidence your issue and interpretation lacks the actual facts that no scientist can disprove or deny because
they cannot understand it.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

Christ never preached a triune God. He preached one God and that truth and life came through the Holy Spirit. Therefore you see some Christians would have problems with these things
God in three persons not God is three persons. But Gods presence in anyone makes them Holy and he dwells in man by the Holy Spirit. Something which may be too difficult for you to understand without studying the bible.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

If you had knowledge of the times these things occurred in you would know it would have been an 'eye for an eye' situation. Moses survived the slaughter of the males Israelite babies
by the Egyptians because they were afraid that they would grow up and rise up against them and outnumber them. They had no choice. The Pharaoh was told to let the people go and he disobeyed. He knew what would happen but to arrogant to heed and would prefer to see his people die.

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

Are you so brain washed yo believe the rubbish you write. Where is the off-spring of these gods who slept with women? Don't exist they are made up stories. However when it comes to the real God what problem would he have in doing as he did. A second Adam born without sin? The fact is you do not understand.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

You saying loop-holes exist? Again common sense would tell you that God has to make a mature earth. Could hardly live on clouds could we. Did he create Adam as a full grown mature man or a baby? The age of the earth is not an issue because God created it mature as he did the animals and human beings. Would Adams DNA have shown him to many years old by scientific standards and test or a one day old grown male man. The arguments above are useless when it comes to God and creation because God made everything mature including the first man and woman.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

Where do you get this rubbish from? No wonder you think you have reason to complain when in truth if no God exists for you then only YOU and mankind are responsible for what you as atheist believe and that figures why you cannot establish you have no basis for attacking people of faith. I believe judgment is Gods and his alone. YOU make your own choices and attack anything
you have no real understanding about. I believe your own attitude toward faith shows why so much turmoil exists, You say you do not believe in god but attack those who do! For what purpose if it is manmade?

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

Misguided and untruthful knowledge. Real believers learn that God cannot lie. Proof for believers is not held in signs and wonders. Not held in the belief of others.
It is held in God being able to fulfill his promises within his word and to show an individual he is present with them in doing so.
You clearly know nothing about true believers just what you have read or gleamed from the uninformed in the world of atheists.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

What such a low rate? I guess Christians don't register all their answered prayers simply because they feel no need to. They can thank God and leave everything in his capable hands.
I guess made up figures have to be relied upon because there is no way to actually count the answered prayers throughout the world

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian..

[/QUOTE]

Clearly not... as my replies in this post shows. It appears you like the atheists you got these questions from did not use the knowledge of the bible or the brain God gave you to see the truth.
Mans life did not come from the soil it was breathed into man by God himself. The age of the earth, like man and creation was created years old on the one day it took God to create these things.
Christians do not require answers for atheists as you can see it is atheists who need to get their facts right before attempting to ridicule a religion and the Word of God they clearly have no real knowledge about. :-{

 

[RESOLUTION]

You seem to be having a problem understanding the burden of proof. If you want to claim that you believe something there is no burden of proof. You are correct in that. But if you want to pretend that your beliefs are factual then you have a burden of proof for that.

For example, I could believe that topless beautiful mermaids keep the world spinning by grabbing the ocean floor and swimming. If I keep my belief personal I need not prove it to anyone. If I make the error of publicly announcing my beliefs and claiming that they are true I put the burden of proof on myself.

THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF WHEN IT COMES TO A PERSONS PERSONAL FAITH. Caps so you see the statement.
Personal relationships with God require no proof to outsiders. You need to get your own proof like the believer already has.

 

[Subduction Zone]

THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF WHEN IT COMES TO A PERSONS PERSONAL FAITH. Caps so you see the statement.
Personal relationships with God require no proof to outsiders. You need to get your own proof like the believer already has.

You are not listening.

EDIT: Look at the rather pathetic answer you gave to the prior post. That is the sort of nonsense you need to be able to support. You can say that you believe whatever you want to, but if you try to apply it to the world in any way at all that is when you need evidence.