ONCE AGAIN! Facts in the Bible is supported by archaeology.

[Kenny]

I read Sherlock Holmes which had a setting which was based on the real London but the characters were never real people.

That is so profound. Thank you for such insight.

 

[Audie]

Because you saying "no" doesn't make it so.

And "6 days" can be viewed in a multiplicity of ways.

And I could just as easily say "No Audie - only computer generated responses" - but that wouldn't make it so.

Poor confused fella. You have it backwardds.

I said none, because there is none.

If you ever find an exception, you will
be very famous.

 

[Audie]

That is so profound. Thank you for such insight.

Seriously, people who lack skill at sarcasm
should give it up.

 

[Kenny]

There about absolutely zero evidence of any OT writing in the Bronze Age.

The oldest materials found is the badly fragmented Silver Scrolls found in the Ketef Hinnom cavethat served as a tomb. The scrolls and other artefacts have been dated to roughly about late 7th century or early 6th century BCE.

The readable fragments contain passage from Numbers 6, regarding to the Priestly Blessings.

Do a google on Ketef Hinnom or on Silver Scrolls.

No other evidences were found that relate to OT writings.

If you have something (writings) older than the reign of King Josiah of Judah, then please presented them, because I am open to any discovery that are new.

Show me what you have.

Of course not.

How long does written material last through the ages? Given time without preserving processes, we would think that Homer was never written.

So we take what we do have and research.

We find cities mentioned according to what was written. Archaeological evidence verifying biblical cities | CARM.org

If the whole of that history was just fabricated stories, we wouldn't be able to verify the cities. They weren't selling fiction in those days, is the best of my understanding.

 

[Kenny]

Poor confused fella. You have it backwardds.

I said none, because there is none.

If you ever find an exception, you will
be very famous.

My dear Audie, can you give me something a little more substantive that what you have offered to this point?

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, seven authors who extensively quote Jesus' words as if they were there to actually hear them. But we know they weren't actually there. Additionally, how could they have recorded those words?

Where did you get that from, Wikipedia?
Beware of fashions of thought.

Well, John was there. The one whom Jesus loved. He never actually used his name but elsewhere
we see that it was indeed himself who was Jesus' favorite. He was a gentle man, not an intellectual,
just a man given to love. It shows in the Gospels and it shows in his epistles.
Luke didn't know Jesus. His was an historic account, gleaned from eye witnesses and previous
scripts.
Matthew was the tax collector. This show in his writings.
Don't know about Mark.

I suspect John wrote down stuff as it happened. I suspect these epistles were known by their
authors long before they were compiled into a book. That's how we get a apocrypha - those books
deemed unsuitable to the early Church were already long considered unsuitable to the people who
felt scripture mattered.

 

[gnostic]

Because you saying "no" doesn't make it so.

And "6 days" can be viewed in a multiplicity of ways.

You are talking about the Hebrew word, yom, as used in Genesis 1, aren’t you?

It is true, if were to use yom by itself, it could have any specific length period of time, from just a few seconds, to a billion or so years.

The word yom is unspecified period of time.

But when you use or read yom in any sentence or any passage, you would be given other words or phrases that expressed what period of time. It is all a matter of context, which clearly you haven’t understood.

Do you know how we know that “day” is the proper translation to yom in Genesis 1?

It is because of this:

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Note what I have highlighted in red and bold. That cycle of “evening” and “morning” would give you the context of what yom mean - and in this instance, yom means “day”.

The “evening & morning” found in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 & 31, all provide meaning to yom being a “day”, AND NOT 1 minute, 1 hour, a week, a decade, century, millennium, a million years or a billion years.

The “evening & morning” provide the passages of what exactly yom is, in these instances in Genesis 1.

If you didn’t have “And there was evening and there was morning”, then yom would be unspecified, which they are apparently not.

Do you now understand why yom cannot be a century or a thousand years is Genesis 1?

 

[PruePhillip]

You are talking about the Hebrew word, yom, as used in Genesis 1, aren’t you?

It is true, if were to use yom by itself, it could have any specific length period of time, from just a few seconds, to a billion or so years.

The word yom is unspecified period of time.

But when you use or read yom in any sentence or any passage, you would be given other words or phrases that expressed what period of time. It is all a matter of context, which clearly you haven’t understood.

Do you know how we know that “day” is the proper translation to yom in Genesis 1?

It is because of this:

​

Note what I have highlighted in red and bold. That cycle of “evening” and “morning” would give you the context of what yom mean - and in this instance, yom means “day”.

The “evening & morning” found in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 & 31, all provide meaning to yom being a “day”, AND NOT 1 minute, 1 hour, a week, a decade, century, millennium, a million years or a billion years.

The “evening & morning” provide the passages of what exactly yom is, in these instances in Genesis 1.

If you didn’t have “And there was evening and there was morning”, then yom would be unspecified, which they are apparently not.

Do you now understand why yom cannot be a century or a thousand years is Genesis 1?

I appreciate this.
I suspect this was added later. The early translations weren't done word for word,
that came in about the time of Jesus (but we aren't sure if the Gospels employed
this word for word or not)
Early translation was done sense to sense. So words can't be parsed that carefully.
I think the earliest translation gave us the six day sequence, and later redactors
defined this day. Makes sense because there's two creation accounts, and there was
no morning and evening on the first day because the earth was still quite dark.

 

[PruePhillip]

And nobody here for a second has
ever thought to dispute this news of
the stunningly OBVIOUS!!

Now, for confirmation of anything that
has a supernatural taint: nothing.

If you like more and more ever day,
check the data that shows no 6 day
poof, no flood, no adam and eve, no
nothing about "god" anything.

All you have in your bible that is at
least sometimes and partly correct
is just ordinary stuff about a vanished
time and culture. The most overrated,
overstudied stuff, ever.

Why bother with it?

Audie, do you believe in miracles?
Say yes, because you do.

Some say God created everything that is,
others say that everything which is created itself.
Both of these are miracles. A universe which
created itself, however, is the greater miracle.

 

[gnostic]

There are about seven authors to Jesus.
There are two authors for Hannibal
Some "historic" figures have only one author.

That’s not how history works, PruePhillip.

How many authors involved don’t make it “history”. It is what can be “verified” that matter.

There are dozens upon dozens of authors writing about the Trojan War, and related to the Trojan War, but it doesn’t make these stories history.

Jesus may be historical person, but the stories about his birth, his miracles and his resurrection cannot be verified.

None of the people who wrote the gospels about Jesus were contemporary, because they were generation (eg gospel of Mark) or two later (Matthew, Luke and John), and the authorship of all four gospels were unknown.

The only people that referred to these gospels by names, were from the 2nd century CE. Those names are ATTRIBUTES, not the names of the real authors.

 

[Audie]

Audie, do you believe in miracles?
Say yes, because you do.

Some say God created everything that is,
others say that everything which is created itself.
Both of these are miracles. A universe which
created itself, however, is the greater miracle.

Yeah, whatevs. You do both sides of a conversation.
You dont need anyone, why are you even here?

 

[Kenny]

You are talking about the Hebrew word, yom, as used in Genesis 1, aren’t you?

It is true, if were to use yom by itself, it could have any specific length period of time, from just a few seconds, to a billion or so years.

The word yom is unspecified period of time.

But when you use or read yom in any sentence or any passage, you would be given other words or phrases that expressed what period of time. It is all a matter of context, which clearly you haven’t understood.

Do you know how we know that “day” is the proper translation to yom in Genesis 1?

It is because of this:

​

Note what I have highlighted in red and bold. That cycle of “evening” and “morning” would give you the context of what yom mean - and in this instance, yom means “day”.

The “evening & morning” found in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 & 31, all provide meaning to yom being a “day”, AND NOT 1 minute, 1 hour, a week, a decade, century, millennium, a million years or a billion years.

The “evening & morning” provide the passages of what exactly yom is, in these instances in Genesis 1.

If you didn’t have “And there was evening and there was morning”, then yom would be unspecified, which they are apparently not.

Do you now understand why yom cannot be a century or a thousand years is Genesis 1?

That is IF you don't factor that it was in God's light. Time is relative and, if as it is written, God is light, one day in God's time is as a thousand years.

We understand that through Time on Earth moves FASTER than in space | Daily Mail Online.

Multiply that effect and the speed of light and yom can be more that what you think.

So you can't apply the yom before time was counted after sin as before as well as "evening and morning" was declared even before the sun was created.

Additionally, there is a theory of the "gap" between versus 1 and 2 which man doesn't know what happened or how much time passed through those versus.

I think God can ask us all a question:
Job 38:4 New Living Translation (NLT)
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell me, if you know so much.

 

[Audie]

You are talking about the Hebrew word, yom, as used in Genesis 1, aren’t you?

It is true, if were to use yom by itself, it could have any specific length period of time, from just a few seconds, to a billion or so years.

The word yom is unspecified period of time.

But when you use or read yom in any sentence or any passage, you would be given other words or phrases that expressed what period of time. It is all a matter of context, which clearly you haven’t understood.

Do you know how we know that “day” is the proper translation to yom in Genesis 1?

It is because of this:

​

Note what I have highlighted in red and bold. That cycle of “evening” and “morning” would give you the context of what yom mean - and in this instance, yom means “day”.

The “evening & morning” found in verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 & 31, all provide meaning to yom being a “day”, AND NOT 1 minute, 1 hour, a week, a decade, century, millennium, a million years or a billion years.

The “evening & morning” provide the passages of what exactly yom is, in these instances in Genesis 1.

If you didn’t have “And there was evening and there was morning”, then yom would be unspecified, which they are apparently not.

Do you now understand why yom cannot be a century or a thousand years is Genesis 1?

If god exists outside of time, and is so
freakin' great, he dont need days or even
seconds for the big poof. And rest?

 

[Audie]

My dear Audie, can you give me something a little more substantive that what you have offered to this point?

My dear charming boy, you are
asking for something substantial
on made up magic stories? Why
not ask for something substantial
on the non existence of paul bunyan
and his great blue ox.

You cannot be so dim that you
are unaware that while one can
find good info in or about the bible,
it is just mundane stuff.

Zero on the supetnatural. You
are now engaging in a silly game
to evade that unpromising fact.

Carry on as you will, I am long since
satisfied you've not a sensible bone
in your body.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yeah, whatevs. You do both sides of a conversation.
You dont need anyone, why are you even here?

Why am I here? To educate you, Audie!!!!

 

[PruePhillip]

If god exists outside of time, and is so
freakin' great, he dont need days or even
seconds for the big poof. And rest?

It's symbolic language, Audie. That's all.
It's like when we say "sunrise"
We all know the sun doesn't "rise"
- the earth simply rotates.
But that's fine - we are just speaking
symbolically.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I KNOW!! That's why I don't believe there was a George Washington. It's just a grown up comic book.

You must mean the George Washington Comic Book where George crosses the Delaware River by walking across the water and later comes back to life three days after being executed by the Redcoats to win the war. Yeah, I agree, you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe in fantastical claims like that about Washington.

 

[gnostic]

I appreciate this.
I suspect this was added later. The early translations weren't done word for word,
that came in about the time of Jesus (but we aren't sure if the Gospels employed
this word for word or not)
Early translation was done sense to sense. So words can't be parsed that carefully.
I think the earliest translation gave us the six day sequence, and later redactors
defined this day. Makes sense because there's two creation accounts, and there was
no morning and evening on the first day because the earth was still quite dark.

Sorry, but the gospels sometimes don’t agree with other.

To give you, an example.

In 3 of the gospels, Mark (14:3-11), Matthew (26:6-13) and John (12:1-8), they all agreed with a supper taking place in a small town called Bethany, and all 3 agreed that a woman anointed Jesus with a very expensive jar of perfume.

But the details in this episode in Bethany differed.

According to Matthew and Mark, the supper and anointing took place in the home of Simon the Leper. While in the gospel of John, Lazarus was the host and it was his home, not Simon the Leper’s.

The woman with the perfume was nameless woman in the gospels of Mark and Matthew, but in John’s, it was Lazarus’ sister Mary Magdalene.

Again in Matthew’s and Mark’s, it was Jesus’ head that got anointed, but in John's, it was Jesus’ feet.

And in Matthew’s and Mark’s, all disciples complained about the waste, but in John’s, only Judas Iscariot made the complaint.

In the gospel of Luke, this scene never happened in Bethany, instead Jesus anointing occurred in Nain, Galilee, and in the house of Simon the Pharisee, not to be confused with Simon the Leper. Here, the woman is also nameless, but the gospel referred to her as the Sinful Woman, and it was Jesus’ feet that got anointed with expensive perfume, not his head. And lastly, there were any complaints by his disciples, but rather it was his host, who complained not of the expensive perfume, but that the woman was sinful.

So we have 3 different versions, in which only two gospel agreed with each other in one version.

So how would you determine which of 3 versions are the right one? And how would you verify that it happened as it say?

 

[Kenny]

My dear charming boy, you are
asking for something substantial
on made up magic stories? Why
not ask for something substantial
on the non existence of paul bunyan
and his great blue ox.

You cannot be so dim that you
are unaware that while one can
find good info in or about the bible,
it is just mundane stuff.

Zero on the supetnatural. You
are now engaging in a silly game
to evade that unpromising fact.

Carry on as you will, I am long since
satisfied you've not a sensible bone
in your body.

Other than you said so, that is all you have offered. As to "zero on the supernatural", you are a little too late to tell me that I've already had personal experiences.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry, but the gospels sometimes don’t agree with other.

To give you, an example.

In 3 of the gospels, Mark (14:3-11), Matthew (26:6-13) and John (12:1-8), they all agreed with a supper taking place in a small town called Bethany, and all 3 agreed that a woman anointed Jesus with a very expensive jar of perfume.

But the details in this episode in Bethany differed.

According to Matthew and Mark, the supper and anointing took place in the home of Simon the Leper. While in the gospel of John, Lazarus was the host and it was his home, not Simon the Leper’s.

The woman with the perfume was nameless woman in the gospels of Mark and Matthew, but in John’s, it was Lazarus’ sister Mary Magdalene.

Again in Matthew’s and Mark’s, it was Jesus’ head that got anointed, but in John's, it was Jesus’ feet.

And in Matthew’s and Mark’s, all disciples complained about the waste, but in John’s, only Judas Iscariot made the complaint.

In the gospel of Luke, this scene never happened in Bethany, instead Jesus anointing occurred in Nain, Galilee, and in the house of Simon the Pharisee, not to be confused with Simon the Leper. Here, the woman is also nameless, but the gospel referred to her as the Sinful Woman, and it was Jesus’ feet that got anointed with expensive perfume, not his head. And lastly, there were any complaints by his disciples, but rather it was his host, who complained not of the expensive perfume, but that the woman was sinful.

So we have 3 different versions, in which only two gospel agreed with each other in one version.

So how would you determine which of 3 versions are the right one? And how would you verify that it happened as it say?

You are actually taking two different stories as if it were one.