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

[PruePhillip]

William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona,... perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible...
The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible....
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.

Well, I am confused. A lot of bronze age archaeology has borne out
statements from the bible.
Dever doesn't mention there are people who use archeology to
DISPROVE the bible. There's a whole school of thinking around this.
Of course "theological suppositions" CAN'T BE PROVEN - on-one
can prove that God spoke to David. But "historians" for long said there
"is no King David" because there's "no evidence." Please note: that's
not science, it's just playing to the prejudice of the authors. As it turned
out we found evidence for King David.
Same too for many later prophets such as Isaia, Kings such as Ahab
places such as Nazareth. What would be fascinating to find is the ark
of covenant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I am confused. A lot of bronze age archaeology has borne out
statements from the bible.
Dever doesn't mention there are people who use archeology to
DISPROVE the bible. There's a whole school of thinking around this.
Of course "theological suppositions" CAN'T BE PROVEN

I am not so sure of that. Some cities have been found that may correlate to Biblical cities, though that does not mean that those are those cities. And pretty much all of Genesis and Exodus have been refuted. I would say that the Bible can't be wrong about everything, but that is not saying much.

 

[PruePhillip]

I am not so sure of that. Some cities have been found that may correlate to Biblical cities, though that does not mean that those are those cities. And pretty much all of Genesis and Exodus have been refuted. I would say that the Bible can't be wrong about everything, but that is not saying much.

I love how Genesis 1 correlates with the sequence of events
which formed our planet and life. (I have been watching the science
on this since the first discovery that water existed on the early earth.)

 

[gnostic]

Certainly there's little evidence to the Exodus. It was, after all, a trek
from Egypt to Canaan.
And for 38 of these years the Jews did no treking to speak of.

PruePhillip, it doesn’t take 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan.

It should only take less than a month.

Alexander the Great went to Egypt (332 BCE), after the sieges of Tyre, and then of Gaza (332 BCE).

The 40-year wandering seemed to be exaggeration

 

[Subduction Zone]

I love how Genesis 1 correlates with the sequence of events
which formed our planet and life. (I have been watching the science
on this since the first discovery that water existed on the early earth.)

The order of some key events is wrong and you are also reinterpreting after the fact.

 

[gnostic]

I love how Genesis 1 correlates with the sequence of events
which formed our planet and life. (I have been watching the science
on this since the first discovery that water existed on the early earth.)

I find it to be illogical that Genesis 1 that water and land vegetation existed before the sun, moon and stars.

 

[PruePhillip]

I find it to be illogical that Genesis 1 that water and land vegetation existed before the sun, moon and stars.

The order of some key events is wrong and you are also reinterpreting after the fact.

The early earth, according to NASA, was a cloud ocean planet.
That is why NASA was interested in Titan, calling it an "earth analogue"
first the heaven
then the earth
dark and oceanic
then the skies cleared
and the continents emerged
and life came from the earth (fresh water)
and then life came out of the sea
and finally man.

All written in theological and symbolic language

nb I used to think the land and sea sequence was wrong, but as of 2018
the consensus is that life came from the "land," then invaded the sea.

 

[PruePhillip]

Well, I'm going by biblical archeologists.

This in today Jerusalem Post
... cuneiform tablet documenting a slave sale refers to a pym weight, a polished stone weighing about 7.6 grams. Since these stones were in common use in biblical Israel but not in ancient Mesopotamia, Spar, Paley and Stieglitz concluded the text was written in the Levant, and reflected a business transaction regarding moveable property, namely slaves, in the biblical kingdom of Israel.

That kingdom, one of two successor states to the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah, was founded around 930 BCE. The “Northern Kingdom,” also called the Kingdom of Samaria to differentiate it from the Southern Kingdom of Judah based in Jerusalem, fell to the Assyrians, presumably under King Shalmaneser V, who died while besieging the region in 722 BCE.

While the presence of Babylonians in the region has been assumed by many scholars, archaeological evidence attesting to their presence has remained scant.

It wasn't long ago that "scholars" were telling us that not only was there no King David but there was
no nation of Jews as we understand, no common language or written text. They were wrong on all these points.

 

[shunyadragon]

Where as in Greek, Roman, Native Religion, Aboriginal, Maori reglions etc
there is no evidence.
Fact is the bible MAKES AN HISTORIC CLAIM.

For historic claims we have evidence for facts, events and people. We do not have any evidence of religious claims.

 

[shunyadragon]

The early earth, according to NASA, was a cloud ocean planet.
That is why NASA was interested in Titan, calling it an "earth analogue"
first the heaven
then the earth
dark and oceanic
then the skies cleared
and the continents emerged
and life came from the earth (fresh water)
and then life came out of the sea
and finally man.

All written in theological and symbolic language

nb I used to think the land and sea sequence was wrong, but as of 2018
the consensus is that life came from the "land," then invaded the sea.

All of the above is nonsense without scientific references,

 

[PruePhillip]

All of the above is nonsense without scientific references,

And of course, with "scientific references" it will still be nonsense to you.
Google "first oceans" and "zircon crystals"
"how the continents formed" and "granite"
"NASA's Titan analogue"
"origin of life" "fresh water" and "2018"

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Where as in Greek, Roman, Native Religion, Aboriginal, Maori reglions etc
there is no evidence.
Fact is the bible MAKES AN HISTORIC CLAIM.

Why does the Bible make anything an "historic claim", but the Holy texts and stories of "Greek, Roman, Native Religion, Aboriginal, Maori reglions etc" don't?

 

[PruePhillip]

For historic claims we have evidence for facts, events and people. We do not have any evidence of religious claims.

Okay, here's one of them, considered bogus 20 years ago.
"There was a race of people (genetics - DNA) in Palestine
with a distinct language
and developed writing
who's cultic and administrative center was Jerusalem
and its king was David."

Five statements, all disbelieved until it was hard not to.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And of course, with "scientific references" it will still be nonsense to you.
Google "first oceans" and "zircon crystals"
"how the continents formed" and "granite"
"NASA's Titan analogue"
"origin of life" "fresh water" and "2018"

Since you made the claim, the burden of evidence is on YOU to back it up, not us to do your research for you.

"The early earth, according to NASA, was a cloud ocean planet." please provide a link to NASA saying this? As for the rest of your comments, what exactly is your point? They seem kinda vague. I mean just saying "granite"? Seriously?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Okay, here's one of them, considered bogus 20 years ago.
"There was a race of people (genetics - DNA) in Palestine
with a distinct language
and developed writing
who's cultic and administrative center was Jerusalem
and its king was David."

Five statements, all disbelieved until it was hard not to.

I don't think any of those claims were ever considered particularly "bogus" where they? But again, what's your point? None of those things supports any particular religious claims.

 

[PruePhillip]

Why does the Bible make anything an "historic claim", but the Holy texts and stories of "Greek, Roman, Native Religion, Aboriginal, Maori reglions etc" don't?

Well, the bible talks about King David.
And the Greeks talk about Zeus
the Romans talk about Neptune
the native Americans talk about Nanook
the aboriginals talk about Altjeringa
and the Maori talk about Ara Tiotio.

Which one is an actual historical person?

 

[PruePhillip]

Since you made the claim, the burden of evidence is on YOU to back it up, not us to do your research for you.

"The early earth, according to NASA, was a cloud ocean planet." please provide a link to NASA saying this? As for the rest of your comments, what exactly is your point? They seem kinda vague. I mean just saying "granite"? Seriously?

Yes, glad you mentioned it.
Granite is seriously important.
It's essentially an earth rock, lighter than the basalt it's formed from.
Formed under heat, pressure and water
This heat and pressure came about through the grinding
of the continental plates, lubricated with water.
Thus the early earth had a basalt crust and no continents -
it was was an ocean world. And it was dark. "And the spirit
of God moved upon the face of the waters" and God said
"let there be light."

Now, isn't that marvelous? It rivals the description of the new
Israel we see today for wonderment. How did the bible know
the past and future?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, the bible talks about King David.
And the Greeks talk about Zeus
the Romans talk about Neptune
the native Americans talk about Nanook
the aboriginals talk about Altjeringa
and the Maori talk about Ara Tiotio.

Which one is an actual historical person?

hardly a valid comparison. Let's compare the historicity of deities with deities and humans with humans at least. Either way, whether David was a real person or not is not dependent on whether he's featured in the Bible or not.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, glad you mentioned it.
Granite is seriously important.
It's essentially an earth rock, lighter than the basalt it's formed from.
Formed under heat, pressure and water
This heat and pressure came about through the grinding
of the continental plates, lubricated with water.
Thus the early earth had a basalt crust and no continents -
it was was an ocean world. And it was dark. "And the spirit
of God moved upon the face of the waters" and God said
"let there be light."

Now, isn't that marvelous? It rivals the description of the new
Israel we see today for wonderment. How did the bible know
the past and future?

Are you unable to answer questions as asked or do you simply not want to? If you continue to be so unresponsive I'm not going to try any more. I'm attempting to have a good faith conversation with you, and you... don't appear to be doing the same.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay, here's one of them, considered bogus 20 years ago.
"There was a race of people (genetics - DNA) in Palestine
with a distinct language
and developed writing
who's cultic and administrative center was Jerusalem
and its king was David."

Five statements, all disbelieved until it was hard not to.

No scientific reference provided that would support this, and no reference that it was considered bogus,

There was a race? When? There is evience of races and DNA evidence all over the world and a history of relationships between the races and migration, and none of this supports any scripture of any religion.

By the way there a number of scenarios of the origin of life ~4 billions of years ago and no one is considered conclusively accepted in science. In fact, the best present evidence supports the origin of life in the region of mid ocean rides around thermal vents. The earliest known simplist life is found there. The question of how and when science concludes that life originated would not support any religious view or scripture.



Still waiting . .