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

[PruePhillip]

Einstein's religious beliefs do not abuse science..

The abuse of religion with Einstein lies in invoking his name
in religious discussion. This would come under the heading
of Appeal to Authority?
Einstein knows as much about religion as your local taxi
driver. That he didn't believe in God is of no consequence.
His intellect was for theoretical physics.
I liken invoking Einstein in religious conversation to quoting
some celebrity's view on politics.

 

[PruePhillip]

The very real problems with the Biblical accounts of Moses, exodus, Noah and the flood, and the dating of events, facts and people in Middle East history according to the Bible as noted by @gnostic and @joelr are very real based on actual archaeological and geologic evidence.

Yeah, dating of the OT is the one issue I do have.
Maybe some later scribe redacted the accounts to comply with genealogical records.
Who knows.
The dating for Exodus is interesting. As time goes by "we" have been dating this further
back. And, we have been dating the eruption of Thera further forward. These two events
are within one or two centuries I read somewhere.

As for scribes redacting. Why would THE BIBLE have such redactions and mistakes?
I think some of it was deliberate. Recall one of the issues the Jews had with Jesus, that
He did not come from Bethlehem as the prophecies said. It says that Jesus did not reply
to that charge. He could have. The point of His Ministry was that you had to accept it from
the heart - not academic persuasion.
And the scripture seems designed to offend. Previous generations scoffed at the idea
that life could come out of the sea, or that all the cities of the world could fall because of
a localized battle in Israel. We know better now, don't we?

 

[PruePhillip]

The problem with this request is highlighted. It is a part of your fallacy of generalization and misinformation of the academic history view of the Bible. Historians and scientists do not attempt to demonstrate nor prove what is wrong nor false as far as hypothesis.they propose in their research.

Historians, archaeologists, and other scientists only deal with the positive objective verifiable evidence for positive determinations as what can be considered historical facts, people and events.

You are missing the point. Science doesn't care, but people who interpret things DO care.
ie
Science statement "There is no evidence there ever was a man called King Solomon."
Science interpretation, "King Solomon never existed."

who is doing this interpretation? The general community, church folk (!) teachers and a few scientists
who push their own philosophical barrows.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are missing the point. Science doesn't care, but people who interpret things DO care.

You need to explain this meaningless generalization, which has nothing to do with generalization.

Did not miss your point, your reasoning is fallacious and without any basis in science.

ie Science statement "There is no evidence there ever was a man called King Solomon."

True, there is no evidence that King Solomon existed

Science interpretation, "King Solomon never existed."

False, again, again, and again . . . as explained science does not reach this conclusion.

who is doing this interpretation? The general community, church folk (!) teachers and a few scientists
who push their own philosophical barrows.

Totally off the wall and false without anything meaningful whatever.

 

[PruePhillip]

Quote - "Science interpretation, "King Solomon never existed."
False, again, again, and again . . . as explained science does not reach this conclusion.

By "science interpretation" I don't mean actual scientists, I mean society's interpretation
of science. Sorry that I wasn't clear about that.

If you tell school students "There is no evidence there ever was a Solomon" they are quite
likely to see that as a statement that somehow science has reached a conclusion. A bit like
the "All swans are white" statement.
And secondly, who wants to believe things for which there is "no evidence"?

As it is, the "House of David" includes Solomon, but that's no evidence in itself.

 

[PruePhillip]

Y
Quote - who is doing this interpretation? The general community, church folk (!) teachers and a few scientists who push their own philosophical barrows.

Totally off the wall and false without anything meaningful whatever..

That's factual, even empirical I bet.
I hear church people apologizing for things which fall outside the ambit of science
and that's troubling.
Can't remember who it was but there was a video about a famous philosopher/
scientist who cautioned people about believing and disbelieving without thinking
issues through logically and empirically. I was just warming to his talk when he
rubbished the idea of there being a God. "What? Did he just say we shouldn't
jump to conclusions about things we don't know about?" I thought.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The abuse of religion with Einstein lies in invoking his name
in religious discussion. This would come under the heading
of Appeal to Authority?
Einstein knows as much about religion as your local taxi
driver. That he didn't believe in God is of no consequence.
His intellect was for theoretical physics.
I liken invoking Einstein in religious conversation to quoting
some celebrity's view on politics.

Why did you completely ignore the rest of Shunya's post? Here is the argument he was actually making that immediately followed the part you quoted:

"What you fail to comprehend is the independence of science from the perspective of a religious belief and agenda. The religious belief of scientists like Einstein and Newton have nothing to do with their contributions to science Many scientists of many different beliefs have more than confirmed the foundation of Einstein's Discoveries and research, which by the way is the foundation for radiometric dating based on the atomic behavior of atomic science..

"No, our religious beliefs should not be determined by the many diverse religious beliefs of different scientists. My belief is NOT determined by the beliefs of Einstein nor Newton."

Shunya never argued that Einstein should be accepted as an authority on religion, it a response to your accusation that Einstein's "God letter" was an example of him "abusing science". He was refuting your point, not making an appeal to authority.

 

[PruePhillip]

"No, our religious beliefs should not be determined by the many diverse religious beliefs of different scientists. My belief is NOT determined by the beliefs of Einstein nor Newton."

Shunya never argued that Einstein should be accepted as an authority on religion, it a response to your accusation that Einstein's "God letter" was an example of him "abusing science". He was refuting your point, not making an appeal to authority.

True. I am not arguing for any one person's POV. I am arguing that people in general
see Einstein like figures as belief role models. It goes like this, "If so-and-so is the
most intelligent person on earth, and he or she doesn't believe in God, who am I to
believe in God?"
That's why Einstein's "God letter" was so newsworthy last month.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True. I am not arguing for any one person's POV. I am arguing that people in general
see Einstein like figures as belief role models. It goes like this, "If so-and-so is the
most intelligent person on earth, and he or she doesn't believe in God, who am I to
believe in God?"
That's why Einstein's "God letter" was so newsworthy last month.

And that letter effectively refutes the claims of some Christians (they are the ones that most often appeal to Einstein in the first place) was not a theist. In other words, even though he did not like the term, Einstein was an atheist.

 

[PruePhillip]

And that letter effectively refutes the claims of some Christians (they are the ones that most often appeal to Einstein in the first place) was not a theist. In other words, even though he did not like the term, Einstein was an atheist.

Exactly. It matters to some people what other people believe.
Newton is the greatest of all scientists - his belief in God has
no bearing on the matter either.
Newton lived in an age of belief, and Einstein lived in an age
of disbelief - that's all it was. People bring their intellect to
bear on preconceived ideas.

 

[tayla]

Pontius Pilate’s ring may have been discovered at ancient biblical fortress

It is well known that Pilate was a real person. This fact says nothing about whether or not Christianity is true.

 

[lukethethird]

Newton lived in an age of belief, and Einstein lived in an age
of disbelief - that's all it was.

Newton lived during the Age of Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, and this is the Age of Aquarius.

 

[gnostic]

Exactly. It matters to some people what other people believe.
Newton is the greatest of all scientists - his belief in God has
no bearing on the matter either.
Newton lived in an age of belief, and Einstein lived in an age
of disbelief - that's all it was. People bring their intellect to
bear on preconceived ideas.

Saying anyone being greatest scientist of all time, is rather absurd.

Yes, Newton was the best in his time, just as Einstein was one of the best in his time. But both have made some mistakes.

Newton’s mistakes were his works on myths, like Atlantis, and on occultism, like alchemy. These had nothing to do with science.

Beside that. Newton’s law on motion and his theory on gravity were incomplete, for it doesn’t take into account out in deep space, where Einstein’s Special Relativity and General Relativity were more correct and applicable than Newtonian mechanisms.

 

[PruePhillip]

Saying anyone being greatest scientist of all time, is rather absurd.

Yes, Newton was the best in his time, just as Einstein was one of the best in his time. But both have made some mistakes.

Newton’s mistakes were his works on myths, like Atlantis, and on occultism, like alchemy. These had nothing to do with science.

Beside that. Newton’s law on motion and his theory on gravity were incomplete, for it doesn’t take into account out in deep space, where Einstein’s Special Relativity and General Relativity were more correct and applicable than Newtonian mechanisms.

The general consensus is that Newton was the greatest scientist
who ever lived. I am fine with that.
It's interesting though that there are times when great scientists
do mediocre work, and times when mediocre scientists do great
work. In the 1920's it was a great time to be a scientist due to the
emerging nature of quantum and nuclear. But these days it's very
thin gruel for everyone.

 

[PruePhillip]

It is well known that Pilate was a real person. This fact says nothing about whether or not Christianity is true.

What it does do is underscore the people mentioned in the New Testament
were actual historic figures. They weren't gods living on Mount Olympus
like Zeus.

 

[PruePhillip]

Newton lived during the Age of Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, and this is the Age of Aquarius.

I have always hated the video - you can't see the faces of the
singers very well.

 

[Kenny]

It is well known that Pilate was a real person. This fact says nothing about whether or not Christianity is true.

My point is simply, the more we find archaeology that supports the Bible, the more the Bible become reliable. Obviously one alone doesn't establish a truth but it continues to be verified.

 

[gnostic]

The general consensus is that Newton was the greatest scientist
who ever lived. I am fine with that.
It's interesting though that there are times when great scientists
do mediocre work, and times when mediocre scientists do great
work. In the 1920's it was a great time to be a scientist due to the
emerging nature of quantum and nuclear. But these days it's very
thin gruel for everyone.

No one is denying Newton’s contributions to physics and mathematics, and he was indeed a pioneer, but this whole “greatest scientist of all time” thing is nothing more than your ego talking.

Einstein, Planck, Hubble, and many other of the early 20th century have contributed to knowledge of science, in their respective fields.

And we know more today than those of the 1920s, and 50 years from now, they would know more than this generation. It is called progress, PruePhillip.

As much as Newton was a giant in his time, he didn’t know everything. Einstein didn’t know everything. No scientists know it all.

Science isn’t about knowing everything.

Science is about being able test knowledge - testing the hypotheses and theories - to find out which of them are probable and which are improbable, through testable evidences.

Any current accepted theories can be questioned or challenged, and any theory can be replaced, and there are no exception. But these challenges must undergo rigorous testing too.

You clearly don’t understand the concept of science.

 

[gnostic]

My point is simply, the more we find archaeology that supports the Bible, the more the Bible become reliable. Obviously one alone doesn't establish a truth but it continues to be verified.

The Bible isn’t reliable. It contained too many questionable myths and symbolisms to be reliable.

Symbols, metaphors, parables, allegories, etc, are too open to different interpretations, which make the Bible contradict itself, or provide faulty knowledges.

Archaeology is one of the areas, where it repeatedly showed that the Bible is not reliable.

 

[lukethethird]

My point is simply, the more we find archaeology that supports the Bible, the more the Bible become reliable. Obviously one alone doesn't establish a truth but it continues to be verified.

Nothing has ever been found that supports Bible stories. Pilate's portrayal in the gospels is a joke, and so is the title of this thread.