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

[PruePhillip]

Molecules forming primitive replicators is a form of evolution. I have evolved from a child into a man. Neighborhoods evolve.

But there is a difference between evolution and the Theory of Evolution, often shortened to just Evolution. Hence, abiogenesis is not part of Evolution and is a separate field of study.

Okay, I learned something. I am happy then with both "evolution"
and abiogenesis. It's all marvelous to me.
Just today an article about using Artificial Intelligence to sift through
the human genome. One find is that human evolution occurs more
because of variations in genes than in new genes. But I thought
that was the case anyhow!!!

 

[Polymath257]

How can you say it was a myth? Was Hannibal a myth? The Seige
of Troy a myth. Don't know, I wasn't there.

Bible says the whole world was flooded in Noah's time. But the
ancient writers did not know what the world was. In Jesus day
the "whole world was taxed" and then the "world" meant the
Roman Empire (Jews knew about Africans, Parthians and
barbarians.)
The term "world" meant different things to different people. To
tell them that the earth is a planet would have had you laughed
at - a planet was a wandering star.
Our term "universe" has changed in just 20 years.

I suggest Noah saw a flood that engulfed his civilization.

And that is a possibility: a local, but large flood that was interpreted as being global. We even have a few candidates: one that occurred in Mesopotamia (the right location) and another that produced the Black Sea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can you say it was a myth? Was Hannibal a myth? The Seige
of Troy a myth. Don't know, I wasn't there.

Bible says the whole world was flooded in Noah's time. But the
ancient writers did not know what the world was. In Jesus day
the "whole world was taxed" and then the "world" meant the
Roman Empire (Jews knew about Africans, Parthians and
barbarians.)
The term "world" meant different things to different people. To
tell them that the earth is a planet would have had you laughed
at - a planet was a wandering star.
Our term "universe" has changed in just 20 years.

I suggest Noah saw a flood that engulfed his civilization.

Ignoring all of your excuses you are now saying that the story was myth yourself and that the ark was superfluous.

 

[PruePhillip]

Ignoring all of your excuses you are now saying that the story was myth yourself and that the ark was superfluous.

Correct.
No-one believes the bible is 100% correct, no-one believes
it's 100% false. We all have to draw the lines somewhere.

(ie there's three stories of Jesus and the man called Legion
with three different places named within a small area - take
your pick.) The technical name for the place is not the point
of the story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct.
No-one believes the bible is 100% correct, no-one believes
it's 100% false. We all have to draw the lines somewhere.

(ie there's three stories of Jesus and the man called Legion
with three different places named within a small area - take
your pick.) The technical name for the place is not the point
of the story.

I have seen some fundies make the claim that it was 100% true, but there actions belied that claim.

 

[PruePhillip]

I have seen some fundies make the claim that it was 100% true, but there actions belied that claim.

I ask the infallible brigade, "Did one thief on the cross rail against
Jesus, or did two?"
The bible is a multi-layered and subtle construction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I ask the infallible brigade, "Did one thief on the cross rail against
Jesus, or did two?"
The bible is a multi-layered and subtle construction.

At best you will only hear the 'different software's claim, meanwhile ignoring the obvious contradiction. They tend to think that an inconsistent ad hoc explanation is a refutation.

 

[ecco]

I ask the infallible brigade, "Did one thief on the cross rail against
Jesus, or did two?"
The bible is a multi-layered and subtle construction.

That's what results from people copying and enhancing other people's works of fiction.

 

[PruePhillip]

That's what results from people copying and enhancing other people's works of fiction.

Watching a video on the death of the Nazi Reichfuhrer Heinrich
Himmler. Standard version was he took a cyanide pill. Historian
David Irvine's account was that Himmler was beaten to death.
Maybe Irvine is "copying and enhancing" a mythic account?
Himmler's daughter reckons her father was a good man who
didn't do the things people said he did. She should know (?)
Was there a Himmler? I am not so sure now - too many
contradictions.

As Henry Ford put it, "All history is bunk."

 

[PruePhillip]

At best you will only hear the 'different software's claim, meanwhile ignoring the obvious contradiction. They tend to think that an inconsistent ad hoc explanation is a refutation.

We say, ie "The Gospel according to Mark"
note, "according"
each writer saw Jesus in a different light,
ie as our elder brother, as fulfillment of
scripture, as the Messiah etc..
Each was drawing on their memory of
the man who changed the face of Western
history.

 

[ecco]

Watching a video on the death of the Nazi Reichfuhrer Heinrich
Himmler. Standard version was he took a cyanide pill. Historian
David Irvine's account was that Himmler was beaten to death.
Maybe Irvine is "copying and enhancing" a mythic account?
Himmler's daughter reckons her father was a good man who
didn't do the things people said he did. She should know (?)
Was there a Himmler? I am not so sure now - too many
contradictions.

As Henry Ford put it, "All history is bunk."

I never considered Henry Ford to be a great philosopher or a great historian. Who cares what Henry Ford allegedly said.

I Recently learned of the Bahai religion. You can see the same kind of thing happening with their Messenger as we see with Jesus. Many things, words and deeds, are written about both that are demonstrably fiction and were recorded well after the fact.

We can see the same thing in Mason Locke Weems' biography of George Washington regarding the cherry tree...
George Washington and the Cherry Tree Myth

In it, Weems quotes GW's father extensively. Also, he writes (regarding the cherry tree):

The following anecdote is a case in point. It is too valuable to be lost, and too true to be doubted; for it was communicated to me by the same excellent lady to whom I am indebted for the last.
​

At least he's honest enough to attempt to explain how he came to the knowledge of the deed and words.

 

[Looncall]

We say, ie "The Gospel according to Mark"
note, "according"
each writer saw Jesus in a different light,
ie as our elder brother, as fulfillment of
scripture, as the Messiah etc..
Each was drawing on their memory of
the man who changed the face of Western
history.

Nuts. They don't agree on simple "facts" eg what happened at the empty tomb?

The gospels are just propaganda cooked up long after their alleged events.

 

[PruePhillip]

Nuts. They don't agree on simple "facts" eg what happened at the empty tomb?
The gospels are just propaganda cooked up long after their alleged events.

The Gospel of Matthew shows Jesus as the promised Messiah of the Old Testament.
Mark shows Jesus as the suffering servant, the Son of God.
Luke shows Jesus in his humanity, and sets him against the history and prophecies.
John sees Jesus as our elder brother.

This is typical of historic writings with multiple authors. Each author will naturally
see things in a different light. Unless, of course, authors are coerced,or commissioned.

 

[PruePhillip]

I never considered Henry Ford to be a great philosopher or a great historian. Who cares what Henry Ford allegedly said.

I Recently learned of the Bahai religion. You can see the same kind of thing happening with their Messenger as we see with Jesus. Many things, words and deeds, are written about both that are demonstrably fiction and were recorded well after the fact.

We can see the same thing in Mason Locke Weems' biography of George Washington regarding the cherry tree...
George Washington and the Cherry Tree Myth

In it, Weems quotes GW's father extensively. Also, he writes (regarding the cherry tree):

The following anecdote is a case in point. It is too valuable to be lost, and too true to be doubted; for it was communicated to me by the same excellent lady to whom I am indebted for the last.
​

At least he's honest enough to attempt to explain how he came to the knowledge of the deed and words.

I looked that up. Apparently it's true that Henry Ford DID make that assessment of history.
What appeals to me about the story of Jesus isn't so much the seven or so authors who
wrote of him in the First Century AD, but the authors who wrote of him centuries, if not
millennium beforehand. ie that he would come to his temple while it still stood; that he
would be rejected of his people; that these people would suffer in exile as a result but
one day return to their land; that his message would be believed upon by the Gentiles
until their time was finished; that he would usher in a new covenant which is not of the
law; he would be cut off by the same enemy which would take away Israel itself; he
would be crucified - his hands and feet pierced and he would be given gall and vinegar
to drink and he would look back upon his suffering and be glad for he redeemed his
people through his blood - for he is the lamb of God who's blood was shed for his
people.

 

[ecco]

authors who
wrote of him in the First Century AD, but the authors who wrote of him centuries, if not
millennium beforehand. ie that he would come to his temple while it still stood; that he
would be rejected of his people; that these people would suffer in exile as a result but

I may be mistaken, but I seem to remember a conversation not too long ago regarding prophecies.

I asked the person with whom I was having this discussion to present some clear prophecies made by people in the OT regarding Jesus. That person could not present any.

Was that you or someone else?

 

[joelr]

The implication of the above is that Georgia is serious about child porn.
The downside is that this state was one of three which amended laws
concerning hosting of child porn on computers. Previously it was a
felony, regardless of providence or whether the owner actually accessed
this material. Now the courts must prove this material was being used
by the owner, rather than being in his or her possession.

But child porn comes through many entrances. One is the growing
sexualization of children; the rise of "victimless" virtual porn; the
steady downward aging of actresses and the rise of pederasty, for
instance. Remember, there is no more absolute morals - child sex
and child porn is as relative as homosexuality or polygamy.

ps I read this Georgian professor thing in a Time magazine.

There never were "absolute morals". If someone is mentally ill they do not care where morals are from. It wasn't just a few priests who raped children it was a mass epidemic. All those men believed they were under absolute morals and it made no difference whatever.
The bad people are going to do their crimes weather they believe morals are from some god or morals made by men.
Those absolute morals didn't stop HUNDREDS of priests from raping children.

Good people who don't want to rape kids are not going to weather the morals come from man or god. Sick people are going to commit rape regardless of where the morals come from.

A crafty criminal can use scripture to justify rape and murder while a moral system made by man cannot. There are murders and rapes spoken about in the OT. One can simply say they had a revelation that god wants us to return to OT harsher ways of living.
If that person happens to be in a seat of power and get enough followers it might actually work.

There arguments that we "need" absolute morals is ridiculous.
Plus, all religion and scripture is man-made. So humans have been using man-made morals since the beginning. Some people decide to take man-words and pretend that god said them but that doesn't make it true.
It's just us.The endless lines of failed promises and prophecies throughout the bible prove it was written by only men.

 

[joelr]

I must look this up. How far back can scientists trace the genetics
of the Kohanim line? One article said the genetics traced 4,000 years
but that might be a circular argument about the biblical Levi and the
priesthood. We can date when a genetic line separates for some
species or genetic variations - not sure if that works with the Levites
and the patrilineal leader Levi, son of Jacob. That would end the
belief of "biblical scholars" that the story of the twelve tribes was
fabricated. And then later, everyone will deny they ever said the
twelve tribes was a fantasy.

Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?
No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.

The Bible describes it as a glorious kingdom stretching from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Does archeology back up these descriptions?
The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.

Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale.

 

[joelr]

Lack of evidence means that we don't know.
It doesn't mean that we do know.

Recall - some 'scholars' say there was no King David, a united Israel,
12 tribes or any writing in the 10th Century BC. Now their argument
has shifted.

What's that aphorism? "Absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence."
To be honest you would have to look at every Semitic group and
even civilization and assess whether Egypt recognizes them in
its inscriptions.

Every other post of yours is on the David thing? It's a probable reference to a king that the Bible describes as some great kingdom but the archeological finds show a "hill-country chiefdom"?
Many religious stories use historical aspects in the stories, it's common.
No Zeus wasn't historical but many of the wars at the time were really happening and the leaders mentioned were real people.

"Mesha stone found in the last century in Moab there is also a probable reference to David. So there is textual evidence outside the Bible for these kings of the United Monarchy, at least David.
Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale."

 

[joelr]

Science is slowly uncovering "facts about the bible"
Mostly back to the 10th Century BC, the time of the
house of David. We find evidence of this house from
ancient extra-biblical sources; some of the prophets
and kings from ancient seals, fragments of scripture
going back 1,000 years before the oldest bible;
excavations of old fortresses; the Gihon spring of
David and Solomon is now a tourist destination; DNA
has confirmed the Jews as a real people as was the
tribe of Levi (priestly class) and so on.

ALL OF THE ABOVE WAS ONCE DISMISSED BY
BIBLICAL 'MINIMALISTS'

There's quite a body of work on this topic. If you are
interested then temper your beliefs by reading about
them.

and again with David. Yeah he might have been historical and was put into mythological tales. Just like everyone else was doing.
It's weird that you find all this archeology to be interesting yet all of the more modern archeology about all the pagan gods that the Jesus took ideas from you called it "childish" or something like that?

 

[joelr]

No, the origin of life in fresh water. We have gone full
circle to Darwin's "little warm pond" idea. Even in
2017 people were saying that life emerged in the
oceans, possibly from the hot vents.
That annoyed me as the bible said first the land and
then the sea. So the bible had it the wrong way round?
But no, the biblical sequence is correct.
heavens
earth (dark and oceanic)
dry land
life on land
life in oceans
man.

Nope, totally wrong:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.


3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.



Lot of water here. It took billions of years for the water to accumulate on Earth from asteroids. There was NEVER a time where Earth was covered in water either. Water evaporates and then rains back down.
If the Earth was covered in water it would still be covered in water today. No water leaves the Earth.

The events are myths that have no basis in reality.