Show me definitive proof your religious text isn't entirely made up.

[dust1n]

No one disputes the Jericho was not an actual place, so the OT is not entirely made up. What is purported to have happened there can be entirely fictional but the place itself isn't.

"Archaeologists have unearthed the remains of more than 20 successive settlements in Jericho, the first of which dates back 11,000 years (9000 BCE),[8][9] almost to the very beginning of the Holocene epoch of the Earth's history.[10][11]"

How can I know with definitely that Jericho existed.

Let me give you an example.

The problem with archaeology is that anyone on can pick any pieces they find in the dirt, and arrange and put them together, and make all sorts of inferences based on what their imagines came up with.



Let's take the wall of Jericho for instance.

"The Wall of Jericho was discovered by John Garstang during the excavations of 1930 to 1936, which he suggested were those described in the Book of Joshua in the Bible and dated to around 1400 BCE.[3]"

He suggests that this wall that he found in 1930 was the exact same wall as described in the book of Joshua... there is no particular description of this wall in the Bible. And yet this excavation yielded a "wall" in a settlement "called Jericho."

How do I know that a different city did not exist there, and archaeologists are just calling it Jericho becasue that's what the Bible claims to have been there. Now if they found a road sign outside the ruins that said: "Jericho, five miles to see the wall."

Also, radiometric dating has only been test and confirmed to be consistent for like 70 years now. We have no way of knowing the radiometric decay has been decay consistently for over this time period. That town could have gotten buried in dirt that just dates to one time period, even though it's from another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

 

[allfoak]

The Bible is entirely made up on purpose.
It is not intended to be historical.

 

[Desert Snake]

You cant prove a unicorn DIDN'T make the universe so therefore its true!!! /s

Burden of proof should be on the person with the belief, not the person challenging it.

This is inaccurate, because it assumes that ones personal subjective conclusion, is ''fact'', and then anything else must conform or refute that fact. Many theists have evidence for Deity, this means that if they were to try to take the position of atheism, they would be trying to prove their own facts, or evidence, incorrect. So, it is subjective not merely by what position one wants to have, but by what one can rationalize to themselves via their evidence etc.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Made up of what? Everything has to be "made up" of something, and nothing emerges without an antecedent. Did I write my Book of Shadows? Yes. is it "made up?" Yes, it's "made up" of paper, ink, lots of time and hard work, plus a volume of life experiences and referencing of other source materials.

Think he was talking about scripture. Not really the same as someone promoting their own book.

 

[popsthebuilder]

They have reason to believe in science because they have evidence to believe so, if it turns out that it is false, then they change their beliefs. Which is something that religious people fail to do.

I think the question wasn't so much "what proves your book is true?" and more "What proves your book wasn't written by a 20 year old trying a comedy career out thousands of years ago?"

Edit: Grammar

Religion is in the process of changing right now and it will be beneficial to all. creation.

 

[dust1n]

Religion is in the process of changing right now and it will be beneficial to all. creation.

So right not it is not beneficial to all creation, but it will be when it is done changing?

 

[dust1n]

The Bible is entirely made up on purpose.
It is not intended to be historical.

If that's the case, no creationist theory.

 

[leibowde84]

Show me definitive proof your religious text isn't entirely made up.

(sorry, can't figure out how to fix editing).

you forgot to take into account that science can also get it wrong too. deliberate fabrication of scientific evidence is rare but does happen, (e.g piltdown man). Even when scientists sincerely believe they are right, they can still get it wrong and learn that their ideas are an illusion in the course of time. There was for example recent data from the Hardon Collider that suggested molucules could travel faster than the speed of light and that physics would have to re-written. After intensive investigation, the result was blamed on something like faulty wireing. I don't think you can rationally expect any religious person to subscribe to this level of burden of proof.

If I were to try to do it with Marxism, you'd find out that whilst it can substanciate many cliams with evidence, it is both selective and dependent on a system of intellectual reasoning to decide what is significant to be selected as "proof". It has its own areas of relative strength and weaknesses as an intellectual system, and has gone through two centuries of evolution to try to deal with inconsistencies. If you want a "weak spot" of Marxism, you can look up the "Asiatic mode of production" first proposed by Marx and Engels, but rejected by later Marxist thinkers because it was inconsistent with Marxist premises that modes of production were universal. this idea was often used by western thinkers in the Cold War to say that Communism was a product of "asiastic" societies that were already prone to authoritarianism, whereas the west was 'exceptional'.

This is an ideology which cliams to be "scientific" and was widely considered as such until the middle of the twenieth century. I seriously doubt that any religious believer here could do much better as they would face similar problems. There are also controversies in certain religions (e.g. was Jesus Black?) because religions are the product of generations of belivers passing down traditions (often by word of mouth), so there is a "chinese whispers" effect going on there too.

You cannot seriously expect anyone to do this and Scientists could not do it either. Given that people reject the literature on climate change or the report of the Warren Commission on the JFK assasination or 9/11 commission for anonimiles and then using that to attack the whole. you're setting your self up as a judge for the validity of someones beliefs based on the assumption they are false. In a legal setting, that's like setting up a court based on the presumption of guilty. this is a wholly unrealistic and unfair demand to make on anyone.

[Edit: Assuming you were even going to make this remotely fair, you'd have to clearly define what qualifies as "definitive" proof in advance, so believers can actually meet it, what would want proof of, and also would have to take into consideration that much of the historical record has been lost as these texts are often thousands you years old.]

The difference is that science welcomes these corrections where mistakes have been made. That is actually what scientists try to do. Many see religious texts as infallible or unchangeable, which denies the possibility of being wrong. That seems to be the point of the OP.

 

[popsthebuilder]

So right not it is not beneficial to all creation, but it will be when it is done changing?

Kinda hard to decipher what you were saying , but yeah it's getting better everyday. Just gotta watch the ones who claim Jesus wasn't the means of their salvation, or don't practice his teachings as their base. Will be the next problem.

 

[dust1n]

No one disputes the Jericho was not an actual place, so the OT is not entirely made up. What is purported to have happened there can be entirely fictional but the place itself isn't.

Just expanding on this:

"We read, that this city was not only wasted by Joshua with fire and sword, but cursed also. "Cursed be he before the Lord, who shall rise up and build that city Jericho," Joshua 6:26. "Nor was another city to be built (says the Talmudists), which was to be called by the name of Jericho: nor was Jericho itself to be built, although to be called by another name.""

http://biblehub.com/library/lightfoot/from_the_talmud_and_hebraica/chapter_47_jericho_itself.htm

If the ruins themselves aren't still curse, and there is a city around these ruins, then obviously the place in question cannot refer to the Biblical Jericho. In fact, no place at this moment presently referred to as Jericho can be the Biblical Jericho.

26 And Joshua charged them with an oath at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before Jehovah, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: with the loss of his first-born shall he lay the foundation thereof, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.

 

[dust1n]

Kinda hard to decipher what you were saying , but yeah it's getting better everyday. Just gotta watch the ones who claim Jesus wasn't the means of their salvation, or don't practice his teachings as their base. Will be the next problem.

I was just trying to make sure understood what you were saying.

So if religion right now is no currently benefiting all creation, and it is currently changing, how do we know it's going to turn into something that will benefit all creation?

Imagine you had a couple lambs. They had a offspring lamb that was slightly different then their parents. That offspring lamb was slightly different, as well as the next, etc., but of course, I can't see how a lamb can become anything other than a lamb.

So, it's hard for me to see how a religion will go from something that is not currently benefiting all humanity to something that one day will. If a lamb can't go to any other thing outside of a lamb kind, I can't really see a religion can go to any other thing outside of a religion kind.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The difference is that science welcomes these corrections where mistakes have been made. That is actually what scientists try to do. Many see religious texts as infallible or unchangeable, which denies the possibility of being wrong. That seems to be the point of the OP.

Yeah but if you look into all monotheistic religious scripture( not books based off scripture or interpretation) you will see they preach the same message of love and peace and standing for what is right. Of course man comes allong and adds names to the one God and swears there particular messenger was the only relevant prophet. This doesn't really work too well with peace and unity for right. It is obviously imposed by greed of man.

 

[leibowde84]

Yeah but if you look into all monotheistic religious scripture( not books based off scripture or interpretation) you will see they preach the same message of love and peace and standing for what is right. Of course man comes allong and adds names to the one God and swears there particular messenger was the only relevant prophet. This doesn't really work too well with peace and unity for right. It is obviously imposed by greed of man.

I agree. But, nevertheless ...

 

[popsthebuilder]

I was just trying to make sure understood what you were saying.

So if religion right now is no currently benefiting all creation, and it is currently changing, how do we know it's going to turn into something that will benefit all creation?

Imagine you had a couple lambs. They had a offspring lamb that was slightly different then their parents. That offspring lamb was slightly different, as well as the next, etc., but of course, I can't see how a lamb can become anything other than a lamb.

So, it's hard for me to see how a religion will go from something that is not currently benefiting all humanity to something that one day will. If a lamb can't go to any other thing outside of a lamb kind, I can't really see a religion can go to any other thing outside of a religion kind.

Religions of truth and peace will unite and be the start of the end of suffering on this world, not in spite of it under God and Jesus Christ. The world will be a much better place.
This could postpone or negate the need of the rapture all together.

 

[dust1n]

Religions of truth and peace will unite and be the start of the end of suffering on this world, not in spite of it under God and Jesus Christ. The world will be a much better place.
This could postpone or negate the need of the rapture all together.

Ah, well for the sake of all those suffering out the in world, I sure hope you are right. I mean I don't believe, but it would nice if it ended up being the case. That's something I certainly wouldn't mind being wrong about.

 

[Etritonakin]

Does it leave room for entire nations of people?



Okay, where is the definitive evidence that Israel is governed by governors of house of Judah? Who are these governors, what qualifies as the House of Judah, and where the evidence connecting these governors to the House of Judah.



You've have to explain these further, since I'm not sure what they mean in isolation, nor how they remain proven yet.

I don't gotta do nuffin. I have my own stuff to do. I showed you proof. You have to determine its validity. I can't do that for you.

If you're just going to get stuck on "pretty much", you're not likely to consider it seriously -but you will find yourself ill-prepared for the rather immediate future.

 

[dust1n]

I don't gotta do nuffin. I have my own stuff to do.

I'm not demanding or making you do anything. Feel free to disengage whenever.

I showed you proof. You have to determine its validity. I can't do that for you.

If you're just going to get stuck on "pretty much", you're not likely to consider it seriously

I mean, I have no way of knowing that if what you are saying is true.

When you said this:

Israel is governed by governers of the house of Judah (primarily Judah, Benjamin and some Levites) -yes -the house of Israel is elsewhere, but will join Judah in Jerusalem later.

Were you referring to Benjamin Netanyahu? You said they are currently governing Israel now, right? Did I misunderstand this?

-but you will find yourself ill-prepared for the rather immediate future.

Can I hold you to this? How immediate we talking?

 

[allfoak]

If that's the case, no creationist theory.

Perhaps it is necessary to redefine the concept of creation.
Where do we actually come from?
History can be deceiving.

 

[dust1n]

Perhaps it is necessary to redefine the concept of creation.
Where do we actually come from?
History can be deceiving.

I have no idea where we come from. Creationists seem to have a pretty good grasp on the subject though, so I'm trying to learn definitely that creationism can be known.

 

[allfoak]

Suppose the answer was hidden in plain site?
Let's suppose for a moment that we are the answer to all of our questions.
If that is true then what we need to know first is ourselves.

Who would ever consider that the answer to all of our questions would be us?
Think about it, do you know anyone you can trust to give you answers?
It is only ourselves that we can trust.

It's fool proof the answer to the problem we all seem to have and yet we are all blind as a fool can be.
We look to everyone but ourselves for answers and then proclaim that there isn't any answers.
We blame all of "them"for not giving us the correct answers without ever having the courage to admit that we don't live up to what we already know we should be doing.
We don't live up to the truth we have, why should we think we would be trusted with anymore.

All genuine religious texts were written by mystics.
People who understand who we are, where we come from and where we are going came to this knowledge through asking questions of themselves and experiencing the answers.

All religious texts are corrupted due to the inability of most to grasp the meaning of the original writings.
They get watered down so to speak.