Why I believe God Created Life.

[SkepticThinker]

Here are a few: At one time scholars doubted the existence of Assyrian King Sargon, mentioned at Isaiah 20:1. However, in the 1840’s, archaeologists began unearthing the palace of this king. Now, Sargon is one of the best-known Assyrian kings.

Critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who ordered Jesus’ death. (Matthew 27:1, 22-24) But in 1961 a stone bearing Pilate’s name and rank was discovered near the city of Caesarea in Israel.
(Source: w09 5/1)

There are many others: Belshazzar, for one, mentioned by Daniel. Critics claimed the Bible was mistaken, until 1854, when cuneiform tablets with his name were uncovered by archeologists in Ur.

Werner Keller said in the introduction of his book The Bible as History: “In view of the overwhelming mass of authentic and well-attested evidence now available, . . . there kept hammering on my brain this one sentence: ‘The Bible is right after all!’”

Okay, so if I read a Harry Potter book and can confirm the existence of England, does that mean the stories contained within the book are historically accurate?

What if thousands of years from now someone finds an old Spiderman comic book that mentions Barack Obama. If those people can confirm that Barack Obama actually existed, does that mean Spiderman existed as well and all the stories contained within the comic book actually happened, as written?

 

[viole]

Okay, so if I read a Harry Potter book and can confirm the existence of England, does that mean the stories contained within the book are historically accurate?

What if thousands of years from now someone finds an old Spiderman comic book that mentions Barack Obama. If those people can confirm that Barack Obama actually existed, does that mean Spiderman existed as well and all the stories contained within the comic book actually happened, as written?

The existence of the city of Troy and ancient Greece are confirmed by archeology.
Ergo, Zeus becomes vastly more plausible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

The existence of the city of Troy and ancient Greece are confirmed by archeology.
Ergo, Zeus becomes vastly more plausible.

Ciao

- viole

Yes, exactly.

 

[Simurgh]

I think those arguments based on the fact that some of the things mentioned in the bible are based on historic records means that everything in that collection of texts is true and that it proves the existence of a god and the myths within the text extremely naïve. Such generalizations might look legit, but we all know they are not.



So why are we still arguing this non-argument? Sure, there is some history in the bible, yeah and so what? Hemingway, Capote, Fitzgerald, they too used factual information, so let’s build them some churches and start worshiping them…


Oh, I forgot. There are the Scientologists and the Mormons too, do real well with that fictional stuff they dish out as “religious truth”. As if religion and truth are even compatible. Wishful thinking on the other hand … much more in synch with religion…

 

[Bunyip]

I think those arguments based on the fact that some of the things mentioned in the bible are based on historic records means that everything in that collection of texts is true and that it proves the existence of a god and the myths within the text extremely naïve. Such generalizations might look legit, but we all know they are not.



So why are we still arguing this non-argument? Sure, there is some history in the bible, yeah and so what? Hemingway, Capote, Fitzgerald, they too used factual information, so let’s build them some churches and start worshiping them…


Oh, I forgot. There are the Scientologists and the Mormons too, do real well with that fictional stuff they dish out as “religious truth”. As if religion and truth are even compatible. Wishful thinking on the other hand … much more in synch with religion…

Great comment.

One can not fail to notice when reading this thread and the crucifixion thread that simply applying the normal investigative practices of historians to the NT story is met with unbridled horror, ridicule and evasive mockery of epic proportions.

We can safely assume that to be because most believers in their hearts know that the historicity of scripture would fail all such tests, and by mocking anyone who advocates for them the grim reality of delusion can be forever deferred.

 

[Simurgh]

Great comment.

One can not fail to notice when reading this thread and the crucifixion thread that simply applying the normal investigative practices of historians to the NT story is met with unbridled horror, ridicule and evasive mockery of epic proportions.

We can safely assume that to be because most believers in their hearts know that the historicity of scripture would fail all such tests, and by mocking anyone who advocates for them the grim reality of delusion can be forever deferred.

One of the world’s foremost biblical archaeologists, a believer himself, stated emphatically that it would behoove us all to remember that first and foremost the bible was a political text, written by men for men about men.

And when it comes to politics we all know where and how truth is situated.

 

[rusra02]

Great comment.

One can not fail to notice when reading this thread and the crucifixion thread that simply applying the normal investigative practices of historians to the NT story is met with unbridled horror, ridicule and evasive mockery of epic proportions.

We can safely assume that to be because most believers in their hearts know that the historicity of scripture would fail all such tests, and by mocking anyone who advocates for them the grim reality of delusion can be forever deferred.

I am unaware of the other thread you mention. U.S.News World Report (10/25/99) said: “In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New Testaments—corroborating key portions of the stories of Israel’s patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus.” I would suggest rather than take my word for it or the word of skeptics against it, people should investigate the facts for themselves regarding the historicity of the Bible record. The examples I cited were instances where the Bible was attacked by skeptics who later had to concede the Bible account was, indeed, historical. There are many, many other examples where the Bible history has been confirmed as historical, even as U.S. News Report mentioned.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Evolution claims life arose from a series of chance events.

[citation needed]

 

[Bunyip]

I am unaware of the other thread you mention. U.S.News World Report (10/25/99) said: “In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New Testaments—corroborating key portions of the stories of Israel’s patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus.” I would suggest rather than take my word for it or the word of skeptics against it, people should investigate the facts for themselves regarding the historicity of the Bible record. The examples I cited were instances where the Bible was attacked by skeptics who later had to concede the Bible account was, indeed, historical. There are many, many other examples where the Bible history has been confirmed as historical, even as U.S. News Report mentioned.

Agreed. And of course when they do the research they will find that the Exodus is completely unevidenced in Egyptian history.

 

[Ouroboros]

"In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and ..."

As far as I can tell, that is not from U.S. News World Report, but from a book written by a (religious) journalist from U.S. News World Report. It was published on Harper, or something like that. Not USNWR.

This is the book (from what I could find): http://www.amazon.com/Is-Bible-True-Jeffery-Sheler/dp/0060675411

"In this authoritative book, renowned U. S. News & World Report religion writer Jeffery L. Sheler sifts through the claims and counterclaims of contemporary biblical studies. After carefully investigating the full spectrum of cutting-edge research and conflicting reports, he challenges the popular perception that the credibility of the Bible has been seriously undermined by critical scholarship. Rather, he concludes that the weight of the historical evidence upholds the essential truth of the Exodus, the Gospel accounts of Jesus, and other vital elements of the Bible."

And the quote is really: "In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology is affirming the historical core of the Old and New Testament."

It's important to get the quotes right and the sources given. The misquoting and mis-reference is probably from this article: http://www.uhcg.org/news/is-bible-true.html.

Now, it's possible to research and study how and why Sheler consider archeology is affirming the "historical core".

 

[Simurgh]

Agreed. And of course when they do the research they will find that the Exodus is completely unevidenced in Egyptian history.

yeah, and then of course, there is no mention in Roman records of Jesus either. Still, what difference does it make if there is historical corroboration of people and places in the bible? What does that proof in regard to the existence of a god?

 

[Bunyip]

yeah, and then of course, there is no mention in Roman records of Jesus either. Still, what difference does it make if there is historical corroboration of people and places in the bible? What does that proof in regard to the existence of a god?

Absolutely nothing. There is historical corroboration for the people and places in Beowulf as well.

 

[Simurgh]

Absolutely nothing. There is historical corroboration for the people and places in Beowulf as well.

...and don't you just love the story of Gilgamesh, or Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" too? OK, Heinlein's Mars is not all that accurate, but let facts not get in the way of a good story.

 

[Bunyip]

...and don't you just love the story of Gilgamesh, or Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" too? OK, Heinlein's Mars is not all that accurate, but let facts not get in the way of a good story.

Stranger in a strange land had me transfixed. This is one thing the pagans got right - a parable does not need to be historical in order to have weight or meaning.

I cant help but think that all of the searching for evidence for god rather misses the point.

 

[rusra02]

Agreed. And of course when they do the research they will find that the Exodus is completely unevidenced in Egyptian history.

Gee, I wonder why. The world power of it's day and all it's gods humiliated and defeated by the God of their former slaves. Even today in autocratic countries, anything unfavorable to the rulers is suppressed when possible. Egyptian rulers were the same. Thutmose III, for example, removed the name and representation of Queen Hatshepsut on a stone monument uncovered at Deir al-Bahri in Egypt. (Archaeology and Bible History, by J. P. Free, 1964, p. 98 and photograph opposite p. 94.)
This quote from g 11/10 is pertinent: "Accurate history is often revealed in the details—customs, etiquette, names and titles of officials, and so on. How do the books of Genesis and Exodus, the first two books of the Bible, measure up in this respect? Regarding the Genesis narrative about Joseph, a son of the patriarch Jacob, as well as the Bible book of Exodus, J. Garrow Duncan says in his book New Light on Hebrew Origins: “[The Bible writer] was thoroughly well acquainted with the Egyptian language, customs, beliefs, court life, and etiquette and officialdom.” He adds: “[The writer] employs the correct title in use and exactly as it was used at the period referred to. . . . In fact, nothing more convincingly proves the intimate knowledge of things Egyptian in the Old Testament, and the reliability of the writers, than the use of the word Pharaoh at different periods.” Duncan also states: “When [the writer] brings his characters into the presence of Pharaoh, he makes them observe the correct court etiquette and use the correct language.”

 

[rusra02]

I repeat. No they can not mate, they are not cross fertile and do not produce offspring.

Fruit flies that do not mate in the wild have been mated in laboratories. They may choose not to mate, but are capable of doing so. The real question is do they become a different kind of creature? "The evidence says they do not. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64)

 

[rusra02]

"In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and ..."

As far as I can tell, that is not from U.S. News World Report, but from a book written by a (religious) journalist from U.S. News World Report. It was published on Harper, or something like that. Not USNWR.

This is the book (from what I could find): Is the Bible True?: Jeffery L. Sheler: 9780060675417: Amazon.com: Books

"In this authoritative book, renowned U. S. News & World Report religion writer Jeffery L. Sheler sifts through the claims and counterclaims of contemporary biblical studies. After carefully investigating the full spectrum of cutting-edge research and conflicting reports, he challenges the popular perception that the credibility of the Bible has been seriously undermined by critical scholarship. Rather, he concludes that the weight of the historical evidence upholds the essential truth of the Exodus, the Gospel accounts of Jesus, and other vital elements of the Bible."

And the quote is really: "In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology is affirming the historical core of the Old and New Testament."

It's important to get the quotes right and the sources given. The misquoting and mis-reference is probably from this article: US NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Is The Bible True?.

Now, it's possible to research and study how and why Sheler consider archeology is affirming the "historical core".

As you said, as far as you could tell. Did you reference the actual article I quoted?

 

[rusra02]

yeah, and then of course, there is no mention in Roman records of Jesus either. Still, what difference does it make if there is historical corroboration of people and places in the bible? What does that proof in regard to the existence of a god?

Except that there is mention of Jesus. Roman historian Suetonius (first century); Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (early second century); Josephus and Tacitus of the first century mention Jesus as a historical figure.
There is so much misinformation presented with such assurance. That is why I believe it is important to check the facts for oneself, rather than relying upon unsubstantiated claims made in this forum.(Proverbs 14:15)
Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

 

[Simurgh]

Except that there is mention of Jesus. Roman historian Suetonius (first century); Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (early second century); Josephus and Tacitus of the first century mention Jesus as a historical figure.
There is so much misinformation presented with such assurance. That is why I believe it is important to check the facts for oneself, rather than relying upon unsubstantiated claims made in this forum.(Proverbs 14:15)
Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

I should have qualified, so sorry. I meant that there is no record of any contemporary source. and for EB to state that any of what you mentioned above is proof, no it's not. I and all those who read about Valentine Michael Smith may very well belief in him too, but that still does not make him real in a corporeal sense.
And you might want to actually read what Jospehus wrote and not what was later added and attributed to him.

Also, some of the earliest church fathers did not think of Jesus as anything but an idea of the simple minded to explain their gods machinations. Mostly because up until then,the passage did not exist. (The attribution of the Testimonium Flavianum which contains that so-called poof of Jesus' existence is an addition by Eusebius who lived 200 years after the alleged crucifixion.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think those arguments based on the fact that some of the things mentioned in the bible are based on historic records means that everything in that collection of texts is true and that it proves the existence of a god and the myths within the text extremely naïve. Such generalizations might look legit, but we all know they are not.



So why are we still arguing this non-argument? Sure, there is some history in the bible, yeah and so what? Hemingway, Capote, Fitzgerald, they too used factual information, so let’s build them some churches and start worshiping them…


Oh, I forgot. There are the Scientologists and the Mormons too, do real well with that fictional stuff they dish out as “religious truth”. As if religion and truth are even compatible. Wishful thinking on the other hand … much more in synch with religion…

:yes: