Originally posted by Phoenix2001
There is debate whether anything that is said in the Bible is actually true, let alone being a relic of history.The bible is vague, and it cannot be interpreted any other way than what is actually being said. So, for all of those who say the bible speaks metaphorically or symbolically, you can just throw that argument out the window because the only one who would know that for sure is the one, or ones, who wrote the damn bible. And they, my friends, are dead.
Originally posted by Nellinator
When he said it was accurate, I'm pretty sure he was referring to the fact that it is possibly the most accurate book in terms of history and geography to come from antiquity. Middle Eastern archaelogy is mostly based on the Bible which alone accurately recorded the locations of ancient cities and such. Also, the history books of Bible (Kings, Chronicles, etc.) accurately record the history of the Jewish people throughout the time periods they address. The New Testament is likewise accurate.
Mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars generally hold that The Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a metaphorical character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the Biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which the Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars generally hold that The Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a metaphorical character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the Biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which the Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you quote is wrong. 😮
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah water to wine was the first (cannonical) miracle.Jesus said that the wine would be his blood at the last supper.
Catholics believe it literally but many protestants don't.
Originally posted by Nellinator
When he said it was accurate, I'm pretty sure he was referring to the fact that it is possibly the most accurate book in terms of history and geography to come from antiquity. Middle Eastern archaelogy is mostly based on the Bible which alone accurately recorded the locations of ancient cities and such. Also, the history books of Bible (Kings, Chronicles, etc.) accurately record the history of the Jewish people throughout the time periods they address. The New Testament is likewise accurate.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars generally hold that The Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a metaphorical character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the Biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which the Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.
...just trying to figure out where to start...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Umm... some might hold that the patriarchs never existed although there is evidence for Joseph, but archaelogical evidence of David exists, Jewish genealogical records attest to his existance. Solomon definitely existed and who do you think his father was? The twelve tribes do indeed exist and two still exist, Judah and Benjamin. Many events that the Bible attest to have been proven and this post is a bunch of crap that has no basis in fact. If you want to talk about Biblical archaelogy I will gladly do so. Things such as Pharoah Ramses being an Assyrian are only recorded in the Bible. Things such as the caves at Gilgal have been discovered and the if I remember correctly, the tomb of Jacob (might be Joseph) has been discovered. However, none of that was the point of my post. The point was that most cities (such as Nineveh, Babylon, etc.) were found using the Bible because no other surviving source accurately recorded their locations, showing that the Bible did indeed accurately record many facts.
Even among Biblical Maximalists who hold that the stories of The Bible describe actual historical events; some believe that the people mentioned in The Bible are historical figures, but that the stories about them are not historically accurate—not even in broad strokes; while others believe that the people mentioned in The Bible are fictional creations with only the slightest relation to any real historical persons in the distant past.
For you to claim that The Bible is an indisputably accurate book in terms of archaeology, history, or science is a joke.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Even among Biblical Maximalists who hold that the stories of The Bible describe actual historical events; some believe that the people mentioned in The Bible are historical figures, but that the stories about them are not historically accurate—not even in broad strokes; while others believe that the people mentioned in The Bible are fictional creations with only the slightest relation to any real historical persons in the distant past.For you to claim that The Bible is an indisputably accurate book in terms of archaeology, history, or science is a joke.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Let is suffice to say that it has been proven right more than a hundred times and what Adam is saying is not very true. I'm really not sure where he is getting his infomation, but Biblical archaelogy is large and very successful field.
Well, the thing to do would be to prove him wrong with non-biased scientific sources.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Did I say indisputable? No.
The 'stories' claimed to be fictional are unprovable either way. The provable stuff is extremely accurate.
Did you or did you not present the archaeological, geographical, and historical accuracy of The Bible as fact?
Originally posted by Nellinator
When he said it was accurate, I'm pretty sure he was referring to the fact that it is possibly the most accurate book in terms of history and geography to come from antiquity. Middle Eastern archaelogy is mostly based on the Bible which alone accurately recorded the locations of ancient cities and such. Also, the history books of Bible (Kings, Chronicles, etc.) accurately record the history of the Jewish people throughout the time periods they address. The New Testament is likewise accurate.