Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm sorry, but that is like sitting in a room with a 500 lb gorilla and saying I don't see any gorilla. The reason for the history talk, at the start of the thread, is to validate a religion.
Note Dk's sarcasm, Shak.
And the possible reason ushomefree had for this thread, was not the topic. Historical evidence was the topic and I get flamed with faklse interpretations while being ON TOPIC.
I think you both made your points a long time ago and now it's just devolved into senseless prattling. I'm inclined to agree with queeq's view that a large amount of the Bible can be validated through historical evidence found in the Bible and corresponding historical sources (Josephus, Babylon Talmud etc etc) but then again I'm a born again Christian so I'm sure I will be branded as some bias deluded nutjob anyway 😄
Originally posted by queeq
Note Dk's sarcasm, Shak.And the possible reason ushomefree had for this thread, was not the topic. Historical evidence was the topic and I get flamed with faklse interpretations while being ON TOPIC.
You think that ushomefree made a thread in the religious forum called "The Bible: Archaelogical Finds" and religion was not the topic. 😆
I don't think that ushomefree could go to the bathroom without it being religiously significant. 😆
Originally posted by willRules
I'm inclined to agree with queeq's view that a large amount of the Bible can be validated through historical evidence found in the Bible and corresponding historical sources (Josephus, Babylon Talmud etc etc)
Then you're about as quick on the draw as he is; I never said the bible didn't reflect history, nor has that ever been my point. The point of the thread is to further propogate the idea that the bible speaks divine truth and intervention, and my point all along has been that the stories are not divine in nature. (Some are historical, and all of those are embellished with god's intervention.)
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You think that ushomefree made a thread in the religious forum called "The Bible: Archaelogical Finds" and religion was not the topic. 😆I don't think that ushomefree could go to the bathroom without it being religiously significant. 😆
What? Are there people who go to the bathroom without religious thoughts? I'm praying 37 minutes into every trip!
Originally posted by queeq
All you gibbered on about was the meaning of the Tel Dan stele. All I said about that is that it mentioned the House of David (Per Dud). As far as I know I never heard anyone object to that reading.
Then you must be suffering from selective attention:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Apologetics frequently refer to two inscriptions on the Tel Dan Stele as supporting evidence for The Bible. Missing from both inscriptions however, are typographical symbols that would allow for this favorable translation. Not to mention that other proposed translations are more consistent with cultures in the geographical area during the time of the inscriptions.
Originally posted by queeq
. . . I didn't know I had to hand in my credentials at the entrance.
You do if you defer to your expertise on a subject:
Originally posted by queeq
. . . I too, know quite a lot about the matter. For over seven years I did a lot of research in this field, and talked to many esteemed archaeologists and historians from all over the world (from Manfred Bietak to Geoffrey Martin (egyptologists), from Aren Maeir to Othmar Keel, and many in between). I made several documentaries on the matter and even though I do not believe we should hold on to a children's book view of the Bible (as often taught in some schools!) it's complete nonsense to dismiss everything written in there as BS.
Originally posted by queeq
And what does that have to do with history? That's all interpretation. It doesn't change the (possible) fact that Assyrians sacked all these cities? The Bible tells these stories, and we find them on Assyrian palace walls (now at the British Museum)... I guess that substantiates enough that these battles took place and that the Biblical account of losing to the Assyrians was correct. Because the Assyrians claimed victory. Both sources are in agreement.Gods involvement cannot be proven so it plays no part in looking for evidence. However, these interpretative elements in the recounting of these events do not PROVE, the biblical authors "MADE IT ALL UP!"
It certainly does not disprove, and potentially substantiates that The Bible is a collaborative work of historical fiction.
Originally posted by queeq
. . . Just because a couple of things are wrong, it doesn't mean EVERYTHING is wrong (or ALL MADE UP as you would have it).
Not necessarily, but it certainly invalidates its inerrancy, and calls into question the validity of the information in the work. If someone told you a mistruth, would you believe anything he has to say?
I would if I could check, yes. And as I explained before, if you use that standard for all ancient historical sources than they are all invalid. They all show imperfections or twists in teh truth or downright censotr stuff that didn't suit them. So far for ancient history as a study subject. In fact, we can toss out all forms of media since tehy all made an error once.
Plus you have to see the Bible in the world it was written in. It wasn't such an unusual way of writing in those days, except maybe that it is striking how sober and even honest the Bible is. Contemporary writing from other lands just go on boasting how great they are.
Thanks for the summary, although I don't get the point of your post. It's clear though the vile edge is off, so I must have cleared something up. DK has gone totally quiet now.
And as far saying what I know about the matter, I always thought this was a place where you could debate things. I never thought there was some tribunal here that would determine was passes as credible or not. That religion-haters want people who say stuff that doesn't suit them, to proof beyond any shadow of a doubt that everything they say is substantiated by proof, double proof, triple proof, without having to comply to th same stanards. In some parts of the world such people would be called hypocrites.
Originally posted by queeq
DK has gone totally quiet now.
You haven't had much to say in the last 7 hours, either.
Originally posted by queeq
And as far saying what I know about the matter, I always thought this was a place where you could debate things.
Originally posted by Devil King
We can take these one at a time if you like
I made the offer repeatedly, you simply wanted to talk abut very except the conversation we had started.
This "religion-hater" only asked that you back up claims about your life and apply a little level-headed logic to the faith of others, as I assume you do your own.
Originally posted by Devil King
You haven't had much to say in the last 7 hours, either.
I was asleep... duh!
Originally posted by Devil King
I made the offer repeatedly, you simply wanted to talk abut very except the conversation we had started.
Start with the Battle of Kadesh thing then. Do you think that battle was fiction and all made up? And why?
Not directly on topic, just to warm up.
Originally posted by queeq
I was asleep... duh!Start with the Battle of Kadesh thing then. Do you think that battle was fiction and all made up? And why?
Not directly on topic, just to warm up.
So I was supposed to sit here and argue with myself? duh?
I have explained the battle of Kadesh, just as I have explained my thoughts on the battles mentioned in the Tel Dan Stele. If you are honesty going to ask me again what I think, then you haven't been paying a shred of attention to our conversation and are only proving that you want to argue.
Yes, the battles took place, but god had nothing to do with their outcome.
Am I wrong to conclude you admit that the Bible might very well be talking about actual historical events and actaul historical characters?
And if you do, am I then wrong to conclude that the only point you were trying to make through all this flaming and stuff, is that the Bible is no proof that there was divine intervention?