Originally posted by queeq
Who are your mainstream archaeologists, AdamPoe? And what is their take on a possible faulty chronology on which the assesment of these people never existing all hinges on?
The belief that the lack of archaeological attestation of biblical figures is due to errors in the traditional chronology or the dating of archaeological strata have been rejected outright by the scientific community and refuted in detail.
Originally posted by queeq
There is at leats one piece of hard evidence that suggest David di exist by the way:the famous Tel Dan Stele. It's from a later date than the supposed king David but it does mention the HOUSE OF DAVID. That at least hint at a possible existence.
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 guess people made Julius Caesar up, and Ramesses II, and Napoleon, and the Middle Ages. And the Battle of Hastings, or the War of Independence of the US... All manipulative fiction to deceive people.
Not at all. But, what you dismiss are claims of divine intervention made by several of the personalities you've mentioned. You dismiss their claims of godly patronage simply based on your personal choices about this mythology or that one.
Would you now like to look back through history and see how many times events mentioned in Egyptian or Roman history coincide with a claim of divine intervention and actual events; how many places described in other culture's religious texts and mythology actually exist? Because those claims are made in every culture's history; it's what kings and queens used to legitimize their divine authority over their people. However, you seem to dismiss the possiblities that the Jews did the same, that they were somehow right or special for doing exactly the same thing done by every other culture that got up and crawled out of the desert and decided not to live in caves anyore. Just becaue the Jews were relatively late to the party in respect to their use of common mythology and archetypes, doesn't mean they were the first or last ones to do it; neither were they, in my opinion, the most creative or logical ones to do so.
I won't get caught up in the symantics of the inclusion or exclusion of the word of in this situation, but I will point out the fact that the Tel Dan stele does more to dismiss the divine influence in the victory mentioned, than it does to bolster the biblical claims of an all-powerful, infinite being actually deeming human events interesting enough to come down and play politics with the ants.
But, by all means Queeq, explain to me which parts of it prove the bible correct? Pull out your bible and go through Kings and Judges. I'm talking dates, alliances, armies and revolts. Let's hear them. Because as mentioned before, language is an important part of the debate surrounding this particular relic, as you want it to be, but it's not the only one.
To be frank, everything from Solomon back towards the beginning of the Bible, there is with the currently accepted chronological model little or no evidence for these events. With the possible exception of an major flood around 5000 BC. (the Black Sea finds and geological explorations at archaeological digsites of places like Uruk).
From Rehaboam (son of Solomon) there's quite a bit of evidence for these kings to exist. Lamalek jar handles, Assyrian texts mentioning kings from the Bible and archaeological evidence for the building works of Omri (you can read all about that in the books of Israel Finkelstein).
Before that, the current chronological model in dating strata (and therefore the archaeological layers where to look for evidence of these characters) show no correlation. However, this chronological model is gaining a growing criticism. Maybe its most explicit problem known to everyone is the strange and archaeologically apparent totally unnecessary dark age in Greek history of about 300 years. If that Dark Age would be eliminated (since this gap is only created by Egyptian chronology) then we'd have to go looking for United Monarchy King and the judges periods in earlier strata. And that surprisingly surrenders excellent correlations with the Biblical events.
I asked about the stele in question. We can take these one at a time if you like, but stay on the topic at hand. I wasn't talking about the whole of those books, only those parts relevant to the Tel Dan Stele. Don't muddy the waters with broad, ambigious statements that aren't pertinent to the discussion at hand.
No you didn't. Check it out, you never mentioned it.
Originally posted by Devil King
Not at all. But, what you dismiss are claims of divine intervention made by several of the personalities you've mentioned. You dismiss their claims of godly patronage simply based on your personal choices about this mythology or that one.Would you now like to look back through history and see how many times events mentioned in Egyptian or Roman history coincide with a claim of divine intervention and actual events; how many places described in other culture's religious texts and mythology actually exist? Because those claims are made in every culture's history; it's what kings and queens used to legitimize their divine authority over their people. However, you seem to dismiss the possiblities that the Jews did the same, that they were somehow right or special for doing exactly the same thing done by every other culture that got up and crawled out of the desert and decided not to live in caves anyore. Just becaue the Jews were relatively late to the party in respect to their use of common mythology and archetypes, doesn't mean they were the first or last ones to do it; neither were they, in my opinion, the most creative or logical ones to do so.
I won't get caught up in the symantics of the inclusion or exclusion of the word of in this situation, but I will point out the fact that the Tel Dan stele does more to dismiss the divine influence in the victory mentioned, than it does to bolster the biblical claims of an all-powerful, infinite being actually deeming human events interesting enough to come down and play politics with the ants.
But, by all means Queeq, explain to me which parts of it prove the bible correct? Pull out your bible and go through Kings and Judges. I'm talking dates, alliances, armies and revolts. Let's hear them. Because as mentioned before, language is an important part of the debate surrounding this particular relic, as you want it to be, but it's not the only one.
What do you want? You ask a question, I answer it. Getting too complex for ya?
Originally posted by queeq
No you didn't. Check it out, you never mentioned it.
Beyond that being the subject of our interaction, you must not really know what the stele is addressing or which particular books of the bible it is apparently substantiating, in it's broken and mostly ambigious statements, which you claim proves the existence of god. But I'll point it out for you if you need me to:
Originally posted by Devil King
But, by all means Queeq, explain to me -------->>>>>>which parts of it prove the bible correct?<<<<------- Pull out your bible and go through Kings and Judges. I'm talking dates, alliances, armies and revolts. Let's hear them. Because as mentioned before, language is an important part of the debate surrounding-------->>>>> this particular relic<<<<<--------------, as you want it to be, but it's not the only one.
I'm sorry, who is confused? Only someone who is unclear would assume I asked you to pull out your bible to prove your bible correct; that's creationist logic for you.
In your view, does Archealogy help validate the Bible as historically correct?
In regards to the topic. Something was there...the evidence doesn't lie. How we interpret the evidence is more like detective work. Archeology helps and I'm all for it. Let's see what else can be found.
Originally posted by Devil King
Because people made it up.
But do we really know this or simply made the assumption? Because if we play the game of "prove that it did existed" you will win now, but eventually lose. Simply because, we are aware of your existance so you win the game now.
However, centuries from now when our world have change and generations have passed. How would you prove your existance? (I do acknowledge you are mortal and there is no way for you to prove your existance in the future) you lose here. Heck! There are millions of people in the world at this time that don't even know that I exist. Unless I become famous they'll know I exist.
Sucks to be me and not been known...but damn it, I exist!
I'm not one to just randomly post links but I found these youtube videos that I think quite succinctly argue the case for the historical reliability of the Bible much better than I could.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SekR-QHCXVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBfYKh21qdA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS_1IqqxmMU&feature=related
That's the first three parts but it's easy to find the rest by clicking on the links on the left of the video playing ✅
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
In regards to the topic. Something was there...the evidence doesn't lie. How we interpret the evidence is more like detective work. Archeology helps and I'm all for it. Let's see what else can be found.But do we really know this or simply made the assumption? Because if we play the game of "prove that it did existed" you will win now, but eventually lose. Simply because, we are aware of your existance so you win the game now.
However, centuries from now when our world have change and generations have passed. How would you prove your existance? (I do acknowledge you are mortal and there is no way for you to prove your existance in the future) you lose here. Heck! There are millions of people in the world at this time that don't even know that I exist. Unless I become famous they'll know I exist.
Sucks to be me and not been known...but damn it, I exist!
Given enough time, even if you are famous now, in the future, no one will know you existed. All things fade and change.
The stories of the bible have been told and retold over generations before they were written down. Take the story of Noah for example. this story was most likely adapted from the sorry of Gilgamesh.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Given enough time, even if you are famous now, in the future, no one will know you existed. All things fade and change.
Thank you!
My thougths in a different way but with the same essence. Even evidence that is not found is bound to be consume by time. Leaving us to ponder "did it really happen?" Better hurry! Once it's gone it's gone.
Well, I take that back...those damn fossils sure last long.
😉
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Thank you!My thougths in a different way but with the same essence. Even evidence that is not found is bound to be consume by time. Leaving us to ponder "did it really happen?" Better hurry! Once it's gone it's gone.
Well, I take that back...those damn fossils sure last long.
😉
But when looking into the vastness of time, even fossils are short lived.
Originally posted by Devil King
Beyond that being the subject of our interaction, you must not really know what the stele is addressing or which particular books of the bible it is apparently substantiating, in it's broken and mostly ambigious statements, which you claim proves the existence of god.
I didn't claim anything. You have troubles reading properly. All I said the Tell Dan stele MENTIONS THE HOUSE OF DAVID, which may point to the existence of King David as a real person. RBYP
Originally posted by Devil King
Beyond that being the subject of our interaction, you must not really know what the stele is addressing or which particular books of the bible it is apparently substantiating, in it's broken and mostly ambigious statements, which you claim proves the existence of god. But I'll point it out for you if you need me to:I'm sorry, who is confused? Only someone who is unclear would assume I asked you to pull out your bible to prove your bible correct; that's creationist logic for you.
Since you start calling names, ask for one thing forst then another and act all insulted, I can only conclude you don't want to go into this seriously.
If you think it's all BS, think it. You're entitled to. But there are some people that may actually want to discuss this issue. If you don;t like it, go to a thread you DO like.
Besides I never said any evidence proves the existence of God. All I'm saying that it is too easy to dismiss all the characters and events in the Bible as fiction.
Ramesses II claimed Amon guided him when he rode out into battle at Kadesh against the Hittites. Now that doesn't prove Amon exists, but the mention of a god also doesn't mean Kadesh never existed or the batte never took place.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
But do we really know this or simply made the assumption? Because if we play the game of "prove that it did existed" you will win now, but eventually lose. Simply because, we are aware of your existance so you win the game now.
Look at the last few posts by Queeq. He totally dismisses the validity of similar claims made by other cultures. Should we totally dismiss the claims made by, his own example, Ramses the Great, who claimed to be the living embodiment of Horus on Earth; who thanked the gods for victories? And the same with Caesar? But, we get so tied up in the idea that religion (and christianity in particular) is more deserving of our respect and consideration that we end up feeling something akin to guilt over dismissing it. Well, there's 0, none, nadda, less than any, conclusive proof that the fantastical claims made by the jews were any more or less real than any other divine claim made by any other ancient people.
And we do it for all religions. Islam and Hinduism and Christianity all have archaeological correspondance to their claims of places and events that apparently were divine in nature. So, if the thread starter and those who feel the way he does, want us to consider their evidence any more substial than similar evidence that bolsters the religion of Islam, they're going to have to come up with something that removes all doubt and settles the claim, outright. But they won't. And this is because the whole notion of a god that is interested enough in us to come down here or whisper in someone's ear, is a man-made delusion. I don't, with any measure of certainty, dismiss the idea of a greater power, in fact, I believe it. But what I do dismiss is the idea that such a higher power is concerned with keeping a list and checking it twice to find out who's naughty and nice. It's absolutely crazy to apply human limitations to god, or ascribe god-like characteristics to a man. 400 years from now, we may very well believe that Ghandi was assassinated for our sins. It's human arrogance to dismiss the virtues of other religions. Every single major religion on this planet is preceded by far older religions that lasted a lot longer than the ones we bandy around today.
Originally posted by Devil King
Look at the last few posts by Queeq. He totally dismisses the validity of similar claims made by other cultures. Should we totally dismiss the claims made by, his own example, Ramses the Great, who claimed to be the living embodiment of Horus on Earth; who thanked the gods for victories? And the same with Caesar? But, we get so tied up in the idea that religion (and christianity in particular) is more deserving of our respect and consideration that we end up feeling something akin to guilt over dismissing it. Well, there's 0, none, nadda, less than any, conclusive proof that the fantastical claims made by the jews were any more or less real than any other divine claim made by any other ancient people.And we do it for all religions. Islam and Hinduism and Christianity all have archaeological correspondance to their claims of places and events that apparently were divine in nature. So, if the thread starter and those who feel the way he does, want us to consider their evidence any more substial than similar evidence that bolsters the religion of Islam, they're going to have to come up with something that removes all doubt and settles the claim, outright. But they won't. And this is because the whole notion of a god that is interested enough in us to come down here or whisper in someone's ear, is a man-made delusion. I don't with any measure of certainty dismiss the idea of a greater power, in fact, I believe it. But what I do dismiss is the idea that that higher power is concerned with keeping a list and checking it twice to find out who's naughty and nice. It's absolutely crazy to apply human limitations to god, or as scribe god-like characteristics to a man. 400 years from now, we may very well believe that Ghandi was assassinated for our sins. It's human arrogance to dismiss the virtues of other religions. Every single major religion on this planet is proeded by far older religionsthat lasted a lot longer than the ones we bandy around today.
Cosigned. 👆
Originally posted by queeq
Since you start calling names, ask for one thing forst then another and act all insulted, I can only conclude you don't want to go into this seriously.If you think it's all BS, think it. You're entitled to. But there are some people that may actually want to discuss this issue. If you don;t like it, go to a thread you DO like.
Besides I never said any evidence proves the existence of God. All I'm saying that it is too easy to dismiss all the characters and events in the Bible as fiction.
I called you no names. Unless you're considering 'creationist" name calling; in which case you have no business defending the validity of the bible.
And if you are arguing the validity of the bible, then you are arguing the validity of the christian god. Don't accuse me of dismissive behavior when you have repeatedly, along with the guy who started the thread, dismissed the religious claims made by every other religion that has preceded or followed the establishment of your own.
"You have your opinion of reality, and I'll have mine!". Well, that logic hasn't worked out too well for the last 2000 years, has it?
Or is this
Originally posted by queeq
Getting too complex for ya?
Well, you do seem to be dodging every thing I present here. And I find you fairly aggressive.
If we're talking about evidence for the Bible, we would be looking for things described in the Bible confirmed in archaeology or contemporary eprigraphical material right? I mean, that's not an unfair assumption?
Creationism, proof of God... come on.. that's not what this thread is about. You drag all kinds of things in here that have nothing to do with it. One cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, that's a given and we can't do anything with that. It's matter of faith.
But to dismiss the Bible as an historical document because it also talks about God is a very strange starting point. All ancient historical sources refer to the influence of gods. Yet, we do not dismiss their campaignslist or boasting victories over nations as nonsense. I think we should look at the Bible from the same POV: Is tehre evidence the biblical characters existed and that events describe in the Bible actually took place? One can do that just fine without an exact proof of every little details described.
For instance, we cannot prove that God parted the waters of the Red Sea (or more accurately the Reed Sea). But we can investigate whether Asiatics lived in the Nile Delta at that time, what kind of water it was and if by some natural phenomenon it's known that these waters can dry up instantly. If that research would show a positive result, one can at least conclude that such an event may have taken place. Does that prove it? No. But it does say there is no reason to assume it DIDN'T take place. Especially since the Bible in the early text clearly shows influences in customs, mention of certain cities and language, that there were at least some original sources involved. Either in writing it as an original text that got slightly updated later on, or that older texts lay at the basis of its final compilation.
And all this is perfectly debatable without going into it so aggressively as you certainly do.
Originally posted by Devil King
Look at the last few posts by Queeq. He totally dismisses the validity of similar claims made by other cultures. Should we totally dismiss the claims made by, his own example, Ramses the Great, who claimed to be the living embodiment of Horus on Earth; who thanked the gods for victories? And the same with Caesar? But, we get so tied up in the idea that religion (and christianity in particular) is more deserving of our respect and consideration that we end up feeling something akin to guilt over dismissing it. Well, there's 0, none, nadda, less than any, conclusive proof that the fantastical claims made by the jews were any more or less real than any other divine claim made by any other ancient people.
I do not dismiss anything, I was making a point. You don't seem to be able to read very well.
We may dismiss Ramesses as the living embodiment of Horus on Earth, but it's completely irresponsible to dismiss him as an historical character. And that is what you do.
Plus you make many assumptions that you make up yourself. The Bible is a comprehensive book that may or may not span a history of Palestine for nearly 2000 years. If reliable it would be a very important source for ancietn historical reserach. The same as all the Egyptian king lists, the Assyrian king lists and Babylonian. All the epigraphical material from te Hittites etc etc... All of them together would allow us to understand the old world.
And if you say there is no proof that ANYONE in the Bible (from Adam to Jesus) EVER EVER existed, than you are deluded and totally devoid of any knowledge about ancient history. And yet, you dare make such vile claims against anyone giving some insight in the matter.
Originally posted by Devil King
But what I do dismiss is the idea that such a higher power is concerned with keeping a list and checking it twice to find out who's naughty and nice. It's absolutely crazy to apply human limitations to god, or ascribe god-like characteristics to a man.
See? The only one linking divine intervention with historical research is you. I don't know what your problem is, but you seem to have some bad experiences in your life on religious matters.
I will yet stress again, I NEVER EVER made any claims that the Bible is reliable because it's called the Word of God, or that'the stories in the Bible are true because they talk about God. This label, my friend, is what you try to stick on me.