The Bible: Archaelogical Finds

Originally posted by queeq
Prove it.

I tried to engage you in a discussion, but you wanted to talk about everything except the topic. You wanted to cry about me not respecting your religious beliefs, rather than countering the points made by myself and others. I asked you to list the things you wanted to discuss, maybe even the topics listed in the first post of this thread, but you refused and tried to shut down the conversation by saying you knew it all because you made documentaries. When I asked for some substatiation on that, you started telling me I woudn't believe you anyway.

Originally posted by Devil King
I tried to engage you in a discussion, but you wanted to talk about everything [b]except the topic. You wanted to cry about me not respecting your religious beliefs. [/B]

You are, unfortunately, sadly mistaken. You must have confused me with someone else. I never ever talked about my religious beliefs in this thread. You are the one who brought it up, and some others, but not me.

The only point I ever made was saying that one shouldn't so easily dismiss the Bible as a potentially historical document. The religious rants came from you.

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.

Just to refresh the undoubtedly great memory of you, My Lord, the posts themselves:

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.

And then came the answer of the oracle:

Originally posted by Devil King
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.

Now, of course, I'm not as enlightened as you are, but for some reason the reply doesn't particularly match my post, nor your claims of me crying about my religious beliefs.

Does that count as proof, my Lord?

And you never proved your claim about studying the matter.

Originally posted by queeq
You are, unfortunately, sadly mistaken. You must have confused me with someone else. I never ever talked about my religious beliefs in this thread. You are the one who brought it up, and some others, but not me.

The only point I ever made was saying that one shouldn't so easily dismiss the Bible as a potentially historical document. The religious rants came from you.

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 taht reading.

So, you're not a christian? I'm wrong about that? You've never said that the archaeological "evidence" you spoke of is proof that the bible states the truth? You don't believe that the archaeological evidence validates what we read in the bible? You think the defeat of the Jews by the Assyrians was not, as is believed by those who wrote those books of the bible, a punishment by god, who sided with the enemies of hs chosen people?

These things do show a pattern which points to a certain reliability of the events described in the Bible.

Who said the Bible was written as fiction?

Well, if these people really existed, why would you doubt the stories. Why if places and larger events took place, should you start picking and choosing what is true and what is not? And if you do, what standards are you gonna apply what line is true and what line is not?

Did I miss a point you were making? Perhaps the fact that all your supposed documentaries are biblical and religious in nature. Or did you not make these films now?

Well, you did say I was a liar and since you are truth, I guess not.

Originally posted by Devil King
You've never said that the archaeological "evidence" you spoke of is proof that the bible states the truth?

Nope.

Originally posted by Devil King
You don't believe that the archaeological evidence validates what we read in the bible?

Well, all it could do maybe it validate the historical validity of the events (like cities sacked, kings maybe checkable stuff).

Originally posted by Devil King
You think the defeat of the Jews by the Assyrians was not, as is believed by those who wrote those books of the bible, a punishment by god.

How would one prove that?

And what I said about the stele is that it does more to dismiss the intervention of some all-powerful being having a hand in the events, than it does to bolster it.

It illustrated back room dealings that took place between members of the Hebrews and the King of the Assyrians. But because it mentions the House David, you want to say it substantiates the bible. And in your own words, you say that if it substantiates the House of David, then it proves the biblical claims of god. The bible also talks about Moses parting the red sea, do youtruly believe this happened? You must, since you'v made documentaries that further the concepts set forth by the bible.

You make six jumps when I make one.

Again... (MAJOR REHASH)

1. People on this forum said EXPLICITLY (and you supported that claim) that EVERYTHING in the Bible is fiction, didn't happen, all made up.
2. I said that that's a bit quick. There is definately some evidence (more as it gets younger) that point to the existence of characters and events mentioned in the Bible. The Tel Dan Stele points to the possibility of an historical David.
3. There's more like that, which could bring out the Bible as an historical document to complement the writing from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Hatti, Greece and what have ya...

All this stuff about biblical claims of God came from you. And you just get some major rash when someone even comes into a 300 mile radius of the G-word.

Originally posted by queeq
How would one prove that?

How would one disprove it? That is your logic. Just because people mentioned in the bible actually existed doesn't prove the bible isn't fiction.

That was why Adam made the comparison to the DaVinci Code.

Originally posted by Devil King
How would one disprove it? That is your logic.

Your logic is calling someone a liar if he cannot prove his claims. So judge thyself, great and all powerfull Devil King.

Originally posted by queeq
You make six jumps when I make one.

Again... (MAJOR REHASH)

1. People on this forum said EXPLICITLY (and you supported that claim) that EVERYTHING in the Bible is fiction, didn't happen, all made up.
2. I said that that's a bit quick. There is definately some evidence (more as it gets younger) that point to the existence of characters and events mentioned in the Bible. The Tel Dan Stele points to the possibility of an historical David.
3. There's more like that, which could bring out the Bible as an historical document to complement the writing from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Hatti, Greece and what have ya...

All this stuff about biblical claims of God came from you. And you just get some major rash when someone even comes into a 300 mile radius of the G-word.

I said people made up god, and that it was the same practice used by kings and queens to validate their authority over their people, forever! I also pointed out how christians accuse others of being closed minded when they dismiss their "evidence", but that christians do exactly that when they look back at other cultures through out history and dismiss their religious beliefs; beliefs that sustained them far longer than has christianity. I have never said that all the people in the bible were fictional. You began the conversaion by telling me that my statement about the Tomb of Jesus was a bit "harsh". But, that's because it kind of punches a hole in the logic used by the thread starter to validate the bible and it's claims of god.

Originally posted by queeq
Your logic is calling someone a liar if he cannot prove his claims. So judge thyself, great and all powerfull Devil King.

Don't make claims you won't back up and no one will call you a liar. Especially claims that would be so easy to prove.

Sorry for being honest, my master. I didn't quite expect the Spanish Inquisition. I didn't know I had to hand in my credentials at the entrance.

Originally posted by Devil King
I said people made up god, and that it was the same practice used by kings and queens to validate their authority over their people, forever! I also pointed out how christians accuse others of being closed minded when they dismiss their "evidence", but that christians do exactly that when they look back at other cultures through out history and dismiss their religious beliefs; beliefs that sustained them far longer than has christianity. I have never said that all the people in the bible were fictional. You began the conversaion by telling me that my statement about the Tomb of Jesus was a bit "harsh". But, that's because it kind of punches a hole in the logic used by the thread starter to validate the bible and it's claims of god.

As I said, that has nothing to do with what I said. You just start stockpiling all your frustrations. Personally I felt that was uncalled for.

And again, you are mistaken about the Tomb of Jesus statement. This is what you said:

Originally posted by Devil King
The evidence validating all of these examples is no more or less substantial that that used to validate the Tomb of Jesus. Should we also consider that as plausible?

And then I responded:

Originally posted by Devil King
That's a bit harsh. These things do show a pattern which points to a certain reliability of the events described in the Bible.

You did not make a statemtne about the Tomb of Jesus, you outright dismissed all potential evidence as NON-PLAUSIBLE. I felt that was a bit harsh.

You do have trouble reading.

And where's your proof?

Originally posted by queeq
Sorry for being honest, my master. I didn't quite expect the Spanish Inquisition. I didn't know I had to hand in my credentials at the entrance.

As I said, that has nothing to do with what I said. You just start stockpiling all your frustrations. Personally I felt that was uncalled for.

And again, you are mistaken about the Tomb of Jesus statement. This is what you said:

And then I responded:

You did not make a statemtne about the Tomb of Jesus, you outright dismissed all potential evidence as NON-PLAUSIBLE. I felt that was a bit harsh.

You do have trouble reading.

And where's your proof?

I said the amount of evidence that substantiated the claim that it was the tomb of Jesus was just as conclusive as was the evidence surrounding the examples listed by the thread starter. In other words, if we were to assume that the archaeological examples used by ushomefree were proof, then by the same token the archaeology used to make the claims surrounding the tomb of Jesus were just as valid. So, if the examples listed in the first post are proof of god's existence, then the example of the tomb would disprove the divinity of Jesus. That would mean that the entire christian religion was based on a lie.

Well, "archaeology" never made any claims about the Tomb of Jesus. Cameron and Jacobovici did that. I

And divinity of Jesus can never be proven or disproven. What's your point?

Originally posted by queeq
What's your point?

The same as it was when I first started posting in this thread: that the claims of evidence of the existence of ushomefree's version of god are not valid proof. Or did you not realize that was his agenda?

Originally posted by queeq
Well, "archaeology" never made any claims about the Tomb of Jesus. Cameron and Jacobovici did that. I

Cameron wasn't in the film, and Jacobovici is called "The Naked Archaeologist", so he certainly presented it as such...along with the half dozen archaeologists in the documentary.

And if you want to know my feelings about the film, all you have to do is look through the thread dedicated to it, right here in this forum.

I can't remember ever talking or asking about the film. I never saw it. Read the presented evidence of course. I know a bit more about it but you won't believe me anyway.

Originally posted by Devil King
The same as it was when I first started posting in this thread: that the claims of evidence of the existence of ushomefree's version of god are not valid proof. Or did you not realize that was his agenda?

Here he comes again with proof for God... there's no such thing. So why do you attack ME all te time with your annoyance over ushomefree's secret agenda. Take it up with him and stop lashing out at me for that.

Originally posted by queeq
Here he comes again with proof for God... there's no such thing. So why do you attack ME all te time with your annoyance over ushomefree's secret agenda. Take it up with him and stop lashing out at me for that.

I did, that's why I quoted him when I responded to his thread. You got involved and apparently totally misunderstood what I was saying.

I present no proof for god...are you thick?

I did NOT get involved. All I said you were generalising over potential evidence. You ditched all of it and claimed (again without proof) that the Bible was fiction and all made up.

If you're pissed at particular people, be pissed at THEM. Not at the bystanders.

Originally posted by queeq
I can't remember ever talking or asking about the film. I never saw it. Read the presented evidence of course. I know a bit more about it but you won't believe me anyway.

If your opinion of it is that it was a bunch of over-hyped crap that did exactly as I predicted it would, which was prove nothing, then we took the same thing away from it.