The Bible: Archaelogical Finds

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, you're defending it in a thread that is about proving the existence of god by using archaeology.

Reads thread title again: "The Bible: Archaelogical Finds"... hmm... where is proving the existence of God in that thread title??

Originally posted by Devil King
I have never said that it wasn't a "source" for referencing historical figures, I have said the stories in it are man made propoganda used to subjugate people, just like the other religion of the ancient world.

You said, literally: "BECAUSE IT'S ALL MADE UP." How can a fairy tale or any story that is pure fiction and all made up be a source for references to historical figures?

You're not beginning to lie now, are you?

Originally posted by queeq
What books?

Listing more than seven years of books, documentaries and jounals is no easy task, say like posting a link to your documentaries.

Would you like some of my favorites?

Sure.

Why would you need a link, you found it already?

Originally posted by queeq
You said, literally: "BECAUSE IT'S ALL MADE UP." How can a fairy tale or any story that is pure fiction and all made up be a source for references to historical figures?

Read what ushomefree says, it's pretty clear what he's doing.

You asked for a reason why it's fiction, and I said because people made it up, as in people made up the stories. I never said that the people and places in it were fiction, that the stories were....stories that are used to dupe people into believing in santa god.

Originally posted by queeq
Sure.

Why would you need a link, you found it already?

Because I want to know what role you played in making them. If you're such a famous documentary film maker, then why not share that with us?

The American Journal, National Geographic, the 2 dozen text books I've bought for school (text books and encyclopedias are my favorite types of books in general), Egyptian mythology, numerous research papers written by Zahi hawass, the journal of oriental studies, Huamn diversity by Kottak, half a dozen different version of the book of the dead, and four or five books on the ancient middle east

Originally posted by Devil King
You asked for a reason why it's fiction, and I said because people made it up, as in people made up the stories. I never said that the people and places in it were fiction, that the stories were....stories that are used to dupe people into believing in santa god.

"All" is all. That means everything: the people are made up, the events are made up, it's "ALL" made up you said.

I made the comparison once to Ramesses II's battle at Kadesh. How he described being inspired by his god to ride out and get the Egyptians out of a situation of pending defeat again te Hittites and return victoriously. Now, it's easy to say: it's all made up, fiction, propaganda!
And yet, can we therefore dismiss the Battle of Kadesh as fiction? Is RII fiction? No. The Battle did take place, the Egyptians did get out of a jam. We don't know anything about godlike intervention, we also know he didn't win, but it ended more as a tie (thanks to the Hittite version of the story who also claimed victory).
So is the story inscribed on the walls of Abu Simbel fiction? All made up? No, but it was reworked to suit RII's needs. But it's still history, RII's version of history. And historians have to work out what exactly happened.

Dr. Jonathan Tubb, curator of the Syro-palestine department of the British Museum said it like this, rather, no VERY different than you: "people don't make things up out of thin air." So who should I believe, you - the Universal Truth Meister or a very experienced archaeologist and curator?

Originally posted by Devil King
Read what ushomefree says, it's pretty clear what he's doing.

And please stop cooling off your hate for ushomfree on me. It would be appreciated.

Originally posted by Devil King
Because I want to know what role you played in making them. If you're such a famous documentary film maker, then why not share that with us?

The American Journal, National Geographic, the 2 dozen text books I've bought for school (text books and encyclopedias are my favorite types of books in general), Egyptian mythology, numerous research papers written by Zahi hawass, the journal of oriental studies, Huamn diversity by Kottak, half a dozen different version of the book of the dead, and four or five books on the ancient middle east

You know what. I believe you. In fact, I did from the beginning.

I gave you a list of relevant films I made, you didn't believe me. Fine... you don't want to anyway.
I never claimed to be famous, you put words in my mouth again. Fine, have it your way.

Since nobody else has posted since page 6, I'm curious to know whether anybody is reading what queeq and DK are posting.

Originally posted by queeq
"All" is all. That means everything: the people are made up, the events are made up, it's "ALL" made up you said.

I made the comparison once to Ramesses II's battle at Kadesh. How he described being inspired by his god to ride out and get the Egyptians out of a situation of pending defeat again te Hittites and return victoriously. Now, it's easy to say: it's all made up, fiction, propaganda!
And yet, can we therefore dismiss the Battle of Kadesh as fiction? Is RII fiction? No. The Battle did take place, the Egyptians did get out of a jam. We don't know anything about godlike intervention, we also know he didn't win, but it ended more as a tie (thanks to the Hittite version of the story who also claimed victory).
So is the story inscribed on the walls of Abu Simbel fiction? All made up? No, but it was reworked to suit RII's needs. But it's still history, RII's version of history. And historians have to work out what exactly happened.

Dr. Jonathan Tubb, curator of the Syro-palestine department of the British Museum said it like this, rather, no VERY different than you: "people don't make things up out of thin air." So who should I believe, you - the Universal Truth Meister or a very experienced archaeologist and curator?

yeah, and my very point is that he claimed to have the blessings of the gods when he "won" that draw. but you dismiss the existence of the Egyptian gods. Why can't you figure out that same concept is what inspired the stories in the bible? It isn't that there was any involvment by god, it was the just how things worked out. So when the jews lost their battle with the Asyrians, they chaulked it up to 'god must be mad at us'.

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!"

Again, the RII Battle of Kadesh serves as such a "neutral" example of that principle.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Since nobody else has posted since page 6, I'm curious to know whether anybody is reading what queeq and DK are posting.

We are. 💃

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!"

Again, the RII Battle of Kadesh serves as such a "neutral" example of that principle.

because it's the point of the thread, in the religion forum. if you just want to talk history, there's a forum for that.

*Reads thread title again: "The Bible: Archaelogical Finds"*

Strange... I still can't find "proving God" in that title... Must be me, can't be the Lord of the Two Truths?

*Reads first ushomefree quote about meaning of thread*

Originally posted by ushomefree
The Bible--Old and New Testaments--make statments about "history." And Archaelogy helps establish the validity of the Bible. For example, read: "The First Temple Seal Found in Jerusalem." How you resort to stories like "Gone with the Wind," in comparison to the Bible is ridiculous, and it shows you bias towards the Bible. You don't even respect a 3,500 year old book, if only for its time and impact on the world.

I still can't find the "proving God" passage... You definately have to point it out to me, Master of All that is True and Just.

And Archaelogy helps establish the validity of the Bible

cheers, you've managed to find the ONLY thread in the religion forum that ISN'T about religion.

He also mentions that it's clearly about "history".

If I didn't know any better about your Global Truth Uberness, I'd almost begin to think an apology is in order.

Originally posted by queeq
He also mentions that it's clearly about "history".

If I didn't know any better about your Global Truth Uberness, I'd almost begin to think an apology is in order.

Then thinking is not your strong suit.

And when he says "history", he's also talking about the Garden of Eden and the planet being 6000 years old.

Originally posted by ushomefree
People rising from the dead happens all the time; definitely a pattern.

Right... Jesus' tomb really was occupied. The Jewish and Roman authorities didn't reveal Jesus' body because--well, deep down inside--they thought He was a cool guy.

So? I never said he was right. Just because a couple of things are wrong, it doesn't mean EVERYTHING is wrong (or ALL MADE UP as you would have it).

But don't get off topic, you've been flaming me for assumptions about the topic of this thread and statements that you took out of context. You put words in my mouth, accused me of a hidden agenda of wanting to prove Gods existence by means of the Bible (which you made up yourself), you misquoted me intentionally to make me look bad. And now you conclude yourself you didn't quite get the topic of this thread.

In some parts of the world that could be considered as rather rude behaviour. And, as it now turns out, uncalled for.