ONCE AGAIN! Facts in the Bible is supported by archaeology.

[blü 2]

I agree that just because there is an actual place mentioned, doesn't make it true. There has to be much more. But, my point was simply that more and more discoveries confirm what is written and when you do find confirmations, it does add validity to what was written.

If a witness gives his testimony and more and more facts are verified according to what he said, it doesn't add validity to what he is saying.

But to run that line of argument is to invite having all the bible's errors, historical, scientific, mathematical, &c, put on the other side of the scale, with results I dare say a purist would consider unfortunate. Take, for example, the doubts that archaeology has thrown on the existence of an historical Moses (which go on top of doubts expressed much earlier just from the evidence of the text).

Or indeed the archaeological evidence that Yahweh arose as a tribal god around 1500 BCE, being unknown before then; and was a member of the Canaanite pantheon with his consort Asherah.

 

[Audie]

It's symbolic language, Audie. That's all.
It's like when we say "sunrise"
We all know the sun doesn't "rise"
- the earth simply rotates.
But that's fine - we are just speaking
symbolically.

Symbolic as in it means whatever anyone chooses to
make up.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sorry, but the gospels sometimes don’t agree with other.

To give you, an example.

In 3 of the gospels, Mark (14:3-11), Matthew (26:6-13) and John (12:1-8), they all agreed with a supper taking place in a small town called Bethany, and all 3 agreed that a woman anointed Jesus with a very expensive jar of perfume.

But the details in this episode in Bethany differed.

According to Matthew and Mark, the supper and anointing took place in the home of Simon the Leper. While in the gospel of John, Lazarus was the host and it was his home, not Simon the Leper’s.

The woman with the perfume was nameless woman in the gospels of Mark and Matthew, but in John’s, it was Lazarus’ sister Mary Magdalene.

Again in Matthew’s and Mark’s, it was Jesus’ head that got anointed, but in John's, it was Jesus’ feet.

And in Matthew’s and Mark’s, all disciples complained about the waste, but in John’s, only Judas Iscariot made the complaint.

In the gospel of Luke, this scene never happened in Bethany, instead Jesus anointing occurred in Nain, Galilee, and in the house of Simon the Pharisee, not to be confused with Simon the Leper. Here, the woman is also nameless, but the gospel referred to her as the Sinful Woman, and it was Jesus’ feet that got anointed with expensive perfume, not his head. And lastly, there were any complaints by his disciples, but rather it was his host, who complained not of the expensive perfume, but that the woman was sinful.

So we have 3 different versions, in which only two gospel agreed with each other in one version.

So how would you determine which of 3 versions are the right one? And how would you verify that it happened as it say?

Yes, that's why I don't believe history is true.
Different authors say different things.

 

[Audie]

Why am I here? To educate you, Audie!!!!

You guys are an education but not at all in the way
you think.

In the event, I already have seen how bedrock ridiculous
your get, like your two possible miracles / remote-view
mind reading. I need see no more, did nit need this
quip. Plz refrain- or say as you please, I wont answer.

 

[PruePhillip]

Symbolic as in it means whatever anyone chooses to
make up.

Well, okay, the bible IS right then, the sun does rise.

ps Solomon said the sun rose and set, therefore the
bible is wrong? Actually, according to Einstein, it could
be that the sun rises because it all depends upon the
"observer." This is to say, your viewpoint is as valid
as anyone elses.

But yes, there's tons of symbolic language in the bible.
Just read the book of Revelations. The trick is to know
what is symbolism and what is literal. The general
thrust of Geneses 1 happens to be both. The history
of the Jews is literal - it did and still does happen.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sorry, but the gospels sometimes don’t agree with other.

To give you, an example.

In 3 of the gospels, Mark (14:3-11), Matthew (26:6-13) and John (12:1-8), they all agreed with a supper taking place in a small town called Bethany, and all 3 agreed that a woman anointed Jesus with a very expensive jar of perfume.

But the details in this episode in Bethany differed.

According to Matthew and Mark, the supper and anointing took place in the home of Simon the Leper. While in the gospel of John, Lazarus was the host and it was his home, not Simon the Leper’s.

The woman with the perfume was nameless woman in the gospels of Mark and Matthew, but in John’s, it was Lazarus’ sister Mary Magdalene.

Again in Matthew’s and Mark’s, it was Jesus’ head that got anointed, but in John's, it was Jesus’ feet.

And in Matthew’s and Mark’s, all disciples complained about the waste, but in John’s, only Judas Iscariot made the complaint.

In the gospel of Luke, this scene never happened in Bethany, instead Jesus anointing occurred in Nain, Galilee, and in the house of Simon the Pharisee, not to be confused with Simon the Leper. Here, the woman is also nameless, but the gospel referred to her as the Sinful Woman, and it was Jesus’ feet that got anointed with expensive perfume, not his head. And lastly, there were any complaints by his disciples, but rather it was his host, who complained not of the expensive perfume, but that the woman was sinful.

So we have 3 different versions, in which only two gospel agreed with each other in one version.

So how would you determine which of 3 versions are the right one? And how would you verify that it happened as it say?

Now let's imagine all four Gospels were in total agreement.
We can point to any number of historic events where there
were multiple observers - and each gave a varying account.
We then declare the bible to be inaccurate because this does
not happen in history. Point out that four people, writing late
in their lives, from differing points of view, could not have
reached agreement on all points.

So the skeptic think he's won - either the bible is suspiciously
in agreement, or its suspiciously not in agreement.

 

[gnostic]

That is IF you don't factor that it was in God's light. Time is relative and, if as it is written, God is light, one day in God's time is as a thousand years.

Time is relative, but a period of “1 evening” and “1 morning” NEVER EQUAL TO 1000 YEARS.

You keep forgetting that there is context to the verses that indicated “day” not a thousand years in Genesis 1. 1000 years or a millennium are never mentioned or implied in Genesis 1.

And using a verse 2 Peter 3:8 is nothing more than shoddy scholarship. You don’t read one book and then use another book to find meaning for the first book, which are centuries apart.

8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

This verse shouldn’t be taken as literal. The passage used the word is "like" and "are like". The comparison of 1 day and 1 thousand years are not the same, don't have the same meaning.

Using comparison of two things along with the word “like” doesn't mean the two words have the same meanings. The other type of word frequently used in simile is “as”.

The use of the word “like” is common used in poem and stories, especially those that used in metaphors, when comparing one thing with the likeness of another thing. This is called “simile”.

Look up “simile”, KenS.

To give some examples of similes being used, here are a couple:

“Usain Bolt runs like the wind.”

“Michael Jordan stands as tall as a mountain.”

“Athena’s eyes flash like fire.”​

Is Usain really “the wind”?

No, he isn’t. It is just expression that Bolt is a fast sprinter, using simile to convey his quickness. Can human be a wind?

Is Michael a mountain?

No, Jordan isn’t a mountain. Again it is an expression using simile. Jordan and a mountain are not equivalent, and shouldn’t be taken literally.

And likewise, the goddess Athena don’t have eyes made out of fire. It is just another metaphor using the like simile.

Do you see what I am getting at, Ken?

A thousand years are not one day, and one day isn’t a thousand years. The Peter’s verse is merely using a simile, which the passage shouldn’t be taken literal. But you seem to be ignoring this rule regarding to simile, and use Peter's words in Genesis, as if it applied to creation of days.

This is one of the reasons why I became agnostic in 2000. I don’t trust Church interpretations and Christian interpretations of the OT, because they can twist the verses any way they like, without considering original and actual context. It is dishonest type of scholarship.

 

[gnostic]

Now let's imagine all four Gospels were in total agreement.
We can point to any number of historic events where there
were multiple observers - and each gave a varying account.
We then declare the bible to be inaccurate because this does
not happen in history. Point out that four people, writing late
in their lives, from differing points of view, could not have
reached agreement on all points.

So the skeptic think he's won - either the bible is suspiciously
in agreement, or its suspiciously not in agreement.

What?

You mean to tell me you cannot tell a head from feet?

Or who your host is, at the dinner?

You wouldn’t know if the woman is Mary Magdalene or some other woman?

If those authors were eyewitnesses, and are in the same room with Jesus and their host, wouldn’t they know?

All you are doing is making excuses of the discrepancies in this episode in Bethany.

 

[gnostic]

You are actually taking two different stories as if it were one.

Luke version maybe a separate story, but the other story, is the same story, but has two different versions.

All you are doing is blindly making excuses.

 

[Milton Platt]

Pontius Pilate’s ring may have been discovered at ancient biblical fortress

Just another nail that keeps appearing again and again.

It's amazing, to me, how the information in the Gospels and letters are supported by facts that are discovered.

Spider man comics talk about New York. Does it follow that Spiderman exists?
The ring may....may....indicate someone named Pontius Pilate lived once. That is as far as you can go with the evidence.

 

[PruePhillip]

What?

You mean to tell me you cannot tell a head from feet?

Or who your host is, at the dinner?

You wouldn’t know if the woman is Mary Magdalene or some other woman?

If those authors were eyewitnesses, and are in the same room with Jesus and their host, wouldn’t they know?

All you are doing is making excuses of the discrepancies in this episode in Bethany.

When were these accounts written? Twenty, thirty, forty years later?
Some say these accounts were written for the church, or that the
church edited them. The discrepancies tell you that wasn't so.

 

[ecco]

Agreed. I believed in God way before I read the Bible.

How did you learn of God if not from the Bible?

 

[ecco]

LOL.... yes... if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

When it comes to your posts, yes I do. You have a habit of posting nonsense from nonsense sites. As we will see, you did it again to start this thread.

I can tell you REALLY are a researcher. WOW!! I had to actually use 3 WHOLE SECONDS to find a different source.

Let's compare your original glaring headline with the more reasoned one you post now...
Original:

Pontius Pilate’s ring may have been discovered at ancient biblical fortress​

Now:

Pontius Pilate’s Name Is Found on 2,000-Year-Old Ring​

I don't have to be a great researcher to see that there is a vast difference between those two claims.

Frodo's ring may have been found
A ring inscribed with the name "Frodo" was found​

If it was so easy to find alternative headlines, why did you intentionally choose the one that is clearly bogus?

That's a rhetorical question. No need for you to answer.

Also, in defense of my "researcher" abilities, I did do the research that you couldn't bother with. That led me to post:

But, being curious, I also read the NYT version. They made it clear that it was a rather cheap ring, not one worthy of actually belonging to a Roman official. Even one as relatively obscure as Pilate.
​

Why didn't you find this? Just as important, why didn't Fox mention this?

​

Does that make you feel better?

What's there to feel better about? Knowing the world is full of people who will go to great lengths to try to defend their beliefs in mythological entities does not make me feel good. I'd feel much better if people would accept reality.

 

[ecco]

Where did you get that from, Wikipedia?
Beware of fashions of thought.

Well, John was there. The one whom Jesus loved. He never actually used his name but elsewhere
we see that it was indeed himself who was Jesus' favorite. He was a gentle man, not an intellectual,
just a man given to love. It shows in the Gospels and it shows in his epistles.


Luke didn't know Jesus. His was an historic account, gleaned from eye witnesses and previous
scripts.
Matthew was the tax collector. This show in his writings.
Don't know about Mark.

I suspect John wrote down stuff as it happened. I suspect these epistles were known by their
authors long before they were compiled into a book. That's how we get a apocrypha - those books
deemed unsuitable to the early Church were already long considered unsuitable to the people who
felt scripture mattered.

You think some were there and some were not. Biblical scholars disagree with you. Where should I get my information - biblical scholars or you?

Luke didn't know Jesus. His was an historic account, gleaned from eye witnesses and previous scripts.

Is that your opinion or do you have facts to back it up? Where did Luke get information for this passage?

18And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. 19And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
​

Was Luke there when Zacharias spoke with the angel? Who could have conveyed this information to Luke?

​

You also failed to address how anyone could have recorded those words?

​

 

[ecco]

There are two authors for Hannibal

Really?

So What About Hannibal, Then? • Richard Carrier​

So What About Hannibal, Then? • Richard Carrier
Livy and other authors also had and used eyewitness literary sources on Hannibal, and accordingly we have descriptions of these authors and what they wrote and often direct quotations and citations of their lost works. This includes the Roman politician and orator Cato the Elder. And the Roman historian Fabius Pictor. Both lived during and wrote about Hannibal’s war. Sosylus of Lacedaemon, a traveling companion of Hannibal, also wrote an extensive account of his wars. Likewise Silenus of Caleacte. And Lucius Cincius Alimentus was a Roman war prisoner who dined with Hannibal for years in captivity, and then wrote of his experiences after the war in his Annals. And possibly the historian Gaius Acilius, who certainly wrote a researched account of the Hannibalic war within forty years of his death, and may even have lived during it. We have nothing like this for Jesus: multiple quotations and citations of writings about him by eyewitnesses. We have in fact not even one. Nor even any reference to an oral eyewitness source. (Again, the one in John is a fake: OHJ, Ch. 10.7.)

Then, we have the writings of numerous historians within a century or so of Hannibal’s death, writing detailed histories using critical and rational methods, and (like those eyewitness writers above) not composing mythical hagiographies. These include not just Livy, but Cornelius Nepos, Diodorus, Coelius Antipater, Silenus Calatinus, Valerius Antias, Claudius Quadrigarius, and many others, from whom we have fragments, quotations, or partial texts. We have nothing like this explosion of quotable histories of Jesus within 120 years of his death. In fact, we have exactly zero histories of Jesus.

​

Care to respond?

 

[ecco]

So the skeptic think he's won - either the bible is suspiciously
in agreement, or its suspiciously not in agreement.

I won't talk about winners here. But the definite losers are the folks who believe the Bible is the Absolute Truth Word of God.

For the rest, pick and choose is the always accepted dodge.

 

[Kenny]

All you are doing is blindly making excuses.

When answers are like this one, you have already demonstrated that you are wrong.

 

[Kenny]

Time is relative, but a period of “1 evening” and “1 morning” NEVER EQUAL TO 1000 YEARS.

You keep forgetting that there is context to the verses that indicated “day” not a thousand years in Genesis 1. 1000 years or a millennium are never mentioned or implied in Genesis 1.

And using a verse 2 Peter 3:8 is nothing more than shoddy scholarship. You don’t read one book and then use another book to find meaning for the first book, which are centuries apart.

First, you understand "evening and morning" in the context of earth vs sun. However, the sun was not created at that point so your application isn't equal.

So.... shoddy seems to be more applicable to your capacity more than mine.

Second, my quote of a day and a thousand was an analogy and not literal.

Last, when you start attacking people, you loose your case automatically.

Would you like to try again?

 

[Shad]

That is so profound. Thank you for such insight.

Seems like the point is something you dismissed with little consideration.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Pontius Pilate’s ring may have been discovered at ancient biblical fortress

Just another nail that keeps appearing again and again.

It's amazing, to me, how the information in the Gospels and letters are supported by facts that are discovered.

lol