• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Shad

Veteran Member
The equestrian class, was like the middle class, originally serving as cavalrymen in the Roman army, but from 2nd century BCE, they became more traders than cavalrymen, and were gaining more and more political and social powers in Rome.

They were not the middle class but upper class only a step below the Senatorial class as Equestrian is based on the class Equites not merely an identification of cavalry. Equites formed the cavalry as Rome once used a class based military. Equites formed the majority of the aristocrat class in Roman society.

The change you see in the 200-100 BCE was due to the inadequacy of the pre-Marian military system as Rome expanded outside of Italy. The previous system formed the core of the Roman legions from property owners, class system, thus the minority of the population could be in the military. The expansion of the Republic stretched manpower to a breaking point as Rome's population (citizens) was limited. Marius' reforms largely did away with the class based military structure except the leadership remained with the Patrician class, ie officers. Cavalry as a unit became less prestigious in the new system as a landless freeman could serve due to said manpower issues. Mercenaries as well but this was a common practice prior to Marius. The previous draw of class prestigious and wealth was no longer as appealing thus the class returned to it's non-military role it had for centuries.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Except for the fact that the site believed to be Troy based on the story was wrong. Calvert was the one that pointed Schlienman to the site not the book. You didn't bother with any research before making your statement.
Irrelevant. He believed the story of Troy from the saga. He excavated a site he, and for a while, others believed was Troy. The correct site has since been identified.
The point was that what was believed to be fictional writing, generated firm archaeological results.

I read his biography about 35 years ago, enough research to make the point.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Irrelevant. He believed the story of Troy from the saga.

Which lead him to the wrong location and no results. Someone that was far more experienced pointed out the correct location but gained little credit.

He excavated a site he, and for a while, others believed was Troy. The correct site has since been identified.

He had a partner, the very man I said pointed out the location. Like I said, you didn't do any research.

The point was that what was believed to be fictional writing, generated firm archaeological results.

And said fiction led him astray as much as people wandering around mount Ararat do today. Calvert was right and Schlieman was wrong.

I read his biography about 35 years ago, enough research to make the point.

And this is why you were wrong. You read a biased source instead of a relevant archaeological source covering the subject.

Your argument with relevant information you did not have becames hilarious. Schlieman took a story literally. He wondering around using this story but failed to find anything. Random luck would have it that someone not Schlieman was already in the area for years pointed out a location to try. An opinion based on observations of a man-made hill. A hill known for millennia by many civilizations. Schlieman take this advice and got lucky.

So literal belief resulted in nothing. Advice from an expert netted results...... :facepalm:
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
Irrelevant. He believed the story of Troy from the saga. He excavated a site he, and for a while, others believed was Troy. The correct site has since been identified.
The point was that what was believed to be fictional writing, generated firm archaeological results.

I read his biography about 35 years ago, enough research to make the point.

And the larger point, should there be one, is...?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Which lead him to the wrong location and no results. Someone that was far more experienced pointed out the correct location but gained little credit.



He had a partner, the very man I said pointed out the location. Like I said, you didn't do any research.



And said fiction led him astray as much as people wandering around mount Ararat do today. Calvert was right and Schlieman was wrong.



And this is why you were wrong. You read a biased source instead of a relevant archaeological source covering the subject.

Your argument with relevant information you did not have becames hilarious. Schlieman took a story literally. He wondering around using this story but failed to find anything. Random luck would have it that someone not Schlieman was already in the area for years pointed out a location to try. An opinion based on observations of a man-made hill. A hill known for millennia by many civilizations. Schlieman take this advice and got lucky.

So literal belief resulted in nothing. Advice from an expert netted results...... :facepalm:
 

gnostic

The Lost One
@KenS and to all you other creationists out there.

Do you know what anachronism mean?

It mean anything that people (authors) write about a time, eg story or history, that set in another time, and talk of objects that don’t exist in that time.

Look it up in a dictionary or you can wiki or google “anachronism”.

For instance, Genesis was most likely written by some unknown authors of 7th to 6th centuries BCE, which is the early Iron Age (1050 to 500 BCE, while late Iron Age is from 499 to 30 BCE, when Egypt fell to Octavian, better known as Augustus Caesar).

About 2/3 of Genesis concerned with the 3 most important patriarchs of Israel - hence, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

This plus the part of Noah would be set in the Bronze Age, with Noah supposedly living in the 3rd millennium BCE, with the Flood supposedly occurring around 2340 BCE. While the 3 patriarchs living in the 1st half of the 2nd millennium BCE, so about 1950 to 1600 BCE.

All these dates are approximate dates based on the times given in Genesis, Exodus 12:40-41 (430 years, from exodus to Abraham’s covenant, Genesis 15) and 1 Kings 6:1 (the time from Solomon’s 4th year reign to Moses leading his people out of Egypt is 480 years). The time between Adam to Flood is 1656 years (Genesis 5), and time between Flood to Abraham’s birth is only 292 years (Genesis 11).

In history, the Bronze Age started around 3100/3050 BCE and ended around 1050 BCE in both Egypt and Sumer, and it is called Bronze Age, because people stopped using stone tools in the Near East, by making tools and weapon out of bronze, but before iron tools were made.

While iron tools and weapons were more commonly found from 1050 BCE and onward to the 1st century BCE.

Are you with me so far, KenS and co?

According to Genesis 4, Tubal-Cain, a descendant or Adam, from the Cain line was 7th generation, so Tubal-Cain was most likely Enoch’s contemporary, since Enoch too was 7th generation. So both Enoch and Tubal-Cain lived before the Flood.

Now here comes the ANACHRONISM part.

According Genesis 4:22, we have Tubal-Cain supposedly making tools out of bronze and iron:

“Genesis 4:22” said:
22 Zillah bore Tubal-cain, who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

How could Tubal-Cain make tools out of iron, when there are no evidences that of iron making in the 3rd millennium BCE?

Other references to iron tools or weapons are found in other books, supposed set in the from mid- to 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE, a time that Moses supposedly lived. Other examples, Leviticus 26:19; Numbers 31:22, 35:16; and there are many references in Deuteronomy, but the most important one is Deuteronomy 4:20

“Deuteronomy 4:20” said:
20 But the L ORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron-smelter, out of Egypt, to become a people of his very own possession, as you are now.

There were no furnace or smelter of iron in Egypt in the 2nd millennium BCE.

There other examples of iron be used in book of Joshua too. But I think you should get my points by now.

All these references to iron being made or used from Genesis to Joshua, are all anachronistic.

It is clear to anyone with any knowledge of history, but more importantly knowledge of archaeology, that iron tools were not made in the 3rd millennium BCE, and much of the 2nd millennium BCE. We know this, because absence of iron being used during the Bronze Age.

So apparently the person or people who wrote Genesis to Numbers were living when iron were commonly used. Traditions say that Moses wrote these books, but with these anachronistic references to iron, it seemed highly unlikely, especially when we have no literary evidences that any of these books existed in the 2nd millennium BCE.

So the person or people who wrote Genesis or Exodus, didn’t know much history or archaeology of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE, otherwise they wouldn’t make mistakes.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
They were not the middle class but upper class only a step below the Senatorial class as Equestrian is based on the class Equites not merely an identification of cavalry. Equites formed the cavalry as Rome once used a class based military. Equites formed the majority of the aristocrat class in Roman society.

The change you see in the 200-100 BCE was due to the inadequacy of the pre-Marian military system as Rome expanded outside of Italy. The previous system formed the core of the Roman legions from property owners, class system, thus the minority of the population could be in the military. The expansion of the Republic stretched manpower to a breaking point as Rome's population (citizens) was limited. Marius' reforms largely did away with the class based military structure except the leadership remained with the Patrician class, ie officers. Cavalry as a unit became less prestigious in the new system as a landless freeman could serve due to said manpower issues. Mercenaries as well but this was a common practice prior to Marius. The previous draw of class prestigious and wealth was no longer as appealing thus the class returned to it's non-military role it had for centuries.

Thank you, shad for the correction. :)

It has been a while, since I have read up on Roman history particularly on politics, but from what you have written, that seemed to be right.

I used to read Livy, Polybius, Plutarch, Cicero, Caesar and other historians when I was younger, as well as Greek historians of ancient Greece, so I am familiar with the history of the classical world, but it has been a long time, so I may get some details wrong.:oops:

You are right, upper class, but as you have said, in the social order of Rome, the Equites were below that of the Patrician order.

The way any Eques or even of lower status, to gain entry into the Senatorial Order, the aristocrat class, is to win the election of consulship, which would automatically ennoble him.

In the earlier history of Rome, the consuls and praetors were in the hands of the Patricians, but correct me if I am wrong, they made law (lex Licinia Sextia in the mid-4th century BCE) that lower classes (plebians) could achieve magistrate offices, like consuls.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Not that this in the least absolves you of having made your unjustified leap, but I find it rather amusing that you're looking for company to share in your fondness for leaping to conclusions.


.
I love the double standard that is so often used :D
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
My only question is, how does historical evidence (regardless) support the supernatural?

We have many historical and still standing evidence of the gods and goddesses worshiped in Greek and Roman periods. We even have the writings to prove the evidence is accurate.

Does that mean their gods and goddeses actually exist because some of our history is built off the greeks and romans??

Which Greek and Roman book are we talking about?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Wow! Gee!

And here's another amazing thing! In Charles Dickens' novel 'Martin Chuzzlewit', the hero goes to the United States. And later I found out there really was such a place! Can you imagine?????
WOW! I read a history book on the US revolution about a George Washington and realized that Philadelphia is a real place... can you imagine????
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
WOW! I read a history book on the US revolution about a George Washington and realized that Philadelphia is a real place... can you imagine????
I apologize for being a bit sharp with my earlier remark.

My point was, the argument that the bible is true because some claims in it are shown to be true is a non-sequitur ─ rather like saying elephants must be white since their tusks are white. The bible is written by various humans at various times at various places for various human purposes. Each of its books is to be read like any other ancient document. ─ what, when, where, who, why?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Which Greek and Roman book are we talking about?

What do you mean?

My questions aren't related to the history and evidence of greek gods and goddesses. Our US culture and academics and buildings and.... are in part, remnants of greek and especially Roman culture. Gosh. So many things we do here that's so roman oriented. I wish I can give you a historical lesson.

As far as the books, closest I can think is from the art history I took up. We went from the paleolithic period and polytheism to the development of monotheism. I think for political purposes not religious.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
The camel issue still holds muster as it's not an issue of domestication, but of when domesticated camels appeared regionally during the alleged time of Abraham and Christ. Also the alleged extermination of the Canaanites which clearly has shown to be untrue as well as there are descendants alive today.

It all has to do with how people piece fiction into fact.

There's petroglyphs of domestic camels before the pyramids were built.
Several thousand years before Abraham.
Canaan to Sumer would have been a major trading route as it was in
Jesus' day.
The extermination/conquest of the Canaanites was a mixed affair. Some
cities appear to have been overthrown quite quickly ca 1300 BC but others
the cultural shift was much slower.
Yes, the Canaanites were not extinct. The bible didn't say that.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Delete the supposed truth of the "god" stuff
and there is nothing left that is of much interest.

The bible can be divided into four parts -
1 - God's direct dealing with His people as individuals.
2 - God's dealing with Israel.
3 - God's wisdom literature.
4 - God prophecies.

The first can't be proved, or disproved. You cannot say Abraham talked
with God, or he didn't.
The second is the history of the Jews - and it largely turns out to be true.
The wisdom of the bible is what our current adulterous and drug addled
generation is dispensing with - thinking the bible can be replaced by some
other moral agency which it clearly can't find.
The fourth is the prophecies. They foresaw the rise of a Hebrew nation,
tiny among the nations, blessed and forsaken, a gift to the world, exiled
amongst the nations because it did not know the "time of its visitation"
with the Messiah, and finally, coming back a second time to take Israel
back with the sword.

As I see it, on whatever level I care to look - there's a lot to be interested
in.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
god magic?

The fact remains
...began in the mid-20th century.[3] The origins to the conflict can be traced back to Jewish immigration, and sectarian conflict in Mandatory Palestine between Jews and Arabs.[4] It has been referred to as the world's "most intractable conflict", ...
Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia

Yes, it has to be "God magic" because no human could have written that.
Some try to explain it away by saying it was written in Babylonian times.
But Israel was yet to reject their Messiah and lose their nation for 2,000
years in Babylonian times.
Yes, the Palestine conflict is intractable. I think God made it that way.
And if you read the 1948 and 1967 wars you can't help but feel that God
blessed his people.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
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.
Was there a real question that Pontius Pilate existed? My understanding was there was some historical record that he was a real person in history. The new testament is based on some historical events but supplemented with the mythical aspects with four different views of events of the four different testaments.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Was there a real question that Pontius Pilate existed? My understanding was there was some historical record that he was a real person in history. The new testament is based on some historical events but supplemented with the mythical aspects with four different views of events of the four different testaments.

Yeah, same as General Hannibal and his elephants.
Some things are just too fantastic to believe.
 
Top