Spartan
Well-Known Member
The evidence in Post # 759 refutes you.
-
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!
Nine Pieces Of Evidence That Confirm The Historical Accuracy Of The Bible
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
The evidence in Post # 759 refutes you.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
The problem is, that even if this is true (and it's debatable), the existence of cities does not say anything at all about "accurate eyewitness accounts of events that occurred southeast of the Dead Sea over 4,000 years ago."
The existence of New York doesn't make the accounts of Spider Man real anymore than the existence of Sodom or Gomorrah lends any credence to anything written about it in the Bible.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Here's another reference you can sweep under your rug:
"But God was much displeased at their impudent behaviour: so that he both smote those men with blindness, and condemned the Sodomites to universal destruction. But Lot, upon God’s informing him of the future destruction of the Sodomites, went away; taking with him his wife, and daughters; who were two, and still virgins: for those that were betrothed (31) to them were above the thoughts of going; and deemed that Lot’s words were trifling. God then cast a thunderbolt upon the city, and set it on fire, with its inhabitants; and laid waste the country with the like burning: as I formerly said when I wrote the Jewish War. (32) But Lot’s wife continually turning back to view the city, as she went from it; and being too nicely inquisitive what would become of it, although God had forbidden her so to do; was changed into a pillar of salt. (33) For I have seen it, and it remains at this day." - The Jewish Historian Josephus
Footnote 33: "(33) This pillar of salt was, we see here, standing in the days of Josephus, and he had seen it. That it was standing then is also attested by Clement of Rome, contemporary with Josephus, in 1 Epist. § 11. as also that it was so in the next century, is attested by Irenæus, IV.51. and 61."
Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book I
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Perhaps you could address my point.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Ok. So, this source is fundamentally flawed so I'm not convinced that this "evidence" is actually evidence.
The provider of this research sets out with a preconcieved notion that the bible is real, and conveniently finds facts to support that claim, which is the antithesis of scientific process (which is the best process we have for determining what is true, to the best level of confidence that we can achieve). If you were to use this source in any sort of paper or assignment at any level past high school, your paper would lose credibility.
Secondly, the events at sodom being supernatural in nature, you've got a higher standard of evidence thats required to meet your burden of proof. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Since we have not once witnessed a supernatural event in scientific conditions (not for lack of trying), what your 'proof' would introduce is something that would fundamentally change the understanding of our universe - if it was actually proof of the supernatural, we would have heard about it. It would be literally everywhere. Its discoverer would win a nobel prize.
So, yeah. Sodom and Gomorrah may have been cities, I'm willing to accept that. They may have been full of "sodomites," I'll even accept that. They may even have also been entirely wiped out, why not. I'm not seeing why this should convince me of a god or why homophobia is justified, even if this was all true.
What we're essentially left with is the idea that some sort of genocidal event occured because *reasons*, so the victims must have deserved it. Is that your argument? Even if the genocide was caused ny a supernatural agent?
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Ok, so even if we accept your corroborating witnesses (epistles? Really?), all we can get to is that there was a pillar of salt.
Is it more or less likely that this was placed here by a god, or that some entirely natural event occurred that we have little insight into? We have many more examples of natural events than supernatural ones. In fact, any supernatural claim that has been put to the test has been proven to be eother fraudulent or entiry natural.
Again, burden of proof is just nowhere near met, even if we accept what evidence you provide (again, I don't; you're using extremely old sources who had little understanding of nature compared to today and who already have a point to prove)
joelr
Well-Known Member
First not all historical figures claim to be supernatural gods.
Second just because the bible spread around (Rome made it law and enforced the spread) doesn't make it any more true? Islam will overtake Christianity in the US by 2050, does that mean it's more true?
All we have are 4 gospels, all copied from Mark (it's says in Wiki there are "pages and pages of verbatim Greek among the gospels), written in a highly mythical style like religious myth from that time period and not as history and they were written by non-eyewitnesses as it says so in the title of each gospel.
And the pagan religions had the same type of mythology before Christianity so we know it's just a copy-cat religion.
Everything I say I can source with PhD scholarship, everything.
The historicity field does not consider the gospels historically reliable.
Starting with a very conservative source (Wiki)
"Historical reliability of the Gospels"
The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia
Using argument to popular appeal is probably the worst way to argue for the validity of something.
Plus with Hindu, Judaism and Islam that is a bigger group of people than all Christians so they must be more right. It's a faulty line of thinking.
What words, most of his words were voted to be not actually said by Jesus at the Jesus seminar.
Jesus Seminar - Wikipedia
and Richard carrier points out how Luke uses much of the Kings narrative, the sermon on the mount is known in scholarship to be taken from the Septuigant.
But the quality of the myth isn't related to if it's real or not.
There is profound myths about truth, life, and all sorts of philosophy in many different mythical stories and modern fiction as well.
No the gospels were written to appear to fulfill prophecy.
There are still hundreds of promises god made in the OT that never came to pass so it's still cherry picking.
The gospel writers did read the OT before they wrote the NT right? So of course they wrote the stories as prophecy being fulfilled?
The religion thrived because Constantine needed a movement to unify Rome after the civil war. Churches had been set up and it was only 5% of Rome but they ran with it.
Once it became law all other similar religions were destroyed. Militant evangilism ensured it's spread.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Brilliant argument, but I'd just add that there are sections in the bible that actually say that certain things were arranged so that prophecy could be fulfilled. Jesus apparently rode an *** because it said that the messiah would, so they arranged it.
So not only are we saying that they had access to the prophecies, so it'd be easy for them to make something up that suits them. They openly admit that they fabricated a situation based on a prophecy of the ot.
Edit: they censored *a s s* haha obviously I meant donkey.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
His point was that the supposed accounts weren't eyewitness ones, and there are no contemporary accounts of anything. Only ones written centuries later.
Every other historical figure I know about and accept as a figure has contemporaneous evidence supporting their existence and multiple reports from contemporary 3rd parties attesting to it. Even ones from the time jesus supposedly existed. Why is it that the only thing we have is something written hundreds of years after, the veracity of which hotly disputed by so many other groups and their 'holy' texts and proclaimed truths?
Spartan
Well-Known Member
There's other extra-Biblical accounts of the former existence of Sodom and Gomorrah (where is it now?).
"The second-century BC Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites 'sexually promiscuous' (Testimony of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to 'Sodom, which departed from the order of nature' (Testament of Nephtali 3:4). From the same time period, Jubilees specifies that the Sodomites were 'polluting themselves and fornicating in their flesh' (16:5, compare 20:5-6). Both Philo and Josephus plainly name same-sex relations as the characteristic view of Sodom.[78]"
Responding to Pro-Gay Theology, Part III
We have the Biblical accounts, and we have Josephus and the excavations, etc. The preponderance of the evidence is in favor of Sodom and Gomorrah being devastated. And what appears as a natural disaster doesn't preclude the hand of God behind it.
Cheers...
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
Cool, so as I've said, I'm happy to accept that there may have been a city full of gay people happily bumming away and that city was destroyed and it was percieved as some kind of judgement.
I dont male the claim that it god is precluded as an explaination - just that it is much more likely that it isn't the correct explaination.
So, we have two sources from ancient people, neither of which seemed to like gay people very much. Does that mean being gay is wrong? I have lots of sources which would seem to corroborate Galen and his 4 humours, would you prefer antibiotics or leeches to treat your illness?
All you've done is lend some weight to the argument that there was a city which was a little less backwards in its understanding of sexuality, and it was destroyed. I reject your claim that you "know" god was behind it, because I don't think its possible to know any such thing. I posit that if these sodom and gomorrah dod exist (I'm willing to take your extra biblical source as credible for this argument because it doesn't really matter if it isnt, but I would need to study it more before making my mind up about the actual existence of these cities).
Also, pro-gay theology? I think it's more apt to just call it bad theology, as monotheistic religions are ostensibly homophobic. Which is another reason to discount your moral handbook.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Crank sites are not reliable when it comes to claims of "evidence". Surely you can find something more substantial than that. Your so called evidence is so weak that you did not even quote relevant parts of the article that demonstrate this so called evidence.
Dan Mellis
Thorsredballs
No evidence there I'm afraid, just another angry hick getting triggered about dem gays
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Do you need a list of scriptures that condemn gay sex?
And I reject your claim that you believe god was not behind it, because I don't think its possible to know any such thing
Sounds like the kind of nonsense one would hear on the streets of Sodom and Gomorrah.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Oh they actually admit that they did that to fulfill prophecy?
joelr
Well-Known Member
Dr. Bryant G. Wood's article from 2003 is not supported by any scholar and considered Pseudoarcheology - is a pseudoscience focused on the study or promotion of archaeology in ways which do not meet the basic standards of the scientific method.
This can definitely be swept under the rug.
Search mainstream scholarship it's just a vague story with no location, evidence and likely a myth taken from older similar myths.
Christians can't even decide if that was even a reference to homosexuality or to hospitality and the site and references to salt are vague and likely just a limestone and salt hill.
Josephus provides little confirmation? - "The Jewish historian Josephus identifies the Dead Sea in geographic proximity to the ancient biblical city of Sodom. He refers to the lake by its Greek name, Asphaltites"
Homosexuality or hospitality?
"Sodom and Gomorrah have been used historically and today as metaphors for homosexuality, although the widespread consensus among theologians and biblical scholars is that this association is incorrect.[7][8][9] The extrabiblical tradition linking it towards homosexuality emerged from the writings of 1st century Jewish philosopher Philo, who equivocated the sin of Sodom with homosexuality; before then, no exegesis of the text suggested a linkage to the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah with same-sex attraction.[9] Zondervan Academic, an evangelical Christian scholarly resource center, states that the story "concerns a lack of hospitality, which was considered an egregious crime in the ancient world."[8]"
Historicity
"Some possible natural explanations for the events described have been proposed, but no widely accepted or strongly verified sites for the cities have been found.
The ancient Greek historiographer Strabo states that locals living near Moasada (as opposed to Masada) say that "there were once thirteen inhabited cities in that region of which Sodom was the metropolis”. Strabo identifies a limestone and salt hill at the south western tip of the Dead Sea, and Kharbet Usdum ruins nearby as the site of biblical Sodom. Archibald Sayce translated an Akkadian poem describing cities that were destroyed in a rain of fire, written from the view of a person who escaped the destruction; the names of the cities are not given. However, Sayce later mentions that the story more closely resembles the doom of Sennacherib's host."
Philo's interpretation of the story gave rise to words in several languages. These include the English word sodomy, which is used in sodomy laws to describe sexual "crimes against nature", namely anal or oral sex (particularly homosexual), or bestiality.[10][11][12] Some Islamic societies incorporate punishments associated with Sodom and Gomorrah into sharia.
Last edited:
sooda
Veteran Member
So far there is no evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah or any cities of the plain which is weird because usually they can excavate an old garbage dump. As for a pillar of salt.. That's fairly common around any salt flat or salt mine.. Arab caravans sold salt ...and traveled widely. The Bedouin would have known about it continuously.
sooda
Veteran Member
The role of salt in the Bible is relevant to understanding Hebrew society during the Old Testament and New Testament periods. Salt is a necessity of life and was a mineral that was used since ancient times in many cultures as a seasoning, a preservative, a disinfectant, a component of ceremonial offerings, and as a unit of exchange. The Bible contains numerous references to salt. In various contexts, it is used metaphorically to signify permanence, loyalty, durability, fidelity, usefulness, value, and purification.
The main source of salt in the region was the area of the Dead Sea, especially the massive, about seven miles long, salt cliffs of Jebel Usdum.[1] The face of the ridge is constantly changing as weather interacts with the rock salt. Ezekiel 47:11 highlights the importance of the Dead Sea's salt.[2]
The Hebrew people harvested salt by pouring sea water into pits and letting the water evaporate until only salt was left. They used the mineral for seasoning and as a preservative. In addition, salt was used to disinfect wounds.[citation needed] In 2 Chron 13:5 King Abijah referred to God's covenant promise to David that he will not lack a man to seat on Israel's throne as a Salt covenant - that is a covenant that can never be broken.
Old Testament[edit]
An angel leads Lot out of Sodom and destroys the City; as in Genesis 19:25-26
The fate of Lot's wife, being turned to a pillar of salt, is found in Genesis 19:26. This is the reason for the naming of the pillar on Mount Sodom, which is often called "Lot's Wife".
Leviticus 2:13 and Ezekiel 43:24 illustrate the requirement of salt as part of ancient Hebrew religious sacrifices. Leviticus 2:13 reads: "And every offering of your grain offering you shall season with salt; you shall not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your grain offering. With all your offerings you shall offer salt."[3]
Salt was cast on the burnt offering (Ezekiel 43:24) and was part of the incense (Exodus 30:35). Part of the temple offering included salt (Ezra 6:9).
Salt was widely and variably used as a symbol and sacred sign in ancient Israel Numbers 18:19 and 2 Chronicles 13:5 illustrate salt as a covenant of friendship. In cultures throughout the region, the eating of salt is a sign of friendship.
Salt land is a metaphorical name for a desolate no man's land, as attested in Psalms 107:34, Job 39:6, and Jeremiah 17:6. The land of defeated cities was salted to consecrate them to a god and curse their re-population, as illustrated in Judges 9:45.
Bishop K.C. Pillai, from India, testifies that the salt covenant is much more than a covenant of friendship. It is an irrevocable pledge and promise of fidelity. Those who have taken salt together would rather die before they would break their covenant. He further states that the penalty for violating such a covenant is death.[4]
Newborn babies were rubbed with salt.
A reference to this practice is in Ezekiel 16:4: "As for your nativity, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed in water to cleanse you; you were not rubbed with salt nor wrapped in swaddling cloths."
The significance of rubbing a newborn with salt is to indicate that the child would be raised to have integrity, to always be truthful.
continued
Salt in the Bible - Wikipedia
The main source of salt in the region was the area of the Dead Sea, especially the massive, about seven miles long, salt cliffs of Jebel Usdum.[1] The face of the ridge is constantly changing as weather interacts with the rock salt. Ezekiel 47:11 highlights the importance of the Dead Sea's salt.[2]
The Hebrew people harvested salt by pouring sea water into pits and letting the water evaporate until only salt was left. They used the mineral for seasoning and as a preservative. In addition, salt was used to disinfect wounds.[citation needed] In 2 Chron 13:5 King Abijah referred to God's covenant promise to David that he will not lack a man to seat on Israel's throne as a Salt covenant - that is a covenant that can never be broken.
Old Testament[edit]
An angel leads Lot out of Sodom and destroys the City; as in Genesis 19:25-26
The fate of Lot's wife, being turned to a pillar of salt, is found in Genesis 19:26. This is the reason for the naming of the pillar on Mount Sodom, which is often called "Lot's Wife".
Leviticus 2:13 and Ezekiel 43:24 illustrate the requirement of salt as part of ancient Hebrew religious sacrifices. Leviticus 2:13 reads: "And every offering of your grain offering you shall season with salt; you shall not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your grain offering. With all your offerings you shall offer salt."[3]
Salt was cast on the burnt offering (Ezekiel 43:24) and was part of the incense (Exodus 30:35). Part of the temple offering included salt (Ezra 6:9).
Salt was widely and variably used as a symbol and sacred sign in ancient Israel Numbers 18:19 and 2 Chronicles 13:5 illustrate salt as a covenant of friendship. In cultures throughout the region, the eating of salt is a sign of friendship.
Salt land is a metaphorical name for a desolate no man's land, as attested in Psalms 107:34, Job 39:6, and Jeremiah 17:6. The land of defeated cities was salted to consecrate them to a god and curse their re-population, as illustrated in Judges 9:45.
Bishop K.C. Pillai, from India, testifies that the salt covenant is much more than a covenant of friendship. It is an irrevocable pledge and promise of fidelity. Those who have taken salt together would rather die before they would break their covenant. He further states that the penalty for violating such a covenant is death.[4]
Newborn babies were rubbed with salt.
A reference to this practice is in Ezekiel 16:4: "As for your nativity, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed in water to cleanse you; you were not rubbed with salt nor wrapped in swaddling cloths."
The significance of rubbing a newborn with salt is to indicate that the child would be raised to have integrity, to always be truthful.
continued
Salt in the Bible - Wikipedia
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Yes, there is, and I posted it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you linked a crank. You do not appear to understand what valid evidence is. Once again the minimum requirement is that your evidence needs to be based upon peer reviewed journals.