cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[TagliatelliMonster]

You made a claim that Biblical history does not match actual history.

And provided evidence for it. Contrary to your bare assertions.

But to simply say that there is no archaeological evidence of lsrael in Egypt (which is debateable) is, of course, arguing a case from the absence of a particular type of evidence.

Which is perfectly reasonable when discussing a claim that, if true, would have abundant evidence.
When you have a hypothesis that predicts the presence of certain evidence, and that evidence then turns out to not be there, then the absence of that evidence, is evidence against the hypothesis.


When I claim that I was in your apartment last night for a party, then all kinds of testable predictions flow from that...
For example, if I had my phone with me, then my location service records would put me at that location. Next to that, my fingerprints and DNA (skin, saliva, hair) should be found all over as well.
Now it turns out that after investigating it, none of this is found. No phone records, no hairs, no fingerprints, nada....


This absence of evidence would then become evidence of absence.

I would argue that l have documentary evidence, in the form of the Bible.

No. Those are the claims.

My claims, therefore, rest on better evidence!

Repeating the claims of the bible, doesn't magically turn those repeat claims into evidence of the original claims.

Whatever evidence you wish to offer for the biblical narrative, necessarily would have to be extra-biblical.

The realm that reason cannot enter is the realm of revelation. If God exists, as l believe He does, then only God can reveal his intentions to mankind.

You reply, But what material evidence, based on reason, do you have for believing in God?

And round and round the merry goes.

I reply, the Bible, from beginning to end, speaks the truth to me.

Which is your belief. A belief for which you have no evidence.
The bible isn't evidence of the bible.

The person of Jesus, whom l believe is the Christ of scripture, walked the earth in flesh and blood. Many testimonies were given by those who claimed to have met him, and this includes testimonies to his death, resurrection and ascension.

And all of those are claims of the bible.
Notice how all you have to rely on are the piling on of claims and beliefs.

But, you say, What evidence is there to support these testimonies?

I already know that the answer to that question is "none".
If there was another answer, then I would have known about it already.
The whole world would.

I say, the same way we arrive at the truth in a court of law.

We arrive at the truth in the court of law like we always do in other settings as well: by testable, verifiable evidence. Testimony does not get you to "the truth". It, at best, gets you to beliefs.

But, as the innocence project clearly showed (another point you completely ignored), testimony is NOT a pathway to truth. Testimony without corroborating independent evidence is essentially worthless and just a matter of "believing". There's no explanatory power or demonstrability in testimony. At all.

We listen, determine the likelihood of various different witnesses providing the same story, and reach our conclusions

The likelihood of what-can-only-be-called magic is always nihil. Regardless of how many people "claim" to have witnessed it.

The impossible-by-definition, does not magically become "likely" simply because people make claims. That is absurd.

If we trust the words spoken, we accept the testimony on trust.

There is no reason to trust those words.
Trust has to be earned through proven track records of reliability.
The anonymous authors of the bible do not have such a track record. We don't even know who they are / were!!

Au contraire, knowing how superstitious ancient civilizations were (and many people still are), there is in fact much reason to NOT trust claims of magic.

Next to that: People lie. People make mistakes. People engage in wishful thinking. People exaggerate. People engage in pareidolia. People engage in type 2 cognition errors (the false positive).

ALL OF THOSE are immensely more probable then magic actually being real.
ALL OF THOSE things, demonstrably happen ALL THE TIME. Magic - not so much.

Incidently, all of those (and others) are also the reason why "testimony" is not a reliable pathway to truth. Even if the people aren't deliberately lying... there still are a bazillion reasons on how they could be wrong. And you wouldn't know until you actually test their claims against testable reality. Because "true" means: that which corresponds to reality.

Then, you say, But you have trusted things, like healings, miracles and resurrection, which are not normal occurences, and do not match the experience of ordinary men and women.

Well, l say, Jesus was never going to be an ordinary man, if he were to be the Christ of God. The picture painted of the Messiah in scripture is not of an ordinary man. If God could work miracles through the prophets of old, then the Messiah could do greater miracles.

And round and round the merry goes again.

Off course, if you start with the belief of "god exists and can do anything - including the impossible", then sure, no piece of evidence ever is going to be enough for you to question the accuracy of your belief. You closed up your mind in a perfect circle.

Might as well engage in Last Thursdayism.

You seem to think that this unfalsifiable nature of your claims is a point in their favor. It really isn't. If anything, it makes the claims completely irrelevant and irrational.

Unfalsifiable claims are infinite in number. They are indistinguishable from things that don't exist and the extent of them is only limited by your imagination.

You reply, l don't believe in the miracles performed in the OT, so why should l believe in the miracles of the NT.

I don't "believe" any wild claim that has no evidence.

And that's when we get back to Genesis 1:1. Either the creation of the world is a miracle of God, or it's some kind of accident.

False dichotomy combined with a strawman. Logical fallacy combo points.

If you think that the world is an accident, and not the creation of God, then we have two widely differing starting points. You live life in an accidental world, spend a few years on earth, die, and rot away. I live life trusting in my Lord, who lives eternally, in the belief that He knows best, and has my best interests at heart.

Simple.

"simple" allright.

In the sense of juvenile and not at all thought through.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The basis for acquiring evidence of God's presence is through faith

So you need to believe it first and then you can use that belief to justify that belief.

This is like the epitome of circularity and self-brainwashing.

If a person places their trust in Jesus, his promise is to lead them as the Good Shepherd. How does he do this? Through the Holy Spirit, in truth.

Now, you're just preaching.

Piling on more and more and more claims. No evidence at all.

 

[gnostic]

Moses was not writing a history, but revealing the Word of God. It just happens that Moses supplies us with enough historical information in his prophecies to enable men to look further at the material evidence and determine for themselves whether the information is accurate.

If your case against the accuracy of the historical record in the Bible was to be upheld, then it would have to be upheld by more recent archaeology in lsrael. At present, there are hundreds of archaeological sites in Israel, and none of them, to my knowledge, undermine or contradict the Biblical account. So, if the more recent findings are accurate, there is no justification to doubting the accounts of the ancient past. One prophetic account leads seamlessly into another.

Except you ignoring the fact that there are no evidence that Moses even exist in the 15th century BCE, let alone being author of the books that were attributed to him. There are no Exodus, Numbers & Leviticus contemporary to the 15th century BCE, I seriously doubt the credibility of these books.

No such biblical texts exist in the Late Bronze Age (c 1570 - c 1050 BCE). No such texts exist until the late 7th century, but mostly during the 6th century BCE and later. You will not find any whole or partial (eg fragments) of the Genesis or the Exodus til 6th century BCE, which were the times of exile in Babylon and the return.

And what you said about Moses had “supplies enough historical information” to be accurate and true...except that you have no idea how to judge what is accurate or isn’t accurate.

History is not just about writing about the events and writing about the people involved in the events...if you are going talk about the Bible being accurate or reliable, then you need to supply external sources to verify that these people exist and events happen in that time.

And since I know that Moses didn’t write the Exodus as no such texts exist in the Exodus, I don’t share your belief that it supplied enough historical information at all.

If Moses did exist, and did live in the 16th and 15th centuries BCE, then as Exodus 2 narrated, then he would have been born about 1527 BCE, left Egypt around 1447 BCE (Exodus 1237 BCE), and died around 1407 BCE (Deuteronomy 34).

Those years would put Moses’ entire life in the early half of the 18th dynasty in Egypt, and what you don’t seem to know, is that this dynasty were quite well documented, particularly these 3 kings:

Moses’ birth: Ahmose I (c 1550 - 1525 BCE)

Moses @ age 80, the mass exodus: Thutmose III (1479 - 1425 BCE)

Moses’ death: Amenhotep II (1427 - 1401 BCE)​

Now I would expect Moses to know the name of the king at the time of his death.

But in Exodus 2, he should have known the name of Egyptian princess who adopted him and the name of her father who was pharaoh at the time of his birth.

Ahmose was the founder of the 18th dynasty, and he was famous for driving out the ḥqꜣ-ḫꜣst, better known by its Greek name, the Hyksos (Ὑκσώς).

Thutmose was famous as a warrior-king, whose empire reached it zenith, during his reign, which included Canaan and part of Syria.

There were no 10 plagues in Thutmose’s reign, nor were there any records of mass-liberation of Hebrew slaves and mass-exodus. And yet this king is unnamed in the Exodus.

As I said, these Egyptians are well-known because they left behind records and evidence of their existence in history, annals inscribed on stone stelae, on the walls of building they have constructed during their lifetime, including temples and their tombs.

And the stelae I had mentioned, recorded the reigns of each kings, especially their achievements.

If Moses really lived during this period, he should be to know the names of Egyptian kings.

But it is apparent to even me that who ever wrote Exodus, knew absolutely nothing about Egyptian history during the late Bronze Age (c 1570 - c 1050).

And that's what make Exodus, unreliable and inaccurate in regard to history contemporary to Ahmose and Thutmose.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So you need to believe it first and then you can use that belief to justify that belief.

No. When people act by faith in God, there is always a demonstrable outcome.

In Hebrews 11, we have a long list of men who acted by faith in God.

Hebrews 11:8. 'By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he would afterward receive as an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went'.

Now, to you this is foolishness. But, there is a demonstrable outcome to his faith. He moved from Ur, and then Haran, to live in Canaan. The only reason you cannot verify the record is because you were not present to witness it.

Most of the things we come to believe are based not on verifiable evidence but on trust.

Hebrews 11:11. 'Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised'.

In the case of Sara, the demonstrable outcome was a son. To not acknowledge lsaac's birth is to also deny the existence of all the generations that follow! No lsaac, no Jacob, no lsrael.

As far as l know, there is no physical evidence of the battle of Actium, fought at sea in 31 BCE. The battle was, however, claimed as a major victory by Octavian over Anthony. If we apply your need for 'verifiable evidence' (physical evidence) to all knowledge then none of the documentary sources would be believed, and the battle would not, in the eyes of historians, have occurred.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. When people act by faith in God, there is always a demonstrable outcome.

Yeah, but you still get different results for different Gods and you and I get that differently demonstrable outcomes.

 

[Redemptionsong]

And what you said about Moses had “supplies enough historical information” to be accurate and true...except that you have no idea how to judge what is accurate or isn’t accurate.

All this demonstrates is your ignorance of the Bible.

Even place names, clearly linked to the very earliest of civilizations, can be found in the book of Genesis.

In Genesis 10 we are given a long list of the generations of Noah. The first few verses read as follows:
'Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras,
And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodamin.
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.'

Have a read of this chapter, and then tell me what you think. Did Moses gather this information from a hidden source? Or, did he make it up, from his imagination?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All this demonstrates is your ignorance of the Bible.
...

Yeah, your understand is correct to you and mine is incorrect to you and so in reverse. Get it differently though than you.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yeah, but you still get different results for different Gods and you and I get that differently demonstrable outcomes.

Are you claiming your gods to be the absolute truth, or do your gods submit themselves to the one God?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you claiming your gods to be the absolute truth, or do your gods submit themselves to the one God?

No, I do God like this: There is no way to God, there are many ways to many Gods and there is only one way to God. But I am a mystic as to God. You do it differently.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, I do God like this: There is no way to God, there are many ways to many Gods and there is only one way to God. But I am a mystic as to God. You do it differently.

You accept that there is one God, the Creator?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You accept that there is one God, the Creator?

No, that is a different one to yours. So I don't accept your version. I have another one. I accept that we have different Gods and leave it at that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. When people act by faith in God, there is always a demonstrable outcome.

Aka, confirmation bias.

In Hebrews 11, we have a long list of men who acted by faith in God.

Hebrews 11:8. 'By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he would afterward receive as an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went'.

Now, to you this is foolishness.

It's plain old, cliché, confirmation bias.

But, there is a demonstrable outcome to his faith. He moved from Ur, and then Haran, to live in Canaan. The only reason you cannot verify the record is because you were not present to witness it.

Most of the things we come to believe are based not on verifiable evidence but on trust.

Hebrews 11:11. 'Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised'.

In the case of Sara, the demonstrable outcome was a son. To not acknowledge lsaac's birth is to also deny the existence of all the generations that follow! No lsaac, no Jacob, no lsrael.

Pure confirmation bias. And also a case of counting the hits while ignoring the misses.
"I prayed for rain and lo and behold, it rained!!!"

As far as l know, there is no physical evidence of the battle of Actium, fought at sea in 31 BCE

This battle has plenty of independent and contemporary evidence. It was record by all sides, including sides that didn't even have a stake in it. There's also plenty of physical artifacts associated with that battle.

. The battle was, however, claimed as a major victory by Octavian over Anthony. If we apply your need for 'verifiable evidence' (physical evidence) to all knowledge then none of the documentary sources would be believed, and the battle would not, in the eyes of historians, have occurred.

False. The problem is that you have no clue how history is uncovered in the historical sciences.

Again, this battle has CONTEMPORARY and INDEPENDENT records. From Egypt, from Rome and even from parties that had no stake in it, like the Greeks and other surrounding nations. The demise of Anthony and Cleopatra was big news and from the many CONTEMPORARY and INDEPENDENT records and artifacts we KNOW this battle took place.

Your biblical claims are NOTHING like that.
They are not contemporary (written centuries after the supposed facts)
They are not independent (written by "believers" and NO OTHER SOURCES mention it at all)
It's also clear that the authors of those stories in reality had NO CLUE about the state of the world during the time the events supposedly took place. They don't know the names of kings for example. They also place camels in a place where they wouldn't show up for another thousands years. And plenty of other such absurd errors. Errors that would NOT be there if they are accounts written by people who actually had a clue about what was going on at that time.

If you think such "sources" are the equivalent of the sources of how we know that battle took place... then I honestly don't know what to tell you.

Not much. Clearly you aren't interested in learning and what the truth actually is.
All you care about, it seems, is upholding your a priori belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All this demonstrates is your ignorance of the Bible.

Even place names, clearly linked to the very earliest of civilizations, can be found in the book of Genesis.

In Genesis 10 we are given a long list of the generations of Noah. The first few verses read as follows:
'Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras,
And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodamin.
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.'

Have a read of this chapter, and then tell me what you think. Did Moses gather this information from a hidden source? Or, did he make it up, from his imagination?

Just what do you think that chapter "proves"?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Your biblical claims are NOTHING like that.
They are not contemporary (written centuries after the supposed facts)
They are not independent (written by "believers" and NO OTHER SOURCES mention it at all)

This is more nonsense that does not relate to the evidence.

It also demonstrates, again, that you do not know the Bible. You have argued the case for the battle of Actium without realising that the evidence to support the NT is actually far stronger. There are more testimonies, there is greater archaeological support, and the record was both written down and transmitted orally within the lifetime of the witnesses. This is because, as l have argued at length elsewhere, the synoptic Gospels had to have been written before the book of Acts, which was completed before the Jewish wars and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The book of Acts ends with the imprisonment of Paul in Rome in about 64 CE. This means the Gospel of Luke was written earlier than 64 CE.

Noone would argue that there are not details in the Bible that have to believed on trust. This is no different to the records of the battle of Actium. You claim that the eyewitnesses to Jesus had a bias, but why should they have a bias? How would believing in Jesus as the Christ be a benefit to a Jew in the first century? A believer was making a truth claim, not gaining materially from their beliefs.

You call faith 'a confirmation bias', because the outcomes cannot be visibly connected to God's word. But this is how prophecy works. A prophet hears God's voice, and acts on the call. Either through visions or audible words, the prophet receives a message that he feels bound to share with others.

The test of a true prophet was consistency and reliability. If the outcome did not fit the proclamation, then that prophet was liable to be killed. And many biblical prophets were killed on the grounds that their prophecies were false.

What we have is not a 'confirmation bias'. This is because a prophet made known his prophecy before the event, and the outcome was awaited. In time of war, this was particularly significant, as the prophecy of victory or defeat in battle would determine a king's actions.

It is common practice amongst sceptics to claim that all prophecy was concocted after the event, but this is not a claim that can be upheld with the Bible. Evidence places the writing of the Tanakh before the events of the NT, and each of the books of the Tanakh was written within a specific period in the history of lsrael.

I've pointed you to Genesis chapter 10 because it provides a huge body of information in the form of places, people and geography. It also takes us back to times that can only be verified by archaeology.

You claim the Bible is full of myth and nonsense, but to a scholar studying Genesis 10 there are threads of information that lead to verifiable evidence. I could point to names that you recognise, like Canaan, Sheba and Nimrod, or Babel, Erech and Accad, but instead l'll point you to verse 15, where it says, 'Canaan begat Sidon, his firstborn, and Heth'. Who was Heth?

Heth, if one checks out the Hebrew, and the 46 occasions that 'Hittite/s' occur in the Tanakh, was the father of the Hittites. He was said to be a mountain dweller.

Archaeological evidence for the Hittites was not uncovered until the 19th century. Then, in 1958, the Hittite city of Catal Huyuk was excavated in Turkey. Numerous cuneiform tablets then gave scholars a much deeper understanding of this people and their civilization.

Had the Bible been accurate? Most definitely. It provided information that would otherwise have been unknown to modern man. And, the interesting part of this discovery is that we are sitting on the tip of an iceburg of information. The excavation of the past is a relatively young science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is more nonsense that does not relate to the evidence.

It's not nonsense. It's fact. None of these sources are contemporary. None of these sources are independent. That's just how it is.

And since you are offering that up as BEING the evidence, I'ld say it is very much related to the evidence....

It also demonstrates, again, that you do not know the Bible. You have argued the case for the battle of Actium without realising that the evidence to support the NT is actually far stronger.

Funny.

There are more testimonie,

The evidence of the battle of Actium doesn't rely on just "testimony"

there is greater archaeological support,

There is ZERO archeological support for the supernatural claims of the bible. ZERO.

[/QUOTE]
and the record was both written down and transmitted orally within the lifetime of the witnesses[/QUOTE]

And we all know how well the telephone game works.
Having said that: you don't know this. You just believe this.

Noone would argue that there are not details in the Bible that have to believed on trust. This is no different to the records of the battle of Actium.

It is very different and I already explained how it's different.
The written records of the battle are independent and contemporary.
The written records of the bible are neither.
The battle also has archeological evidence.
The outlandish claims of the bible do not.

You claim that the eyewitnesses to Jesus had a bias, but why should they have a bias?

1. because they were followers / believers.

2. we have no accounts of eyewitnesses. We have stories written after the supposed facts, by anonymous authors, who CLAIM they heard it from eyewitnesses.

3. do you believe the "eyewitnesses" of islam? His compagnons wrote the quran after all. Or are claimed eyewitnesses only believable when it concerns your particular religion of choice?

And it's not just the quran off course. How about Rastafarianism? Started by eyewitnesses to King Selassi when he came to Jamaica. Or that religion of which I have forgotten the name in some remote island. They worship King Charles as god. Back in the day he visted the island when he was still a prince. Eyewitnesses then kickstarted that religion.

This is the type of "argument" you are engaging in.

How would believing in Jesus as the Christ be a benefit to a Jew in the first century? A believer was making a truth claim, not gaining materially from their beliefs.

Newsflash: people can be sincere / honest AND wrong at the same time.

You call faith 'a confirmation bias', because the outcomes cannot be visibly connected to God's word.

No. I call it confirmation bias because it's a classic example thereof.
A woman has difficulty getting pregnant, prays for it and gets pregnant.
She then concludes the praying worked. This is confirmation bias.

Woman who have difficulty getting pregnant get pregnant eventually all the time - regardless of praying or not.
Plenty of women who have difficulty getting pregnant pray for it and never get pregnant. I'ld dare say that these are far more numerous. But somehow, those don't count as evidence against praying.

It's a case of "heads I win, tails you lose".
It's counting the hits and ignoring the misses.


Come back to me when an amputee prays for his limbs to grow back and then wakes up the next morning with new grown limbs.

But this is how prophecy works. A prophet hears God's voice, and acts on the call. Either through visions or audible words, the prophet receives a message that he feels bound to share with others.

I agree. Exactly why I don't believe it. It's indistinguishable from hallucination, confirmation bias, self-delusion, etc.

And we KNOW that such things are actually very very common in humans. We know of no instance where a "revelation" actually came from somewhere else other then that person's own brain.

So to say that in a certain case it DID come from elsewhere, then that would require a serious amount of evidence. It's an extra-ordinary claim.

What we have is not a 'confirmation bias'.

Claiming it, does not make it so.

It is common practice amongst sceptics to claim that all prophecy was concocted after the event, but this is not a claim that can be upheld with the Bible. Evidence places the writing of the Tanakh before the events of the NT, and each of the books of the Tanakh was written within a specific period in the history of lsrael.

The people who wrote the NT were aware of the OT.
They could easily write to match it.
They could also easily actively look for things they could match to those "prophecies" of the OT.

And let's still not forget that there isn't any evidence for any of these bible claims.
All you have are the bible claims. There is zero extra-biblical independent contemporary evidence for any of it (that matters to the religion).

I've pointed you to Genesis chapter 10 because it provides a huge body of information in the form of places, people and geography.

So does Marvel comics. That doesn't make Spiderman and Thor real.

And you will also conveniently ignore all the things they got wrong. Like placing camels in a place where they wouldn't show up for another thousand years. Those are not trivial errors.

It also takes us back to times that can only be verified by archaeology.

And as I have already shown to you with links to evidence: the archeology DOES NOT AGREE with the history of israelites as laid out in the OT. It simply doesn't.

You claim the Bible is full of myth and nonsense, but to a scholar studying Genesis 10 there are threads of information that lead to verifiable evidence

I have already given you links, that you seemingly ignored, from history academia where it is shown that the actual history of the people does not correspond to what the OT claims.

. I could point to names that you recognise, like Canaan, Sheba and Nimrod, or Babel, Erech and Accad, but instead l'll point you to verse 15, where it says, 'Canaan begat Sidon, his firstborn, and Heth'. Who was Heth?

Heth, if one checks out the Hebrew, and the 46 occasions that 'Hittite/s' occur in the Tanakh, was the father of the Hittites. He was said to be a mountain dweller.

Archaeological evidence for the Hittites was not uncovered until the 19th century. Then, in 1958, the Hittite city of Catal Huyuk was excavated in Turkey. Numerous cuneiform tablets then gave scholars a much deeper understanding of this people and their civilization.

Had the Bible been accurate? Most definitely. It provided information that would otherwise have been unknown to modern man. And, the interesting part of this discovery is that we are sitting on the tip of an iceburg of information. The excavation of the past is a relatively young science.

So since New York exists and Obama was president, I guess that means that Shield and the Avengers exist also.

 

[Redemptionsong]

What your response shows is a double standard.

You make the claim that evidence must be verifiable, or must be seen to be true, and then, in talking about the battle of Actium, you acknowledge the need to trust historians.

You didn't read the Latin and Greek accounts of the battle of Actium, l gather? You relied on historians to provide you with information, which you accepted on trust.

To prove the Bible to be untrustworthy you must provide evidence of inconsistency in the message, or inaccuracy in the factual claims. I'm asking you to show me, with chapter and verse, where these contradictions, or errors, exist in the text.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What your response shows is a double standard.

You make the claim that evidence must be verifiable, or must be seen to be true, and then, in talking about the battle of Actium, you acknowledge the need to trust historians.

You didn't read the Latin and Greek accounts of the battle of Actium, l gather? You relied on historians to provide you with information, which you accepted on trust.

To prove the Bible to be untrustworthy you must provide evidence of inconsistency in the message, or inaccuracy in the factual claims. I'm asking you to show me, with chapter and verse, where these contradictions, or errors, exist in the text.

Yeah, but that as to trust is not unique to the Bible. I could trust other texts and get another result. And indeed I do. I trust something different.

 

[gnostic]

All this demonstrates is your ignorance of the Bible.

Even place names, clearly linked to the very earliest of civilizations, can be found in the book of Genesis.

Redemptionsong.

Just because Exodus and Genesis could name some cities and kingdoms, don't make the stories of Adam (Genesis) to Joshua (Joshua), "historical".

Many religious texts, legends, myths and past and present fictions can narrate real cities, don't make their stories historical.

For instance, Homer named many cities, regions and islands, but naming real places don’t make the stories in the Iliad or in the Odyssey, “factual”, or the people in these stories, like Agamemnon, Achilles, Odysseus, Priam, Hector, Helen, etc to be real historical people.

Likewise, Athenian playwrights, Sophocles and Euripides wrote plays set in various locations especially in Argos, Thebes and Athens itself, yet it doesn’t make their plays “historical accounts”.

In Rome, there is legend of Romulus and Remus about the founding of the Rome, don't make the legend, "historical".

So the uses of naming cities and kingdoms.

I have been telling you again, again AND AGAIN, that what are considered "historical",

(A) HAVE TO BE VERIFIED FROM INDEPENDENT SOURCES THAT SUPPORT THE BIBLICAL EVENTS

or

(B) FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT COLLABORATE THE EVENTS.​

The Genesis and Exodus does neither.

You don't verify the Bible by using the Bible, because that's circular reasoning and confirmation biases.

As I mention before in my previous replies, the Genesis and Exodus cannot name a single Egyptian pharaoh, that Abraham, Joseph and Moses supposedly know personally.

Another example I had given, that the construction of Rameses in Exodus and and fall of Jericho in Joshua, don't match up with the real timelines of Pi-Ramesses and Jericho.

Pi-Ramesses never existed until the 13th century BCE, constructed during the reigns of Seti and Ramesses II, and named after Ramesses I, the founder of the 19th dynasty. Ramesses' completed the construction around 1260 BCE.

But Jericho was abandoned around 1570 BCE, about 3 centuries earlier than Pi-Ramesses' construction. That's debunk Exodus and Joshua claims that Ramesses was constructed before

As to Genesis 10, you wrote the following:

In Genesis 10 we are given a long list of the generations of Noah. The first few verses read as follows:
'Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras,
And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodamin.
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.'

Have a read of this chapter, and then tell me what you think. Did Moses gather this information from a hidden source? Or, did he make it up, from his imagination?

There are no writings, outside of Genesis that mentioned Japheth and his descendants to verify Genesis 10 passage that you quoted.

Take for instance, after Japheth, it talk of the descendants of Ham, including Egypt (Mizraim) and Cush.

Egypt, and Egyptian culture predated the 1st dynasty in the Early Bronze Age (c 3050 - c 2000 BCE), in what it is the Predynastic Period or the proto-dynastic period, where Egypt wasn't united under the single kingdom. Instead there were 2 Egyptian kingdoms before 3050 BCE.

As to the dynasties of Egypt, from the 1st dynasty to 5th dynasty, Egypt was in its renaissance during the 3rd and 4th dynasties, a time, where they started building pyramids in Saqqara with Djoser's Step Pyramid being the first (early 27th century BCE), and the largest pyramid was built in Giza during the reign of Khufu (4th dynasty, 26th century BCE)...predated the mythological Flood by at least a couple of centuries.

The whole thing about Egypt not existing until AFTER THE FLOOD, is a myth.

Likewise, there were no Nimrod in Sumerian or Akkadian history during the 3rd millennium BCE.

According to Genesis 10:8-12, Nimrod have built all these cities in Babylonia (Shinar) and in Assyria:

8 Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Akkad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar. 11 From that land he went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and 12 Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.

Not only is Nimrod a fictional character. We know that while Akkad may have been built around 24th century BCE, Erech or Uruk was a very important city, that was first inhabited as a settlement around 5000 BCE, but became a very important city before the "Sumerians", from 4000 BCE to 2500 BCE.

And Nineveh is even older, being built as a town as early 6000 BCE, but Calneh or the Assyrian Kalhu, DIDN'T EXIST until it was built during the Shalmaneser I (1273 - 1244 BCE).

So unless Nimrod can lived for over 4700 years, Nimrod is nothing more than a myth or fiction.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yeah, but that as to trust is not unique to the Bible. I could trust other texts and get another result. And indeed I do. I trust something different.

There are millions of people in the same boat as you. Most are not familiar with the teaching that God has dwelt amongst men, or that, in Christ, He offers the promise of salvation from sin and death.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Redemptionsong.

Just because Exodus and Genesis could name some cities and kingdoms, don't make the stories of Adam (Genesis) to Joshua (Joshua), "historical".

Many religious texts, legends, myths and past and present fictions can narrate real cities, don't make their stories historical.

For instance, Homer named many cities, regions and islands, but naming real places don’t make the stories in the Iliad or in the Odyssey, “factual”, or the people in these stories, like Agamemnon, Achilles, Odysseus, Priam, Hector, Helen, etc to be real historical people.

Likewise, Athenian playwrights, Sophocles and Euripides wrote plays set in various locations especially in Argos, Thebes and Athens itself, yet it doesn’t make their plays “historical accounts”.

In Rome, there is legend of Romulus and Remus about the founding of the Rome, don't make the legend, "historical".

So the uses of naming cities and kingdoms.

I have been telling you again, again AND AGAIN, that what are considered "historical",

(A) HAVE TO BE VERIFIED FROM INDEPENDENT SOURCES THAT SUPPORT THE BIBLICAL EVENTS

or

(B) FROM ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE THAT COLLABORATE THE EVENTS.​

The Genesis and Exodus does neither.

You don't verify the Bible by using the Bible, because that's circular reasoning and confirmation biases.

As I mention before in my previous replies, the Genesis and Exodus cannot name a single Egyptian pharaoh, that Abraham, Joseph and Moses supposedly know personally.

Another example I had given, that the construction of Rameses in Exodus and and fall of Jericho in Joshua, don't match up with the real timelines of Pi-Ramesses and Jericho.

Pi-Ramesses never existed until the 13th century BCE, constructed during the reigns of Seti and Ramesses II, and named after Ramesses I, the founder of the 19th dynasty. Ramesses' completed the construction around 1260 BCE.

But Jericho was abandoned around 1570 BCE, about 3 centuries earlier than Pi-Ramesses' construction. That's debunk Exodus and Joshua claims that Ramesses was constructed before

As to Genesis 10, you wrote the following:



There are no writings, outside of Genesis that mentioned Japheth and his descendants to verify Genesis 10 passage that you quoted.

Take for instance, after Japheth, it talk of the descendants of Ham, including Egypt (Mizraim) and Cush.

Egypt, and Egyptian culture predated the 1st dynasty in the Early Bronze Age (c 3050 - c 2000 BCE), in what it is the Predynastic Period or the proto-dynastic period, where Egypt wasn't united under the single kingdom. Instead there were 2 Egyptian kingdoms before 3050 BCE.

As to the dynasties of Egypt, from the 1st dynasty to 5th dynasty, Egypt was in its renaissance during the 3rd and 4th dynasties, a time, where they started building pyramids in Saqqara with Djoser's Step Pyramid being the first (early 27th century BCE), and the largest pyramid was built in Giza during the reign of Khufu (4th dynasty, 26th century BCE)...predated the mythological Flood by at least a couple of centuries.

The whole thing about Egypt not existing until AFTER THE FLOOD, is a myth.

Likewise, there were no Nimrod in Sumerian or Akkadian history during the 3rd millennium BCE.

According to Genesis 10:8-12, Nimrod have built all these cities in Babylonia (Shinar) and in Assyria:



Not only is Nimrod a fictional character. We know that while Akkad may have been built around 24th century BCE, Erech or Uruk was a very important city, that was first inhabited as a settlement around 5000 BCE, but became a very important city before the "Sumerians", from 4000 BCE to 2500 BCE.

And Nineveh is even older, being built as a town as early 6000 BCE, but Calneh or the Assyrian Kalhu, DIDN'T EXIST until it was built during the Shalmaneser I (1273 - 1244 BCE).

So unless Nimrod can lived for over 4700 years, Nimrod is nothing more than a myth or fiction.

I do not doubt the existence of myths in literature, but the record in Genesis 10 of the Bible is a post-diluvial record of the descendants of Noah. It does not give us dates, only the generations. Our clues as to where these individuals settled is in the names.

I've considered these matters carefully, and realise that, as Jesus said, 'scripture cannot be broken'. There is a unity to the word of God that does not allow for 'picking and choosing' of the bits you like, and don't like.

Jesus himself made reference to the life of Noah, and to the flood, so the implication of doubting his word is to doubt all of scripture as prophecy. If Noah lived, and the flood occurred, then the record of Genesis 10 is a legitimate record of descendants after the flood.

You have described Nimrod as a fictional character, but this is based on a number of assumptions, including human longevity.

What cannot be denied is that places and civilizations that had disappeared in the sands of time, were, thanks to modern archaeology, shown to have existed. We can list Babel, Akkad and Jericho amongst that number.

You claim that Nimrod was a fictional character, but that is not the view held by many archaeologists, including those involved in the excavations at Babel. So, let me take you back two thousand years, to the writngs of Flavius Josephus.

In Antiques of the Jews, Josephus writes, 'Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work; and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than anyone could expect;.....lt was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water. ....The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon; because of the confusion of the languages which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, Confusion. The Sibyl also makes mention of this tower, and the confusion of the language, when she says thus:-"When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if it would thereby ascent up to heaven; but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave every one his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon." But as to the plain of Shinar, in the country of Babylonia, Hestaeius mentions it, when he says thus:-"Such of the priests as were saved, took the sacred vessels of Jupiter Enyalius, and came to Shinar of Babylonia'.

The position you hold regarding the Bible is a difficult one to sustain. In Luke 3, we have the genealogy of the Son of man through Mary. It takes us back to Adam, thereby demonstrating that Jesus was, indeed, the last Adam. The genealogy is consistent with other earlier genealogies, showing that Noah was related to Mary.

My question to you, given this unbroken genealogy, is, Where does the myth end, and the history begin? You should, based on your certainty that the Bible is full of fiction, be able to pinpoint the generation when the fiction becomes verifiable fact!

As an aside, one should not rush to dismiss the writings of Homer as pure fiction, either. I have visited the site of Troy (Troas) in Turkey, and l also know that this town is mentioned by the apostle Paul [2 Corinthians 2:12], who preached there. If we don't know for sure that the people mentioned in Homer's writings are fictional additions, then we should withhold judgement until better evidence surfaces. In the case of the Bible, the evidence that the persons mentioned are not fictional lies in the testimony of later characters whose existence is based on more solid evidence.