BeautifulMind
Member
The bible, or any religious books. Now, that's funny...:biglaugh:Deut. 10:19 said:That's funny ... :biglaugh:
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The bible, or any religious books. Now, that's funny...:biglaugh:Deut. 10:19 said:That's funny ... :biglaugh:
Ah. "Scholars" have "researched" it and found "theories." Good evidence! I'm convinced!BeautifulMind said:First of all, scholars have researched it and found theories.
Secondly, the Bible is a fictional book.
The theory is just as sound as the existence of God. Which was found from a book, a fictional book.Aqualung said:Ah. "Scholars" have "researched" it and found "theories." Good evidence! I'm convinced!
WAHHH!!!!!!! :biglaugh:Aqualung said:Ah. "Scholars" have "researched" it and found "theories." Good evidence! I'm convinced!
The onus is on you to disprove it, because your the skeptic. I gave you plenty of fact-based reasons, disprove it. You started the thread with information that had no basis of foundation whatsoever, just anecdotal nonsense.BeautifulMind said:If God, and everything relating to God, exits prove it. You have no valid proof.
In your opinion. Archeaology has strengthened the trustworthiness and validity of the Bible as an authentic source of information.BeautifulMind said:First of all, scholars have researched it and found theories.
Secondly, the Bible is a fictional book.
That is a lie.blueman said:Archeaology has strengthened the trustworthiness and validity of the Bible as an authentic source of information.
It helps if you give an example.Deut. 10:19 said:That is a lie.
prove me wrong!Deut. 10:19 said:That is a lie.
I think you're going to bite off more then you can handle. :jiggy:blueman said:prove me wrong!
Two good resources to reference.blueman said:prove me wrong!
I doubt it.Binyamin said:I think you're going to bite off more then you can handle. :jiggy:
It is interesting that you would seek to shift the burden of proof onto me, rather than requiring blueman to substantiate his worthless claim.Binyamin said:It helps if you give an example.
Let me begin by clarifying which books of the Hebrew Bible I think can be utilized by the would-be historian, whether textual scholar or archaeologist. With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch, specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. These materials obviously constitute a sort of "pre-history" that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors. All this may be distilled from long oral tradition, and I suspect that some of the stories -- such as parts of the Patriarchal narratives -- may once have had a historical setting. These traditions, however, are overlaid with legendary and even fantastic materials that the modern reader may enjoy as "story," but which can scarcely be taken seriously as history.
< -- snip -- >
After a century of exhausive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible historical figures. Virtually the last archaeological word was written by me more than 20 years ago for a basic handbook of biblical studies, Israelite and Judean History. And, as we have seen, archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. Indeed, the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the middle 13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite religion. As for Leviticus and Numbers, these are clearly additions to the "pre-history" by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the "promised land," and othe literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying, much less historical.
< -- snip -- >
Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look at the biblical texts describing the origins of Israel, we see at once that the traditional account contained in Genesis through Joshua simple cannot be reconciled with the picture derived above from archaeological investigation. The whole "Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term "myth": perhaps "historical fiction" ...
We'll see, I wouldn't argue a shaky interpretation of scripture/science with him, but that's me. You're more then free to make your decisions.blueman said:I doubt it.
Well, I started in the last post of the thread (by you) and work my way back in posts normally. I know, it's weird.Deut. 10:19 said:It is interesting that you would seek to shift the burden of proof onto me, rather than requiring blueman to substantiate his worthless claim.
This of course only affects the "young earth" crowd, not the bible.Deut. 10:19 said:Archaeology contradicts the Young Earth chronology
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the Moderators, let me be perfectly honest with you: I think you're a fraud who has never read the books referenced and lacks the most elementary understanding of Syro-Palestinian Archaeology. But, I am more than willing to be proven wrong. Rather than showing us that you can find an evangelical archaeologist (Kitchener would have been a better choice), open the books and inform us of the peer-reviewed archaeological support for the Exodus/Conquest.blueman said:Two good resources to reference.
More information to ponder.Deut. 10:19 said:It is interesting that you would seek to shift the burden of proof onto me, rather than requiring blueman to substantiate his worthless claim.
Be that as it may
To quote Dever, the leading maximalist referenced approvingly by aish.com:
- Archaeology contradicts the Young Earth chronology
- Archaeology contradicts the Exodus/Conquest narrative