Honest Question For Non-Christians

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I really am fucking tired of this.

Can we get back to talking politics? Enough with this God bullshit. No one is going to change their viewpoint here, especially on religion…can we let this go?

I started this to get an idea of where Non-Christians were coming from. Thank you for your input. I will be interested to discuss any topic in relation to understanding someones core beliefs. I think religion, even if its Atheism or any other theism, directly effects that.

Me Solomon Grundy

That’s fine, but we’ve had like four different threads on this in the past four months that have all gone over 500 posts. We don’t need another one. I’m tired of the same bullshit.

There’s good stuff going on in politics…and religion is something that just gets boring after hearing the same shit for months.[/quote]

I don’t think that the other threads asked the specific question that I did. I’m not interested in the pissing contests on the other threads for the most part. I am interest in open discussion. I’m sure we will meet again on a different thread to discuss “Global warming” or “Immigration”.

Me Solomon Grundy

[quote]orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
A) Much to many Gods and Holy Books.

That is not even all of them, knock yourself out.

B) Kants “Critique of pure reason”

Once you start to speculate without the need for empirical proof, everything and its opposite can be “proven”.

He was famous, tough deeply religious, for destroying every “proof” for God?s existence he could lay his hands on.

Dude, you need to think a little deeper than that. Please look up empirical. In the scientific realm you are basically saying that you need empirical proof, yet “empirical” means coming from observation, not controlled scientific studies.

Empirical = observation of things, items, people, etc in their own natural environment to support or develop scientific hypotheses

Controlled research = an observation of a controlled environment to support or develop scientific hypotheses

So the fact would be that God can be proven empirically, meaning based on observation of how peoples lives are changed as a result. But, God cannot be proven in controlled scientific research.

All that would “prove” is, that the belief in a higher being can change peoples lifes, for better or worse.

That does not verify the existence of said higher being.

And yet the belief in other things does not change peoples lives for the better. So why does belief in God change peoples lives for the better and a belief in Elvis still being alive not?

Belief is not the magic, it’s what it is directed at is where the proof lives.

You should also know that there is no controlled research that proves the theory of evolution either, it is all empirical. So both evolution and God can be supported by empirical evidence, not controlled research.

So has your faith in evolution changed your life for the better?

Yes it has, but that does not make it true and you do not understand fully what falsifiable means.

You are using poor examples.

If I start to believe to have terminal cancer (having no way to find out if it is true) that will kill me soon, I might react to it by going out of my way to help other people or I might go on a killing spree.

Both reactions were shown by people coming under the influence of religion.

That is exactly what is so problematic about religion IMO, it can change peoples behaviour dramatically, though there is no empirical way to test the underlying assumptions.

[/quote]

You seem a little misinformed. I have posted this before, and will post sources when I get time, but the effect that spirituality has on people has been scientifically quantified as real. For example, there have been a number of studies looking at prayer and its effects on healing. These studies had a group of people pray (yes to God) for another person to recover. And yes, they compared the prayed for and non-prayed for groups and the prayed for group had much better outcomes. Now the proof of God lies in the fact that the people who were in the prayed for group had no idea they were being prayed for. So there is no way their better outcomes could have come from their own mind (they refer to this as the placebo effect).

So science has verified the existence of some spiritual force, entity, etc that can help heal people who do not even know they are being prayed for. However, science cannot explain this or why it happens.

So while I agree that there have been and are crazy people who use religion as their motivating factor to do bad things, that has no connection to the spiritual force or God.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
A) Much to many Gods and Holy Books.

That is not even all of them, knock yourself out.

B) Kants “Critique of pure reason”

Once you start to speculate without the need for empirical proof, everything and its opposite can be “proven”.

He was famous, tough deeply religious, for destroying every “proof” for God?s existence he could lay his hands on.

Dude, you need to think a little deeper than that. Please look up empirical. In the scientific realm you are basically saying that you need empirical proof, yet “empirical” means coming from observation, not controlled scientific studies.

Empirical = observation of things, items, people, etc in their own natural environment to support or develop scientific hypotheses

Controlled research = an observation of a controlled environment to support or develop scientific hypotheses

So the fact would be that God can be proven empirically, meaning based on observation of how peoples lives are changed as a result. But, God cannot be proven in controlled scientific research.

All that would “prove” is, that the belief in a higher being can change peoples lifes, for better or worse.

That does not verify the existence of said higher being.

And yet the belief in other things does not change peoples lives for the better. So why does belief in God change peoples lives for the better and a belief in Elvis still being alive not?

Belief is not the magic, it’s what it is directed at is where the proof lives.

You should also know that there is no controlled research that proves the theory of evolution either, it is all empirical. So both evolution and God can be supported by empirical evidence, not controlled research.

So has your faith in evolution changed your life for the better?

Yes it has, but that does not make it true and you do not understand fully what falsifiable means.

You are using poor examples.

If I start to believe to have terminal cancer (having no way to find out if it is true) that will kill me soon, I might react to it by going out of my way to help other people or I might go on a killing spree.

Both reactions were shown by people coming under the influence of religion.

That is exactly what is so problematic about religion IMO, it can change peoples behaviour dramatically, though there is no empirical way to test the underlying assumptions.

You seem a little misinformed. I have posted this before, and will post sources when I get time, but the effect that spirituality has on people has been scientifically quantified as real. For example, there have been a number of studies looking at prayer and its effects on healing. These studies had a group of people pray (yes to God) for another person to recover. And yes, they compared the prayed for and non-prayed for groups and the prayed for group had much better outcomes. Now the proof of God lies in the fact that the people who were in the prayed for group had no idea they were being prayed for. So there is no way their better outcomes could have come from their own mind (they refer to this as the placebo effect).

So science has verified the existence of some spiritual force, entity, etc that can help heal people who do not even know they are being prayed for. However, science cannot explain this or why it happens.

So while I agree that there have been and are crazy people who use religion as their motivating factor to do bad things, that has no connection to the spiritual force or God.
[/quote]

Give me a link to a double-blind- study concerning prayer.

But, even then, the very feeling that some people actually care for you might work miracles.

I do not doubt the power of faith, I only doubt the necessity for that faith to have some roots in reality.

You must at least be open for the possibility that faith can change peoples lifes without being based in reality?

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
Isnt the scientific explanation for Dinosaurs by the ID people that the fossils were planted by satan to test peoples faith?[/quote]

Um…nope. I think that was made up by evolutionists to make the ID people look bad.

[quote]futuredave wrote:

Therefore, if you read the Bible literally, and not the way it was meant to be read/studied, you come to absurd conclusions like those of the website above.

Peace.[/quote]

Sorry futuredave!

The Bible (Old Testament and New) is meant to be taken LITERALLY!

And through the years it has been proven correct time and time again.

"After Darwin’s publication of his theory of evolution, the Bible’s historical record came under widespread attack. Archaeologist Leonard Woolley explained: “There arose towards the close of the nineteenth century an extreme school of critics which was ready to deny the historical foundation of practically everything related in the earlier books of the Old Testament.” In fact, some critics even claimed that writing did not come into common usage until the time of Solomon or afterward; and, therefore, the early Bible narratives could not be relied upon since they were not put into writing until centuries after the events occurred.

One of the exponents of this theory said in 1892: "The time, of which the pre-Mosaic narratives treat, is a sufficient proof of their legendary character. It was a time prior to all knowledge of writing.

In recent times, however, a great deal of archaeological evidence has accumulated to show that writing was common long before the time of Moses. “We must again emphasize,” archaeologist William Foxwell Albright explained, “that alphabetic Hebrew writing was employed in Canaan and neighboring districts from the Patriarchal Age on, and that the rapidity with which forms of letters changed is clear evidence of common use.” And another leading historian and excavator observed: “That the question should ever have been raised whether Moses could have known how to write, appears to us now absurd.”

Time and again the Bible’s historical record has been substantiated by the uncovering of new information. The Assyrian king Sargon, for example, was for a long time known only from the Bible account at Isaiah 20:1. In fact, during the early part of the last century this Bible reference to him was discounted by critics as of no historical value. Then archaeological excavations produced the ruins of Sargon’s magnificent palace at Khorsabad, including many inscriptions regarding his rule. As a result, Sargon is now one of the best known of the Assyrian kings. Israeli historian Moshe Pearlman wrote: “Suddenly, sceptics who had doubted the authenticity even of the historical parts of the Old Testament began to revise their views.”

One of Sargon’s inscriptions tells of an episode that previously had been known only from the Bible. It reads: “I besieged and conquered Samaria, led away as booty 27,290 inhabitants of it.” The Bible account of this at 2 Kings 17:6 reads: “In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and then led Israel into exile.” regarding the striking similarity of these two accounts, Pearlman observed: “Here, then were two reports in the annals of the conqueror and the vanquished, one almost a mirror off the other.”

Should we expect, then, that Biblical and secular records would agree in every detail? No, as Pearlman notes: “This kind of identical ‘war reporting’ from both sides was unusual in the Middle East of ancient times (and on occasion in modern times too). It occurred only when the countries in conflict were Israel and one of its neighbours, and only when I srael was defeated. When Israel won, no record of failure appeared in the chronicles of the enemy.” (Italics added.) It is not surprising, therefore, that Assyrian accounts of the military campaign into Israel by Sargon’s son Sennacherib, have major omission. And what is that?

Wall reliefs from King Sennacherib’s palace have been discovered that depict scenes of his expedition into Israel. Written descriptions of it were also found. One, a clay prism, reads : “As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities… Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage… I reduced his country, but I still increased the tribute and the katru-presents (due) to me (as his) overlord.” So, Sennacherib’s version coincides with the Bible where Assyrian victories are concerned. But, as expected, he omits mentioning his failure to conquer Jerusalem and the fact that he was forced to return home because 185,000 of his soldiers had been killed in one night. -2 Kings 18:13-19:36; Isaiah 36:1-37:37

Consider Sennacherib’s assassination and what a recent discovery reveals. The Bible says that two of his sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, put Sennacherib to death. (2 Kings 19:36, 37) Yet both the account attributed to Babylonian King Nabonidus and that of the Babylonian priest Berossus of the third century B.C.E. mention only one son as involved in the slaying. Which was correct? Commenting on the more recent discovery of a fragmentary prism of Esar-haddon, Sennacherib’s son who succeeded him as king, historian Philip Biberfeld wrote: “Only the Biblical account proved to be correct. It was confirmed in all the minor details by the inscription of Esar-haddon and proved to be more accurate regarding this event of Babylonian Assyrian history than the Babylonian sources themselves. This is a fact of utmost importance for the evaluation of even contemporary sources not in accord with Biblical tradition.”

At one time all known ancient sources also differed with the Bible regarding Belshazzar. The Bible presents Belshazzar as the king of Babylon when it fell. (Daniel 5:1-31) However, secular writings did not even mention Belshazzar, saying that Nabonidus was king at the time. So critics claimed that Belshazzar never existed. More recently, however, ancient writings were found that identified Belshazzar as a son of Nabonidus and co ruler with his father in Babylon. For this reason, evidently, the Bible says Belshazzar offered to make Daniel “the third ruler in the kingdom”, since Belshazzar himself was the second. (Daniel 5:16, 29) Thus the Yale University professor, R.P. Dougherty, when comparing the Bible book of Daniel with other ancient writings, said: "The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom.

Modern discoveries even substantiate minor details of ancient Bible accounts. For instance, contradicting the Bible Werner Keller wrote in 1964 that camels were not domesticated at an early date, and, therefore, the scene where “we meet Rebecca for the first time in her native city of Nahor must make do with a change of stage props. The ‘camels’ belonging to her future father-in-law, Abraham, which she watered at the well were----donkeys.” (Genesis 24;10)

However, in 1978 Israeli military leader and archaeologist Moshe Dayan pointed to evidence that camels “served as a means of transport” in those early times, and hence that the Bible account is accurate. “An eighteenth-century B.C. relief found at Byblos in Phoenicia depicts a kneeling camel,” Dayan explained. “And camel riders appear on cylinder seals recently discovered in Mesopotamia belonging to the patriarchal period.”

Evidence that the Bible is historically accurate has mounted irresistibly.While it is true that secular records of Egypt’s Red Sea debacle and other such defeats have not been found, this is not surprising since it was not the practice or rulers to record their defeats. Yet, discovered on the temple walls of Shishak’s successful invasion of Judah during the reign of Solomon’s son Rehoboam. The Bible tells about this at 1 Kings 14:25,26. In addition, Moabite King Mesha’s version of his revolt against Israel has been discovered, being recorded on what is called the Moabite Stone. This account can also be read in the Bible at 2 Kings 3:4-27.

Visitors to many museums can see wall reliefs and statues that verify Bible accounts. King of Judah and Israel such as Hezekiah, Manasseh, Omri, Ahab, Pekah, Menahem and Hoshea appear on cuneiform records of Assyrian rulers. King Jehu or one of his emissaries is depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser as paying tribute. The decor of the Persian palace of Shushan, as the Biblical characters Mordecai and Esther knew it, has been re-created for observation today. Statues of the early Roman Caesars, Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius, who appear in Bible accounts, can also be viewed by museum visitors. (Luke 2:1; 3:1; Acts 11:29; 18:2) A silver denarius coin, in fact, has been found that bears the image of Tiberius Caesar----a coin Jesus asked for when discussing the matter of taxes.----Matthew 22:19-21.

A modern-day visitor to Israel familiar with the Bible cannot help but be impressed with the fact that the Bible describes the land and its features with great accuracy. Dr Ze’sv Shremer, leader of a geological expedition in the Sinai Peninsula, once said: “We have our own maps and geodetic survey plans, of course, but where the Bible and the maps are at odds, we opt for the Book.” To give an example of how one can personally experience the history presented in the Bible: In Jerusalem today a person can walk through a 1,749-foot-long tunnel that was cut through solid rock over 2,700 years ago. It was cut to protect the city’s water supply by carrying water from the hidden spring of Gihon outside the city walls to the pool of Siloam within the city. The Bible explains how Hezekiah had this water tunnel constructed to provide water for the city in anticipation of Sennacherib’s coming siege. —2 kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:30.

Jesus was also the greatest prophet. First, note what he said would happen to Jerusalem: “Your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon stone in you, because you did not discern the time of you being inspected.” (Luke 19:43, 44) Jesus also said: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her as drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains.”----Luke 21:20,21.

True to the prophecy, Roman armies under Cestius Gallus came against Jerusalem in 66 C.E. Strangely, however, he did not press the siege to its completion, but, as the first-century historian Flavius Josephus reported: “He retired from the city, without any reason in the world.” With the siege unexpectedly lifted, opportunity was afforded to heed Jesus’ instruction to flee Jerusalem. The historian Eusebius reported that it was the Christians who fled.

Less than four years later, in 70 C.E., Roman armies under general Titus returned and encircled Jerusalem. They cut down trees for miles around and built a city-encircling wall, “a fortification with pointed stakes.” As a result, Josephus observed: “All hope of escaping was now cut off from the Jews.” Josephus noted that after a siege of about five months, aside from three towers and a portion of a wall, what was left “was so thoroughly laid even to the ground . . . that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited.”

About 1,100,000 died during the siege, and 97,000 were taken captive. To this day a testimony to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy can be seen in Rome. There the Arch of Titus stands, erected by the Romans in 81 C.E. to commemorate the successful capture of Jerusalem. That arch remains a silent reminder to the fact that failure to heed the warnings of Bible prophecy can lead to disaster.

These are but a few examples that illustrate why it is unwise to underestimate the Bibles accuracy. There are many, many more. So doubts about the Bible’s reliability are usually based, not on what it says or upon sound evidence, but instead upon misinformation or ignorance. The former director of the British Museum, Frederic Kenyon, wrote: “Archaeology has not yet said its last word; but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase of knowledge.” And the well known archaeologist Nelson Glueck said: "It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.

http://dejnarde.ms11.net//bible_archaelogy.htm

When is the last time that you actually picked up the Bible and studied it?

You should give it a try…

:slight_smile:

[quote]futuredave wrote:
No, it’s because they understand that Genesis is most likely an allegory.[/quote]

Wrong again dave:

In Genesis 11:31, for instance, Abraham (Abram) is said to have lived in the city of Ur. The existence of this great city was often scorned until, recent archeological diggings uncovered its ancient ruins. Temples, houses, and even the king’s and queen’s tombs have been discovered.

http://www.bible.ca/b-archeolgy.htm

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I really am fucking tired of this.

Can we get back to talking politics? Enough with this God bullshit. No one is going to change their viewpoint here, especially on religion…can we let this go?[/quote]

And how many change their viewpoint on political arguments?

EXACTLY!

[quote]orion wrote:

So science has verified the existence of some spiritual force, entity, etc that can help heal people who do not even know they are being prayed for. However, science cannot explain this or why it happens.

So while I agree that there have been and are crazy people who use religion as their motivating factor to do bad things, that has no connection to the spiritual force or God.

Give me a link to a double-blind- study concerning prayer.

But, even then, the very feeling that some people actually care for you might work miracles.

I do not doubt the power of faith, I only doubt the necessity for that faith to have some roots in reality.

You must at least be open for the possibility that faith can change peoples lifes without being based in reality?
[/quote]

There are things that cannot be proven by science that are factual and real. In order for something to be proven by science it basically needs to be able to be duplicated. Some things just cannot be proven that way. We can still look at the evidence and come to a conclusion of proof.

Me Solomon Grundy

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
You seem a little misinformed. I have posted this before, and will post sources when I get time, but the effect that spirituality has on people has been scientifically quantified as real. For example, there have been a number of studies looking at prayer and its effects on healing. These studies had a group of people pray (yes to God) for another person to recover. And yes, they compared the prayed for and non-prayed for groups and the prayed for group had much better outcomes. Now the proof of God lies in the fact that the people who were in the prayed for group had no idea they were being prayed for. So there is no way their better outcomes could have come from their own mind (they refer to this as the placebo effect).

So science has verified the existence of some spiritual force, entity, etc that can help heal people who do not even know they are being prayed for. However, science cannot explain this or why it happens.

So while I agree that there have been and are crazy people who use religion as their motivating factor to do bad things, that has no connection to the spiritual force or God. [/quote]

I am aware of those studies; they have been refuted by other, more recent, studies, who basically show that there is little to no correlation:

In either case, all studies showed at least the denomination to have no effect, i.e., Muslims or Buddhists praying had the same effect as Christians. If one is to assume the results were the work of God, that immediately nullifies the principle that one faith is true while the others don’t, and refutes the Bible as being THE TRUTH – since God would then not care if you are a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist in order to answer your prayers.

So, had that study not been disproved, it would support Zap’s view – that there is a non-denominational God – rather than the Christian view – that only those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are “right”.

With the more recent study showing that we don’t really know if it does help or not (with odds pointing at that it doesn’t), the agnostic view is, as usual, the safest bet… :slight_smile:

Some good reads are:

http://www.sram.org/0802/faith-healing.html

and

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
As a side bar: Ask your Jewish friends at what point blood atonement for sin was no longer necessary, or what they do now.
[/quote]

Jews could no longer offer sacrifices on the altar, the only place prescribed by the Torah to perform sacrifices, when the temple was burned down. Other methods of atonement described in the Torah included prayer, repenteance, and charity (good deeds included). Today, you could say that those three things have replaced sacrifices.

On the topic of sacrifices, the sin (or blood) sacrifice did not atone for all types of sin, but rather, only for man’s most insignificant iniquity: unintentional sins. The sin sacrifice was inadequate to atone for a transgression committed intentionally. The brazen sinner was barred from the sanctuary, and had to bear his own iniquity because of his rebellious intent to sin against God. The Torah teaches this in Numbers 15:27-31.

If a person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one-year-old female goat for a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven . . . . The person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people, because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him.

Also, Jews were instructed by god not to sacrifice humans to atone for sins. That was a pagan practice. God pretty much spelled out how he wanted the Jews to do the sacrificial system and which animals could be used.

While I’m not Jewish, that’s my understanding from my study of the scriptures. It’s also one of the reasons why I ultimately left Christianity and became an atheist–too many perversions, contradictions, and errors. The more I studied, the less inerrant the bible became.

That’s the short version for me. I hope to provide a more detailed posting later.

Thanks for the opportunity, Solomon.

[quote]hspder wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So science has verified the existence of some spiritual force, entity, etc that can help heal people who do not even know they are being prayed for. However, science cannot explain this or why it happens.

I am aware of those studies; they have been refuted by other, more recent, studies, who basically show that there is little to no correlation:

[/quote]

Actually, the most recent large scale study shows that prayer makes things worse:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/14230665.htm

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sorry futuredave!

The Bible (Old Testament and New) is meant to be taken LITERALLY!

And through the years it has been proven correct time and time again.

"After Darwin’s publication of his theory of evolution, the Bible’s historical record came under widespread attack…

Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.

[/quote]

And here’s a website that purports The Iliad was based on real events and real people.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0514_040514_troy_2.html

Yet, we don’t worship Apollo or Hermes.

Here’s a site that has collected “evidence” that shows the Book of Mormon was based on historical figures and cities:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

Yet, most of Americans regard Joseph Smith as a con man on par with L. Ron Hubbard.

I don’t see what alleged historical accuracy has to do with accepting a writer’s theological ideas. I have no doubt the Jews existed, wandered around, conquered some folks, had some kings, etc. I live in Los Angeles, I see them every day. They came from somewhere!

That doesn’t mean I believe what their ancestors believed about spiritual matters.

[quote]When is the last time that you actually picked up the Bible and studied it?

You should give it a try… :)[/quote]

Save the smiley face. I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian. I’ve been “saved,” baptised twice, attended countless revivals and Bible studies. And it was only when I got away from all that and actually started reading the Bible on my own that I saw how brainwashed I’d been.

:wink:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
futuredave wrote:
No, it’s because they understand that Genesis is most likely an allegory.

Wrong again dave:

In Genesis 11:31, for instance, Abraham (Abram) is said to have lived in the city of Ur. The existence of this great city was often scorned until, recent archeological diggings uncovered its ancient ruins. Temples, houses, and even the king’s and queen’s tombs have been discovered.

http://www.bible.ca/b-archeolgy.htm
[/quote]

Wrong again, Zeb.

And look, I found an article from a legitimate source: Ha’aretz.com

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm

Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs’ acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it…

…The exodus from Egypt, the wanderings in the desert and Mount Sinai: The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites’ presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus. Many documents do mention the custom of nomadic shepherds to enter Egypt during periods of drought and hunger and to camp at the edges of the Nile Delta. However, this was not a solitary phenomenon: such events occurred frequently across thousands of years and were hardly exceptional…

…The archaeological findings blatantly contradict the biblical picture: the Canaanite cities were not “great,” were not fortified and did not have “sky-high walls.” The heroism of the conquerors, the few versus the many and the assistance of the God who fought for his people are a theological reconstruction lacking any factual basis…

…The picture becomes even more complicated in the light of the excavations conducted in Jerusalem, the capital of the united monarchy. Large sections of the city have been excavated over the past 150 years. The digs have turned up impressive remnants of the cities from the Middle Bronze Age and from Iron Age II (the period of the Kingdom of Judea). No remains of buildings have been found from the period of the united monarchy (even according to the agreed chronology), only a few pottery shards. Given the preservation of the remains from earlier and later periods, it is clear that Jerusalem in the time of David and Solomon was a small city, perhaps with a small citadel for the king, but in any event it was not the capital of an empire as described in the Bible.

Even the Israeli critics of the archeologists Doogie sites agree that the Bible is not history and shouldn’t be taken literally:

[i]ARCHAEOLOGY VS. THE BIBLE

A Reluctant Israeli Public Grapples With What Scholarship Reveals About the Old Testament’s Version of History

By HAIM WATZMAN
Jerusalem

“If Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David aren’t proven, how am I supposed to live with that?” The agonized question came from the crowded back row of an auditorium at Ben-Gurion University, during a conference titled “Has the Biblical Period Disappeared?”…

Israelis … are finding themselves facing the myths of their antiquity with unprecedented intensity…

None of the scholars speaking at either conference believe that the Bible’s historical sections can be accepted as literal, accurate descriptions of historical events. They also agree that the extra-biblical evidence for events described in the Bible dwindles the farther back in time one goes.

There is no external evidence at all for the patriarchs and, in fact, the biblical description contains contradictions and anachronisms that, scholars generally agree, seem to place the patriarchs in the age of the Judges rather than several generations earlier, as the Bible has it.[/i]


Doesn’t sound very literal to me.

Zeb, when was the last time you studied the Torah with a Rabbi? You should try it sometime! :wink:

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
The oral tradition of the Torah is interesting. I had always thought of it as a cultural way of passing history to the next generation and not a biblical necessity. How did you come to the conclusion that Paul threw this out?[/quote]

Because I grew up in the church and it was not taught to me. Was it taught to you?

Read the New Testament. It’s not mentioned specifically, but it’s one of the things that got lost when Paul went back told James and Peter that it was not necessary to follow kosher and other laws any more because he (Paul) had been snatched up into heaven and Jesus told him so. Funny how Jesus neglected to mention this to Peter and James during his ministry on earth.

I fired him off an email. My impression is they aren’t so caught up on the idea that we’re all worthless, dirty sinners. They recognize that man is not perfect. But they don’t have the same belief that we’re all going to burn in hell without some form of “salvation.” In fact, the law, which Paul dismisses, is the very tool a Jew uses to perfect his soul here on earth. And I don’t mean to make himself perfect. I mean, to improve himself.

It’s like working out. And it gives the Jews I know great pleasure.

As for me, according to them, I’m not a dirty, dirty sinner. I’m one of the “righteous gentiles” of the earth, as defined by God to Noah, in what is refered to as the Noahide Laws.

There is no blood sacrifice required for me. Instead, I follow these 7 laws. (copied from Wikipedia):

Do not worship false gods.
Do not murder.
Do not steal (or kidnap).
Do not be sexually immoral (forbidden sexual acts are traditionally interpreted to include incest, bestiality, male homosexual sex acts and adultery.)
Do not “bless God” euphemistically referring to blasphemy.
Do not eat any flesh that was torn from the body of a living animal (given to Noah and traditionally interpreted as a prohibition of cruelty towards animals)
Do not permit oppression or anarchy to rule. Set up a system of honest, effective courts, police and laws to uphold the last six laws.

The Talmud also states: “Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come” (Sanhedrin 105a). Any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as one of “the righteous among the gentiles”. Maimonides states that this refers to those who have acquired knowledge of God and act in accordance with the Noahide laws.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
silencer wrote:
i.e

Any translation of the Qur’an immediately ceases to be the literal word of God, and hence cannot be equated with the Qur’an in its original Arabic form. In fact, each translation on is actually an interpretation which has been translated. "

This makes me believe Islam was manufactured by man and not God.

God would not care what language was used. Why in the world would God use Arabic as his primary language?

It does not make any sense.

Other religions have similar markers that make me believe they were created by clever men.

I do not think any religions are based in reality although it is possible a higher power exists.[/quote]

sorry didnt realize anyone asked me anything on this post.

God doesnt care what language is used. He revealed the Torah in Hebrew and the Injeel in whatever langauge He revealed to Jesus (Hebrew or maybe Aramaic)… I dont believe the Injeel revealed to Jesus is the New Testament. The Qur’an was revealed in Arabic.

the point is, once it’s translated, it becomes an interpretation, not the literal word of God. and thus it cannot be equated with the real thing.

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
Who does the Qur?an say that Jesus is? I have done some research into the Qur?an and Mohammad, but I don?t remember. Were you raised Muslum?

Me Solomon Grundy
[/quote]

The Qur’an tells us that God sends a messenger to every people and every nation since the beginning of time, calling them to God. The last of those is Muhammad (peace be upon him). According to one tradition, there are 124,000 prophets and 313 messengers.

Isa ibn Maryam, peace be upon him (aka Jesus), was one of the 5 most important of these prophets. He is also the most unique in that he had no father, like Adam, and because the Qur’an calls him a Word from God and a Spirit from Him (which it doesnt say about any other messenger).

Jesus to the Christians is the equivalent to the Qur’an for Muslims, NOT the equivalent of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon them both).

The Prophet Muhammad was the vessel that brought us the Qur’an- the word of God. For this reason the Prophet had to be illiterate and unlearned in any other religious tradition, so that he could be a pure receptacle for the Word of God.

For Christianity, that makes the Prophet (pbuh) the equivalent of the Virgin Mary, peace be upon her. She was also the vessel that brought us a Word from God- in this case Jesus. For this reason, she had to be pure and untouched by another man.

For this reason also, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said:

“Satan toucheth every son of Adam the day his mother beareth him, save only Mary and her son.”

Thus Jesus (pbuh) is the equivalent of the Qur’an- both being a Word from God. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the Virgin Mary (which some scholars argue is also a Prophet) are equivalent in function, being those who brought the Word into the world.

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of God, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not “Three” - Cease, it is better for you! - God is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is sufficient as a Disposer of affairs. (Qur’an 4:171)

That is what Muslims believe.

futuredave-

There’s actually a difference between mythical characters that are loosely based on some sort of reality. And actual archeological digs which produce hard evidence of Old Testament characters as real.

But I understand that you are currently one very anti-Christian dude.

That you were a Christian and have fallen away is sad.

I hope that someday you will open up your mind to the word of God once again.

Whatever, happened in your life to pull you away must have been traumatic. Or did you simply get a taste of the world?

Then again, you might be just too smart for the Bible now huh?

1 Corinthians 1: 18-21:

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

2Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

I won’t end with a smiley face. But I will pray for you today.

doogie:

Oh good!

I always like the part of the Internet debate where we each rush off to different web sites to prove the other guy wrong.

It makes me want to smile. :wink:

Where does this one end?

That any particular event that is stated in the Bible has not yet been proven to be true does not mean that it is not true!

Sometimes it takes science quite a while to catch up to the Bible. Here are some instances where science has uncovered evidence which points to the Bible as being quite accurate.

Or stated another way:

“It is important to understand that the Scriptures remain the primary source of authority. We must not elevate archaeology to the point that it becomes the judge for the validity of Scripture. Randall Price states, “There are indeed instances where the information needed to resolve a historical or chronological question is lacking from both archaeology and the Bible, but it is unwarranted to assume the material evidence taken from the more limited content of archaeological excavations can be used to dispute the literary evidence from the more complete content of the canonical scriptures.”{2} The Bible has proven to be an accurate and trustworthy source of history.”

When you are done reading these, google another web site which disputes them. I will then google a web site which gives more support to these.

Yes…we can do this for days!

It will be fun…honest!

You may skip to the last section to see proof of King Davids existance.

Sodom and Gomorrah

"The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has long been viewed as a legend. Critics assume that it was created to communicate moral principles. However, throughout the Bible this story is treated as a historical event. The Old Testament prophets refer to the destruction of Sodom on several occasions (Deut. 29:23, Isa. 13:19, Jer. 49:18), and these cities play a key role in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles (Matt. 10:15, 2 Pet. 2:6 and Jude 1:7). What has archaeology found to establish the existence of these cities?

Archaeologists have searched the Dead Sea region for many years in search of Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 14:3 gives their location as the Valley of Siddim known as the Salt Sea, another name for the Dead Sea. On the east side six wadies, or river valleys, flow into the Dead Sea. Along five of these wadies, ancient cities were discovered. The northern most is named Bab edh-Drha. In 1924, renowned archaeologist Dr. William Albright excavated at this site, searching for Sodom and Gomorrah. He discovered it to be a heavily fortified city. Although he connected this city with one of the biblical “Cities of the Plains,” he could not find conclusive evidence to justify this assumption.

More digging was done in 1965, 1967, and 1973. The archaeologists discovered a 23-inch thick wall around the city, along with numerous houses and a large temple. Outside the city were huge grave sites where thousands of skeletons were unearthed. This revealed that the city had been well populated during the early Bronze Age, about the time Abraham would have lived.

Most intriguing was evidence that a massive fire had destroyed the city. It lay buried under a coating of ash several feet thick. A cemetery one kilometer outside the city contained charred remains of roofs, posts, and bricks turned red from heat.

Dr. Bryant Wood, in describing these charnel houses, stated that a fire began on the roofs of these buildings. Eventually the burning roof collapsed into the interior and spread inside the building. This was the case in every house they excavated. Such a massive fiery destruction would match the biblical account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained down from heaven. Wood states, “The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Drha is the biblical city of Sodom.”{5}

Five cities of the plain are mentioned in Genesis 14: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zoar, and Zeboiim. Remnants of these other four cities are also found along the Dead Sea. Following a southward path from Bab edh-Drha there is the city called Numeria. Continuing south is the city called es-Safi. Further south are the ancient cities of Feifa and Khanazir. Studies at these cities revealed that they had been abandoned at the same time about 2450?2350 B.C. Many archaeologists believe if Bab ed-Drha is Sodom, Numeria is Gomorrah, and es-Safi is Zoar.

What fascinated the archaeologists is that these cities were covered in the same ash as Bab ed-Drha. Numeria, believed to be Gomorrah, had seven feet of ash in some places. In every one of the destroyed cities ash deposits made the soil a spongy charcoal, making it impossible to rebuild. According to the Bible, four of the five cities were destroyed, leaving Lot to flee to Zoar. Zoar was not destroyed by fire, but was abandoned during this period."

The Discovery of the Hittites

"The Hittites played a prominent role in Old Testament history. They interacted with biblical figures as early as Abraham and as late as Solomon. They are mentioned in Genesis 15:20 as people who inhabited the land of Canaan. 1 Kings 10:29 records that they purchased chariots and horses from King Solomon. The most prominent Hittite is Uriah the husband of Bathsheba. The Hittites were a powerful force in the Middle East from 1750 B.C. until 1200 B.C. Prior to the late 19th century, nothing was known of the Hittites outside the Bible, and many critics alleged that they were an invention of the biblical authors.

In 1876 a dramatic discovery changed this perception. A British scholar named A. H. Sayce found inscriptions carved on rocks in Turkey. He suspected that they might be evidence of the Hittite nation. Ten years later, more clay tablets were found in Turkey at a place called Boghaz-koy. German cuneiform expert Hugo Winckler investigated the tablets and began his own expedition at the site in 1906.

Winckler’s excavations uncovered five temples, a fortified citadel and several massive sculptures. In one storeroom he found over ten thousand clay tablets. One of the documents proved to be a record of a treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite king. Other tablets showed that Boghaz-koy was the capital of the Hittite kingdom. Its original name was Hattusha and the city covered an area of 300 acres. The Hittite nation had been discovered!

Less than a decade after Winckler’s find, Czech scholar Bedrich Hronzny proved the Hittite language is an early relative of the Indo-European languages of Greek, Latin, French, German, and English. The Hittite language now has a central place in the study of the history of the Indo-European languages.

The discovery also confirmed other biblical facts. Five temples were found containing many tablets with details of the rites and ceremonies that priests performed. These ceremonies described rites for purification from sin and purification of a new temple. The instructions proved to be very elaborate and lengthy. Critics once criticized the laws and instructions found in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as too complicated for the time it was written (1400 B.C.). The Boghaz-koy texts along with others from Egyptian sites and a site along the Euphrates called Emar have proven that the ceremonies described in the Jewish Pentateuch are consistent with the ceremonies of the cultures of this time period.

The Hittite Empire made treaties with civilizations they conquered. Two dozen of these have been translated and provide a better understanding of treaties in the Old Testament. The discovery of the Hittite Empire at Boghaz-koy has significantly advanced our understanding of the patriarchal period. Dr. Fred Wright summarizes the importance of this find in regard to biblical historicity:

Now the Bible picture of this people fits in perfectly with what we know of the Hittite nation from the monuments. As an empire they never conquered the land of Canaan itself, although the Hittite local tribes did settle there at an early date. Nothing discovered by the excavators has in any way discredited the Biblical account. Scripture accuracy has once more been proved by the archaeologist.{4}

The discovery of the Hittites has proven to be one of the great archaeological finds of all time. It has helped to confirm the biblical narrative and had a great impact on Middle East archaeological study. Because of it, we have come to a greater understanding of the history of our language, as well as the religious, social, and political practices of the ancient Middle East."

The Walls of Jericho

According to the Bible, the conquest of Jericho occurred in approximately 1440 B.C. The miraculous nature of the conquest has caused some scholars to dismiss the story as folklore. Does archaeology support the biblical account? Over the past century four prominent archaeologists have excavated the site: Carl Watzinger from 1907-1909, John Garstang in the 1930’s, Kathleen Kenyon from 1952-1958, and currently Bryant Wood. The result of their work has been remarkable.

First, they discovered that Jericho had an impressive system of fortifications. Surrounding the city was a retaining wall fifteen feet high. At its top was an eight-foot brick wall strengthened from behind by an earthen rampart. Domestic structures were found behind this first wall. Another brick wall enclosed the rest of the city. The domestic structures found between the two walls is consistent with Joshua’s description of Rahab’s quarters (Josh. 2:15). Archeologists also found that in one part of the city, large piles of bricks were found at the base of both the inner and outer walls, indicating a sudden collapse of the fortifications. Scholars feel that an earthquake, which may also explain the damming of the Jordan in the biblical account, caused this collapse. The collapsed bricks formed a ramp by which an invader might easily enter the city (Josh. 6:20).

Of this amazing discovery Garstang states, “As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely, the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins of the city.”{6} This is remarkable because when attacked city walls fall inward, not outward.

A thick layer of soot indicates that the city was destroyed by fire as described in Joshua 6:24. Kenyon describes it this way. “The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire and every room was filled with fallen bricks.”{7} Archaeologists also discovered large amounts of grain at the site. This is again consistent with the biblical account that the city was captured quickly. If it had fallen as a result of a siege, the grain would have been used up. According to Joshua 6:17, the Israelites were forbidden to plunder the city, but had to destroy it totally.

Although the archaeologists agreed Jericho was violently destroyed, they disagreed on the date of the conquest. Garstang held to the biblical date of 1400 B.C. while Watzinger and Kenyon believed the destruction occurred in 1550 B.C. In other words, if the later date is accurate, Joshua arrived at a previously destroyed Jericho. This earlier date would pose a serious challenge to the historicity of the Old Testament.

Dr. Bryant Wood, who is currently excavating the site, found that Kenyon’s early date was based on faulty assumptions about pottery found at the site. His later date is also based on the discovery of Egyptian amulets in the tombs northwest of Jericho. Inscribed under these amulets were the names of Egyptian Pharaohs dating from 1500-1386 B.C., showing that the cemetery was in use up to the end of the late Bronze Age (1550-1400 B.C.). Finally, a piece of charcoal found in the debris was carbon-14 dated to be 1410 B.C. The evidence leads Wood to this conclusion. “The pottery, stratigraphic considerations, scarab data and a carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of the city around the end of the Late Bronze Age, about 1400 BCE.”{8}

Thus, current archeological evidence supports the Bible’s account of when and how Jericho fell."

LOOKS LIKE DAVID EXISTED AFTER ALL!

House of David

One of the most beloved characters in the Bible is King David. Scripture says that he was a man after God’s own heart. He is revered as the greatest of all Israelite kings and the messianic covenant is established through his lineage. Despite his key role in Israel’s history, until recently no evidence outside the Bible attested to his existence. For this reason critics questioned the existence of a King David.

In the summer of 1993, an archaeologist made what has been labeled as a phenomenal and stunning discovery. Dr. Avraham Biran and his team were excavating a site labeled Tell Dan, located in northern Galilee at the foot of Mt. Hermon. Evidence indicates that this is the site of the Old Testament land of Dan.

The team had discovered an impressive royal plaza. As they were clearing the debris, they discovered in the ruins the remains of a black basalt stele, or stone slab, containing Aramaic inscriptions. The stele contained thirteen lines of writing but none of the sentences were complete. Some of the lines contained only three letters while the widest contained fourteen. The letters that remained were clearly engraved and easy to read. Two of the lines included the phrases “The King of Israel” and “House of David.”

This is the first reference to King David found outside of the Bible. This discovery has caused many critics to reconsider their view of the historicity of the Davidic kingdom. Pottery found in the vicinity, along with the construction and style of writing, lead Dr. Biran to argue that the stele was erected in the first quarter of the ninth century B.C., about a century after the death of King David.

The translation team discovered that the inscription told of warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans, which the Bible refers to during this period. In this find, a ruler of the Arameans probably Hazael is victorious over Israel and Judah. The stele was erected to celebrate the defeat of the two kings. In 1994 two more pieces were found with inscriptions which refer to Jehoram, the son of Ahab, ruler over Israel, and Ahaziah, who was the ruler over the “House of David” or Judah. These names and facts correspond to the account given in chapters 8 and 9 of 2 Kings. Dr. Hershel Shanks of Biblical Archaeological Review states, “The stele brings to life the biblical text in a very dramatic way. It also gives us more confidence in the historical reality of the biblical text.”{9}

The find has confirmed a number of facts. First, the use of the term “House of David” implies that there was a Davidic dynasty that ruled Israel. We can conclude, then, that a historic King David existed. Second, the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were prominent political entities as the Bible describes. Critics long viewed the two nations as simply insignificant states.

Dr. Bryant Wood summarizes the importance of this find this way. “In our day, most scholars, archaeologist and biblical scholars would take a very critical view of the historical accuracy of many of the accounts in the Bible. . . . Many scholars have said there never was a David or a Solomon, and now we have a stele that actually mentions David.”

[i]Okay, I’m not trying to be right and prove you wrong. Well…okay I guess I am, but for different reasons than you may think. Your intellect doesn’t mean very much to me. And neither does mine. You and I will both be dead in 100 years. In fact, probably quite a bit sooner.

As the Bible states, this life “is like a vapor.” It passes very quickly. those of us who are over 40 realize this pretty well.

Where we spend our eternity is far more important than who was right on an Internet debate.

I know you are very ticked off, and somewhat bitter (at least that’s the way you come across). And I’m sure that you have your reasons. But I also think that you need to give God and the Bible one more opportunity.

There is a real chance that you could be wrong here. And if you are wrong you will be spending eternity away from God in a place that is not very pleasant, to say the least.

I know, you think I am a fundamentalist nut. But, what if I’m not?

What if I’m right about God, Jesus Christ and the Bible?

What if you are simply missing something? It happens with the best and brightest.

Have you ever in your life thought you were absolutely right about something, but then after a few days, weeks or years been proven 100% wrong?

I have, and I’m sure that most people have who have lived a while. We are after all human…

If your current “faith” that there is no God is wrong it would be better that you discovered that fact now rather than when it’s all over and there is no chance.

I know I’ll hear back from you so I won’t say goodbye. But I do hope that you will at least think about it. Smart people do reconsider things…[/i]

Zeb

[quote]futuredave wrote:

Zeb, when was the last time you studied the Torah with a Rabbi? You should try it sometime! :wink:
[/quote]

futuredave,

I have studied the Christian Bible and am quite confident that it is in fact the inspired word of God.

In addition to that I am also quite confident that the Old Testament accounts are true and correct as written.

Please read my post to doogie.

And thanks for the conversation.

:wink:

(Forgive the smile, but I am thinking it’s okay now because you just did one for me. Is it okay now? If not I will stop…)