Archeologly proves the Bible?

[Elizabeth I]

Well I have read some of the book of Mormon, and if I was the governor of a land where I was executing thousands of Mormons I would read much more or at least assign people to read it.

And if I was the Roman emperor and there were thousands and thousands of people causing all kind problems to the point I was executing them by the thousands like one emperor did, I believe it was Hadrian, wouldn't it seem likely that you would have your people read their literature <snip>

Why on earth?

 

[boloboffin]

Well I have read some of the book of Mormon, and if I was the governor of a land where I was executing thousands of Mormons I would read much more or at least assign people to read it.

So that's a no on Dianetics and the Vedas.

And if I was the Roman emperor and there were thousands and thousands of people causing all kind problems to the point I was executing them by the thousands like one emperor did, I believe it was Hadrian, wouldn't it seem likely that you would have your people read their literature (by the way there are about 25,000 ancient manuscripts of the NT out there and there were likely thousands more destroyed since at least one emperor ordered Christian literature destroyed).

Your argument would have been stronger if you'd actually had the chance to be a Roman emporer. Sadly, I don't see why I should accept your personal incredulity on what Roman emporers would or would not do.

Don't you think with thousands of manuscripts circulating around at least one Roman official read this by Luke:

Luke 2:1

And it came to pass in those days {the time around Jesus' birth}, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

Surely the Romans or even non-believing Jews could of found out if that statement was true or not. And if it wasn't true they could have wrote about it and said, Hey this is not true, it never happened. They had hundreds of years to do that and yet there is no evidence that anybody did.

No, I don't think so. I don't see why they would have cared. If the Romans did detailed rebuttals on every group they strung up on crosses, it's news to me.

 

[Simon39759]

Well I have read some of the book of Mormon, and if I was the governor of a land where I was executing thousands of Mormons I would read much more or at least assign people to read it.
And if I was the Roman emperor and there were thousands and thousands of people causing all kind problems to the point I was executing them by the thousands like one emperor did, I believe it was Hadrian, wouldn't it seem likely that you would have your people read their literature (by the way there are about 25,000 ancient manuscripts of the NT out there and there were likely thousands more destroyed since at least one emperor ordered Christian literature destroyed).
Don't you think with thousands of manuscripts circulating around at least one Roman official read this by Luke:
Luke 2:1
And it came to pass in those days {the time around Jesus' birth}, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
Surely the Romans or even non-believing Jews could of found out if that statement was true or not. And if it wasn't true they could have wrote about it and said, Hey this is not true, it never happened. They had hundreds of years to do that and yet there is no evidence that anybody did.

Intersting how, when convenient for you, you greatly overestimate the access of Roman citizens to information.

You also seem to consider Christianity to have been a significant subject of interest in the second century.
It was not. For the Roman authorities, they were just Jews whose backward superstitions just happened to be slightly worse than mainstream Judaism.

A few posts ago you described early Christianity as some kind of shadowy resistance where the authors of the gospels could not even give their name.
Now, there are thousands of manuscript circulating and any Roman citizen can just pick them up and check their accuracy for themselves...
Isn't it a bit self-contradictory?

 

[eccles]

Rude

On "Egypt Dreams" Forum I asked for opinions about Acharya S.'s books.

THis is one reply:

Goodness Eccles you have such a rude little avatar!


"Xeper-na adrit xeperu em sesep"
"I come into being, making the transformation into light.~Sitessa"

Sitessa is her nic.

This is the avatar I have in that Forum:


The only opinion I have received is unfortunately not an opinion but this:
Taken from Wikipedia:
The Writings of D.M. Murdock, written under the pen name Acharya S, are controversial texts. Acharya is a proponent of the Jesus myth hypothesis. She has authored three books and operates a website named Truth be Known. She believes Christianity is founded on earlier myths and the characters depicted in Christianity are based upon Roman, Greek, Egyptian, and other myths

Her books seem to be more involved with re-inventing Christianity than anything much to do with Egypt.
She is completely refuted by established Egyptian excavations and documented writers.

I wanted a personal opinion from one of the members. I don't care what it is, if it says they are crap. At least I am learning more about the Egyptian Religion.

 

[pakeha]

Elizabeth I- may Heaven shine upon your Grace's beauty, wit and generosity.
ps I like your dad's music very much.

DOC.
Poor old Sir William mistook the engraving on those stones to mean something quite erroneus. Well, to be fair, it could have been Cheesman, since it was he, after all, who wrote up the findings.

#615
Originally Posted by DOC
According to the book Examine the Evidence by Ralph Marcus on page 274, Sir William Mitchell Ramsay also discovered Quirinius was governor of Syria in about 7 B.C.
---------------------------
Consider that I'm from Missouri. What he reports I already alluded to -- Ramsey referred to a monument that describes a victory of Quirinius. There was no mention of him being governor. Ramsey simply assumed that Quirinius would be given a legateship because of the victory.

I'd love to see some actual evidence that he was governor in 7 BC. That would be quite thrilling. Especially since Varus was governor then. Maybe no one thought to tell Varus that he was a figment of history's imagination?

And please don't refer to the partial monument in Italy that refers to someone being governor twice since no one can tell to whom it refers.



Quote:
Besides finding there was a Roman census every 14 years beginning with Emperor Augustus, the book states on page 274 Sir Ramsay found "People did have to return to their home city -- verified by an ancient Egyptian papyrus giving directions for conducting a census."

Once again this is all off topic so let's return to prophecy. But I do have the right to respond to any off topic post.
There was a Roman census in Egypt every 14 years. Another local census. There is no mention of any Empire wide census. Anywhere. And an Egyptian census would have no bearing on Syria.

The reason there was a census in Egypt every 14 years is because Egypt was the breadbasket of the Empire.

Yes, this is off topic and there is no reason to pursue it especially since you have provided no useful information -- all of this has already be countered repeatedly.

As for prophecy, do you know what the role of the prophet was in Judaism? Are you willing to look at all the passages concerning the suffering servant, or do you wish to continue the cherry picking and misinterpretation that you've already engaged in?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Ichneumonwasp; 22nd May 2009 at 12:49 PM.

So all this has been gone over, DOC, on other threads.
With so many really interesting things to discuss in 'Luke', why insist on misquoting an outdated source. And insist on it thread after thread.
Other posters are bringing up the discrepancies between Matthew and Luke, which is an interesting subject.
Why continue to dedicate your precious time misquoting sir William?
Does your church oblige you to go with this author?
I ask because my internet trawling shows that even in 2009, sir William is the preferred source on Christian sites when the subject of 'Luke's accuracy comes up.
Another poster has suggested that it's because sir William's much vaunted 'conversion' is too good a story to let it go, even in the face of his mistake in decyphering the stones he discovered.
I find this rather cruel; let him go, there must be other scholars to quote.
And if he was genuinely mistaken, as seems to be the case, why be so tenatious in the face of the facts?
Is Christ served by misquoting a man who died in 1939?

 

[eccles]

"Don't you think with thousands of manuscripts circulating around at least one Roman official read this by Luke:"

It had not been written then.

 

[Simon39759]

I suspect that it is because very few apologetics are actually scholars themselves. Furthermore they might, at least subconsciously, be afraid to confront their belief to the actual reality, in case they happen to be wrong.

The net results is that you have a first few original researches that gets quoted over and over, directly or not.
That situation is probably made even worse due to the actual rarity of evidences supporting their side, illustrated by the fact that one of the best scholar they can come up with is about 100 years out of date.

Finally, as I mentioned before, Ramsey's story is pretty edifying for a Christian point of view. The skeptic turned believer...

 

[Maia]

I'm going to tell everyone a funny story, so listen up now...

(everyone gathers round attentively. Or maybe not so much... Quit whispering! Don't make me come over there!!)

So, Steve van Ark is, of course, the founder of the HP Lexicon, and he's devoted God-only-knows how much of his life in the past several years to creating and maintaining it. (There was that little unpleasantness about J.K.Rowling suing him when he wanted to publish a book version of it-- highly uncalled for, IMHO, when she'd praised it so many times and said that she actually referred to it herself for fact-checking-- but power-mad meglomania isn't pretty.) Basically, for Steve van Ark, the seven books that make up Teh Holy Canon and the miscellaneous publications have become far more important sacred literature than any stacks of Bibles could ever be.

Anyway, I've met Steve a couple of times, and he was a keynote speaker at Lumos 2005 in Las Vegas. He told a long, involved story which also involved slides, and the climax of it was the journey which ended with a mystical search for Hogwarts in northern Scotland. There was a cute ending about how he got all befuddled at the end of a dirt road (you know, just like all the Muggles do when they try to find Hogwarts...) except that if I had a bag of gold Galleons, I would bet them all that Steve van Ark actually believed that he'd really found Hogwarts and just couldn't see it. No, I'm serious-- I really do think that. I honestly believe that for Steve van Ark, everything in the HP series is real, every bit as real as Biblical locations are for fundamentalist Christians. (My personal opinion-- just between you and me and the Room of Requirement-- is that I'm not sure how tightly Steve is really wrapped, although he's a perfectly nice human being as far as I know.) The point is, it all just goes to show that it's the belief structure which counts, not the specific scripture on which it's based.

 

[DOC]

A few posts ago you described early Christianity as some kind of shadowy resistance where the authors of the gospels could not even give their name.
Now, there are thousands of manuscript circulating and any Roman citizen can just pick them up and check their accuracy for themselves...
Isn't it a bit self-contradictory?

Which post, a few posts ago, did I describe Christianity as some kind of shadowy resistance?

And it's a fact that there are at least 20,000 ancient manuscripts on the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for Tacitus. And that's not including all the ones that were destroyed by the Romans when the order went out to destroy Christian writings.

 

[DOC]

Well I have read some of the book of Mormon, and if I was the governor of a land where I was executing thousands of Mormons I would read much more or at least assign people to read it.

So that's a no on Dianetics and the Vedas.

Well since you brought it up, I have read about the how founder of Dianetics/Scientology said that Xenu was-

According to Wiki:

"the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions[4][5] of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

 

[Simon39759]

Which post, a few posts ago, did I describe Christianity as some kind of shadowy resistance?

And it's a fact that there are at least 20,000 ancient manuscripts on the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato and 20 for Tacitus. And that's not including all the ones that were destroyed by the Romans when the order went out to destroy Christian writings.

You know... I was briefly reading on that, and it seems that this number of 20.000 you quoted several times is actually erroneous.

Looking at this Christian apologetist website, that makes about the same argument than you (whatever that argument might be), I only find mentions of 5000 ancient Greek manuscripts, totalling 20.000 lines. I think that you might have had the numbers of manuscript and lines actually confused.

Of course, one must notice that the vast majority of these manuscript date back from around 300 and before 400. By that time, Christianity was well accepted (Constantine the I was born in 272 from a Christian mother) so the whole point of 'Roman destroying Christian writings' is nonsensical.

 

[boloboffin]

Well since you brought it up, I have read about the how founder of Dianetics/Scientology said that Xenu was-

According to Wiki:

"the dictator of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions[4][5] of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

When you understand why you reject the Vedas and Dianetics and the Book of Mormon, you will understand why we reject the Bible.

 

[Stacy Head]

Say it with me, "the bible is fiction"

At some point it will sink in

 

[The Platypus]

After reading this thread, i think i get it now.

Spiderman comics take place in NY. NY is a real place that can be easily proven to really exist. Therefore Spiderman is real!!!

 

[eccles]

I'm going to tell everyone a funny story, so listen up now...

(everyone gathers round attentively. Or maybe not so much... Quit whispering! Don't make me come over there!!)

So, Steve van Ark is, of course, the founder of the HP Lexicon, and he's devoted God-only-knows how much of his life in the past several years to creating and maintaining it. (There was that little unpleasantness about J.K.Rowling suing him when he wanted to publish a book version of it-- highly uncalled for, IMHO, when she'd praised it so many times and said that she actually referred to it herself for fact-checking-- but power-mad meglomania isn't pretty.) Basically, for Steve van Ark, the seven books that make up Teh Holy Canon and the miscellaneous publications have become far more important sacred literature than any stacks of Bibles could ever be.

Anyway, I've met Steve a couple of times, and he was a keynote speaker at Lumos 2005 in Las Vegas. He told a long, involved story which also involved slides, and the climax of it was the journey which ended with a mystical search for Hogwarts in northern Scotland. There was a cute ending about how he got all befuddled at the end of a dirt road (you know, just like all the Muggles do when they try to find Hogwarts...) except that if I had a bag of gold Galleons, I would bet them all that Steve van Ark actually believed that he'd really found Hogwarts and just couldn't see it. No, I'm serious-- I really do think that. I honestly believe that for Steve van Ark, everything in the HP series is real, every bit as real as Biblical locations are for fundamentalist Christians. (My personal opinion-- just between you and me and the Room of Requirement-- is that I'm not sure how tightly Steve is really wrapped, although he's a perfectly nice human being as far as I know.) The point is, it all just goes to show that it's the belief structure which counts, not the specific scripture on which it's based.

I love the Harry Potter movies. I have all them on DVD. I like that HP Lexicon Site. I have just joined it.

I have that "Hogwart's Express" A330 Airbus on my FS2004 Flight Simulator. It is supposed to fly from Heathrow to the Hogsmead Airport.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You know... I was briefly reading on that, and it seems that this number of 20.000 you quoted several times is actually erroneous.

I think the number is actually correct. However, it is very, very liberal wrt to the date of the manuscripts and the constitution.

Looking at this Christian apologetist website, that makes about the same argument than you (whatever that argument might be), I only find mentions of 5000 ancient Greek manuscripts, totalling 20.000 lines. I think that you might have had the numbers of manuscript and lines actually confused

Of course, one must notice that the vast majority of these manuscript date back from around 300 and before 400.

That is the number of Greek manuscripts. DOCs number includes more that that. For instance, it counts several thousand (7/8K?) manuscripts of the Vulgate, which was finished 400 ADish.

Anyway, the vast majority of those 5K or so Greek manuscripts does exactly NOT date before 400 AD. The vast majority dates after - and well after - 400AD.

There were a total of 4 preserved manuscripts around 200 A.D., 30 more manuscripts prior to 300 A.D., 8 manuscripts around 300 A.D., 28 more manuscripts before 400 A.D., 16 manuscripts around 400 A.D., and 38 more manuscripts prior to 500 A.D.​

Totalling up: 4 + 30 + 8 + 28 +16 + 38 = 124
124 of 5.000 or so prior to 500 AD. And the rest? Ahem ...

Here is another list of Greek manuscripts and it is the same thing, the bulk is late:
http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/table_gkmss.html
And what can also be seen is the many of the older manuscripts listed tend to be quite fragmentary.

 

[joobz]

Joobz what does slavery have to do with the what we are talking about? You really are over doing it.

Well, you made an appeal to numbers and I was simply showing you that the argument (if it was valid, which it isn't) cuts two ways.

So, if 20,000 manuscripts mean that the luke story is true, it must also mean that Jesus really did support beating slaves.

It didn't bother the Rev. Martin Luther King, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Rev T. D. Jakes, the Rev Al Sharpton, or the Rev. Ralph Abernathy. I'm sorry it bothers you, a non-black, so much.

So? BTW, why are you bringing race into the discussion? I find it strange that you would think that it's relevant here.

 

[amb]

For you and anybody. There was a census.

• In 6AD.
  
• Conducted by Quirinius, the governor of Syria.
  
• In Judaea.
  Which was assigned to Syria after Archlaus' deposal. (And where Bethlehem is.)
  
• And yes, taxation/tribute had something to do with this census.
  
• And one more yes. Yes, this census in 6AD therefore is when Luke dates Jesus birth.

In fact, we have a nigh perfect hit. Problems arise if you want to square this nearly undoubtful census in 6AD (Josephus) with

• the necessity of Mary's and Joseph's transfer from Galilee (Nazareth) to Judaea (Bethlehem) in Luke
• Matthew's dating of Jesus' birth to the time before Herod's death in 4BC.

I wonder if your apologist has Quirinius' census in 6 AD on his list. Somehow I have my doubts ... Or does he?

The tale was more than likely set around this census. I still very much doubt there ever was an histirical Jesus.

After reading this thread, i think i get it now.

Spiderman comics take place in NY. NY is a real place that can be easily proven to really exist. Therefore Spiderman is real!!!

So was King Kong. He climbed the Empire State building, therfore that was also true.

 

[pakeha]

I think the number is actually correct. However, it is very, very liberal wrt to the date of the manuscripts and the constitution.





That is the number of Greek manuscripts. DOCs number includes more that that. For instance, it counts several thousand (7/8K?) manuscripts of the Vulgate, which was finished 400 ADish.

Anyway, the vast majority of those 5K or so Greek manuscripts does exactly NOT date before 400 AD. The vast majority dates after - and well after - 400AD.

There were a total of 4 preserved manuscripts around 200 A.D., 30 more manuscripts prior to 300 A.D., 8 manuscripts around 300 A.D., 28 more manuscripts before 400 A.D., 16 manuscripts around 400 A.D., and 38 more manuscripts prior to 500 A.D.​

Totalling up: 4 + 30 + 8 + 28 +16 + 38 = 124
124 of 5.000 or so prior to 500 AD. And the rest? Ahem ...

Here is another list of Greek manuscripts and it is the same thing, the bulk is late:
http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/table_gkmss.html
And what can also be seen is the many of the older manuscripts listed tend to be quite fragmentary.

Thanks for reposting this data, Lord Emsworth.
So the vast bulk of these ancient manuscripts actually correspond to a post 500 AD date.
And have nothing to do with a discussion of NT documentation in the 1st and 2nd century.
Or even help answer that burning question:
"Why didn't the Romans publicly refute the Gospels?"
From what posters have contributed, it would seem NT discussion wasn't a particlarly high priority for the Romans and their empire though this changed with time, of course.
An interesting digression from the OP, all told.
Does archeology prove the Bible?
Not yet, as far as I can see.
Even Sir William's discovery of those famous tablets has proven to be a disappointment, as they were misinterpreted. Was it known in Sir William's lifetime that he was mistaken in interpreting his great find?
The "Garden" tomb has been dismissed.
Exodus has no basis in historical fact (that was new to me).


I'm learning a great deal, thanks to the combined knowledge of the posters here and really looking forward to see if there actually is archeological proof of the Bible and its claims.

 

[DOC]

You know... I was briefly reading on that, and it seems that this number of 20.000 you quoted several times is actually erroneous.

Looking at this Christian apologetist website, that makes about the same argument than you (whatever that argument might be), I only find mentions of 5000 ancient Greek manuscripts, totalling 20.000 lines. I think that you might have had the numbers of manuscript and lines actually confused...

From the article "Reliability of the Text of the NT":

"The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing known today. There exist as many as an astounding 25,000[1] ancient manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.'

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/CH11A.htm