Archeologly proves the Bible?

[eccles]

Well there is enough archaeological evidence concerning the truth of the bible for this Christian to make 94 posts in this thread.

Show the proof DOC and not "proof" dug up by some quack "Archaeologist" with a Bible and Spade.

I'll save you the trouble. There is NONE.

Capiche?





Robert

 

[Paulhoff]

Then why are you accusing Christians of being crazy?

It is said in scripture that God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and I have to tell you this is what I am seeing.

Well not being wise, this simple idea must make you feel better. That is just so much Mumbo jumbo, people doing foolish things isn't confusing to the wise, only dumb.

Here is a good one for you KK,

"The wise can learn from the idiot, but the idiot cannot learn from the wise."

Paul

 

[eccles]

I decided to go right back to the OP and what do I find? Reference to the The Archaeological Study Bible, which "opens your eyes to the archaeological, historical, and cultural contexts of the stories you read and the people you meet in Scripture."

Well that is an Illustrated version of the New International Bible. the one I tore up. It has nothing to do with Archaeology proper. Just another lot of "Biblical Archaeologists with a Bible and a Spade.

Then I found a link to this site:

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=71 with this question and answer:

"What evidence do you have that there is a God?”
The very existence of the universe itself is evidence that there is a God."

How stupid is that. Just how Bible Camps brainwash kids with answers to questions they might expect to get. If they get a question they can't answer they are in deep trouble. Even the Local Minister was bamboozled by my questions and admitted to me that he knew not the answers. And the question I asked him were not meant to trick him. Hs is a nice guy.





Robert

 

[pakeha]

Kathy, we're still waiting for specific proofs. I recently devoted a fairly lengthy post to explaining that archaeology and history do not support the Exodus and Conquest narratives of the Bible. We also do not have any evidence for the united kingdom of Israel and Judah under David and Solomon or any support for Solomon's power and glory. We do have the Tel Dan inscription, probably made by Hazael, prince of Damascus ca. 850, referring to the "king of the House of David," mentioned along with the king of Israel. However, what were thought to be the palace and royal stables of Solomon turned out to be those of King Ahab.

While it is still possible that there was a tenuous union of the northern and southern kingdom under David, and such a state existing for a brief time is not implausible, we simply have neither corroborating records from foriegn powers or any other archaeological support for it. What seems to have happened is that the tribal league of the worshippers of Yahweh managed to coalesce into two kingdoms. The Davidic claim to having ruled both may have been made in the wake of the destruction of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 722, or it coud have been made earlier but still have been an empy boast.

A fair request. I'd like to know what's out there, too.

 

[DOC]

Show the proof DOC and not "proof" dug up by some quack "Archaeologist" with a Bible and Spade.

I'll save you the trouble. There is NONE.

Are you calling Sir William Mitchell Ramsay a quack. Because if you are your side is in trouble. My 94 posts (beginning at post 46) are out there, I'm not going to repeat them.

 

[joobz]

Well there is enough archaeological evidence concerning the truth of the bible for this Christian to make 94 posts in this thread.

# of posts don't equal truth.
you can very easily be wrong 94 times.


So, going back to the question of the thread:
If you have archeological proof of relevant biblical bits (e.g., resurrection, biblical flood, ...), then present it.

 

[TimCallahan]

Are you calling Sir William Mitchell Ramsay a quack. Because if you are your side is in trouble. My 94 posts (beginning at post 46) are out there, I'm not going to repeat them.

We've already dealt with Ramsay. Bear in mind that his work mainly dealt with the early Christian church. He was not, as far as I can tell, an authority on the archaeology of Israel.

Would you care to respond to my posts on the Exodus, Book of Joshua and the united monarchy of David and Solomon?

 

[pakeha]

Are you calling Sir William Mitchell Ramsay a quack. Because if you are your side is in trouble. My 94 posts (beginning at post 46) are out there, I'm not going to repeat them.

I don't have any problems with reposting some of the reasons why modern scholarship has corrected Sir William Ramsay's ideas about the account of the Census in Luke.
Why should this be grounds for such a comment on DOC's part:

Because if you are your side is in trouble

 

[Marduk]

Are you calling Sir William Mitchell Ramsay a quack. Because if you are your side is in trouble. My 94 posts (beginning at post 46) are out there, I'm not going to repeat them.

he was an apologist, which is worse than being a quack

 

[Cleon]

Are you calling Sir William Mitchell Ramsay a quack. Because if you are your side is in trouble. My 94 posts (beginning at post 46) are out there, I'm not going to repeat them.

Most of those 94 posts are you repeating the same basic points anyway:

1. Ramsay said XXXXX
- Promptly followed by others pointing out that you haven't read Ramsay, you know nothing of his actual work, the quote you regurgitated was taken out of context, and even if it wasn't, his work is largely outdated anyway.

2. Martyr Routine
- Promptly followed by others pointing out that people have died for all sorts of different religions, so Christians dying for Jebus is not evidence of Biblical accuracy. Not to mention the fact that Christians have been responsible for causing quite a bit of religious martyrdom over the centuries. (Not that this has anything to do with archaeology in the first place--it's just the standard DOC Gallop.)

3. "I made XX number of posts, so the evidence is there!"
- No. Just no.


In short, DOC, you have made no posts about archaeology at all. Not a single post you've made in this thread - no matter how many of them you've made - contain a single bit of actual archaeological data regarding the Bible. And if you don't know what "archaeological data" actually means, you probably shouldn't be pretending to discuss the subject.

Archaeology is a subject I know something about - I have a degree in the subject - and a strong interest in, so don't think for a second I haven't been reading this thread since it was first created.

Your posts are of such little value that I'm frankly amazed at the amount of cognitive dissonance required for you to constantly boast about how many you've made.

 

[eccles]

Are you calling Sir William Mitchell Ramsay a quack. Because if you are your side is in trouble. My 94 posts (beginning at post 46) are out there, I'm not going to repeat them.

I never mentioned his name, or any names DOC. As far as Sir William Ramsey is concerned, apologist or not he is considered somewhat a pioneer in Egyptology at a time when the scientific methods of Archaeology were in their infancy and the equipment we have today was not available. I have been reading "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthness of the New Testament". I got up to chaper VII "The Trials". I am not far enough into the book to make an opinion yet.

In the meantime a very kind member of this Forum sent me a copy of Michael Shermer "How We Believe". I have started that and I am finding it very interesting. I shall return to Ramsey when I have finished Shermer.

I would rather trust Ramsey that that stupid old fiction book, the Holey Babble. THat is the most painful book I have ever read.



Robert

 

[lightfire22000]

I think you're off by at least an order of magnitude.

Here's a thread devoted to Young Earth Creationism in the U.S.

Yeah, most believers don't count years like that. It actually takes a lot of discipline and time. Bishop James Ussher, the man who is credited with the Biblical age of the Earth at around 6,500, was actually quite an intellectual for his time.

 

[DOC]

I don't have any problems with reposting some of the reasons why modern scholarship has corrected Sir William Ramsay's ideas about the account of the Census in Luke.
Why should this be grounds for such a comment on DOC's part:

Please do post some of the reasons with sources. I still don't remember one clear explanation as to why this knighted archaeologist who spent 15 years in biblical lands got anything wrong.

 

[DOC]

he was an apologist, which is worse than being a quack

Maybe after his conversion to Christianity which occurred "after" the start of his trip to biblical lands but not before.

From Conservapedia's article on Ramsay:

Mitchell was raised as an atheist and as an archaeologist was convinced that the Bible was fraudulent. "He had spent years deliberately preparing himself for the announced task of heading an exploration expedition into Asia Minor and Palestine where he would [find] the evidence that the book was the product of ambitious monks, and not the book from heaven it claimed to be. He regarded the weakest spot in the whole New Testament to be the story of Paul's travels. These had never been thoroughly investigated by one on the spot. Equipped as no other man had been, he went to the home of the Bible. Here he spent fifteen years digging. Then in 1896 he published a large volume, Saint Paul, the Traveler and the Roman Citizen."[1]

Ramsay was struck by the accuracy of the book of Acts. In his quest to refute the Bible, he discovered many facts which confirmed its accuracy. He concluded that Luke’s account of the events and setting recorded in the narrative were exact even in the smallest detail.[2] Of Luke, he wrote: Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.[3]

http://www.conservapedia.com/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

 

[DOC]

In short, DOC, you have made no posts about archaeology at all. Not a single post you've made in this thread - no matter how many of them you've made - contain a single bit of actual archaeological data regarding the Bible.

Well I don't have the time to go through my 94 posts but off the top of my head I can remember showing a site that has pictures of "actual" 1st century tombs that are located just outside the wall of Jerusalem and directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Also I showed a Oxford Archaeological publication that stated the actual tomb of Jesus is "very probably" directly under this Church.

Also I showed a picture of a rock formation on the side of a hill close by the Church of the H.S. that looked very much like a large skull. Golgotha, where Christ was crucified, was known as the place of the Skull.

And as mentioned above I brought in the information of archaeologist Sir W. M. Ramsay"s 15 year study of biblical lands in which he said gospel writer Luke is one of the world's great historians.

 

[eccles]

Maybe after his conversion to Christianity which occurred "after" the start of his trip to biblical lands but not before.

From Conservapedia's article on Ramsay:

Mitchell was raised as an atheist and as an archaeologist was convinced that the Bible was fraudulent. "He had spent years deliberately preparing himself for the announced task of heading an exploration expedition into Asia Minor and Palestine where he would [find] the evidence that the book was the product of ambitious monks, and not the book from heaven it claimed to be. He regarded the weakest spot in the whole New Testament to be the story of Paul's travels. These had never been thoroughly investigated by one on the spot. Equipped as no other man had been, he went to the home of the Bible. Here he spent fifteen years digging. Then in 1896 he published a large volume, Saint Paul, the Traveler and the Roman Citizen."[1]

Ramsay was struck by the accuracy of the book of Acts. In his quest to refute the Bible, he discovered many facts which confirmed its accuracy. He concluded that Luke’s account of the events and setting recorded in the narrative were exact even in the smallest detail.[2] Of Luke, he wrote: Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.[3]

http://www.conservapedia.com/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

Please note this in the same article:

References
1.↑ McDowell, Josh Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volume 1: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson; Rev. ed. 1992) ISBN 0-8407-4378-5
2.↑ The Bible and Archaeology "The Good News" November/December 1998 ISSN 1086-9514
3.↑ Ramsay, William M. "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament" (1915) ISBN 0-8010-7677-3
4.↑ McDowell, Josh op cit
Our buddy McDowell again.

And this so called Conservapedia: A Christian Apologist "reference". On the Home Page:

Bible Verse
O Lord, by these things men live, and in all these things is the life of my spirit: so wilt thou recover me, and make me to live. Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back. Isaiah 38:16-17

 

[DOC]

Place of the Skull

Here is my post giving archaeological evidence for the place of the skull. Look at the last photo in the url given.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4998918#post4998918

 

[eccles]

Well I don't have the time to go through my 94 posts but off the top of my head I can remember showing a site that has pictures of "actual" 1st century tombs that are located just outside the wall of Jerusalem and directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Also I showed a Oxford Archaeological publication that stated the actual tomb of Jesus is "very probably" directly under this Church.
Also I showed a picture of a rock formation on the side of a hill close by the Church of the H.S. that looked very much like a large skull. Golgotha, where Christ was crucified, was known as the place of the Skull.

And as mentioned above I brought in the information of archaeologist Sir W. M. Ramsay"s 15 year study of biblical lands in which he said gospel writer Luke is one of the world's great historians.

Very Probably is not PROVED TO BE. If you are referring to the Lost Tomb of Jesus here is the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus

I have that DVD and it is a joke that has been thoroughly debunked.



Robert

 

[Lothian]

Here is my post giving archaeological evidence for the place of the skull. Look at the last photo in the url given.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4998918#post4998918

How does this prove anything? Just because the bible is set in known locations does not mean the events happened.
We know Harmony Pennsylvania exists does that mean that John the Baptist met Joseph Smith there?

 

[eccles]

Flying Houses, Holy Foreskins and the James Ossuary Hoax Trial

On the question of so called "Relics" on this site:
http://www.arthurkemp.com/?p=33 is the Daddy of all hoaxes:

JESUS FOUR FORESKINS:



According to the Bible, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with Jewish law (”On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived” - Luke 2:21).

The specter of a Jesus foreskin was too much for the Christians to resist: the monks of Charroux were the first to claim to have it, and who, as a proof of its genuineness, declared that it yielded drops of blood [Calvin's Tracts, Vol. 1, pp. 296-304].

Actually, Jesus must have had a couple of penises, for his foreskin has been claimed by several churches, who coyly call it the “holy prepuce”, including a church at Coulombs, France, the Church of St. John in Rome, and the Church of Puy in Velay! [John P. Wilder: The Other Side of Rome, Grand Rapids, 1959, p. 54].



Robert