Ion

By 'single source' I mean the group of Canaanites who produced the Bible, from within their cultural beliefs.

To E_muse's
"An experience of God will not show up in any archeological dig!":
that's my point in "Lack of Biblical fossils.".
So why believe in something unfounded?

I read posts written very early mornings by E_muse, like if nagging about where the truth lies, is happening. I read two posts written by E_muse, where genuine search for archaeological data supporting the Bible, is addressed. I read a post by E_muse, where a link to Los Angeles Times article on the lack of archaeological data, is finally found since it was missing at the beginning of the thread. I read about the "...reality of the spiritual...".
From these, I think it is the "...reality of the spiritual...", that is providing the tenacity to legitimize the Bible, because surely there aren't hard proofs for the Bible.
However E_muse, in Bible believers I saw who claim a 'special relationship' with God, there are no signs of better humanitarian traits, than in the rest of us:
1) Bible believers with missing limbs who go to Lourdes hoping for miracles in giving back to them the limbs, fail like unbelievers (three past threads brought this up);
2) Bible believers don't perform human functions better, because of it (I saw many who don't keep promises, I saw liers, disrespectfuls, etc.).
So, it only comes down to whatever works for each one in life values, in a therapeutical, moral and philosophical way, with disregard to hard proofs for the truth in nature.
I was in Tennessee for a little over a year, and when I told a priest at a swimming pool that I don't believe in the Bible, he said "I will pray for you.", to which I answered, emphasizing the value I personally put on fitness, "I will swim for you.".
So, as long as we are not anylonger on the subject of hard evidence for the truth in the nature, whatever morally works for each one of us, E_muse.

Ion

E_muse, I do come across as blunt since I want to keep the focus on existence of hard evidence, in order to validate unusual claims.
I do learn data from you and from other people, when debating or reading debates.
I think, from earlier posts by you about certain archaeological data (book by Charles Pellegrino, article on Christianity Today, etc.), that hard data supporting unusual Biblical claims is not existing yet, making literal belief in the Bible as being far-fetched.

E_muse

Ion, your posts are a provocation and a challenge, forcing me to think to new levels - for this I thank you!

Now to your latter post:

The spiritual aspect of humankind is perhaps not hard evidence as it may be seen as largely subjective - but it could be indirect evidence.

Firstly, I don't think that the Old Testament presents an exhaustive history of the Jews. There seems to be evidence for this within the Biblical text.

I would suggest that documented events are 'pulled out' of the histories in order to make a theological point. But again, this wouldn't require an invention.

E_muse

O.K. But as I understand it, ancient writing documenting the histories of certain peoples were never exhaustive and tended to concentrate on victories, ignoring defeats.

Why do the OT texts include so many defeats and humiliations of the Jews? If you were going to invent a history, within a cultural context which tended not to document defeats, wouldn't this be refelected in the Jewish chronicles?

So, are we saying that we can't believe in any subjective reality? How do moral values show up in archeology for example?

I wouldn't entirely agree with this.

I quoted earlier from Robert Dick Wilson who lived at the turn of the last century.

In A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament first published in 1926, he wrote:

On commenting on the record of Kings mentioned in the Bible he said:

In the early nineteenth century critics rejected Abraham on account of their claim that the Bible reports him leaving Ur, lived in varied times in Haran, Sodom and Gomorrah, and that there were no signs of early civilization in these areas.

However, the ruined city of Ur was later discovered in 1854 and extensive excavations carried out by Leonard Woolley from 1922 - 1934 produced clear evidence of an advanced state of civilization centuries before Abraham's time.

The Bible makes many references to the Hittites. Decades of archeology failed to uncover any signs of the Hittites's existence, sceptics claimed that the Bible's narrative's could be dismissed as fiction. Today there is an entire museum in Ankara, Turkey, devoted to Hittite relics!

I could go on, but history seems to show that scientific opinion cannot be held as absolute proof for anything and can lead to inaccurate conclusions if too much confidence is placed in such methodology.

However, emphasizing an earlier point, to ask for evidence of Joshua feeling that God was telling him to cross the Jordan is absurd to say the least.

However, those who claim that they continue to experience God, see something in the Bible with which they can sympathize.

Well, Jesus said that we would know those who were God's by their fruit - the way they live.

Jesus also made the chilling statement that not all those who say 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Historically speaking, the church exists because people claimed to encounter God. It's funny how the church has turned that around and made an experience of God conditional upon itself!

Can't really comment here because I wasn't a part of these discussions.

But then couldn't it be pointed out that such people are more a product of the culture of their day, rather than a product of the teachings of Christ. I refer back to my earlier comment about truth. These people would be just the same if they were not in Church.

I think that, sadly, the church offers a few ambitious individuals an opportunity to exercise a level of manipulation and control over others which they would not be able to exercise in any other context!

However, a manipulative and controlling boss in a secular setting is just as guilty.

Well, this would shift the discussion to a different forum and a different thread. Does morality have an objective basis etc etc?

As I said earlier - Jesus said that certain 'signs' would follow those who believe in him. If the modern church lacks these miracles can we have confidence that they are anything to do with the Christ of the Bible?

Ion

E_muse, I am analyzing your last two posts, before answering.

Also, I will disappear from the debate, from Tuesday August 12, until Monday August 20, due to a travel.

Ion

Sorry, mistake, "... from Tuesday August 12,..." should read "...from Tuesday August 14,...".

Ion

E_muse, it is with the unusual to humankind claims from the Bible that I have a problem, and demand: any hard evidence backing-up this unusual?
I think, for as long as something extraordinary is claimed in the Bible while it has no support external to the Bible, that extraordinary claim is far-fetched.
The story of the Exodus for example, has such far-fetched claims: God sends down 10 plagues against Egypt, God parts the Red Sea to allow Israelites to escape and closes the Red Sea to swallow the pursuing Egyptian army, Israelites wander 40 years in the desert, the Israelites under the leadership of Joshua conquer Canaan, Moses lived up to age 120 (in line with the archaeologically unheard-of 930 by Adam, 912 by Seth, 815 by Enosh, etc.)

Ion

To E_muse's
"The spiritual aspect of humankind is perhaps not hard evidence, as it may be seen as largely subjective -but it could be indirect evidence.":
indeed it is not hard evidence because it is subjective, therefore I count the spiritual as a subjective life philosophy.

To E_muse's
"Why do the OT texts include so many defeats and humiliations...?":
maybe it is, so that the OT can seem more realistic.

To E_muse's
"How do moral values show up in archaeology?":
they don't, archaeology is about what factually happened in history; morals are spiritually subjective to anyone, there is no absolute truth to morals; morals are human conventions and interpretations in life, based on life experiences.

As for Robert Wilson writing a book supporting the Bible in 1926, archaelogical excavations in Kadesh Barnea in the East Sinai desert, where the Bible says the fleeing Israelites sojourned, excavations done in the 1950s and in the 1960s, other excavations done on the Jericho city, studies of pottery, architecture, literary conventions, cultural details regarding ancient Canaanites, studies done in the 1970s, 1980s, they are aware of and overrule the 1926 Wilson. As for the existence of elements from the Bible (city of Ur, etc.), I never disputed that elements of the Bible didn't historically exist, I dispute that the extraordinary claims from the Bible are far-fetched.

To E_muse's
"Well, Jesus said that we will...":
Jesus didn't tell me.

To E_muse's
"However a manipulative and controlling boss in a secular setting is just as guilty.":
yes, but I say the Bible is not a factor in bettering oneself; once chemically born, we are responsible about our chosen morals, with no pre-destiny ans no absolute morals.

To E_muse's:
"Jesus said that certain 'signs' would follow those who believe in him.":
do you know of such cases, with material (not spiritual, as in spirituality being a human philosophy) 'signs' that are not adressed by science understanding the nature? I don't.

Ion

Sorry, English mistake in my post above:
"...I dispute that the extraordinary claims from the Bible are far-fetched.", should read instead "...I argue that the extraordinary claims from the Bible are far-fetched.".

Ion

San Diego Union Tribune Saturday December 22, 2001 has the article "Human bodies have changed since 1800s, study shows" by J.J. Stambaugh. It displays proofs of human physiological evolution over the past 100 years. There are statements like "...the skeletons of modern people are strikingly different from those of last century.", and "On average, 20th-century North Americans are more elongated and less able to withstand extreme physical stresses than their forebears...". An explanation of this scientifically observed evolution is "...that a combination of better nutrition and medical care, coupled with less exercise, has triggered fundamental biological changes...".

My point in this thread, is:
biological evolution is strikinkgly present and under observation; meanwhile Biblical events are entirely absent from scientific observation; since science and technology keep us materially alive to historically unprecedented records in life expectancy, Biblical events belong to past superstitions.

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />