It appears that Papias came out of a non-Pauline stream of Christianity.

TrueThinker: I think Belshazzar was Nebuchanezzar's grandson. "Son" in the Bible doesn't always necessarily mean son as we use it in English.

LP: So it's some sort of metaphorical extensions. But if one stretches words like that, one can prove anything one wants.

TT: That's why Archbishop Ussher made a grave mistake in using the chronologies to arrive at a date for creation- the Bible does not speak of the age of the Earth (it's not important for the message it's getting across).

LP: So those genealogies are abbreviated? Sheesh. What are they doing in the Bible?

TT: On rabbits chewing the cud- Leviticus 11 is not even speaking of rabbits. Certain animals have been substituted for unknown ones- rabbits being one of the substitutes. These are just problems with the language barrier when translating. It could also have been referring to a type of animal that may have gone extinct.

LP: I've never seen that one before. And why was this animal not described? That's a question that can be asked of the various kinds of birds, lizards, and grasshoppers mentioned a little bit later in Leviticus.

TT: The flat earth- the Bible does not say this either. The four corners it speaks of are specific nations, it's in no way saying anything about the shape.

LP: How does one work out that those corners are nations? Furthermore, we are told that there is an angel at each corner, each one controlling one of the four winds (north, east, south, west), suggesting that the Earth has a corner at each of these compass directions.

TT: If I were to say "I am from this or that corner of the world" would you think I was speaking of the shape of the earth?

LP: That's clearly metaphorical, but corners with winds?

TT: The Bible says God sits enthroned above the circle of the earth. Circles have no corners.

LP: Which contradicts Revelation. Furthermore, the sky is pictured as being stretched overhead like a tent, and God as sitting on a throne above the sky.

Someone else: Also, if the Bible is historically accurate, why are there no extrabiblical records of an earthquake at the time of Jesus's death? And if the bodies of many holy people were raised to life and preached, why are there no extrabiblical records of this? This is not even mentioned in 3 of the 4 Gospels. This is truely an amazing event ...

TT: If anybody wrote about everything that happened during the lifetime of Christ, it would fill a lot of books. ...

LP: Totally beside the point. These are very unusual events, the sort of events that some historian might want to record. Dead people staying dead would not be worth reporting. But dead people coming back to life would certainly be.

James Still

I apologize for being off topic but I need to set the record straight. Holding/Turkel insists that the Secular Web broke the news of his real name but that isn't what happened. Jeff Lowder and I knew Turkel's real name two years before Till's essay was published on the Secular Web. We promised him that we would not reveal his real name ourselves and we kept that promise to him. But Holding had been replying to respondents with his personal e-mail account. Sooner or later those respondents posted to usenet and mentioned his real name. Word got around fast. We began getting e-mails from people where they referred to him by his real name. Then Farrell Till sent us a paper for publishing in which he used Turkel's real name. Jeff and I, knowing that his name was everywhere within the nonbelief community and no longer a secret, asked someone whom Turkel did not know to e-mail him with a question. We agreed that if he was still using the pseudonym we would not publish Till's paper. He replied back to that person from his personal account where his real name was revealed in the header and signature. Only then did we make the editorial decision to go ahead and publish Till's essay. We did not violate his privacy since the cat was already out of the bag and he himself had been revealing his name to anyone who had corresponded with him. Those are the facts.

Norm

I apologize. I had not planned to return here because I have other ongoing discussions which I find to be more interesting than those normally offered by Nomad. However, he seems to desperately need the kind of stimulous that I can bring to him so that he may feel that he has championed his cause favorably in the eyes of his supernatural guiding spirit. So, lest I disappoint someone as needy as he appears to be, I will attempt to comment on his post to me.

Nomad

I apologize for being so confused with your kind of thought process. But then, I haven't been conditioned in the manner that you have. Perhaps that can explain why I would have interpreted your post in a manner that did not meet "your" expectations. (We poor, struggling, mortals do the best we can with our limited, "natural", resources.)

I truly appreciate your admission that the supernatural world is a creation of individual imaginations. (That's my interpretation of your words.) Therefore I can not understand why you would be so anxious to have archeaological evidenciary support for some of the "natural" descriptions found in the Bible. I was nearly positive that you would understand that that was why I pointed to the writings of Homer. Perhaps that was too subtle.

I wish I could promise you that I wouldn't be as confused in the future, but unfortunately I can't. Every time I talk to folks with your type of pre-conditioned mindset, that does seem to be the resultant...additional confusion.

Since you do not believe that the archeaological evidence uncovered, that lends confirmation to scriptual statements concerning geography and names, constitutes adequate justification to declare that other scriptual writings are divinely inspired, perhaps you will grace these discussions with your "opinion" of what would constitute adequate justification to declare those other writings divinely inspired. (I'm sorry for the long run-on/compound sentence, but you did invite me to be more specific and spoon feed my thoughts to you. More than happy to oblige.)

I must admit a certain amount of sadness that you were unwilling to at least review the URL I provided concerning the evidence from science which disproves many of the claims being made by apologists for the Bible. I thought better of you. Apparently you told a little falsehood. You aren't really interested in science evidence. You simply wish to argue in order to make yourself feel better about your beliefs in the supernatural. How sad!

Well, if you truly desire to argue about specific science items, then you most definitely should take time to go to that URL and hyperlink to this...and argue your little heart out.

http://pub5.ezboard.com/fsabdiscussi...enceandhistory

I will admit that you will have to take enough time to learn and understand some science before you get in over your head. That shouldn't be any problem for someone who holds the opinion of themself that you seem to hold.

What is it about sceptics that think that merely posting links without bothering to demonstrate that they have even READ the link (let alone understood its arguments or counter arguments)? This is both lazy and quite pathetic.

Did that place scare you? It must have to garner that type of defensive response. I can't say that I would blame you. That much science could scare any supernatural believer. However, why don't you point it out to Turkel/Titus and ask him to lead you through it...if he can find the time to stop attacking people and deal with issues.

Since Buffman has failed to offer a single argument from that site, I think that the most appropriate response is to answer in kind.

Au contraire! I offer them all to you. I simply felt that tranferring their list to this string would be rather wasteful and downright idiotic. I know that age is creeping up on you, as it is on me, but you are the one that wrote,What evidence do you have from other sciences that disproves any claims in the Bible? You did not request a specific item. Therefore, I helpfully provided you with a bunch from which to pick and choose.

Were I to have chosen just one or two items, I find myself partial to the biblical claims made about the flood and the ark. However, they have been discussed to death. I have asked sincere questions and recieved "Artful Dodger" responses. Would yours be any different?

Thank you for providing me your hero's web page. I have reviewed it before. It does not take long to recognize that he is on a "Mission from G*d." I rather suspect that he is the type of true believer that could have his supernatural G*d tap him on the shoulder and tell him he was wrong and he would say, "Now just a moment there whomever you are. Exodus 33:20 clearly states that no man can see your face and live. Yet I do and am alive. How can this be if you are truly the G*d of the Bible?" And this supernatural G*d says, "You dodo! Did you forget Genesis 32:30? And Exodus 33:11?"

Nomad, when you work with a book of myths so riddled with contradictions and errors, as your ultimate authority on existence, I find your allegation that"Now, if you want to be taken seriously in the future, offer some of your own thoughts Buffman" as patently laughable. I wish I could suggest a course in critcal thinking for you, but I fear that you would consider it totally unnecessary since you already have all the knowledge and right answers between the covers of your sacred book of campfire tales and children's stories.

There really was a Troy. Does that mean there really was a Trojan Horse? A Hercules?

Health & Happiness be yours.




[This message has been edited by Buffman (edited June 12, 2001).]

Archeaology references concerning the Book of Mormon.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/sm...html#statement

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/sm...shtml#response

This is a typical argument put forth by many Christian apologetics that "son" actually may have meant descendant. Babylonian records indicate that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus. Nabonidus was not related to to Nebuchadnezzar. So we can throw the grandson or descendant idea out the window. Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 B.C. and was succeeded by his son Amel-Marduk. Amel-Marduk was assassinated in 560 B.C. during a coup led by his brother-in-law Nergal-Sharezer. So, at this time, the new kings of Babylon were not descendants of Nebuchadnezzar. So no matter how much you distort the meaning of "son", you can't get around the fact that Belshazzar was in no way related to Nebuchadnezzar.

Whoever wrote the book of Daniel is not the only person to make this mistake. The apocryphal book Baruch, written in the 2nd century B.C., indicates that it was a common mistaken belief at the time that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's son. Here's a quote from that book:


"They [the Babylonian captives] sent this message: The money we are sending you is to be used to buy whole-offerings, sin-offerings, and frankincense, and to provide grain-offerings; you are to offer them on the altar of the Lord our God, with prayers for king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and for his son Belshazzar, that their life may last as long as the heavens are above the earth. So the Lord will strengthen us and bring light to our eyes, and we shall live under the protection of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and of Belshazzar his son; we shall give them service for many a day and find favour with them (Baruch 1:10-12, REB version)."

Finally, a 2nd century writer who created a forgery in the name of Baruch also referred to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. So, it was a common mistaken belief that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and whoever wrote the book of Daniel made the same mistake, and there is no good rational reason that son meant anything other than the typical definition of son that we all use. If your distortion of the meaning of son is actually correct, than maybe Jesus really isn't the son of God after all.

For a more detailed analysis of the historical inaccuracies in the book of Daniel, I refer you to http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4/984bad.html

which are the sources I used for my rebuttal.


While there are problems with the precise Hebrew definitions with *some* of the animals in Leviticus, that is not the case with the hare. The Hebrew word "arnebeth" quite simply means rabbit. There's nothing unknown about this definition.

As far as it "may" have been referring to an animal that has gone extinct, I find this doubtful. There are no scientific records of extinct rabbit-like animals that existed during these times.

If we apply Occam's Razor to this problem, we come up with the simplest explanation that is consistent with the facts as being the most likely explanation. To the writer of Leviticus, it looked like rabbits chewed their cud, so they classified rabbits as cud chewers. This is a very simple explanation for a very simple problem, and far-fetched explanations like the ones that you give are highly unlikely.



The four corners is another far-fetched explanation to try to explain away what is an obvious problem. The Hebrews believed that the Earth was flat, and was covered by a dome. There was water over this dome, of which God would release flood gates to make it rain. This is made very clear by two Bible passages:

Genesis 1:6-7 "Let there be a dome to divide the water and to keep it in two separate places... and it was done. So Godmade a dome, and it separated the water under it from the water above it."

Psalm 104:3, 13 "You stretch the heavens out like a tent, you build your palace on the waters above.... You water the mountains from your palace"


This belief of the Hebrews is really no different from other cultures of the time. The Egyptians and Babylonians also believed the Earth was flat and covered by a dome.


Also, the four corners do not refer to nations. In Matthew 4:8 the word Kosmos is translated into world. If we apply that same translation to Mark 16:15, we get "Go into all of Palestine and preach the Gospel..." So, trying to translate Kosmos to mean Palestine presents a problem. Not only that, but Matthew 4:8 states that the devil showed him "ALL the kingdoms of the world and their splendor." Splendor in Palestine? Palestine was a primitive third-world area at the time.

You then make the statement that the Bible says that God sits enthroned on the circle of the Earth. I assume you are referring to Isaiah 40:22. This circle is not referring to the Earth itself but to the dome that covers it, on which God sits. The King James translation refers to this dome as a circle, but the NAB and GNB translations have the correct translations. "He sits enthroned above the vault (dome) of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; he stretches out the heavens like a veil, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." This is consistent with
Genesis 1:6-7. Also, the second half of Isaiah 40:22 confirms this, because tents create domes over flat surfaces.

Other Bible verses that support flat-earth cosmology:

Daniel 4:7-8 A tree at the center of the world could only be seen from the ends of the earth if the earth was flat. Also, a spherical earth does not have ends.

Genesis 11:4 In the Tower of Babble story, the people wanted to build a tower up to heaven. Now, this would only be possible if the Earth was flat and again covered by a dome which was not that far off the ground. God caused them to speak different languages because he didn't like what they were doing. Of course, this story is obvious mythology. First, I don't see how God could have been threatened by these people. They hardly could have made a tower more than a few hundred feet high. Not only that, but man has now traveled to the moon and God doesn't seem to care.

Job 38:22 Snow is not stored in a storehouse and hail is not stored in a treasury, but the ancient Hebrews obviously thought that it was and that it was released from the dome that covered the flat earth.


Again, for a more detailed analysis, I refer you to:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...1/1flat90.html

and

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...3/3flat90.html

which are the sources I used for my rebuttal.


The fact is that there are no references to earthquakes, unusual darkness, or hordes of zombies roaming around outside the New Testament during this time period. These are MAJOR events and would have had significant effects on the people of the time. The silence in contemporary writings speaks very loudly that these things never happened. Remember that this was a time that comets and brief eclipses caused widespread panic. An earthquake would have been felt all over Palestine, and a three-hour eclipse would have been noticed all over Palestine as well as neighboring regions. But there are no records of such an event in ANY region of that time. Seneca and Pliny were two of the greatest natural scientists of the period who kept track of natural phenomena of the time. Neither of them noted any three-hour eclipse. In Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, he stated:

"Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman Empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe. A distinct chapter of Pliny is designed for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and unusual duration; but he contents himself with describing the singular defect of light which followed the murder of Caesar...".


So, to state that evidence simply hasn't been discovered yet when there were people keeping track of such things at the time is really stretching things.

Again, for a more detailed explanation, go to:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4front96.html



I am 27, and I do not know how old you are, but that is irrelevant. Noting the Bible's lack of mention of prehistoric creatures is not childish in any way. This is simply another inconsistency of the Bible with known history.

[This message has been edited by JamesKrieger (edited June 12, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by JamesKrieger (edited June 12, 2001).]

• Turton As usual, Nomad has the evidentiary requirements backward. You are the one claiming that the Hebrew slaves -- for which there is no evidence -- defeated the pharoah's army -- for which there is no evidence -- wandered in the Sinai for forty years -- for which there is no evidence -- then pulled down a bunch of walled cities in Canaan -- for which there is no evidence.

Nomad: Of course there is positive evidence Michael. You just don't like it. And just as Homer records the Trojan war (and therefore is treated as evidence for that event), the Hebrew Bible records the history of ancient Israel, and serves as evidence for those events. Now, do you have any evidence that refutes their claims?

I don't accept that Genesis and Exodus are evidence of anything. They are myths, as archaeology has now made clear. Several such myths are known to have been loosely based on facts -- others are now known to be made up. Since there is no way to know until archaeology turns up evidence one way or another, you are just making noise about positive evidence. I regard all myths as fiction until evidence turns up. I take the same view toward the Indian myths of fights between flying machines, and all similar stories. Including the Bible.

• Turton: Just supply us with positive evidence for your claims, and we'll take the mythical history of the OT seriously.

Nomad: Please try not to treat your a priori prejudices as sound reasons to reject evidence Michael. Try to be more open minded.

What a priori reasons? I regard are myth as fiction until proven otherwise by solid archaeology. What is unusual -- or wrong -- about that?

• "The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer. Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24."

Nomad's response: This may well be true, and since I would not even pretend to have an expertise in archaeology, I would have to accept the above claim on faith. At the same time, it is my understanding that this claim is disputed by some archaeologists. If this is, indeed the case, then would you consider the matter settled in any event? And if so, on what basis would you make this judgement?

On the basis that it is considered settled by Near Eastern archaeologists and only a few literalist holdouts demur.

Thus, there is no argument from silence. Positive evidence -- the lack of a city for Joshua to destroy -- refutes the Biblical record. This is not merely true of Ai, but also several other places, including Jericho and Gibeon. There were no settlements at many of the sites throughout the period of Exodus. Hazor was ravaged later than Joshua, as was Lachish. As Fox says in his discussion of this in The Unauthorized Version (p228) "Even now the tale has not lost its power, but it is not history and never was."

Since you have read this work, I am wondering why you are even bothering to dispute what you must know is well-known fact.

• "contained in Genesis through Joshua"--"The whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical..." (p. 121, Devers, What did the Bible Writers Know.
  
  Turton: The evidentiary burden is on he who asserts. Please show that there was a city of Ai for Joshua to destroy.

Nomad: As I said above, this may very well be the case. Since I am not qualified to dispute it, I leave it to others to examine the archaealogical record and to tell us what it says. I will say, however, that I am prepared to accept that the story is legendary. Are you willing to accept that it may be historical?

Sure, I'd be happy to accept anything as historical, if archaeological and other non-mythological evidence warrants. The difference between us is that I require evidence.

Michael

You have not listed any evidence against either Genesis or Exodus Michael. Why do you make this assertion? (You did know that the story of Ai is in the book of Joshua I assume).

I am not certain what you mean by myths here. Do you classify all ancient stories as being myths? BTW, is the evidence you seek something along the lines of inscriptions and coins? I have found a profound respect amongst sceptics for such things.

This is cool. Just do not call stories from the ancients non-evidence. Homer is evidence of the Trojan war. The Bible is evidence for a great many things, including for the existence of a number of historical people, places and events.

Very often the only evidence that will be available to us about historical people places and events will be testimonial in nature, and will not include archaeological finds. You should know this, but if you limit all of your knowledge to this one narrow field, then you will have a truly minimalist view of history indeed.

For example, you believe in the assassination of Julius Caesar (I believe), but the archaeological record for this event is hardly overwhelming. I assume you believe Hannibal invaded Italy. Perhaps prior to the discovery of Troy you were amongst the naysayers on Homers stories, I do not know. But this strikes me as very odd.

To each his own however.

Hmm... so anyone that disputes the claim is automatically to be rejected? How close minded of you.

You are aware that many of the things often considered to have been "settled" by a science like archaeology turn out to not have been settled at all right?

In most fields, scientists try to remain open to new evidence and the possibility of being proved wrong. Such has been the case with the book of Luke, for example, and I would not be surprised if the same holds true of other "settled" issues in the future.

Perhaps those that place so much faith in science could show the same restraint in their claims as do the scientists themselves.

It certainly weighs against the testimony of the Bible. I will admit to that much. At the same time, it does go a very long ways towards proving that the Bible can be held to a much higher standard than can the Book of Mormon.

I certainly agree that the stories of the Old Testament need to be examined very closely against the historical record. But not all issues are settled. The existence of the Tabernacle, for example, is far from disproved, as once was believed (including by Fox). The record appears to show that the Tabernacle did, in fact, exist. New discoveries have shown this.

As for what we will learn from new studies and excavations of ancient sites, I think a bit of caution is in order. Old theories die hard, but they do die Michael. It would be wise not to cling to any one view with too much zeal.

You have no idea what I require Michael, and you still refuse to ask. As I said, you find your prejudices more comfortable than learning what someone else may actually believe.

I would advise you not to assume what I accept or believe until I have told you. If you would like to know what that is, just ask.

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited June 12, 2001).]

To James Still (or anyone else who knows):

Has Nomad heard the Holding/Terkel explanation before? If so, did he have any evidence to counter it? I'm curious, because he threw it out as a settled issue, than had nothing to say when shown wrong. Trying to figure out what inference to draw.

Bill

Thanks for repeating the facts for those who haven't had the opportunity to be exposed to them before. Very timely.

JamesKrieger

Thank you for the excellent and informative post.

turtonm

I hope you are familar with Nomad's posting techniques. Just don't overwhelm him with too much verifiable evidence. He needs to get some new material for his real world sermons. What better place than here to determine what is safe to sell to his flock? However, do not underestimate his knowledge or cyberspace debating skills. He is well read...though perhaps could use a Dale Carnegie Course. I give him great respect for his valiant, though ultimately self-defeating, defense of the supernatural via conditioned superstitions and children's ghost stories. For a logical, reasoning and critical researcher, it must be quite a strain on him to do so. I know that I could never sell even one bottle of his kind of snake oil.


Nomad

If you have not read this information from the Smithsonian, you would be well advised to do so....if not for my sake, then for your own. Please note paragraphs #5 & #6. Yes, I have taken careful note of paragraph #4 commencing at the second sentence. Just about every Christian fundamentalist on the web loves to tout that paragraph and ignore the rest. I wonder why?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...9156/ssotb.htm

(It had to be a typo on the last bloody word. Curses!)

[This message has been edited by Buffman (edited June 13, 2001).]