Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 12-23-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountain Man

It is an example of what can be talked about, but not the the exclusion of anything else.

Nobody says it has to. You are free to bring up any other specific example you want. As far as I'm concerned, the question of Nazareth has been established as a poor example to show that archaeology does not support the Bible.

Quote:

There has been only one claim presented by the believers, and it has been presented as THEE proof.

I just reread the first page and that doesn't appear to be true. As far as I can see, you were the first to introduce that claim in a post where you deny it.

Even if someone did make the claim, it can be dismissed as a false generalization and we are back to considering individual examples.

Quote:

By not focusing on one inconsequential village.Yes, but not ONE specific claim ad nauseum. That's my whole point that you are ignoring!

What have you done to encourage consideration of a different example?

That the evidence fails to support denying the reliability of the Bible on this specific point does not render it inconsequential. It means you should look elsewhere and stop indulging posts you consider to be beating a dead horse.

Amaleq13 · 12-23-2005, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Bearing in mind the Hopkido background of my southern brother, I respectfully wish to point out that since the derailment there has been zero discussion of archaeological evidence for sky daddy junior and the discussion has been successfully commandeered into "was there something at what is now known as Nazareth".

If only Hapkido training applied to ATV repair.

The subject is certainly not a derailment from the OP but is exactly the sort of specific example the general question requires. IMO, praxeus is correct that "Nazareth did not exist" is one of the more popular assertions made against the claim of archaeological support for the Bible. If the actual state of the evidence precludes using it for this purpose, that should be made clear. Personally, when somebody like Carrier finds the evidence to support agnosticism at best, I think its use should be avoided.

I certainly agree that the Exodus is a better example though The Flood has to be in the running.

Quote:

...secondly the energy devoted to the question serves the derailment purpose beautifully in shifting attention away from the > million person exodus and all of the other vastly superior matters for archaeology.

Use the Force, Luke! Ignore any further attempts to continue discussing Nazareth and start a discussion of a different example.

Quote:

I think you guys like suffering the insufferable.

Must the be Asian influences in our lives.

Mountain Man · 12-23-2005, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Nobody says it has to. ......

Sorry, I tried to explain....

Quote:

It means you should look elsewhere and stop indulging posts you consider to be beating a dead horse.

That's what I'm doing now, stopping the beating of a dead horse by not wasting time explaining something to someone that does not want to understand but instead wants to just pick on someone for the fun of it. :wave:

Vorkosigan · 12-23-2005, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Must the be Asian influences in our lives.

Aaargh.

Lunawalk · 12-24-2005, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The main issue is that even it there was a conquest of Canaan and an Exodus, so what? Anyone can accurately write about the archaeology and geography where they live and travel. What is at all unusual about that?
You should have also asked where the Israelites got the notion that there were plagues in Egypt and that the Red Sea parted. Those events, if true, would have been witnessed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, a number of eyewitnesses without prior precedent or subsequent duplication in the entire Bible, and yet, outside of the Bible, there are not ANY records of the supposed events. The texts say that the Philistines were aware of the miracles, so Christians can't claim that God prevented news of the events from leaving Egypt. The events were THE media story of the millennia, and it is quite suspicious that there are not any records of them outside of the Bible, not in Egyptian history or anyone else's history.

Of course there is nothing special about the bible being right about cities and historical events. Regarding the exodus where are thr bodies of the first born of Eygpt.also their records of that traedgy.. I was wondering where they got the idea that they orginated outside Canaan. If they are ready native Canaanites. I guess they are writing long after these events.

Lunawalk · 12-24-2005, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The answers to these questions are not known with certainty but the basic theory is that the stories were essentially post-exilic political propaganda designed to create a mythic history for Israel and a unified narrative for its people. It was also partially designed to solidify political and religious power in Jerusalem and at the temple. Some aspects of these narratives may have had their origins in tribal legends or been semi-inspired by other historical events (The Exodus was probably based on the expulsion of the Hyksos, for instance).

That's the summation, anyway. Each of these aspects have comprehensive explanations which would require much longer posts.

So are you saying that they invented these stories to unite the people. The stories were written long after the events they disscibe. I guess for them the distant past is in shadow.Thanks for your answer

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.