WILLOWTREE

Did you know the Shroud has been proven genuine ?

No you didn't.

Modern photography abilities has photographed coins placed on the deceased eyes as was custom in the First Century.

Those coins were easily dated from the First Century.

The image is scorched on - three dimensional - one side only.

Scorched by the Holy Spirit when He raised the Son.

ALL pictures of Christ are based upon that image - hence God found a way to produce a picture of the most famous Person of all time thousands of years before the technology was conceived.

The unknowness of these facts prove that secular is not loyal to evidence where ever it leads but only evidence which supports naturalism = proof of God sense removal.

WT

chapka

Okay. Let's take this one step at a time.

You claimed that the Bible was being held to a double standard, since people were refusing to accept it as historical fact without archaeological evidence, unlike other texts.

Schliemann and Troy in fact are evidence against such a double standard. That is, like the Bible, most scholars assumed that the Iliad, and in fact the city of Troy itself, was quite possibly entirely mythological, until they were presented with archaeological evidence to support it.

Furthermore, most scholars have accepted the historicity of the Iliad only to the extent that the story has been supported by the archaeological evidence. For example, there does seem to be evidence that Troy VIIa contains a destruction layer consistent with the city being sacked during a war, possibly with Greece. However, the archaeologists haven't yet found a wooden horse, or the tracks from where Hector was dragged around the city walls, or any memos written by Poseidon giving his point of view on things.

It's also worth noting that the identification of the Schliemann site as Troy is not accepted by all scholars.

And let me just point out that, since you're claiming that the identification of certain Jewish religious writings with the theological truth of the Jewish religion, for consistency, you must also accept that since a site has been found which may be the historical Troy, the Iliad must also be true in its theological views. Did you pour out a libation to Poseidon last time you boarded a ship?

Consistent with what others have said, where there is no archaeological evidence to support a story, it is generally considered to be legendary. There is no double standards. Please make yourself familiar with Herodotus, Marco Polo, de Mandeville, and the other travelogues of the ancient world and see how historical people now consider them. Or look at other writings with known bases in historical fact, as confirmed by other sources, such as The Saga of Burnt Njal, and ask yourself if anyone considers those elements of the stories with no corobboration to be true by default.

chapka

Evidence?

WILLOWTREE

That is a fact whether it is admitted or not.

Intentional distortion.

Prior to the discovery of Troy by Schliemann the literary text was assumed myth by ALL scholarship.

Scholars know Troy has immense Biblical veracity implications. Founded by a descendant of Judah/Darda.



Agreed.

Archaeology is assumed the standard to judge by.

This assumption is only made because secular/mainstream do not like what ancient literary text says.

Archaeology is inferior due to the fact that environment and time have no conscience.

Literary was produced so knowledge is not lost.

The problem is modern secular subjectively rejecting antiquity because their modern worldview doesn't understand or agree with what is written. Instead, we are pounded with assertions and assumptions argued as settled fact.

The above equals an admission of bias despite the evidence.

IOW, unless archaeology somehow confirms the assumption of untrue is fact = the position of the worldview of the scholar speaking.

How much evidence exists for the 7th - 10th Egyptian Dynasties ?

Who rejects its existence ?

The synchonisms proving post Solomon monarchies for both Hebrew kingdoms is plenty YET this evidenciary data is not allowed to confirm the existence of kings preceding unlike Egyptian chronology = bias of secular scholarship arguing their worldview under the guise of academia.


Anyone can find a scholar to validate their nonsense.

Refusal to acknowledge this settled fact of history = atheist worldview revisionism working.

Misuse of logic called - rhetoric.

IOW, all is equal.

Only argued in order to water down the O.T.

Only secular elevates the above because the Bible proves its claims.

IOW, if time is unkind then this decides truth = irrational and senseless position.

Ancient text of antiquity are only rejected because secular worldviews disagree, therefore we promote archaeology and keep our fingers crossed.

If that fails then we attack and smear the source that finds anything that proves the Bible = the strategy of secular today imitating medieval Bishops whom they secretly admire for the way they supressed truth back then.

Jack the Bodiless

WILLOWTREE:

The Bible does NOT "prove its claims".

That is obvious to all. That's precisely why you're wittering about the inadequacy of archaeological evidence - because you have none.

Is English your first language? If not, please study it some more. If it is, then please learn the meaning of the verb "to prove".

You have proved nothing.

...Except, apparently, that you now worship the Greek gods, because they were "proved" by Homer and Schliemann. If you do NOT get down on your knees and apologize to Zeus for your blindness, you're operating a double standard.

Are you even capable of understanding this?

chapka

I'm going to respond to this as best I can; honestly, it's hard to make out what you're trying to say in much of your post. Apologies in advance if anything got lost in translation.

Actually, it's because we know that many things written in ancient texts are false. But no, we don't assume that anything anyone has ever written down is true. Why is that a problem?

No, it demonstrates that scholars recognize that texts are corrupted and that modern concepts of history did not exist when they were composed. Also, that people lie.

What you call "bias" most would call healthy skepticism. In other words, just because there may have been a city called Troy that was destroyed in a war against the Greeks does not necessarily mean that there was a hero named Achilles who could only be killed by stabbing him in the heel because he'd been dunked in a magic river as an infant. Nor is there anything special about the Tanakh such that we should assume that, because Egypt really existed, therefore Moses really parted the Red Sea.

I've mentioned, several times now, the writings of Marco Polo, Herodotus, and de Mandeville, three of the most famous ancient historians. Do you think we should assume that everything in these histories is true also? If not, why the inconsistency?

WILLOWTREE

LIMITATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGY

While archaeology is of great help to our understanding the Bible, the biblical evidence in the text must be given priority over the archaeological evidence from the field. The reason for this is the inherent limitations of archaeology. The primary limitation of archaeology is the extremely fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence. Only a fraction of what is made or what is written survives. Most of the great Near Eastern archives were destroyed in antiquity through wars, looters, natural disasters or the ravages of time. To this we must add the limitation that less than 2% of sites in Israel have been excavated and hundreds more will never be excavated due to lack of access or resources and destruction through building projects, military maneuvers, and pillaging by Bedouins. Even when this small percentage of sites are excavated, only a fraction of the site is actually examined, and then only a percentage of what is excavated is ever published. Of the 500,000 cuneiform texts that are known to have been discovered over the past 100 years, only 10% have ever been published.

(this was taken from: http://www.imja.com/Archeology.html )

It is no surprise as to why atheists promote archaeology and canonize it.

WT

chapka

Archaeology has limitations. But, need I point out, so does textual criticism.

If you want to know why, read any one of these three books:

Herodotus, History
The Travels of Sir John Mandeville
The Travels of Marco Polo

I've pointed out these three authors a number of times. Do you give them the same credence, as against archaeological evidence, that you give the Bible? Why or why not? You seem to feel that this goes without saying. It doesn't.

For example, what is your position on this passage from Mandeville? Should we assume it to be literally true until we can provide definite archaeological evidence that it is false?

BrianJ

Hi WT,

I am going to take this really slowly because you are really under pressure here and are becoming more incoherent.

Let us look at your first claim.

One question WT.

When was Canaan ever a unified politcal entity that only had one king?

That is it for now.

All I require is a date.

Once you answer this we can move on.

Thank you.

Brian.

Hydarnes

Oh joy, looks like Brian's back...

I'll give a reply as soon as I can.