Kosh

Interesting.

So, since that same modern archaeology also disproves much of the claims of the OT (age of the earth, the exodus, origin of the Jewish people, conquering of Canaan, extent of Davids and Solomons kingdom), why do you still believe the OT? (assuming that you do, of course)

Edited to add: ref, "The Bible Unearthed"

Patriot7

emphasis mine
Really? Incredible. I didn't know that. I'm glad you're not making any assumptions here a priori.

Are you suggesting that the claims of the Gospel are supernatural? That Something or Someone suspended the Laws of Physics to get the attention of His creation? Fascinating.

Please prove that claim empirically.

Diogenes the Cynic

Archaeology has also disproved many of the historical claims of the Hebrew Bible, including the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt, the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, no Flood, no Noah, no ark, etc.

So why if you can eliminate the BOM as being the word of God based on archaeological falsifications of historical claims, why do you have a different standard for the Bible?
What empirical evidence would that be?
Where was it recorded in history?
When and where did God reveal himself through creation?
Some of us have.
Is that your criterion for taking a religion seriously? Whether somebody claimed to be God or not? Sun Myung Moon claims to be God. Have you studied Moonie literature? Have you read the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna? He claimed to be an incarnation of Rama. Can you prove that he wasn't?

Oh...and what is your proof that Jesus DID claim to be God?

Diogenes the Cynic

That doesn't surprise me.
Why is that fascinating? Ancient mythology is filled with such claims.

cognac

Given where P7 is coming from, he might find Dever's works a little more palatable. Here's a start:

Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?

Edited: having trouble with the Amazon link.

Patriot7

What specific claims are you referring to and how have they been disproven?

For example, you mention the age of the earth. If you're going to state your conclusion with the degree of certainty as you have, we should only expect you to have as high a degree of certainty in your interpretation of scripture to prove your claim. In otherwords, if you're going to be dogmatic about your conclusion, please show me where the text of scripture demands that dogmaticsm.

I'm not against dogmaticsm per se. I believe there are good cases made for an old earth and a young earth, and five days out of seven I lean towards the young earth view. There are also as many theories of Christ's second coming, and to be dogmatic about any of them, when clearly the text isn't explicit, fails to be sound exegesis in my opinion. If the bible clearly states the exact date the universe was created and you can know with the same degree of certainty that it was in fact not, given sound, repeatable science, then by all means please shout it from the roof tops.

Kosh

I listed the claims which have been disproven. You can read the book I referenced. And any good book on geology...

Diogenes the Cynic

Kosh already named several specific claims. Maybe you weren't reading closely enough. I'll help you out. The archaeological evidence in Israel and elsewhere shows the following:

The cultural group known as the Israelites had indigenous Canaanite origins. They did not migrate with Abraham as the Bible states.

There isn't a shred of evidence for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph.

The Israelites were never enslaved in Egypt, never escaped, never wandered in the Sinai and never "returned" to Canaan. They never left in the first place. There was no Moses and no Exodus.

There was no conquest of Canaan by the Israelites under "Joshua." The walls of Jericho? Didn't exist when the Bible says they did.


There was never a unified kingdom under David and Solomon.

That's just the archaeology. It doesn't include the geological or biological evidence which makes a mockery of YEC beliefs.


You've now discredited yourself completely.

RED DAVE

From Patriot7:
At the risk of a derailment to the evolution board, what is the case for a young earth view?

Wait while we get our popcorn and Coke before you post, as this should be very entertaining.

RED DAVE

Awmte

Didn't I read a thread somewhere about how induction can be justified methodologically, ie., that induction, if applied consistently, will, over the long run tend to validate itself? Such a self-correcting algorithm can arguably be said to be definitionally proven. Am I missing anything?