wavy_wonder1

such a sweeping generalization. get real so in the future you avoid silly comments like this.

1) just because historical people and places may have actually existed doesn't mean any particular event occurred. it's just plain stupid to believe otherwise.

2) yes, it is safe to conclude that something did not happen or that something does not exist if there's no evidence for it. that's default. evidence must be provided for something if you're going to say it happened (especially dealing with the mythical nature of the bible). indeed, there have been times in the past where critics/skeptics were proven wrong about the existence of something or an event in regard to the bible. but to take these examples, run with them, and start generalizing that negative evidence is 'all skeptics are left with' is just foolishness and shows that you're not mature enough to engage in any rational debate (though this type of thinking is common among fundies, however).


kind regards
~eric

Baalazel

But there are Jay. They have been presented in this thread. You continue to ignore them.

If you admit that the authors of scripture exaggerated in their writings to make Israel appear more powerful and important than it was can you tell us just how much less powerful and how much less important Israel was. Was it so much less powerful and so much less important that it was incapable of supporting the United Monarchy which, according to the Bible, it supported?

And, could you please explain which events in scripture were not exaggerated. I would like to know. If you know the authors of the Bible exaggerated then I would expect you to know how and where the exaggerations occur. I would also expect you to know, by a simple process of elimination, which events were not exaggerated. If needs be just give me the exaggerations and I will handle the process of elimination myself.

Is it your argument that the Bible is not to be trusted in the same way that the history recorded by the Egyptians is not to be trusted?

Baal

JayW

Oh but there hasn't been unless your still refering to the one anti Christian personal opinion that has been posted several times. I've read most of the philosophical materil aimed at disproving the Bible. Perghaps you can give me some real evidnce that acually proves something. Weren't you one of those who demanded more that Scripture to prove the Bible is genuine? Why do you not believe the first piece of pro Biblical material you read? I have presened my argument and it consist of actual archeological ( scientific) evidence. If you prefer to accept the writings of one man who's intent is to prove the bible wrong, over the factual evidence of many scientist then you do have a problem. Unless you have actual scientific evidence that any event in the Bible never happened then the original posts is stiill accurae. There has never been any evidence that proves the Bible wrong. When you come up with something that is actually scientific and proven accurate, we can continue discussing it.

You are welcome to check out anythng I have posted. There are names of archeologiss,along with the books they have writen, as well as texts from nations other than isreal. You have no desire to check any of it out, becsue it would blow your theory of the process of elimination.
The parts of the Bible that may have been exagerated will probably become apparant when you read the actual history from actual historians. Regardless of which ones are the point was that there has never been any evidence that proves the Bible false. You claimed that there is. it's up to you to provide the evidence you are so sure about. I have providd evidence that makes a lot of the Biblical history a possibility. you have failed to prove that your statements can be taken as credible. perhaps another time.

JayW

Are you saying that you believe that every man woman nd child was eradicated from Canaan. Perhaps you are not familiar with the many Canaanite cities that are not mentioned in the Bible. Perhaps you are not familiar with the Bible. Very few of the cities conquered were destroyed. Many of the people were allowed to live among the Israelites. Some cities were never conquered. The city of Jerico was destroyed exctly as the Bible tells. The city was built with double walls,a very unusual way for Cananites to build, just like the Bible tells. It was destroyed by an intense fire jus like the Bible tells. Kathleen Kenyon first dated the discovery around 1400 B.C. John Garstang dated the find around 1400 B.C. Egyptian scarabs from Egyptian Kings were found in Jerico. The scarabs were contnous until around 1400 B.C when the city was destroyed. Biblical chronology places the onquest of canaan begenning around 1400 B.C. 1418 B.C to be precise.
The Bible has been tested and passed. It's the diehard closed minded critics that refuse to believe it. There has never been any evidence that proves the bible false,and there has neer been an archeology that claims there is. When Kenyon dated her finds she ws disappointed that the destruction did not match the then believed date of 1200 B.C. Unlike Garstang she never gave in to pressure to make it firt the Bible. Now it turns out she was right and Garstang went back to His original dates. Almost every archeologists now accepts the date of he conquest as 1400 B.C.

deadman_932

Actually, no...not "every archaeologist " accepts what you just claimed, JayW. In fact, you are exactly wrong. Garstand dated Jericho at 1400 BCE...KENYON found that it was abandoned between about 1500-1100 BC and that the "walls came tumbling down" at 1550 BCE or so.

In 1990, Bryant Wood critiqued Kenyon's work after her field notes became fully available. Observing ambiguities and relying on the only available carbon dating of the burn layer, which yielded a date of 1410 BC plus or minus 40 years, Wood dated the destruction to this carbon dating, confirming Garstang and the biblical chronology. Unfortunately, this carbon date was itself the result of faulty calibration. In 1995, Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht used high-precision radiocarbon dating for eighteen samples from Jericho, including six samples of charred cereal grains from the burn layer, and overall dated the destruction to an average 1562 BC add or subtract 38 years

Kenyon's date of around 1550 BC is widely accepted based on this methodology of dating. Notably, many other Canaanite cities were destroyed around this time.

If the dates of certain schools of archaeology are to be accepted, then scholars who link these walls to the biblical account must explain how the Israelites arrived around 1550 BC but settled four centuries later and devise a new biblical chronology that corresponds. The current opinion of many archaeologists is in stark contradiction to the biblical account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

Gullwind

Is that as far as you read my post? I realize that not every person was killed in the biblical account. (Heck, I don't think the Israelites killed ANY of them.)

You completely avoided the issue of the pottery demonstrating that no upheaval, such as that described in the bible, occurred in Canaan. Care to comment on that, or are you just going to nit-pick what I said?

Julian

Okay, I could have quoted any number of your posts, JayW, but simply chose this one for no good reason, other than it was last. I could have picked any of your posts because you are largely wrong more or less all the time. The bible has been proven wrong, using direct and positive evidence, again and again. It's not our fault that you either haven't read it or didn't comprehend it. Ah, well...

As has been already pointed out, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Having said that, let's move on into the realm of reason.

Robto has pointed out that positive evidence is needed. He is entirely correct, of course. We have positive evidence. We have positive evidence that the flood never happened. The finishes this argument immediately. But let's keep going, because shooting fish in a barrel is fun.

Tyre is still there, alive and well, a popular vacation spot. That kills the innumerable Tyre threads.

As JayW has pointed out, Egypt suffered drought, famine, crop failure (they kinda seem related, don't they?), and sundry catastrophes. Well, no other country in the world throughout history has ever suffered those events. And the Egyptians have gaps in their historical records. Oh, my goodness. Not to mention volcanic ash... Hell, it would seem to me that the Jews actually came out of Scandinavia, using the JayW method of reasoning. Well, maybe not. I find it hard to take this entire thread very seriously. Take the exodus, for example. The story disproves itself. Could it have been based on some kernel of fact, like, say, a couple of guys running across the desert in about 40 days? WHO CARES?!? What does that have to do with biblical claims? If that is our criteria, then any document, any myth, any legend could be easily verified.

It comes down to this: large portions of the bible has positive evidence against it (Adam and Eve on genetic reasons and evolution, Tyre because it is still there, Exodus because it is insane, absurd, and mathematically impossible, the Flood because of, gee, several hundreds science fields, etc...) and other parts are simply extremely unlikely. However, THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS UPON THE PARTY MAKING A POSITIVE CLAIM! I don't need to provide positive evidence against, easy as it is, I simply need to lean back and wait for uninformed, retarded, fundamentalist idiots to demonstrate their complete lack of common sense, reason, and basic education.

Now, can we please get back to some discussion that might actually involve some sort of intellectual effort? Just asking...

Julian

deadman_932

I claim there is overwhelming evidence that shows the Bible false in any claim of a global flood, JayW, and I'm an archaeologist. The flood had to be global, not local, since "local" defeats the idea of wiping out all wicked humans on the face of the Earth--whom we KNOW lived elsewhere on the planet at the relevant time period. That makes the Bible false in that claim. Deal with it.

MarkA

Absence of evidence of a claimed event is acceptable as evidence that such an event did not occur.

If someone, say the President of the National Academy of Sciences, claimed a T Rex was loose in Central Park but there are no other witnesses and an extensive search could find no trace of any spoor, should the reputation and authority of the claimant mean that the absence of evidence is insufficient to refute the claim?

There is a complete lack of evidence that aliens have ever kidnapped anybody yet there are scores of such claims. If the absence of evidence was not evidence that the event did not occur, then should each and every one of these claims be accepted until we explore the entire cosmos and find no trace of these aliens?

In the face of a complete lack of any genuine inscription or monument attributed to David or Solomon despite the decades of searching it is reasonable to assert that no such evidence exists. The Biblical claim is that the Empire encompassed most of the area between the Nile and the Euphrates so the absence of evidence is more than simply a case of its not being discovered yet. Identifiable traces of much smaller political entities, even prehistoric settlements, have been identified in the region so it is more than reasonable to assume that some physical traces of any empire this size would be found by now.

JayW

The Bible does not claim the flood was global.You've been listening to too many fundamentalists. Apparantly you believe that every Babylonian,Assyrian and Persian King thought they were king of all the globe? Everyone of them used the word world, earth and face of the earth. I am an historian and there has never been any evidnce that proves events in the Bible wrong. I have made the statement many times that the way the stories were told does not discount the fact the the event took place. I have never claimed that the details were all true, just the events. There was a flood.
Deal with it.