Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magus55 · 02-23-2003, 04:56 PM

Oops, sorry was typing this post before you mentioned the move - want me to respost it in other forum or leave it?

Quote:

Originally posted by diana
Interesting that you'd select this particular "historical" reference, as I think it demonstrates the pitfalls of taking anybody's word that something happened in a certain way, so you become convinced and stop looking for answers.

Most Americans have done this with the Columbus myth.

To begin with, the people Columbus discovered when he got here discovered America, so perhaps you intended to say, "How do we know Columbus was the first white person to discover America?"

Which he wasn't that, either. You're using this historical example as a foregone conclusion because somebody (everybody) told you that this is a fact. Have you ever looked into the possibility that some other people from the Continent may have discovered this New World and its millions of inhabitants before Columbus? How would you know?

There turn out to be indications of many peoples "discovering" America before Columbus. This information is based upon documents and sagas that have been passed down combined with the observation of similarities in skills and crafts, similarities in languages and customs, and artifacts found in the Americas. These possible/probable "discoveries" of the land date back to 1500 BC or earlier.

We aren't taking the Columbus story on faith. We're looking at the evidence that is presented, and making an educated guess.

There's another matter you might consider when pressing us for details as to how much we know about history and insisting that we're taking it on "faith," and that this "faith" is just like the "faith" you have in God.

It's fairly easy for me to accept Columbus' actual existence as fact, as it was attested to by many people who both loved and loathed him, and I can see no ulterior motive to their making up stories about him. So it's reasonable to take their word that he at least existed.

In the case of God, we have only the accounts of people who claim to believe in him. I've not yet heard accounts of God by people who don't believe in him. The "evidence" is clearly biased.

Also, any time a person tells me about someone who lived in the past, I don't automatically accept their tale as proof that person existed. But if I read accounts from different people who knew him that attest to that person's existence, I tend to lend the claim credence.

Also, I meet people every day. I already know people exist. I can't make the same claim for God.

Do you see how far removed claims of God and claims of historical "fact" are?

Consider also that the person who convinces me that Columbus existed most likely does not have an ulterior motive in doing so. He isn't trying to make me join a group; he isn't trying to convince me that he knows what's best for me. He isn't, in any way, trying to directly or indirectly control me. Again, I can't make the same claim for God.

d

Here ya go for the bold stuff... about 3rd of way down it talks about people outside the bible, including some who were hostile towards Jesus recording his life, death and ressurection.

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t007.html

Now if you can't take all iv'e offered about Jesus' being real and the Bible being of divine origin, i can't understand how you can accept the accounts of people like Columbus, Napolean, Ceasar etc. Considering none of them did anything with odds of 1 out of 10 to the 157th power.

Magus55 · 02-23-2003, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luiseach
First of all, Magus, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to find this link...it is greatly appreciated.

However, I have a question which relates to all of the information included in the book review you provide, and I hope you won't mind addressing this query when you have the time:

Let us grant, for the sake of discussion, that everything in the document you provide is true (viz. that Jesus existed, that he made prophecies which came true, etc.), how does this demonstrate the existence of a deity, in your opinion?

How could anyone other than an omnipotent being fullfill something to the odds of 1 out of 10 to the 157th power with that kind of accuracy? thats 10 with 157 zeros after it - a number far far greater than the number of stars in the universe ( supposedly) - no none divine human could ever do that. And thats only the odds of 48 prophecies being fulfilled - there are still 252 prophecies in the Bible - making the odds so astronomical that its a physical impossibility by anyone but God.

And then we could get into David going into graphic detail of Jesus' crucifixtion before crucifixtion even existed, or Jesus' birth place being stated 700 years before he was even born. No mortal can do that.

Luiseach · 02-23-2003, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
How could anyone other than an omnipotent being fullfill something to the odds of 1 out of 10 to the 157th power with that kind of accuracy?

I predict that I will go to work tomorrow...when I post here tomorrow evening, I will have gone to work. Will this fulfilled 'prophecy' make me God, or at least a divinely inspired prophet?

But seriously, in response to your question there: even if prophecies are fulfilled, in itself this does not lead to the conclusion that there is a deity which fulfilled them.

We need more evidence than this to demonstrate the existence of God...just because someone predicts that something will happen, and then it happens, does not point towards supernatural intervention of any kind.

Magus55 · 02-23-2003, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luiseach
I predict that I will go to work tomorrow...when I post here tomorrow evening, I will have gone to work. Will this fulfilled 'prophecy' make me God?

But seriously, in response to your question there: even if prophecies are fulfilled, in itself this does not lead to the conclusion that there is a deity which fulfilled them.

We need more evidence than this.

Thats not a prophecy - its your daily routine - you know what to expect. Out of the blue graphically stating how the Messiah will be executed, before the method even exists and telling his birthplace 700 years before its even supposed to happen is.

And it does lead to the conclusion there is a diety - there is no scientific explanation for how to fulfill something with those kind of odds - its physically impossible for a human to do. You'd have a better chance of walking to the edge of the universe without a spacesuit or oxygen tank.

Luiseach · 02-23-2003, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Thats not a prophecy - its your daily routine - you know what to expect. Out of the blue graphically stating how the Messiah will be executed, before the method even exists and telling his birthplace 700 years before its even supposed to happen is.

And it does lead to the conclusion there is a diety - there is no scientific explanation for how to fulfill something with those kind of odds - its physically impossible for a human to do. You'd have a better chance of walking to the edge of the universe without a spacesuit or oxygen tank.

Out of interest, when were the Books of the Bible written? Further, when were they brought together in the 'final' edition? Do you know?

BTW, I edited my last post for clarity, although my additions don't change the import of the quotation you posted... :-D

Magus55 · 02-23-2003, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luiseach
Out of interest, when were the Books of the Bible written? Further, when were they brought together in the 'final' edition? Do you know?

BTW, I edited my last post for clarity, although my additions don't change the import of the quotation you posted... :-D

http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

http://www.carm.org/evidence/written_after.htm

Here is a list on when each book was written. This is when the original manuscript of each book was written ( Dead sea scrolls are an example of some of these).

http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm

The single book that we commonly see today with all of the individual books organized in it wasn't done until mid 13th century.

Luiseach · 02-23-2003, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm

http://www.carm.org/evidence/written_after.htm

Thanks again for the links, Magus.

I'm not sure if you're interested, but I found an interesting article on the subject here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../982front.html

Perhaps you might enjoy reading it and offering some thoughts on the subject, as a point of comparison?

Luiseach · 02-23-2003, 05:31 PM

I've extracted a few quotations to give us the flavour of the piece:

'What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him.'

*snip*

'The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.'

*snip*

'Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous.'

Quoted from 'Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy' by
Farrell Till

P.S. Till provides some examples in his article to demonstrate his claims...I'm sure there are many more available.

Magus55 · 02-23-2003, 05:42 PM

Well archealogists today even claim the overwhelming amount of evidence they have found that is perfectly recorded in the Bible. Thousands and Thousands, if not millions of people ( scientists, archaeologists, theologists etc.) have tried to find errors in the Bible - they haven't done it yet. There is still alot for them to find.

On the last paragraph of that article - i'm not sure how accurate the number of people were but there is no mention of all of them being killed for their disobedience. Why would God go through the trouble of bringing them out of Egypt just to kill them?

The stone from the Moabites could have very well been false to make them seem like the victors. Israel defeated the Moabites and caused them to retreat, and only left themselves after King Moab killed his son.

The Mesha inscription could have also meant the overwhelming victory of the Israelites, or they could have assumed they won since the Israelites left. Doesn't disprove the Bible or necessarily disprove that the inscription depicts the same account as the Bible. Just depends on what the Moabites actually meant - did they believe they won just cause the Israelites left or did they mean the Israelites were the ones with overwhelming victory?

diana · 02-23-2003, 06:14 PM

Veracity of biblical claims. Time of writing of the books of the bible and when they were compiled. Archaeology and its proof/disproof of biblical claims. The validity of any claims of prophesy.

These are all subjects that would be more thoroughly dealt with in Biblical Criticism and Archaeology.

The OP seemed to be about the basic arguments of EoG, but the thread has taken a definite turn. The entire second page, thus far, is about BC&A.

I understand how the thread got here. It is a natural progression of questions. If the thread continues in this vein, I will move it to BC&A.

DISCLAIMER: This is not a punishment, by any means, or a means of washing my hands of a thread. It is in the interest of benefiting from the expertise of those who make discussion of BC&A their specialty.

d

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

02-23-2003, 05:31 PM	#48
Luiseach Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: limbo Posts: 986	I've extracted a few quotations to give us the flavour of the piece: 'What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him.' snip 'The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.' snip 'Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous.' Quoted from 'Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy' by Farrell Till P.S. Till provides some examples in his article to demonstrate his claims...I'm sure there are many more available.

02-23-2003, 05:42 PM	#49
Magus55 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 7,204	Well archealogists today even claim the overwhelming amount of evidence they have found that is perfectly recorded in the Bible. Thousands and Thousands, if not millions of people ( scientists, archaeologists, theologists etc.) have tried to find errors in the Bible - they haven't done it yet. There is still alot for them to find. On the last paragraph of that article - i'm not sure how accurate the number of people were but there is no mention of all of them being killed for their disobedience. Why would God go through the trouble of bringing them out of Egypt just to kill them? The stone from the Moabites could have very well been false to make them seem like the victors. Israel defeated the Moabites and caused them to retreat, and only left themselves after King Moab killed his son. The Mesha inscription could have also meant the overwhelming victory of the Israelites, or they could have assumed they won since the Israelites left. Doesn't disprove the Bible or necessarily disprove that the inscription depicts the same account as the Bible. Just depends on what the Moabites actually meant - did they believe they won just cause the Israelites left or did they mean the Israelites were the ones with overwhelming victory?

02-23-2003, 06:14 PM	#50
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	Veracity of biblical claims. Time of writing of the books of the bible and when they were compiled. Archaeology and its proof/disproof of biblical claims. The validity of any claims of prophesy. These are all subjects that would be more thoroughly dealt with in Biblical Criticism and Archaeology. The OP seemed to be about the basic arguments of EoG, but the thread has taken a definite turn. The entire second page, thus far, is about BC&A. I understand how the thread got here. It is a natural progression of questions. If the thread continues in this vein, I will move it to BC&A. DISCLAIMER: This is not a punishment, by any means, or a means of washing my hands of a thread. It is in the interest of benefiting from the expertise of those who make discussion of BC&A their specialty. d

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.