The Known Facts

[JohnR7]

You keep saying this. But you have yet, to ever, present any of this evidence you keep saying you have.

I present evidence all the time. Right now we are dealing with the evidence that archeology gives us that the Bible is true. The evidence we find at Jericho, Jerusalem, Sodom, Babylon, the ancient city of UR. All of these Bible sites have been studied and offer evidence that the Bible is true and accurate.

The elevation maps and the photos I have shown for Armenia clearly show that there could have been a flood there and the water of that flood could have been 5,000 feet deep, enough to get Noahs ark up into the mountains they way the Bible says it happened. There is geological evidence to the south that shows damage that could have been caused by a flood. There is scientific evidence in the Black Sea area that again shows that Noahs flood could have happened the way the Bible says that it happened.

There is a huge amount of evidence for the Bible. Just because you have not studied it, does not mean it is not true. All you have to do is open up your eyes and look and you will see the evidence. The few little chicken scratches that people come up with trying to show the Bible is not true, is nothing compared to the huge amount of evidence that shows the Bible is true.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Sodom

do you have a link to where Sodom is? to the archeology and ruins, please? i was unaware that anyone made the claim to have found it.
thanks.

 

[JohnR7]

Sodom

do you have a link to where Sodom is? to the archeology and ruins, please? i was unaware that anyone made the claim to have found it.
thanks.

That is on my recorder from a PBS program on the TV. I will see what information I can find on the computer.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

John,

Please show the PHYSICAL AND VERIFIABLE evidence that a baby was born from a VIRGIN woman and that that baby subsequently, as an adult, rose from the dead.

 

[JohnR7]

so what? the movie "Titanic" has lots of historically true elements, but that doesn't mean that the story as a whole is true.

There is a true story. Just like the stories in the Bible are true. Just because they make a movie about a Bible story, that does not mean the movie is true.

I would like to build a underwater camera like the one they used in that movie to show the actual photos of the Titanic. I think that under water exploration like that would be very interesting. Of course the problem with that is that light travels though the water a lot different than it travels though the air. So underwater photography still has a long way to go. But I do not think it would be difficult or expensive to build a camera like that.

 

[JohnR7]

John,

Please show the PHYSICAL AND VERIFIABLE evidence that a baby was born from a VIRGIN woman and that that baby subsequently, as an adult, rose from the dead.

What is this? Pick and choose. Can I pick and choose something from science that I can demand proof for? Would that prove to you that evolutuion is not true?

Actually, it is a shame that so much is known about Mary & Joseph but the popular myths about her tend to get more attention than the real story does.

The catholic church believes that Mary was a virgin all of her life and I feel the evidence is sufficent for that.

As far as the resurrection is concerned. The resurrection power of God is already at work in our lives. The resurrection is much more powerful than an atomic bomb. The bomb can only destroy, but the resurrection power of God can give life.

 

[dlamberth]

I present evidence all the time. Right now we are dealing with the evidence that archeology gives us that the Bible is true. The evidence we find at Jericho, Jerusalem, Sodom, Babylon, the ancient city of UR. All of these Bible sites have been studied and offer evidence that the Bible is true and accurate.
.

What we have found out is that yes, these places existed. But the picture that the Bible presents and what the archeological evidence regarding the ancient Hebrews in these places are two different things. The Bible builds up the images in regards to their influence and reach of the ancient Hebrews in those times into a picture that was not true.

For instance, archeological evidence shows that Jerusalem was a small rural community and that it did not have the extended reach or influence attributed to it in the Bible. King David’s realm was small and of very little outside influence. The ancient Hebrews were sheep herders. They were not empire builders. They were not educated people. They were not warriors. They were not city builders. They were sheep herders.


.

 

[Asimov]

There is a true story. Just like the stories in the Bible are true. Just because they make a movie about a Bible story, that does not mean the movie is true.

I would like to build a underwater camera like the one they used in that movie to show the actual photos of the Titanic. I think that under water exploration like that would be very interesting. Of course the problem with that is that light travels though the water a lot different than it travels though the air. So underwater photography still has a long way to go. But I do not think it would be difficult or expensive to build a camera like that.

Are you serious?

James Cameron did that like 4 years ago.

 

[caravelair]

For me the bottom line is that it works. When I was in the hospital in a coma, my wife prayed, the church prayed and God healed me.

i have no such experience to draw on. furthermore, i have heard just as many stories of prayers going unanswered. moreover, people from other religions claim similar experiences, and in any of these claims, there is no way to actually tell if there was any supernatural involvement, or what that involvement was, etc. so i find claims such as these to be unconvincing.

There are some interpretations of genesis that have been proven to be false.

yes, and if we allow for all possible interpretations, then it is impossible to prove the bible false, because you can always reinterpret it. so either the bible has been proven false, or it is impossible to do so. neither possibility gives me reason to believe the bible is true.

We need to try and understand our Bible in light of what science has shown us or what science believes to be true.

only if you assume that the bible is true to begin with.

 

[caravelair]

There is a true story. Just like the stories in the Bible are true. Just because they make a movie about a Bible story, that does not mean the movie is true.

there is a true story about the titanic, but the one in the movie, while based on actual events, is made up. the point is, just because the story contains hisorically accurate elements, doesn't mean the story in its entirety actually happened. the same is true for the bible.

 

[JohnR7]

What we have found out is that yes, these places existed. But the picture that the Bible presents and what the archeological evidence regarding the ancient Hebrews in these places are two different things. The Bible builds up the images in regards to their influence and reach of the ancient Hebrews in those times into a picture that was not true.

I have noticed on the other side of the coin that when the Bible talks about the enemys of Isreal they make them look like a bunch of idiots. But when I look at the archeology I am amazed that even by todays standards they were able to build some amazing buildings. All in all, the Bible is more accurate than any book we find written at this time. Other nations try to make themselves look good to the point where a lot of the truth is lost. Even today, people like Clinton go to a great deal of trouble to make sure they are going to look good in the history books.

This does not make the Bible any less true or any less accurate becasue science tells us more about these things then what the Bible tells us. I have said time and time again that science helps us to have a better understanding of a lot of the things we read about in our Bible. We have the advantage today to understand more then anyone has ever understood in the past.

 

[Willtor]

So what "grand supernatural" claim do you have a problem with? The point is that as much as science is able to verify the Bible they have shown it to be true. There maybe some things that science falls short of being able to verify right now, but that could change at any time as new evidence comes along all the time.

So God's special revelation to Man is a strict subset of that which Man could have discovered on his own?

 

[JohnR7]

So God's special revelation to Man is a strict subset of that which Man could have discovered on his own?

You want to talk about revelation and prophecy? We could do that, but it is not something that we talk about very much on here.

 

[Willtor]

You want to talk about revelation and prophecy? We could do that, but it is not something that we talk about very much on here.

I'm just saying that those things that one can demonstrate in a lab are probably not the valuable things in the text. They are almost certainly not the content of what God was trying to communicate.

 

[dlamberth]

This does not make the Bible any less true or any less accurate becasue science tells us more about these things then what the Bible tells us.

In my mind, because the Bible paints a different picture than what actually happened (of which you agree), than YES, it is less true and less accurate that what you claim.

.

 

[OdwinOddball]

I present evidence all the time. Right now we are dealing with the evidence that archeology gives us that the Bible is true. The evidence we find at Jericho, Jerusalem, Sodom, Babylon, the ancient city of UR. All of these Bible sites have been studied and offer evidence that the Bible is true and accurate.

The elevation maps and the photos I have shown for Armenia clearly show that there could have been a flood there and the water of that flood could have been 5,000 feet deep, enough to get Noahs ark up into the mountains they way the Bible says it happened. There is geological evidence to the south that shows damage that could have been caused by a flood. There is scientific evidence in the Black Sea area that again shows that Noahs flood could have happened the way the Bible says that it happened.

There is a huge amount of evidence for the Bible. Just because you have not studied it, does not mean it is not true. All you have to do is open up your eyes and look and you will see the evidence. The few little chicken scratches that people come up with trying to show the Bible is not true, is nothing compared to the huge amount of evidence that shows the Bible is true.

But noneof that makes the Bible true. It means that the Bible is set in a real location.

By your logic, Dr Jekyl must also exist, as well as his alter ego Mr. Hyde. After all, the story takes place in London, and we have archaelogical and real world evidence that this London place existed.

You state evidence for a localized Noahic flood. I've been saying for years that a localized flood like this is likely to the point of certainty. Rivers flood. That is actually a fact, one of the few in this thread. However, this does nothing to demonstrate that this flood was anything more than a regular flood. No divine influence is evidenced.


No one will deny that Jeruselam exists, or that Bayblon was a real kingdom. These locations are not specific to the Bible. They are historic fact. They are documented in other sources from the period.

You are being deliberately obtuse. We do not seek for evidence for the existance of the Hebrew nation. We seek for evidence for all the fantastical stories in the Bible. Provide such evidence if you can. You will gain much fame and reknown for doing so, as noone has been able to yet.

Sorry, Spiderman does not fight crime in New York just because Stan Lee says so, nor did Jesus rise from the dead just because a 2000 year old book of questionable origin says so.

 

[Prince Lucianus]

I once read that Nain was excavated and was found never to have had a city wall (or a pallisade). Unfortunately, I can't find a link nor did the book provide a note/reference.

But, if it were true, it does provide a detail to Luke's story of Nain (walking though the city gates) which is apparently false.

Lucy

 

[JohnR7]

By your logic, Dr Jekyl must also exist,

That is not my "logic" at all.

 

[OdwinOddball]

That is not my "logic" at all.

Oh, so you beleive you have evidence for the divine occurences in the Bible?

Why then please present this evidence.

Failure to do so, means your "logic" is exactly what I said it was. It means Dr. Jekyl was real, and that if I goto New York, I will find Spiderman catching crooks.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I have noticed on the other side of the coin that when the Bible talks about the enemys of Isreal they make them look like a bunch of idiots. But when I look at the archeology I am amazed that even by todays standards they were able to build some amazing buildings.

Meaning the Bible isn't accurate about the enemies of Israel -- they weren't the blundering idiots the Bible makes them out to be.

All in all, the Bible is more accurate than any book we find written at this time. Other nations try to make themselves look good to the point where a lot of the truth is lost.

You mean like Israel?

Even today, people like Clinton go to a great deal of trouble to make sure they are going to look good in the history books.

And then there are those who try to rewrite the history books.

This does not make the Bible any less true or any less accurate becasue science tells us more about these things what the Bible tells us.

And science tells us that the enemies of Israel weren't as stupid as the Bible makes them out to be.

I have said time and time again that science helps us to have a better understanding of a lot of the things we read about in our Bible. We have the advantage today to understand more then anyone has ever understood in the past.

And the things we learn often refute the things we thought we knew before -- even those things once accepted as Holy Writ.