Archaeological evidence for the Bible is a bunch of donkey-doo!

[klutedavid]

Who Ra?

Sun God of Egypt.

In the afterlife you will be dwelling with the baboons, that is the curse of Ra.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I too find these discoveries fascinating. And verifying the Biblical accounts of Hebrew history does give some "life" to the books.

I guess I can see how it advances "Christian apologetics" a little bit, in the face of people who think the Bible is a complete fabrication like Lord of the Rings or something.

... if that's the case, then it sounds like you and Ana the 1st should have a little epistemic talk among yourselves, one that the rest of us could be privy to, preferably.

 

[durangodawood]

... if that's the case, then it sounds like you and Ana the 1st should have a little epistemic talk among yourselves, one that the rest of us could be privy to, preferably.

Well Ana, me, most people here were probably already aware that many Biblical characters and settings were real.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well Ana, me, most people here were probably already aware that many Biblical characters and settings were real.

And which biblical "characters" and settings were those, specifically? Personally, I don't "know," so I'm asking you skeptical types what your estimation is on these kinds of things.

 

[durangodawood]

And which biblical "characters" and settings were those, specifically? Personally, I don't "know," so I'm asking you skeptical types what your estimation is on these kinds of things.

Most of the kings enumerated in Kings. Egypt. Sinai. The prophets were probably real people, or may as well have been. Galilee, Jerusalem, and probably 50 other named towns. I think Jesus was a real person, as do most non Christians. I could go on and on.

Mythic figures are probably Adam and Eve and immediate offspring, Job, maybe the three wise men / kings, etc.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

And which biblical "characters" and settings were those, specifically? Personally, I don't "know," so I'm asking you skeptical types what your estimation is on these kinds of things.

How about "those for which extra-biblical evidence exists".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How about "those for which extra-biblical evidence exists".

...yeah, see, that's the problem, isn't it? Entropy, History and Archaeology (even Paleontology) aren't exactly the best bed-fellows. Then, if we throw in honest recognition of all the fault-lines that are present within much of human epistemology and metaphysics, we'll realize that we're all in for a doozey in trying to figure out this big ol' "God Question." ... all things considered, when you look at the Bible, I'm not surprised that you and other atheists see nothing but donkey-doo.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Most of the kings enumerated in Kings. Egypt. Sinai. The prophets were probably real people, or may as well have been. Galilee, Jerusalem, and probably 50 other named towns. I think Jesus was a real person, as do most non Christians. I could go on and on.

Mythic figures are probably Adam and Eve and immediate offspring, Job, maybe the three wise men / kings, etc.....

Why would you think that David or Solomon existed? By the paltry archaeological evidence we think we have, it's not a done deal.

 

[durangodawood]

Why would you think that David or Solomon existed? By the paltry archaeological evidence we think we have, it's not a done deal.

It seems to me that major political figures like kings would have been recorded in histories, generally known among the population, and are said by the book to exist near in time to when the book was estimated to have been written. Seems hard to to fake-in a king into the cultural memory so quickly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems to me that major political figures like kings would have been recorded in histories, generally known among the population, and are said to exist near in time to when the relevant book was written. Seems hard to to fake-in a king into the cultural memory so quickly.

While I really do like that answer, I think that various biblical Minimalists will disagree with you.

Biblical Minimalism and Maximalism in Scholarship - Biblical Archaeology Society

 

[Ana the Ist]

...yeah, see, that's the problem, isn't it?

I don't see it as a problem.

Entropy, History and Archaeology (even Paleontology) aren't exactly the best bed-fellows. Then, if we throw in honest recognition of all the fault-lines that are present within much of human epistemology and metaphysics, we'll realize that we're all in for a doozey in trying to figure out this big ol' "God Question." ... all things considered,

It's a bit of a non-question for me at this point.

when you look at the Bible, I'm not surprised that you and other atheists see nothing but donkey-doo.

I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to continually try to characterize how I or anyone else sees the bible.

You can always just ask if you want to know...you don't have to guess.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't see it as a problem.

Well, what a quandry! I guess we'll just have to say that we're at epistemic logger-heads then.

It's a bit of a non-question for me at this point.

That's great to know, Ana. Thanks for being transparent with us about your belief system.

I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to continually try to characterize how I or anyone else sees the bible.

Because, maybe I've seen a lot of commonality in the thinking that takes place among you atheists ????? I mean, granted, I don't want to stereotype you and say something crass and cliche like, "Atheists, you all look alike." But, you'll have to excuse me in that all through college and much of time here on CF, the atheists and skeptics I have typically run into are quite often of the Nietzschean sort, and being that I have a Pascalian mind-set, I have little patience for that form of atheistic expression.

You can always just ask if you want to know...you don't have to guess.

I'm sorry to step on your toe, but usually, you atheists just come right out and tell us..............

Ok. So when you think of God, do you want evidence of the kind and given in the way that He said He'd provide it, OR do you just want evidence of the kind, and presented in the way, that, like Nietzsche, you want it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, what a quandry! I guess we'll just have to say that we're at epistemic logger-heads then.

What's the problem that you think it creates?

That's great to know, Ana. Thanks for being transparent with us about your belief system.

I understand that the "god question" might be a "doozy" for you...but it's not an issue that I even think about outside of these types of conversations.

Because, maybe I've seen a lot of commonality in the thinking that takes place among you atheists ????? I mean, granted, I don't want to stereotype you and say something crass and cliche like, "Atheists, you all look alike." But, you'll have to excuse me in that all through college and much of time here on CF, the atheists and skeptics I have typically run into are quite often of the Nietzschean sort, and being that I have a Pascalian mind-set, I have little patience for that form of atheistic expression.

And what exactly have I said here that led you to conclude that I'm the Nietzschean sort of atheist?

I'm sorry to step on your toe, but usually, you atheists just come right out and tell us..............

Ok. So when you think of God,

I don't think of god. Really, the entire concept is something that I really only approach when believers try to give their vague, fuzzy, and often illogical descriptions of what they believe.

As such, god remains an incomplete idea, that's more or less a stand-in explanation used to justify other beliefs of the faithful.

do you want evidence of the kind and given in the way that He said He'd provide it

This is already a loaded question. You haven't even established the existence of a god yet...haven't provided an argument for one...and you're jumping to assumptions about what "he said he'd provide".

OR do you just want evidence of the kind, and presented in the way, that, like Nietzsche, you want it?

I don't see anything Nietzschean about that lol. I asked you what evidence would disprove your christian beliefs in your opinion....was your reply therefore, Nietzschean?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What's the problem that you think it creates?

It creates a refusal to place one's self into the shoes of another person and to think about that other, opposing position in a more empathic, educated way. Am I wrong?

I understand that the "god question" might be a "doozy" for you...but it's not an issue that I even think about outside of these types of conversations.

...and that's why your here, then? Do you have genuine questions about the Christian faith, or is it just posturing? See? I'm asking a question rather than assuming your ....*ahem*.....motive.

And what exactly have I said here that led you to conclude that I'm the Nietzschean sort of atheist?

Didn't you say that you're a Nihilist here a while back? Or am I getting you confused with several of the other atheists here?

I don't think of god. Really, the entire concept is something that I really only approach when believers try to give their vague, fuzzy, and often illogical descriptions of what they believe.

...well, Thank God you're here to hold us accountable for daring to resort to an attempt to understand fuzzy-fied, ancient Jewish thought, Ana!

As such, god remains an incomplete idea, that's more or less a stand-in explanation used to justify other beliefs of the faithful.

The first part of your notion here I can agree with; but it's the second that I think is a non-sequitur.

This is already a loaded question. You haven't even established the existence of a god yet...haven't provided an argument for one...and you're jumping to assumptions about what "he said he'd provide".

Man, you really haven't been around here enough lately, Ana. Ask any of these other folks around here. They'll tell you that that conceptual train has moved on for me, long ago.

I don't see anything Nietzschean about that lol. I asked you what evidence would disprove your christian beliefs in your opinion....was your reply therefore, Nietzschean?

No, it was Kierkegaardian, even Pascalian. Do you know the difference?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It creates a refusal to place one's self into the shoes of another person and to think about that other, opposing position in a more empathic, educated way. Am I wrong?

Yeah...you said...

"And which biblical "characters" and settings were those, specifically?"

I replied...

"How about "those for which extra-biblical evidence exists".

To which you said...

"...yeah, see, that's the problem, isn't it?"

Which I responded in the negative to. It seems rather obvious that biblical figures with extra biblical evidence for their existence can reasonably be believed in having existed. You think that creates a "problem"....which you're now describing as...

"A refusal to put oneself in another's shoes, empathy, and whatever." I'm paraphrasing obviously, but it's hard to see how this statement follows from the other. I clearly understand that people want the existence of these historical figures to be evidence of other historical figures...but they aren't.

...and that's why your here, then? Do you have genuine questions about the Christian faith, or is it just posturing? See?

No...if I did, I'd take those questions to the "exploring christianity" section.

Didn't you say that you're a Nihilist here a while back? Or am I getting you confused with several of the other atheists here?

It definitely wasn't me.

...well, Thank God you're here to hold us accountable for daring to resort to an attempt to understand fuzzy-fied, ancient Jewish thought, Ana!

The first part of your notion here I can agree with; but it's the second that I think is a non-sequitur.

I'm offering my perspective...not stating a claim to facts.

Man, you really haven't been around here enough lately, Ana. Ask any of these other folks around here. They'll tell you that that conceptual train has moved on for me, long ago.

Perhaps then it's time for you to move along with it.

No, it was Kierkegaardian, even Pascalian. Do you know the difference?

Does it matter? Are we discussing Kierkegaard or Pascal?

I miss the philosophy section too....but until it's reopened, this is apologetics. (Ironically, it was closed by an abundance of apologetic conversations)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah...you said...

"And which biblical "characters" and settings were those, specifically?"

I replied...

"How about "those for which extra-biblical evidence exists".

To which you said...

"...yeah, see, that's the problem, isn't it?"

Which I responded in the negative to. It seems rather obvious that biblical figures with extra biblical evidence for their existence can reasonably be believed in having existed. You think that creates a "problem"....which you're now describing as...

"A refusal to put oneself in another's shoes, empathy, and whatever." I'm paraphrasing obviously, but it's hard to see how this statement follows from the other. I clearly understand that people want the existence of these historical figures to be evidence of other historical figures...but they aren't.

...that's not quite what I meant by the refusal. What I meant to convey what that you atheists often don't seem to want to take up the opportunity to engage another person's point of view in full and try to understand where the other person is coming from. Of course, I understand that a number of Christians are exactly the same way.

No...if I did, I'd take those questions to the "exploring christianity" section.

Ok. So you're not posturing then?

It definitely wasn't me.

Alright. So then, which philosophical figures are central to your thinking about life and religion?

I'm offering my perspective...not stating a claim to facts.

That's good to know, because you many times come off as being assured of your conclusions. I'm sure that people will say "tu qoque" to me in turn on that note, but I'm more than willing to take a step back on some point or two and relearn some aspect under discussion of others will do some work to present gaps in my knowledge.

Perhaps then it's time for you to move along with it.

I'm not sure how quite to take that...I'll just assume that you meant it in the most charitable way possible.

Does it matter? Are we discussing Kierkegaard or Pascal?

It might matter, but since you say you're not a Nietzschean, I'm reconsidering my approach as to how to discuss things with you.

I miss the philosophy section too....but until it's reopened, this is apologetics. (Ironically, it was closed by an abundance of apologetic conversations)

Yes, I think there are a number of us who are a little miffed by the unnecessary closing of the Philosophy section at CF, especially since I prefer the Lightning Rod approach when delving into various skeptical issues, even abrasively couched articulations of those issues which are presented by atheists. Besides, for the life of me, I'm not sure why anyone would be convinced by atheist books as to some form of rationalization that there's no Jesus, Lord and Savior of the World. But, this isn't a perfect world, so we don't have the Philosophy Section to romp around it. There is the Kitchen Sink, though.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm always curious about what those who believe these archeological finds are significant are thinking?

Claims about gods, miracles, and events cannot be proven with the discovery of buildings and caskets. Does the existence of the pyramids and sarcophagi of pharaohs prove ancient Egyptian religious beliefs true?

Of course not.

Did the Egyptian gods claim to be actual people in the real world? Of course not.
That's the difference.
Biblical Archaeology's Top 10 Discoveries of 2016
[URL='https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/top-10-biblical-archaeology-discoveries-in-2015/']Top 10 Biblical Archaeology Discoveries in 2015
[URL='https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/top-10-biblical-archaeology-discoveries-in-2014/']Top 10 Biblical Archaeology Discoveries in 2014
[URL='https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2013/december/biblical-archaeologys-top-ten-discoveries-of-2013.html']Biblical Archaeology's Top Ten Discoveries of 2013[/URL][/URL][/URL]

 

[Ana the Ist]

...that's not quite what I meant by the refusal. What I meant to convey what that you atheists often don't seem to want to take up the opportunity to engage another person's point of view in full and try to understand where the other person is coming from. Of course, I understand that a number of Christians are exactly the same way.

What is it about that particular issue that you think atheists might not miss if they were to try harder to see another's point of view?

Ok. So you're not posturing then?

Posturing? About what? And for whom?

Alright. So then, which philosophical figures are central to your thinking about life and religion?

Central?

None.

That's good to know, because you many times come off as being assured of your conclusions. I'm sure that people will say "tu qoque" to me in turn on that note, but I'm more than willing to take a step back on some point or two and relearn some aspect under discussion of others will do some work to present gaps in my knowledge.

Well I don't know of anyone really who argues an opinion they don't have....

I mean, I could argue from positions I don't actually hold....but what exactly would be the point of that? As for being self-assured...if I'm pretending to be humble so as not to give someone offense, that's false humility.

I'm not sure how quite to take that...I'll just assume that you meant it in the most charitable way possible.

I'm simply saying that you're in the wrong place if you don't want a discussion about concepts. There's nothing wrong with that...take a break from apologetics if it seems like it's going in circles.

I did.

It might matter, but since you say you're not a Nietzschean, I'm reconsidering my approach as to how to discuss things with you.

Do you need to place someone's views within the framework of a particular philosopher?

I would imagine you'd find people constantly failing to stay within that framework.

Besides, for the life of me, I'm not sure why anyone would be convinced by atheist books as to some form of rationalization that there's no Jesus, Lord and Savior of the World.

Most of those, I've found, were convinced because they found the arguments in those books....convincing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did the Egyptian gods claim to be actual people in the real world? Of course not.
That's the difference.

What difference do you think that makes?

 

[SkyWriting]

What difference do you think that makes?

It is useful to know that ones religion is based on real events since other religions make very few such claims that their God represented themself in human form.


- Each year, on an almost daily basis, archaeological discoveries help us better understand the Bible and affirm its details about people, events, and culture.

- What Archaeology Is Telling Us About the Real Jesus

- Top 20 Biblical Archaeology Events and Discoveries of 2012