Atheism (3)

[Elioenai26]

Let´s for a moment assume this were true. Now, how do we get from "geographically accurate" to "correct when it comes to claims about the divine?


Let´s for a moment assume this were true. Are geographical fact that which you find particularly important about the bible? If not so, how does geographic accuracy point to accuracy on the accuracy of the stories being told? I know plenty of fictional books that are highly accurate when it comes to geography, locations, politics and time lines.


Ok, again: Let´s say the bible must be accepted as a geography/politics/society textbook of the Middle East. How are you getting from this to the idea that it must be therefore correct when it comes to its ideas about the divine and supernatural?

The Bible, throughout the centuries has been subjected to all sorts of attacks.

The Bible over and over time and time again proves itself to be an accurate, reliable document which contains statements about verifiable places and people. This lends credibility to the fact that as a document from antiquity, it is the most reliable, trustworthy source for understanding that part of the world and all of its intricacies and customs.

Archaeological finds do not make statements about the "divine". I never said they did. However, if the Bible is found to be precise in all of it's other recordings, why would it not be accurate in the recording of it's miracles?

 

[quatona]

The Bible over and over time and time again proves itself to be an accurate, reliable document which contains statements about verifiable places and people. This lends credibility to the fact that as a document from antiquity, it is the most reliable, trustworthy source for understanding that part of the world and all of its intricacies and customs.

I have already conceded that for the sake of the argument.

Archaeological finds do not make statements about the "divine". I never said they did.

Ok. So, unless you are going to do say it at some point, we agree that the historical accuracy of the bible and its accuracy in describing the customs of the time in that particular region (including an accurate description of what people there and then used to believe) doesn´t imply its accuracy on anything beyond that.

 

[Elioenai26]

I have already conceded that for the sake of the argument.


Ok. So, unless you are going to do say it at some point, we agree that the historical accuracy of the bible and its accuracy in describing the customs of the time in that particular region (including an accurate description of what people there and then used to believe) doesn´t imply its accuracy on anything beyond that.

Why would it not imply accuracy on the other things it records?

Why do you say that when it speaks about miracles, it is automatically wrong, when everything else it records is accurate?

 

[quatona]

Why would it not imply accuracy on the other things it records?

Most fables/metaphores/mythologies/fictions and even downright lies come wrapped in accurate descriptions of technical reality.

Why do you say that when it speaks about miracles, it is automatically wrong, when everything else it records is accurate?

I don´t recall saying this. Please point me to where I said this, and I will step back from that statement immediately. If you can´t find a quote of mine that says it, I ask you kindly to correct this misrepresentation.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It proves that the Bible as a historical document can be trusted because it accurately records data that is subject to verification by those who seek to understand the cultures, locations, and times it speaks about.

With regards to your statement on Nazareth being founded in 70AD, suffice it to say this is simply not true, nor do I know how you came up with that number.

Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you read the page you linked me? It says Nazareth was not written about in Jewish texts until the 3rd century.

Nazareth was never spoken of in the Old Testament, Talmud, Apocrypha or anywhere else.

It was not included in the list of towns and settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (In Joshua 19:10-16). Likewise, In 60AD, Josephus wrote down all 45 towns and cities in Galilee, Nazareth was not mentioned.

Likewise Nazareth is not mentioned in any of the earliest New Testament books. The earliest New Testament books mention Jesus over 200 times, but doesn't mention Nazareth once. The city is only talked about in the Gospels and Acts, which were written in the very late 1st century, and early second century.

Here's a bit that James Randi did on Nazareth: James Randi Speaks: Questioning the Bible - YouTube

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why would it not imply accuracy on the other things it records?

Why do you say that when it speaks about miracles, it is automatically wrong, when everything else it records is accurate?

Same thing with my Spiderman comparison... It's set in New York.

Just because it's set in a real place with sites that we can see and visit, gives nothing to the idea that Spiderman is real.

They're two separate things. I would expect that the people who wrote the bible would use real places, otherwise nobody would believe it.

How believable is a text set in places that don't exist? By necessity they would have had to use real locations.

 

[Elioenai26]

Most fables/metaphores/mythologies/fictions and even downright lies come wrapped in accurate descriptions of technical reality.


I don´t recall saying this. Please point me to where I said this, and I will step back from that statement immediately. If you can´t find a quote of mine that says it, I ask you kindly to correct this misrepresentation.

So you are saying that when the Bible speaks of miracles and supernatural occrances initiated by Christ, they are accurate and true?

 

[Elioenai26]

Same thing with my Spiderman comparison... It's set in New York.

Just because it's set in a real place with sites that we can see and visit, gives nothing to the idea that Spiderman is real.

They're two separate things. I would expect that the people who wrote the bible would use real places, otherwise nobody would believe it.

How believable is a text set in places that don't exist? By necessity they would have had to use real locations.

So you are equating Jesus Christ with spiderman? Is this what you are doing?

 

[Gracchus]

Why would it (the Bible) not imply accuracy on the other things it records?

Why do you say that when it speaks about miracles, it is automatically wrong, when everything else it records is accurate?

Is it accurate? In the Book of Jonah, Nineveh, repented. But if it did repent, it must have been immediately before it was destroyed.

Wait! Maybe we're onto something here. Nineveh repents, and is destroyed. The Roman empire becomes Christian, and falls. Whom God would destroy, he first makes religious!

 

[Elioenai26]

Did you read the page you linked me? It says Nazareth was not written about in Jewish texts until the 3rd century.

Nazareth was never spoken of in the Old Testament, Talmud, Apocrypha or anywhere else.

It was not included in the list of towns and settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (In Joshua 19:10-16). Likewise, In 60AD, Josephus wrote down all 45 towns and cities in Galilee, Nazareth was not mentioned.

Likewise Nazareth is not mentioned in any of the earliest New Testament books. The earliest New Testament books mention Jesus over 200 times, but doesn't mention Nazareth once. The city is only talked about in the Gospels and Acts, which were written in the very late 1st century, and early second century.

Here's a bit that James Randi did on Nazareth: James Randi Speaks: Questioning the Bible - YouTube

Everything you just stated in no way makes a founding date of 70AD acceptable for the city of Nazareth.

I suggest you read the page carefully without reading anything into it.

It would also be helpful if you quoted the whole paragraph which contains that portion which you use as your primary argument. It is listed below:

James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.” Strange originally speculated that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.” In 2009 Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre excavated archaeological remains in Nazareth that might date to the time of Jesus in the early Roman period. Alexandre told reporters, "The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth."

Wikipedia

 

[Elioenai26]

Is it accurate? In the Book of Jonah, Nineveh, repented. But if it did repent, it must have been immediately before it was destroyed.

On what are you basing this assertion? That Ninevah was destroyed immediately after it repented?

 

[quatona]

So you are saying that when the Bible speaks of miracles and supernatural occrances initiated by Christ, they are accurate and true?

No. What makes you assume that I meant to say this?
Why don´t you simply work from what I say when you want to find out what I am saying?

 

[Elioenai26]

No. What makes you assume that I meant to say this?
Why don´t you simply work from what I say when you want to find out what I am saying?

In post #344 your response to my question below is

My question:

"Why do you say that when it speaks about miracles, it is automatically wrong, when everything else it records is accurate?"
​

Your response:

"I don´t recall saying this. Please point me to where I said this, and I will step back from that statement immediately. If you can´t find a quote of mine that says it, I ask you kindly to correct this misrepresentation."

Now:

If you are saying that you did not say this, then what are you saying?

 

[Gracchus]

On what are you basing this assertion? That Ninevah was destroyed immediately after it repented?

Nineveh was the capitol of Assyria. The Assyrians were murdering land pirates, taking slaves, raping, looting, burning, piling up mountains of skulls. They did did this until they were destroyed. So if they repented, no one at the time noticed their new-found benevolence.

 

[quatona]

In post #344 your response to my question below is

My question:

"Why do you say that when it speaks about miracles, it is automatically wrong, when everything else it records is accurate?"
​

Your response:

"I don´t recall saying this. Please point me to where I said this, and I will step back from that statement immediately. If you can´t find a quote of mine that says it, I ask you kindly to correct this misrepresentation."

Now:

If you are saying that you did not say this, then what are you saying?

That which I explicitly said several times already: The historical/geographical accuracy of a book has no bearing on the factual accuracy of the story it tells. The former neither suggests nor implies the latter. (Which, of course, includes that a historical/geographical accuracy doesn´t suggest that it "automatically wrong" on all other accounts, either).

 

[Elioenai26]

Nineveh was the capitol of Assyria. The Assyrians were murdering land pirates, taking slaves, raping, looting, burning, piling up mountains of skulls. They did did this until they were destroyed. So if they repented, no one at the time noticed their new-found benevolence.

Thanks for your reply.

However, what you state in this post has no bearing on your earlier statement that Nineveh was destroyed immediately after it repented.

You say that they were doing all of these things up until they were destroyed i.e. that there was never a point in time that they did not cease from these dastardly deeds.

The question I have for you is:

How do you know this? What is your support for saying that the people of Nineveh never ceased for a period of time from doing these things?

Also, you forget that just because the Assyrians in general were involved in large scale atrocities, does not automatically or necessarily require that Nineveh itself never ceased for a period of time to be involved in large scale atrocities. The city of Nineveh could have indeed repented and ceased from evil for a time, and then from the influence of it's surrounding territories recapitulate and fall into gross sin, which would then have incurred the judgement and wrath of God. Which is what happened according to the Bible.

 

[Elioenai26]

That which I explicitly said several times already: The historical/geographical accuracy of a book has no bearing on the factual accuracy of the story it tells. The former neither suggests nor implies the latter. (Which, of course, includes that a historical/geographical accuracy doesn´t suggest that it "automatically wrong" on all other accounts, either).

This is your opinion. I am sure that most historians would disagree with your position, unless they of course hold the preconceived idea that the supernatural is impossible.

If the latter is true then of course they shall say the Bible is not accurate when it records the supernatural taking place.

This is also not objective but rather biased, for whenever one maintains a priori that the supernatural is impossiblee, then their research is going to be viewed in that light.

Why not rather say that the supernatural is possible?

 

[quatona]

This is your opinion.

Whose opinion did you expect me to give you? Yours?

I am sure that most historians would disagree with your position, unless they of course hold the preconceived idea that the supernatural is impossible.

There are plenty of historians that hold supernatural beliefs but are capable of distinguishing between historical accuracy and supernatural claims.

If the latter is true then of course they shall say the Bible is not accurate when it records the supernatural taking place.

Yes, but if you carefully re-read my statements this has not been what I was saying.

This is also not objective but rather biased, for whenever one maintains a priori that the supernatural is impossiblee, then their research is going to be viewed in that light.

Well, if you would like to discuss that position you would have to look for someone who has argued from that line of reasoning.

Why not rather say that the supernatural is possible?

Because the possibility of the supernatural hasn´t been subject of our discussion. Subject of our discussion has been your claim that historical/geographical accuracy of a book implies accuracy on the story that´s been told in the book - which I addressed.

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is your opinion. I am sure that most historians would disagree with your position, unless they of course hold the preconceived idea that the supernatural is impossible.

If the latter is true then of course they shall say the Bible is not accurate when it records the supernatural taking place.

This is also not objective but rather biased, for whenever one maintains a priori that the supernatural is impossiblee, then their research is going to be viewed in that light.

Why not rather say that the supernatural is possible?

Nobody is saying the supernatural in theory is not possible.... however, we've seen no reason or evidence whatsoever to believe that is actually exists.

This is why we heavily dispute the Bible.... the things it speaks of, we know are not possible. Therefore, we would require evidence to accept them as true.

That evidence does not exist. Furthermore, the bible has proven to not be a reliable source given the vast amount of self-contradiction and anonymous authorship, among other things. We simply have no justification to accept it as factual in the areas that matter to Christianity.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have no reason to doubt that, however archaeological findings in no way prove the important parts in the bible (i.e. Miracle Claims, Divinity of Jesus etc). It makes total sense they'd use real cities and places to set their stories.

For example, if 2,000 years from now they dig up a spiderman comic, they'll read it was set in New York City. Does that mean if they then find the ruins of New York that Spiderman is true?

Fictional stories are often set in real locations. The Bible is no different.

give one example where archaeology proves any story in it's entirety.

It only proves pieces of the puzzle, the is obviously a red herring.