Atheism (3)

[createdtoworship]

See my above reply.... Archaeological findings don't prove anything as far as supernatural miracle claims go.

see my above reply, archaeology has proven that these things exist. The only other account of them is the Bible. So put 2 and 2 together.

 

[createdtoworship]

It proves that the Bible as a historical document can be trusted because it accurately records data that is subject to verification by those who seek to understand the cultures, locations, and times it speaks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

Dave needs to understand that if archaeology shows five separate artifacts or digs that confirm five separate stories within the same book.....most likely that book is historical. It works for things like homer, and the galic wars. Why not The Bible. Thats poisoning the well fallacies. secondly, tell him to prove hanibal crossed the alps. He cannot without historic written documents. Which the Bible qualifies.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Dave needs to understand that if archaeology shows five separate artifacts or digs that confirm five separate stories within the same book.....most likely that book is historical. It works for things like homer, and the galic wars. Why not The Bible. Thats poisoning the well fallacies. secondly, tell him to prove hanibal crossed the alps. He cannot without historic written documents. Which the Bible qualifies.

Wow... what is it that you don't understand?

Just because a story was set in a real location doesn't mean the story was true. If they were writing the books of the bible with the intent of having people believe them, they would have had to use real places and settings out of necessity.

Just because Jerusalem, Bethlehem or anywhere else exists, doesn't mean that anything supernatural occurred there, ever. It provides some useful archaeological info perhaps, but it says nothing about Jesus being the son of God, or whether any of the miracles attributed to him ever happened.

And how on earth is it poisoning the well? It appears your grasp of logical fallacies hasn't improved any.

 

[Elioenai26]

Nobody is saying the supernatural in theory is not possible....

This is why we heavily dispute the Bible.... the things it speaks of, we know are not possible.

Mr. Ellis, I see you are confused with regards to your own position.

Which do you maintain?

That the supernatural is possible or that it is impossible?

If you say that the supernatural is impossible, you are making an absolute statement about something that is not verifiable or falsifiable by natural means. In other words, when you speak of the supernatural as being impossible, you are saying at least two things:

1. You have been everyone in the universe at every point in time and possess absolute knowledge that it is absolutely impossible that the supernatural exists.

2. You are saying that you yourself are super-supernatural, for only that which is super-supernatural can actually know the true nature of the supernatural. By definition supernatural is that which is above or trancends the natural. So if you make an absolute statement about the supernatural, you cant be natural, nor supernatural but must be super-supernatural in order to make an absoulute statement about it.

This is clearly nonsense sir. This lends itself to infinite regress and your position is baseless.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow... what is it that you don't understand?

Just because a story was set in a real location doesn't mean the story was true. If they were writing the books of the bible with the intent of having people believe them, they would have had to use real places and settings out of necessity.

Just because Jerusalem, Bethlehem or anywhere else exists, doesn't mean that anything supernatural occurred there, ever. It provides some useful archaeological info perhaps, but it says nothing about Jesus being the son of God, or whether any of the miracles attributed to him ever happened.

And how on earth is it poisoning the well? It appears your grasp of logical fallacies hasn't improved any.

just because the Bible has miracles doesn't disqualify it as historical, just sayin

 

[dlamberth]

There's no doubt that the Bible has some pretty good historical content with in it...and some equally good mythology in it's pages as well.

.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Mr. Ellis, I see you are confused with regards to your own position.

Which do you maintain?

That the supernatural is possible or that it is impossible?

If you say that the supernatural is impossible, you are making an absolute statement about something that is not verifiable or falsifiable by natural means. In other words, when you speak of the supernatural as being impossible, you are saying at least two things:

1. You have been everyone in the universe at every point in time and possess absolute knowledge that it is absolutely impossible that the supernatural exists.

2. You are saying that you yourself are super-supernatural, for only that which is super-supernatural can actually know the true nature of the supernatural. By definition supernatural is that which is above or trancends the natural. So if you make an absolute statement about the supernatural, you cant be natural, nor supernatural but must be super-supernatural in order to make an absoulute statement about it.

This is clearly nonsense sir. This lends itself to infinite regress and your position is baseless.

No, that's not what I've said at all.

I've said we have no reason to assume the supernatural exists, and have no justification in believing it does.

That's not to say it isn't possible, as we can't disprove it. But we have no reason to assume it is actually real.

 

[createdtoworship]

There's no doubt that the Bible has some pretty good historical content with in it...and some equally good mythology in it's pages as well.

.

Heaven: Don't myth it!

 

[Dave Ellis]

just because the Bible has miracles doesn't disqualify it as historical, just sayin

Sure, there's historical aspects in the Bible... but none of them lends any evidence to proving any of the key elements of Christian Mythology.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure, there's historical aspects in the Bible... but none of them lends any evidence to proving any of the key elements of Christian Mythology.

I would say the same thing if I didn't have faith in the inspired word of God.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I would say the same thing if I didn't have faith in the inspired word of God.

Good for you

 

[createdtoworship]

Good for you

okay so what is your qualifications for a historical document?

do you have any?

Or are you just criticizing off the cuff?

 

[Dave Ellis]

okay so what is your qualifications for a historical document?

do you have any?

Or are you just criticizing off the cuff?

Depends what you're referring to.

A historical document could mean a lot of different things.

 

[createdtoworship]

here is another archaological find "the hittites"

THE HITTITES
The Hittites, mentioned some fifty times in the Old Testament, were considered for a long time to be a biblically fabricated people. That is, the biblical references to the Hittites used to be regarded as historically worthless. John Elder comments on modern confirmation of the Hittites:
One of the striking confirmations of Bible history to come from the science of archaeology is the “recovery” of the Hittite peoples and their empires. Here is a people whose name appears again and again in the Old Testament, but who in secular history had been completely forgotten and whose very existence was considered to be extremely doubtful....In Genesis 23:10, it is told that Abraham bought a parcel of land for a burying place from Ephron the Hittite. In Genesis 26:34, Esau takes a Hittite girl for a wife, to the great grief of his mother. In the Book of Exodus, the Hittites are frequently mentioned in the lists of people whose land the Hebrews set out to conquer. In Joshua 11:1–9, the Hittites join in the confederation of nations that try to resist Joshua’s advance, only to be defeated by the waters of Merom. In Judges, intermarriage occurs between the Hebrews and the Hittites. In 1 Samuel 26, Hittites enroll in David’s army, and during the reign of Solomon he makes slaves of the Hittite element in his kingdom and allows his people to take Hittite wives. But until the investigations of modern archaeologists, the Hittites remained a shadowy and undefined people.12
Archaeologist A. H. Sayce was the first scholar to identify the Hittite people from a nonbiblical source, the monuments. In 1876 he released his information and revolutionized critical theory concerning the Hittites.
Since Sayce’s time in the last century, much information about the Hittites has been discovered, confirming again the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. Fred H. Wight concludes:
Now the Bible picture of this people fits in perfectly with what we know of the Hittite nation from the monuments. As an empire they never conquered the land of Canaan itself, although Hittite local tribes did settle there at an early date. Nothing discovered by the excavators has in any way discredited the biblical account. Scripture accuracy has once more been proved by the archaeologists.13


from:
McDowell, Josh: Josh McDowell's Handbook on Apologetics. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1991

 

[createdtoworship]

Depends what you're referring to.

A historical document could mean a lot of different things.

prove just one!

 

[Dave Ellis]

here is another archaological find "the hittites"

THE HITTITES
The Hittites, mentioned some fifty times in the Old Testament, were considered for a long time to be a biblically fabricated people. That is, the biblical references to the Hittites used to be regarded as historically worthless. John Elder comments on modern confirmation of the Hittites:
One of the striking confirmations of Bible history to come from the science of archaeology is the “recovery” of the Hittite peoples and their empires. Here is a people whose name appears again and again in the Old Testament, but who in secular history had been completely forgotten and whose very existence was considered to be extremely doubtful....In Genesis 23:10, it is told that Abraham bought a parcel of land for a burying place from Ephron the Hittite. In Genesis 26:34, Esau takes a Hittite girl for a wife, to the great grief of his mother. In the Book of Exodus, the Hittites are frequently mentioned in the lists of people whose land the Hebrews set out to conquer. In Joshua 11:1–9, the Hittites join in the confederation of nations that try to resist Joshua’s advance, only to be defeated by the waters of Merom. In Judges, intermarriage occurs between the Hebrews and the Hittites. In 1 Samuel 26, Hittites enroll in David’s army, and during the reign of Solomon he makes slaves of the Hittite element in his kingdom and allows his people to take Hittite wives. But until the investigations of modern archaeologists, the Hittites remained a shadowy and undefined people.12
Archaeologist A. H. Sayce was the first scholar to identify the Hittite people from a nonbiblical source, the monuments. In 1876 he released his information and revolutionized critical theory concerning the Hittites.
Since Sayce’s time in the last century, much information about the Hittites has been discovered, confirming again the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. Fred H. Wight concludes:
Now the Bible picture of this people fits in perfectly with what we know of the Hittite nation from the monuments. As an empire they never conquered the land of Canaan itself, although Hittite local tribes did settle there at an early date. Nothing discovered by the excavators has in any way discredited the biblical account. Scripture accuracy has once more been proved by the archaeologists.13


from:
McDowell, Josh: Josh McDowell's Handbook on Apologetics. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1991

That's correct.

So are you making the case that since the Hittites existed that God therefore exists, and Jesus was his Divine Son who performed miracles?

How do you make that connection?

 

[createdtoworship]

That's correct.

So are you making the case that since the Hittites existed that God therefore exists, and Jesus was his Divine Son who performed miracles?

How do you make that connection?

I am still waiting for you to prove one form of historical documentation? Don't try to change the subject.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I am still waiting for you to prove one form of historical documentation? Don't try to change the subject.

Your example of the Hittites in the Bible is a good example of historical documentation.

Now answer my question.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your example of the Hittites in the Bible is a good example of historical documentation.

Now answer my question.

so now that we settled the historicity of the Bible we can move on. So your question involves Jesus, are you saying you don't think He existed?

 

[Dave Ellis]

so now that we settled the historicity of the Bible we can move on. So your question involves Jesus, are you saying you don't think He existed?

Hold up a second!

We haven't settled the historicity of the bible. As I said before, I don't dispute that there is plenty of accurate archaeological evidence in there.

However, that in no way provides evidence for God, Jesus or anything divine/supernatural.

Mecca exists, does that mean Muhammad was a real prophet? Mount Olympus exists... so were the Greek Gods real? New York City exists, so is Spiderman fact?

Of course not. The fact the settings for all of those stories are real places means nothing.