"how can you know the bible to be true?"

[JacksBratt]

I would not suggest going there. Reading one's Bible literally gives both cases of true and of false history. Examples:

True: we have confirmed that a ruler named "Pontius Pilot" did exist, as did Caesar Augustus, places like Jerusalem, Rome, Assyria, Galilee, etc. That really doesn't prove much, as even works of fiction sometimes use real place and person names (like Spiderman being set in New York, fictional movies mentioning Bill Clinton, a Tale of Two Cities with London and Paris, etc.)

False - a lot of "history" from a literally read Bible is almost certainly false. If lengendary stories like Babel or the Exodus are taken as history, actual history from historians shows them to be false. Later stories also don't match history, such as the impossibility of the gold and armies of King Solomon, or the idea of Luke's "Census/Bethlehem" story - for which there is no external evidence.

My recommendation would be to direct him to look to his Bible as a source of inspiration, and not to look to history as proof that a Bible is divine. After all, the Qu'ran also mentions real people and real places. If we use the mentioning of real people and real places as "proof" that a Bible is divine, then we confirm the Qu'ran and other books (such as the Book of Mormon) as divine too.

In Christ-

Papias

Papias, have you watched the documentary on Netflix, or any other media, called "Exodus, Patterns of Evidence"?

This is basically produced by a Christian that was challenged regarding the Exodus mentioned in the Bible.He was to prove, using facts found in archaeology, that it actually happened.

He admits that he was reluctant to take on this project as he didn't know what effect it would have on his faith, if he found no evidence.

It is a very well done documentary. He, with the aid and surprising co-operation from an atheist, who happens to unlock some interesting puzzles, finds that there is proof of this event.

It is, at the very least, worthy of watching in order to make your own deductions. I found it very fascinating.

The only disturbing part was that, at the end, when they provided the newly discovered evidence to the local, educated, historians.... they didn't care... period.

They basically stated that it may be well and good that their present history is wrong but they are not going to change anything as it would disrupt too many museums, text books and curricula..... so sad. Truth is put on a back burner so as not to upset the status quo...

 

[JacksBratt]

I am a Christian posting on behalf of UnitedweStand000000 who has his doubts about the authority and reliability of scripture. Please help me to answer his questions.

"
Can I just ask you, how can you know the bible to be true? you can believe it to be true but knowing and believing are different things.

I believed the bible to be true for many years, but I can't close my mind to knowledge.

I need more than faith, I need actual evidence or proof of something before I can wholeheartedly commit myself fully to it.

Can you steer me in the right direction."

Islam is statistically a religion for losers

You either 1/ believe the Bible to be true and totally true without question, which makes it all true by circular reasoning.
Or 2/ you believe it to not be totally true which will then bring into question any of it being true.

Whether it states historical facts or not is mute, as far as I'm concerned, due to the fact that any fictional book can use true history as part of the story...

As for myself, I take the Bible as the true written word of God. Every word of it. I stake the eternal home of my soul on it.

 

[Steve Petersen]

As for myself, I take the Bible as the true written word of God. Every word of it. I stake the eternal home of my soul on it.

If your soul weren't at stake, would it make you more open-minded about the Bible?

 

[BeStill&Know]

Hi friend, have you seen the movie/documentary
Patterns of Evidence ???It's on Netflix but also on Youtube.
Patterns of Evidence the Exodus full documentary - YouTube

Correction I only found trailers for this movie, not the movie itself. However the film maker has a Channel with info. including an archeologist that detail the actual findings for the Exodus. IT IS ON NETFLIX THOUGH.

 

[Papias]

I had hoped for people who actually accepted the authority of scripture to comment on this post. Your views on the Exodus , census, Solomon etc are contentious and assume that we must accept scholarly consensus's that have nothing to do with true Christianity

"True Christianity"? Oh, you mean "Christians who use MY interpretation"?

Because my interpretation is not the same as yours does not mean I'm not a "True Christian". Because my interpretation is supported by the conclusions of the experts doesn't mean I'm not a "True Christian. This kind of "Christianer than thou" doesn't help our mission.

Papias, have you watched the documentary .......?

Did you see my post #8, which talked specifically about that?

I wrote:

Yes. I wouldn't call it a "documentary". It's a money-making project by a former rock musician, whose ideas are unsupported by evidence and have been rejected by the actual historians and archeologists. There has been plenty of work by actual archeologists in that area. Thanks for mentioning it though.

The only disturbing part was that, at the end, when they provided the newly discovered evidence to the local, educated, historians.... they didn't care... period.

No. It was mostly old evidence, which had been taken into account, which didn't support his claims anyway. The experts who actually understood that evidence and a lot more evidence included Christians and Jews, and they recognized the incorrect nature of his statements, and rejected it because it was pseudoscience. Many of them would have been quite happy to see the Exodus found to be real, but not when it required making up wrong conclusions without support from the evidence.

You did notice, I hope, that this guy is still peddling his books and videos. Of course they claim to support the exodus - what Christians would buy his stuff if it didn't say that? He knows what will sell books.

I prefer not to base my faith on scammers, but on reality.

Also posted back on post #8 was some of these facts:

The Archeologists, Historians and Biblical archeologists (including many Christians and Jews) agree - the whole exodus story never happened. How did the Jews get to Israel? They always were there. The evidence (including DNA evidence) shows that they are simply a Canaanite population that has a culturally different identity based on it's own internal stories. They were a Canaanite group that became distinct over time, never leaving its homeland.

There were plenty of expectations a century ago that archeology would confirm the stories in the first books of the Bibles, but as the evidence piled up, it soon became clear that it didn't happen as described in the Bibles. Some basic and well supported facts we now know:

• The Jews were never enslaved in Egypt - instead, they developed from earlier Canaanites, and never had to "conquer" the land they always had.
• There is no evidence that Moses ever existed outside of legend, like Hercules.
• No Egyptian records support the enslavement of the Hebrews, or any other Biblical story - and the Egyptians have good records.
• No Egyptian records support the drowning of their army in the red sea, or any other Biblical story - and the Egyptians have good records.
• Jericho has been studied extensively with massive digs and archeological testing - the Biblical story does not appear to have happened. In fact, the famed walls of Jericho were destroyed by the Egyptian army centuries before the Hebrew mythology was supposed to have happened.

and so on.

This is the consensus view of Biblical archeological historians. Some examples:

• Here is a book by a well known biblical archeological historian, who points out that the stories never actually happened. Read page 6 here: Exodus
• Even the Conservative Jews have accepted reality here - just the first few paragraphs of this article should make that clear: New Torah For Modern Minds
• Here is a good video describing this, by the top Archeologist at Israel's Tel Aviv University. You might notice that he's introduced by Rabbi Wine, who was one of the most respected Rabbis before his recent death.

The other videos by Dr. Finkelstein in that same series are also useful.​

I think in today's era of fake news and rampant hoaxes, it's more important than ever to look at what the actual experts say, instead just looking for someone - anyone - saying things that we want to be true. That's the very definition of wishful thinking, after all.

In Christ-

Papias

Sorry but this is laughable and you cannot prove anything with DNA at this distance and given the biblical commentary on this.

Yes, it can. For one thing, if the Jews had been enslaved, and grown most of their population then, we'd see several clear indications.

• Slavery produces a very clear genetic stamp, as slavemasters often impregnate female slaves. Thus, the population quickly has slave mt DNA,
• with enslaver Y DNA. This is obvious in African Americans today, and they were only enslaved for a century. That's not the case in Jews.
• Jews would show more Egyptian DNA than general diffusion predicts - this is not the case.
• Significantly more Jewish DNA would be seen in Egypts population than diffusion would predict (an example of this is seen in the fact that most Americans have African DNA). This is not seen. (Neighbor populations show the normal diffusion you mention).
• A massive DNA bottleneck would be seen dating to 3,000 years ago in the Jewish population - this is not seen.

The DNA is exactly what you'd expect if the exodus didn't happen, and radically different from what you'd expect if it did.

Dating is not always reliable.

Support? That's just a bare assertion. In fact, carbon dating is well proven to be accurate. Carbon dating has been confirmed over literally thousands of samples of known age, and it reliably gives the right age. Confirmations like this are known as "calibration curves", such as this one:

The Egyptians were notorious for writing out the unfavourable aspects of their history on a Pharoah by Pharoah basis.

Not sufficient. You can see from the list above that there are a lot of other records that would be left than one Pharoah's account. We've got nothing - no record from Egypt, nor from neighboring areas, nor massive traces of archaeology, not even the predicted thousands of chariots, weapons and such at the bottom of the Red Sea (which has been extensively scanned), nor the massive trail that millions of people living in the desert for 40 years would give, and so on.

I mean, we can start with those, and go on to more like them. It's obvious to anyone familiar with history that the Exodus didn't happen.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Papias]

Correction .....

After you mentioned this movie in post #5, I replied on post #8. Did you read my post #8 about this movie, and about your claim about carbon dating? You didn't respond to it.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[JacksBratt]

Did you see my post #8, which talked specifically about that?

No, Sorry, I have not read all the way through these threads due to just plain laziness today.

 

[JacksBratt]

If your soul weren't at stake, would it make you more open-minded about the Bible?

What else is of any true value?

 

[Papias]

No, Sorry, I have not read all the way through these threads due to just plain laziness today.

That's OK. I don't always read through the whole thread too sometimes. : )

 

[Anguspure]

Let's review...



Language is but a means of communicating ideas from one human to another. How is that a method/way of knowing?



Same question... how is that a method / way of "knowing"?



Reason is good. But only insofar as it corresponds to reality. Valid and sound reasoning, is dependend on supported premises. So valid reasoning requires evidence.
This is essentially science.



LOL!! No comment on this one. Should be obvious how "imagination" is not a valid method to find differentiate truth from falsehoods.



No, "just believing" things, does not constitute knowledge either.



"intuition" lead us to believe that time was a constant, everywhere, at all times. Einstein then used empirical science to show how that is incorrect.

And I can go on and on with more such examples. But one is enough to illustrate the point.



You can only remember that which you already know. So knowledge does not come from memory.

Look at these links:

Ways of knowing

Ways of Knowing

The Theory of knowledge is a whole field of study, so to try and delve into it we really need to open a new discussion or move to one that is already open on the subject. Suffice to say that the idead that direct sensory experience is not the only way in which we may know things is very well established.

Matter can't be created nore destroyed. Nothing in this universe ever "begins to exist". It's just the same ingredients being reconfigured into new configurations.

The atoms that make up your body have always exist. When you die, none of these atoms will disappear. All that matter will be recycled and be incorporated in other things.

E=MC2

Also: special pleading, obviously. "all things are such and such, except this special case here, to make my argument work".

Actual infinities are an absurdity so its not special pleading to propose an uncaused cause in order to avoid an actual infinite series of past events. Rather it is a logical necessity.

No, that's one of the other problems it has. It isn't falsifiable. You can replace the word "god" with pretty much any other undetectable thing your imagination can produce and the argument wouldn't change at all.

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.

I gave you a way in which the Kalam Cosmological argument could conceivibly be proven false, it does therefore meet the criteria of falsifiability.

That assumes that god creating the universe is the ONLY possibility. Which is exactly the thing that is in need of support.

You are jumping the gun. The Kalam argument only posits a cause for the universe. The identity of that cause is established on other grounds.

Not to mention that even if it was the case that the universe had no demonstrable physical beginning, it wouldn't change anything. People would still say that god created it. Just like they did before Hubble discovered the expansion of space and LeMaitre came up with Big Bang theory.

Not really. In the event that the universe had no beginning (physical or otherwise) it is clear that nothing could have caused it.

The dispute over whether the universe had a beginning or not has been running since at least the days of Greece and the Theistic position has always required us to posit a beginning of the universe. People like Hubble and LeMaitre made the position scientific contemporary terms but they didn't invent it.

For example; it was in the 13th century that the kabbalist Nachmanides came up with an age of the universe of +/-15 billion years based on concepts of expansion and relativity from the first verses of Genesis.

Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe

Or so you keep saying, but not once did you actually demonstrate this. Your list at the beginning of your post is just a list of words with no explanation or demonstration whatsoever.

The subject is huge and time is short. Follow the links....

If you just hold on to your beliefs because "you like them" or something similar, then yes... rational justification for your beliefs doesn't matter. But then don't be surprised that your beliefs are irrelevant to the rest of us.

What we beleive is obviously relevant or people who disagree with them wouldn't bother to dispute them.
And yes I think that rationality is important, that is why I like the rational arguments for God that theistic philosophers are able to offer.

But this trust isn't blind. This trust is based on a track record of continued reliability and producing succesfull results - which is empirical, by the way.

Nevertheless, trust/faith came before the observation or you wouldn't have been able to make the initial observation in the first place.

It's how I know that jumping from the Eiffel Tower without a parachute, is a rather bad idea wich will result in certain death. I could really really really believe that I will hit the ground unharmed. But I'ld just be wrong.

This is a demonstration of the utility of empiricism but does not say anything about the truth of the observation which is assumed.

No. Empirical evidence trumps trust. Always, everywhere.
And trust is based on empirical evidence as well.

A quick look at the theory of knowledge reveals that the different ways of knowing do not act independantly from one another and that to put Empirical knowledge on such a pedestal is incorrect.

We KNOW that our brains can mess up the signals it receives from senses. We KNOW that we are prone to making such mistakes. It's precisely also the reason why we create tools that do the observing / measuring for us, specifically to remove / circumvent such human biases / brain-failures

We also know that it is the observer that determines the outcome.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

 

[BeStill&Know]

Look at these links:

Ways of knowing

Ways of Knowing

The Theory of knowledge is a whole field of study, so to try and delve into it we really need to open a new discussion or move to one that is already open on the subject. Suffice to say that the idead that direct sensory experience is not the only way in which we may know things is very well established.


E=MC2
View attachment 186580



Actual infinities are an absurdity so its not special pleading to propose an uncaused cause in order to avoid an actual infinite series of past events. Rather it is a logical necessity.



Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.

I gave you a way in which the Kalam Cosmological argument could conceivibly be proven false, it does therefore meet the criteria of falsifiability.


You are jumping the gun. The Kalam argument only posits a cause for the universe. The identity of that cause is established on other grounds.



Not really. In the event that the universe had no beginning (physical or otherwise) it is clear that nothing could have caused it.

The dispute over whether the universe had a beginning or not has been running since at least the days of Greece and the Theistic position has always required us to posit a beginning of the universe. People like Hubble and LeMaitre made the position scientific contemporary terms but they didn't invent it.

For example; it was in the 13th century that the kabbalist Nachmanides came up with an age of the universe of +/-15 billion years based on concepts of expansion and relativity from the first verses of Genesis.

Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe


The subject is huge and time is short. Follow the links....


What we beleive is obviously relevant or people who disagree with them wouldn't bother to dispute them.
And yes I think that rationality is important, that is why I like the rational arguments for God that theistic philosophers are able to offer.


Nevertheless, trust/faith came before the observation or you wouldn't have been able to make the initial observation in the first place.


This is a demonstration of the utility of empiricism but does not say anything about the truth of the observation which is assumed.



A quick look at the theory of knowledge reveals that the different ways of knowing do not act independantly from one another and that to put Empirical knowledge on such a pedestal is incorrect.


We also know that it is the observer that determines the outcome.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

I wish sometimes my Lord had given me a higher IQ

 

[BeStill&Know]

After you mentioned this movie in post #5, I replied on post #8. Did you read my post #8 about this movie, and about your claim about carbon dating? You didn't respond to it.

In Christ-

Papias

I thought I had answered
That what happens when you get old, you waste time forgetting to click the """POST REPLY""" button

 

[BeStill&Know]

Yes. I wouldn't call it a "documentary". It's a money-making project by a former rock musician, whose ideas are unsupported by evidence and have been rejected by the actual historians and archeologists. There has been plenty of work by actual archeologists in that area. Thanks for mentioning it though.

(from earlier) The Archeologists, Historians and Biblical archeologists agree - the whole exodus story never happened. How did the Jews get to Israel? They always were there. The evidence (including DNA evidence) shows that they are simply a Canaanite population that has a culturally different identity based on it's own internal stories. They were a Canaanite group that became distinct over time, never leaving its homeland.

There were plenty of expectations a century ago that archeology would confirm the stories in the first books of the Bibles, but as the evidence piled up, it soon became clear that it didn't happen as described in the Bibles. Some basic and well supported facts we now know:

• The Jews were never enslaved in Egypt - instead, they developed from earlier Canaanites, and never had to "conquer" the land they always had.
• There is no evidence that Moses ever existed outside of legend, like Hercules.
• No Egyptian records support the enslavement of the Hebrews, or any other Biblical story - and the Egyptians have good records.
• No Egyptian records support the drowning of their army in the red sea, or any other Biblical story - and the Egyptians have good records.
• Jericho has been studied extensively with massive digs and archeological testing - the Biblical story does not appear to have happened. In fact, the famed walls of Jericho were destroyed by the Egyptian army centuries before the Hebrew mythology was supposed to have happened.

and so on.

This is the consensus view of Biblical archeological historians. Some examples:

• Here is a book by a well known biblical archeological historian, who points out that the stories never actually happened. Read page 6 here: Exodus
• Even the Conservative Jews have accepted reality here - just the first few paragraphs of this article should make that clear: New Torah For Modern Minds
• Here is a good video describing this, by the top Archeologist at Israel's Tel Aviv University. You might notice that he's introduced by Rabbi Wine, who was one of the most respected Rabbis before his recent death.

The other videos by Dr. Finkelstein in that same series are also useful.​

I think in today's era of fake news and rampant hoaxes, it's more important than ever to look at what the actual experts say, instead just looking for someone - anyone - saying things that we want to be true. That's the very definition of wishful thinking, after all.

In Christ-

Papias

I looked over my all my posts, you were replied to in #14
See, I wasn't ignoring you.
I understand that what you wrote you believe to be true, according to perceived evidence.
It's just I see other evidence to the contrary.
And to a disciple this is very important.
For if any Word is not true, then to me it means you cannot trust any other Word.
See, it's like trying to trust a person that lies only 50 % of the time. .

Right now, I've been trying to watch a Youtube video on "other archeological discoveries that mention characters in the Word which are now in various Museums.
Not to well done, but interesting to someone who wanted to be an archeologist when she grew up.

 

[BeStill&Know]

Papias, have you watched the documentary on Netflix, or any other media, called "Exodus, Patterns of Evidence"?

This is basically produced by a Christian that was challenged regarding the Exodus mentioned in the Bible.He was to prove, using facts found in archaeology, that it actually happened.

He admits that he was reluctant to take on this project as he didn't know what effect it would have on his faith, if he found no evidence.

It is a very well done documentary. He, with the aid and surprising co-operation from an atheist, who happens to unlock some interesting puzzles, finds that there is proof of this event.

It is, at the very least, worthy of watching in order to make your own deductions. I found it very fascinating.

The only disturbing part was that, at the end, when they provided the newly discovered evidence to the local, educated, historians.... they didn't care... period.

They basically stated that it may be well and good that their present history is wrong but they are not going to change anything as it would disrupt too many museums, text books and curricula..... so sad. Truth is put on a back burner so as not to upset the status quo...

Exactly the conclusion I have. The proud, arrogant, chooses to be blind.
Matthew 13:15
For the hearts of these people are hardened, and their ears cannot hear, and they have closed their eyes— so their eyes cannot see, and their ears cannot hear, and their hearts cannot understand, and they cannot turn to me and let me heal them.’

 

[AlexDTX]

I am a Christian posting on behalf of UnitedweStand000000 who has his doubts about the authority and reliability of scripture. Please help me to answer his questions.

"
Can I just ask you, how can you know the bible to be true? you can believe it to be true but knowing and believing are different things.

I believed the bible to be true for many years, but I can't close my mind to knowledge.

I need more than faith, I need actual evidence or proof of something before I can wholeheartedly commit myself fully to it.

Can you steer me in the right direction."

Islam is statistically a religion for losers

If you have the new birth, you know God personally. I trust the Bible because I trust God who is Truth and can not lie. He knows the men He used to write the Bible. Consequently what is written is truthfully written. However, our interpretations are open for discussion.

If you do not have the new birth, there is ample archaeological evidence that supports the history, thousands of fulfilled prophecies, and the testimonies of millions who know Jesus. However, a natural thinking approach without the new birth is still unstable, because men hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.

 

[Papias]

I looked over my all my posts, you were replied to in #14
See, I wasn't ignoring you.

Yep. Sorry, it's from my confusion between two threads. On another thread, you disputed carbon dating, and hadn't replied. On this thread, mindlight disputed carbon dating, and I thought this was the other thread. I don't even have a very good excuse (I'm only 47)!

I understand that what you wrote you believe to be true, according to perceived evidence.

It's only partly due to my examination of the evidence. It's significantly due also to the fact that the experts in this area - who know the evidence much better than you or I - have concluded that the exodus didn't happen. Those experts include many Christians and Jews. I mean, the evidence is clear enough, and the expert confirmation is important. I haven't seen any reason to ignore the experts.

It's just I see other evidence to the contrary.

Like what? The video is nearly 2 hours long. What I saw on it only confirmed that the Bibles mention real kings and places - which doesn't show anything. As I mentioned before, even openly fictional stories often are set in known places and mention known, real, people. The fact that Spiderman is set in New York city doesn't prove spiderman real, and the fact that the Qu'ran mentions Mecca, Jerusalem and Jesus doesn't mean that Islam is correct.

And to a disciple this is very important.
For if any Word is not true, then to me it means you cannot trust any other Word.
See, it's like trying to trust a person that lies only 50 % of the time. .

But aren't we all long past that? We all agree the Bible is true. What we disagree on is whether it all has to be read literally or not. As pointed out previously, Reading one's Bible literally gives both cases of true and of false history. Examples:

True: we have confirmed that a ruler named "Pontius Pilot" did exist, as did Caesar Augustus, places like Jerusalem, Rome, Assyria, Galilee, etc. That really doesn't prove much, as even works of fiction sometimes use real place and person names (like Spiderman being set in New York, fictional movies mentioning Bill Clinton, a Tale of Two Cities with London and Paris, etc.)

False - a lot of "history" from a literally read Bible is almost certainly false. If lengendary stories like Babel or the Exodus are taken as history, actual history from historians shows them to be false. Later stories also don't match history, such as the impossibility of the gold and armies of King Solomon, or the idea of Luke's "Census/Bethlehem" story - for which there is no external evidence.

Worse, think about what you are saying if you say that you believe something (such as the Exodus story) because you want to - because if you don't, then you aren't happy with something else (like being able to trust a literal reading elsewhere). It means that you are deciding whether something is true based on your own desires. We have a name for that. It's called wishful thinking. We recognize it as wrong (and even pathological) in other areas, but somehow it's OK in this area? That doesn't sound right to me.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[BeStill&Know]

Yep. Sorry, it's from my confusion between two threads. On another thread, you disputed carbon dating, and hadn't replied. On this thread, mindlight disputed carbon dating, and I thought this was the other thread. I don't even have a very good excuse (I'm only 47)!




It's only partly due to my examination of the evidence. It's significantly due also to the fact that the experts in this area - who know the evidence much better than you or I - have concluded that the exodus didn't happen. Those experts include many Christians and Jews. I mean, the evidence is clear enough, and the expert confirmation is important. I haven't seen any reason to ignore the experts.



Like what? The video is nearly 2 hours long. What I saw on it only confirmed that the Bibles mention real kings and places - which doesn't show anything. As I mentioned before, even openly fictional stories often are set in known places and mention known, real, people. The fact that Spiderman is set in New York city doesn't prove spiderman real, and the fact that the Qu'ran mentions Mecca, Jerusalem and Jesus doesn't mean that Islam is correct.



But aren't we all long past that? We all agree the Bible is true. What we disagree on is whether it all has to be read literally or not. As pointed out previously, Reading one's Bible literally gives both cases of true and of false history. Examples:

True: we have confirmed that a ruler named "Pontius Pilot" did exist, as did Caesar Augustus, places like Jerusalem, Rome, Assyria, Galilee, etc. That really doesn't prove much, as even works of fiction sometimes use real place and person names (like Spiderman being set in New York, fictional movies mentioning Bill Clinton, a Tale of Two Cities with London and Paris, etc.)

False - a lot of "history" from a literally read Bible is almost certainly false. If lengendary stories like Babel or the Exodus are taken as history, actual history from historians shows them to be false. Later stories also don't match history, such as the impossibility of the gold and armies of King Solomon, or the idea of Luke's "Census/Bethlehem" story - for which there is no external evidence.

Worse, think about what you are saying if you say that you believe something (such as the Exodus story) because you want to - because if you don't, then you aren't happy with something else (like being able to trust a literal reading elsewhere). It means that you are deciding whether something is true based on your own desires. We have a name for that. It's called wishful thinking. We recognize it as wrong (and even pathological) in other areas, but somehow it's OK in this area? That doesn't sound right to me.

In Christ-

Papias

Good morning Papias, I'll try to reply further later today or tomorrow.
I came to my conclusions, I don't believe though wishful thinking, which I see as quick sand like ones feelings are.
It is based on several things, in this case the Movie > "Patterns of Evidence" that I previously mentioned, not the video I posted on YouTube yesterday.
I well appreciate your comments as they show you are a thinking person, very re-freshing.
Some other reasons are more personal, like through out my life knowing blind and deaf humans who dwell comfortably in the valley's of tradition, whether religious or secular. After viewing this movie my conclusion is the most powerful and influential______________ players in this game, of preaching that the stories of the Bible are not true historically, appear to be steeped in their archeological traditions.

 

[Athée]

Good morning Papias, I'll try to reply further later today or tomorrow.
I came to my conclusions, I don't believe though wishful thinking, which I see as quick sand like ones feelings are.
It is based on several things, in this case the Movie > "Patterns of Evidence" that I previously mentioned, not the video I posted on YouTube yesterday.
I well appreciate your comments as they show you are a thinking person, very re-freshing.
Some other reasons are more personal, like through out my life knowing blind and deaf humans who dwell comfortably in the valley's of tradition, whether religious or secular. After viewing this movie my conclusion is the most powerful and influential______________ players in this game, of preaching that the stories of the Bible are not true historically, appear to be steeped in their archeological traditions.

Hey my apologies for jumping in here. I recently watched this documentary at the behest of a Christian friend (I am an atheist who goes to a bible study small group...funny world isn't it!) Like you I found it compelling and the attitude of the experts off putting so I did some research. One of the counter arguments was written by Dr Hector Alva Los and is found here :Debunking Christianity: PATTERNS OF POOR RESEARCH— A Critique of Patterns of Evidence:Exodus
Obviously he has a bias but I think his article is well researched and cited. In any event he seems to make a pretty compelling case that the patterns movie has some flaws. What made me think of this was your comment about the experts and their habits. When I saw the movie it seed like he was presenting the with this new powerful evidence and they just didn't want to accept it, however it turns out that his idea is a much older one that they have already debated at great length and rejected.
Happy reading

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[BeStill&Know]

Good afternoon Papias, be patient, my eyes are blurry, my hands are hurting, and my brain is foggy, and those are the good points of my day so far.

I don't even have a very good excuse (I'm only 47)!

Wait till you're my age..............

Those experts include many Christians and Jews.

In this case the label Christian and Jew would not apply as their many in false beliefs. Like generic Christian or Jew. example: Like my parents were this, so this I am. BTW don't you identify as a Catholic ? Aren't their atheist Catholics???

I haven't seen any reason to ignore the experts.

The response above is a good reason to ignore.
Like I stated previously, answers by most humans are relative to whose lining their pockets

The fact that Spiderman is set in New York city doesn't prove spiderman real, and the fact that the Qu'ran mentions Mecca, Jerusalem and Jesus doesn't mean that Islam is correct.

Yes, well stated. I agree

We all agree the Bible is true. What we disagree on is whether it all has to be read literally or not. As pointed out previously, Reading one's Bible literally gives both cases of true and of false history.

Yes, even here I understand God's Word in some cases like Psalms is poetic language, even though it contains prophecies.
I will watch the videos posted here-but only if you instruct me where it is the meat and potatoes, because I don't have much time.
I've watch atheist video's before to get a clearer understanding of their religion, to be very disappointed.

False - a lot of "history" from a literally read Bible is almost certainly false.

So where is the truth in the Bible ????Where does it begin and where does it end.???

If lengendary stories like Babel or the Exodus are taken as history, actual history from historians shows them to be false. Later stories also don't match history, such as the impossibility of the gold and armies of King Solomon, or the idea of Luke's "Census/Bethlehem" story - for which there is no external evidence.

I do believe in Historians to a point. Because I don't know at this time if they worked for free or for the government. Example;I don;t recall which program on archeology is was stated, that it is known to archeologist that Historians working for (for example) a Pharaoh (or other ruler) would never have recorded failures and defeats, but only conquest, and what ever other pride filled events. It makes sense but I have not checked this out yet.

Worse, think about what you are saying if you say that you believe something (such as the Exodus story) because you want to - because if you don't, then you aren't happy with something else (like being able to trust a literal reading elsewhere). It means that you are deciding whether something is true based on your own desires. We have a name for that. It's called wishful thinking. We recognize it as wrong (and even pathological) in other areas, but somehow it's OK in this area? That doesn't sound right to me.

In Christ-

Papias

I think I already covered the above. Is there in scripture a verse or verses that support this Catholic belief???
I do understand that there may be a minor difference in versions of the Torah (over hundreds of years) that don't change the original meaning and translations that may differ a bit.
Let's see if I understand correctly?
It sounds like you believe the history of the Old Testament does not exist in reality (evidence)
So do you believe in the history of the New Testament? Again be patient as I may forgotten if I asked this already

 

[BeStill&Know]

Hello Athee, no apologies needed friend.
At least your honest enough to admitting being an atheist.

Hey my apologies for jumping in here. I recently watched this documentary at the behest of a Christian friend (I am an atheist who goes to a bible study small group...funny world isn't it!) Like you I found it compelling and the attitude of the experts off putting so I did some research. One of the counter arguments was written by Dr Hector Alva Los and is found here :Debunking Christianity: PATTERNS OF POOR RESEARCH— A Critique of Patterns of Evidence:Exodus
Obviously he has a bias but I think his article is well researched and cited. In any event he seems to make a pretty compelling case that the patterns movie has some flaws. What made me think of this was your comment about the experts and their habits. When I saw the movie it seed like he was presenting the with this new powerful evidence and they just didn't want to accept it, however it turns out that his idea is a much older one that they have already debated at great length and rejected.
Happy reading

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

Again I don't have much time, Could you edit it down to the meat and potatoes? Then send it to me, either PM or POST. I did try to research on YouTube since my eyes blurr. I have ROKU.'
But the atheist videos took so long to present their case, against the movie Patterns of Evidence, After a few fast forwards, I lost interest. If you send me a video please do the same and tell me where on it to begin listening.
Here's a good question> if a segment of atheism beliefs is >there are no moral absolutes >which would include lying, then what is the basis for believing an atheist?