Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Evidence appeals to the mind and flesh, doesn't it?I just want to see some evidence.
I am going to assume that since no evidence has been provided that Moses did not exist, and no one that I know has any evidence that he did, the question remains unanswered. No one has confirmation one way or the other.
Lengthy archeological studies by the Israelis have shown that the OT story is false.I am going to assume that since no evidence has been provided that Moses did not exist, and no one that I know has any evidence that he did, the question remains unanswered. No one has confirmation one way or the other.
the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.
Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan
Really, its a myth,... This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem
Correct. It is fool's errand to prove a negative, so it is usually understood that the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. Until evidence is given, then Moses sits with the rest of the unevidenced entities like Bigfoot and Leprechauns. If you do not feel compelled to believe in Leprechauns simply because no one has disproven them, then you can join the Atheists in having a sensible position.
Your equating a person to Bigfoot and Leprechauns says more about your argument that you wish to show.
You know that at one time it was claimed that King David didn't exist either until archeologists discovered artifacts that proved he existed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I am equating an unevidenced belief to another unevidenced belief.
Last I heard, that was really, really weak evidence and it did nothing to support the claims made in the Bible. It's like finding a headstone with the name Bill Hickock, and using that headstone as proof that people really used to lasso tornadoes.
I don't find this surprising to see that you will take whatever evidence there is and deny it. You demand and demand evidence and then if evidence is shown you deny it. It is always the same with you.
There was one stone that in 1806 I believe was found and it had on it an inscription, House of David. Now there has been several other discoveries as well that have supported the existence of David. Another artifact with an inscription from an enemy:
It was written about 200 years after David's rule -- again, by one of Israel's enemies, Hazel, the king of Damascus. "He said, I killed 70 kings. I killed a king from Israel and a king from the House of David.
The newest find:
Discovery of official clay seals support existence of biblical kings David and Solomon, archaeologists say -- ScienceDaily
Lengthy archeological studies by the Israelis have shown that the OT story is false.
Zeev Herzog, from the University of Tel Aviv said:
the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.Israel Finkelstein, who has been described as 'the father of biblical archeology':
Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of CanaanOn the Exodus story, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:
Really, its a myth,... This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problemSo, the central story in the OT is just that; a story.
There may well have been, at that time, some guy called Moses alive in the area. But the Moses we think of, the baby in a basket, leading the Israelites towards the promised land, chatting with bushes, being given the commandments etc, almost certainly did not exist. Given that the story was made up centuries later, it's not an unreasonable assumption that the central characters were too.
Again, this is not evidence for the claims that the Bible makes about David. Bill Hickok was definitely a real person. This doesn't make the tall tales told about Bill Hickok true. Do you understand the difference?
I know next to nothing about archeology, so I was taking the experts' word for it.Your post won't transfer:
Originally Posted by Oncedeceived
I know very little about this subject. I had heard about Osiris' resurrection before somewhere, so after a quick check on Wikipedia to ensure I had not imagined it, I posted what I knew. The only other thing I remember is that Osiris was killed, and subsequently resurrected, twice. Which I think is why his body was chopped up and spread around Egypt the second time - to try to prevent a repeat of the first.
So I'm afraid I can't direct you to anything which provides more detail, though I'm sure there is plenty of stuff out there.
I believe God created the Cell, and this cell evolved to be the most grandiose creation of God. and God assisted and managed that evolution.
You just have to be blind, fanatical, or completely close minded not to accept the universe is really old, the planet is also old and the animals have evolved in millions of years. the evidence is just overwhelming. You have the age of the light to travel from galaxies to earth measured in millions of light years. you have crystals and stalagmites stalactites, that have grow drop by drop in millions of years. plate tectonics, movements of continents. etc etc.
oh man.
from the link:
Among research trainees in biomedical sciences at the University of California San Diego, 4.9% said they had modified research results in the past, but 81% were willing to select, omit or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper [35].
why would these educated scientists do such a thing if they had such uncompromising faith in the peer review process?
As a matter of principle the idea that there are similarities between the Jesus story and the stories in other myths isn't something that bothers me. But I've also found it's a good idea to be a stickler for trying to have the facts right. I've been discussing matters of religion in discussion forums for about fifteen years and one of the things I notice consistently is that there is just a lot of misinformation about all sorts of things on the internet. Shocking I'm sure.
For example I've seen wild conspiracy theories about the Jesuits with claimed sources which, when looked at directly, don't say anything remotely like what the ones making the claim want it to say.
Or there's the repeated statements like that Constantine I created the Roman Catholic Church and was the first Pope (problem there, there was a bishop in Rome during Constantine's reign, Sylvester). Or that Constantine selected which books would go into the Bible--problem, no information is available that would even remotely indicate such a thing, and we have plenty of pre-Constantinian sources of what sorts of books Christians were reading in their churches long before Constantine was a twinkle in his father's eye. Or, alternatively, that the Council of Nicea decided on which books would be in the Bible--problem there too, since none of the histories or documents which report on or came out of Nicea mention that the Biblical Canon was even so much as a minor thought at the council, the council had other matters to attend to.
Then there's the copycat stuff. For example the claim that Jesus' story was ripped in total from Mithras' story. Such as that Mithras was born of a virgin and had twelve disciples. Again, a problem, Mithras wasn't said to have been born of a virgin, but from solid rock as a fully formed adult (you can even look up ancient Mithraic art t hat shows the birth of MIthras from solid rock). Also it turns out that the twelve disciples thing was a bit of creative interpretation, there is another piece of ancient Mithraic art that shows Mithras as a solar deity surrounded by the twelve signs of the Zodiac:
There's also a claim that Mithras was said to be a cosmic bull and offered his blood which gave eternal life; though of course the actual story is that Mithras fought and slew a cosmic bull--and which is why followers of the Mithras Cult in Rome offered bulls as ritual sacrifice.
Given these sorts of things I've found it helpful to at least ask where people get their information--because I often find that a lot of time people will just repeat what they've heard. I mean we're all guilty of this, especially when we hear something and it affirms our confirmation bias and so we just kind of accept it uncritically. So I'm not blaming anyone, just pointing out that we all should filter our information more critically.
-CryptoLutheran
As a matter of principle the idea that there are similarities between the Jesus story and the stories in other myths isn't something that bothers me. But I've also found it's a good idea to be a stickler for trying to have the facts right. I've been discussing matters of religion in discussion forums for about fifteen years and one of the things I notice consistently is that there is just a lot of misinformation about all sorts of things on the internet. Shocking I'm sure.
For example I've seen wild conspiracy theories about the Jesuits with claimed sources which, when looked at directly, don't say anything remotely like what the ones making the claim want it to say.
Or there's the repeated statements like that Constantine I created the Roman Catholic Church and was the first Pope (problem there, there was a bishop in Rome during Constantine's reign, Sylvester). Or that Constantine selected which books would go into the Bible--problem, no information is available that would even remotely indicate such a thing, and we have plenty of pre-Constantinian sources of what sorts of books Christians were reading in their churches long before Constantine was a twinkle in his father's eye. Or, alternatively, that the Council of Nicea decided on which books would be in the Bible--problem there too, since none of the histories or documents which report on or came out of Nicea mention that the Biblical Canon was even so much as a minor thought at the council, the council had other matters to attend to.
Then there's the copycat stuff. For example the claim that Jesus' story was ripped in total from Mithras' story. Such as that Mithras was born of a virgin and had twelve disciples. Again, a problem, Mithras wasn't said to have been born of a virgin, but from solid rock as a fully formed adult (you can even look up ancient Mithraic art t hat shows the birth of MIthras from solid rock). Also it turns out that the twelve disciples thing was a bit of creative interpretation, there is another piece of ancient Mithraic art that shows Mithras as a solar deity surrounded by the twelve signs of the Zodiac:
There's also a claim that Mithras was said to be a cosmic bull and offered his blood which gave eternal life; though of course the actual story is that Mithras fought and slew a cosmic bull--and which is why followers of the Mithras Cult in Rome offered bulls as ritual sacrifice.
Given these sorts of things I've found it helpful to at least ask where people get their information--because I often find that a lot of time people will just repeat what they've heard. I mean we're all guilty of this, especially when we hear something and it affirms our confirmation bias and so we just kind of accept it uncritically. So I'm not blaming anyone, just pointing out that we all should filter our information more critically.
-CryptoLutheran
Again, this is not evidence for the claims that the Bible makes about David. Bill Hickok was definitely a real person. This doesn't make the tall tales told about Bill Hickok true. Do you understand the difference?
I wonder why He documented that He did it in six days?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?