New Evidence Confirms The Burning Of Jerusalem By Babylonians Described In The Bible

[Subduction Zone]

C14 dating typically uses multiple tests because of the contamination problem. Generally they estimate a date, then try to confirm it. I used 7 because in the most famous C14 controversy (The 1988 Shroud of Turin test) originally the plan was to use 7 different respected laboratories from the around the world (as experts advised), but at the last moment Cardinal Ballestrero of Turin decided to only use three. This is a major complaint from the Sindologist community.

Oh please, the shroud was a fake and a few diehards won't let go. You need a much much better reason that that.

 

[JohnElias3773]

What he said. However, Whilst I don't agree with your argument, I can certainly see why believing that would make this evidence "key".

What he said. However, Whilst I don't agree with your argument, I can certainly see why believing that would make this evidence "key".

I agree with the more evidence aspect but find the use of the word 'Mythical' to be overstated. Not every Christian believes the same. The interpretation of literature from a culture that created it thousands of years ago is not a task to be taken lightly. Jewish intellectuals haven't a problem, for example, with the 6 day creation account, because their ancient commentators told them such writing needed interpretation. Modern day literal interpretations of a translated English Bible, divorced from a knowledge of the culture that produced it, are unlikely to produce any scholastic dividends.

 

[JohnElias3773]

Oh please, the shroud was a fake and a few diehards won't let go. You need a much much better reason that that.

I understand that is the common opinion. But the common opinion is not always correct. I would direct you to the work on the Shroud since the 1988 debacle. See Ian Wilson's work or any of the latest documentation on the Shroud. In fact they just had an international conference. There are plenty of resources online.

 

[Tanj]

I agree with the more evidence aspect but find the use of the word 'Mythical' to be overstated. Not every Christian believes the same. The interpretation of literature from a culture that created it thousands of years ago is not a task to be taken lightly. Jewish intellectuals haven't a problem, for example, with the 6 day creation account, because their ancient commentators told them such writing needed interpretation. Modern day literal interpretations of a translated English Bible, divorced from a knowledge of the culture that produced it, are unlikely to produce any scholastic dividends.

Just to let you know I am bowing out of this conversation. As I said before my question related to your use of the word "key", and you answered it to my satisfaction, so thanks for that. I am not interested in a tangential discussion on related topics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that is the common opinion. But the common opinion is not always correct. I would direct you to the work on the Shroud since the 1988 debacle. See Ian Wilson's work or any of the latest documentation on the Shroud. In fact they just had an international conference. There are plenty of resources online.

It is far more than opinion and I have seen the "work". It is mostly just grasping at straws. There was one case of a not well accepted dating method.

There is no explanation of the date that the shroud has. "Contamination" has been refuted since to contaminate the Shroud with modern C14 to the point where an old one would give the date found would take roughly tripling the mass of the shroud with contaminants.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If we could find evidence for the many things mentioned in the Illiad: the ancient city of Troy, the war, some remains of the Trojan horse, historical evidence for the figures of Paris, Helen, Achilles, etc; would that be evidence for the existence of the Olympian gods?

I'd say no, as I think most probably would.

Now let's ask the same question concerning the Bible: would historical evidence of events, places, and persons mentioned in the Bible be evidence of the supernatural elements of the Biblical narratives; would it be evidence for the existence of the God of Israel?

If the Bible were demonstrated correct on a piece of historical detail, it would not be evidence for the particular claims of faith therein.

Likewise, if the Bible were demonstrated incorrect on a piece of historical detail, it would mean the particular faith claims are false.

Whether or not the core articles of faith of the Christian religion are true or not depend on certain things being historical; but it is not dependent upon every jot and tittle of the Bible being historically or scientifically inerrant.

Speaking purely from the perspective of faith, to make the truth of the Gospel dependent upon a perfectly historically and scientifically inerrant collection of texts is to build one's house upon a foundation of sand. As soon as a wave washes and some point of detail or minutia turns out to not be in place, the entire structure collapses. Biblical inerrancy is a faulty, flimsy, poor foundation for faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Waggles]

some is obviously wrong.

Really? News to me.

 

[Waggles]

What you need to find evidence are the more mythical claims.

There are no mythical claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? News to me.

How can you say that? The entire book of Genesis is mythical. It is allegory at best. Surely you knew that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no mythical claims.

Now you are just being silly. The flood, the Garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus. Need I go on?

 

[Strathos]

Now you are just being silly. The flood, the Garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus. Need I go on?

The Tower of Babel was a real building.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we could find evidence for the many things mentioned in the Illiad: the ancient city of Troy, the war, some remains of the Trojan horse, historical evidence for the figures of Paris, Helen, Achilles, etc; would that be evidence for the existence of the Olympian gods?

I'd say no, as I think most probably would.

Now let's ask the same question concerning the Bible: would historical evidence of events, places, and persons mentioned in the Bible be evidence of the supernatural elements of the Biblical narratives; would it be evidence for the existence of the God of Israel?

If the Bible were demonstrated correct on a piece of historical detail, it would not be evidence for the particular claims of faith therein.

Likewise, if the Bible were demonstrated incorrect on a piece of historical detail, it would mean the particular faith claims are false.

Whether or not the core articles of faith of the Christian religion are true or not depend on certain things being historical; but it is not dependent upon every jot and tittle of the Bible being historically or scientifically inerrant.

Speaking purely from the perspective of faith, to make the truth of the Gospel dependent upon a perfectly historically and scientifically inerrant collection of texts is to build one's house upon a foundation of sand. As soon as a wave washes and some point of detail or minutia turns out to not be in place, the entire structure collapses. Biblical inerrancy is a faulty, flimsy, poor foundation for faith.

-CryptoLutheran

Correct, that the book of Genesis is allegory at best does not refute Christianity. Those that demand it be true make themselves look bad by denying all of reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Tower of Babel was a real building.

Nope. Finding a building that roughly matches the description does not mean that there was a real building. Languages naturally occur. There was no need for any confusion of tongues.

 

[Strathos]

Nope. Finding a building that roughly matches the description does not mean that there was a real building. Languages naturally occur. There was no need for any confusion of tongues.

Parts of the story are allegorical, but the tower was real.

Etemenanki - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Parts of the story are allegorical, but the tower was real.

Etemenanki - Wikipedia

Nope, your source does not say that. It only says that it is a candidate for the basis of the myth.

 

[Strathos]

Nope, your source does not say that. It only says that it is a candidate for the basis of the myth.

It's the best one that fits all of the facts. Babel = Babylon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's the best one that fits all of the facts. Babel = Babylon.

It may have inspired the myth, but that is all.

ETA: In the same way there was probably a flood that inspired the stories that the Noah's Ark tale came from. Of course that does not mean that there was an ark with animals. And of course mankind was never threatened by such a flood.

 

[Strathos]

It may have inspired the myth, but that is all.

I said the story is mostly allegorical. But it is at least partially based on true history.

 

[Waggles]

The entire book of Genesis is mythical.

Says who? The ignorant. Those without understanding, wisdom nor insight?
Your opinions count for nothing.

 

[Waggles]

The flood, the Garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus.

Proof!! Prove that these are mythical. Some evidence please, not ignorance.