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

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well I think you said it all. If no amount of evidence can convince you, then the problem really isn't with the evidence.... I believe that these sorts of questions can be very complex for the skeptic. We should respect that complexity and base our judgements on the entirety of the evidence.
A true skeptic withholds judgement on purpose.

No matter how convincing it is to him, he will not allow himself to take a stance either way.

The idea behind that is that, by withholding judgement, a true skeptic expects to gain a deeper insight into a matter than either theology or science can go.

But I'm talking about a true skeptic ... not a superficial skeptic.

A superficial skeptic will treat science facts with greater weight as he will theological facts.

Tell a true skeptic about the Exodus, and he will "take it under advisement."

Tell a true skeptic that Earth revolves around the sun, and he will "take it under advisement."

The skeptics of today are just a shell of what they used to be.

Socrates would facepalm.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I agree with the more evidence aspect but find the use of the word 'Mythical' to be overstated.
"Mythical" is their word of choice for "miracle" -- second only to "magic."

It's like calling a "child in the womb" a "fetus."

It's a way of handling cognitive dissonance to get rid of the conviction they're under.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Waggles
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Proof!! Prove that these are mythical. Some evidence please, not ignorance.
Amazing, you should be the last person to accuse others of ignorance.

Both the Adam and Eve myth and the Noah's Ark story can be refuted by the fact that human population was never below a thousand. Do you understand evolution at all? I could support this with one link, but odds are that you will need some background education.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
"Mythical" is their word of choice for "miracle" -- second only to "magic."

It's like calling a "child in the womb" a "fetus."

It's a way of handling cognitive dissonance to get rid of the conviction they're under.

AV, you are guilty of trying to claim that others have your flaws and sins again. Cognitive dissonance is your problem not mine. Your belief that life begins in the womb is not Biblical. It is an idea that is justified by ignoring certain verses. Let's try to keep this on topic here.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
AV, you are guilty of trying to claim that others have your flaws and sins again. Cognitive dissonance is your problem not mine.
Don't you mean "projection"?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I was trying to use language that you could understand.
You mean you'll start using terms like:
  1. miracle
  2. child in the womb
  3. creatio ex nihilo
  4. creatio ex materia
  5. dispensation
  6. sin nature
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You mean you'll start using terms like:
  1. miracle
  2. child in the womb
  3. creatio ex nihilo
  4. creatio ex materia
  5. dispensation
  6. sin nature
I am trying to avoid bogus terminology. But thanks for admitting that you are wrong by trying to shoehorn abortion into a topic where no one was discussing it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Now there is a myth - perhaps the mother of all myths.
Nope. It is supported by mountains of scientific evidence. There is no reliable evidence for creationism at all.

Would you like to begin to learn?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Your funny! A man who goes through life with a paper bag over his head and so sees no truth;
yet he wants to teach others.
Oh my! Making false claims about others is breaking the Ninth Commandment. I can support my claims. I don't think you can support yours.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Biblical archaeology is always fascinating. Many times in the older parts of the bible, the archeological data doesn't square with what the Bible talks about (ie no real evidence for an "Exodus", etc.)

So it's interesting to see when the Bible actually reports something factually. This isn't surprising, it's a huge bunch of writings from a large swath of the history of early Israel.

It seems generally that Biblical history beginning in about 1000 BC is mostly confirmed archaeologically. Prior to that, we find little in the archaeological and historical records that rises to the same level.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Waggles

Acts 2:38
Supporter
Feb 7, 2017
768
476
69
South Oz
Visit site
✟112,244.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Widowed
Nebuchadnezzer is known about from multiple sources, so the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 has never really been in question.
True. Much scepticism concerning Bible truth (even by Jews) has usually been proven to be unfounded later by continuing archaeological discoveries.
Nebuchadnezzar and the exile of Judah > seven times punishment of the Jews for thir transgressions
and disobedience to God.
This works out to 2,520 years of punishment and goes from 604BC to 1917AD as prophesied by Daniel

Blessed is he that waits, and comes to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
Daniel 12:12
1,335 days = 1,335 years > the Muslim year of 1335 = 1917 AD and Jerusalem is set from from the
occupation of the Ottoman Turks and Islam, and Zionist movement begins Jewish immigration to
Jerusalem and Palestine [Trans-Jordan]. The seven times punishment is ended.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Establishing the historicity of the Scriptures is important for those that may doubt the claim of Salvation.

How so?

How does confirming a single claim of the story translate into more credibility for completely different claims in the same story?

If a future archeologist discovers New York, would that lend credence to the claim that Spiderman lived there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queller
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Unbelief is not a matter of evidence, archaeological or other, but of the heart.

It is, if you care about your beliefs being accurate and/or being justified in your beliefs.

If believing something for which only evidence to the contrary exists is okay, then I can only wonder what kind of beliefs you would call irrational.

This is not a point about the bible in general, mind you. It's just an extension of what you just said, concerning the relation between "belief" and "evidence".

For me, the opposite is true. Belief, that is to say: the acceptance of a thing as accurate/correct, is always a matter of evidence.
 
Upvote 0