Something in the Bible that is actually supported by evidence

[Phred]

I thought that, rather than just ripping all the foolish attempts to say, "The Bible is supported by science" because of misunderstanding what that means, I'd offer an example.

The Bible mentions that the Roman who sent Jesus to his death was Pontius Pilate. It was thought for a time that this man might have been fictional. However, putting together the EVIDENCE leads us to learn that Pilate was indeed a real person. Wikipedia tells us that he was Prefect of Judea from 26 -36 CE. His name appears on a stone engraving found in a theater.

This reads:

This building - Tiberium
By Pontius Pilatus
Prefect of Judea
Has been built

There are also mentions of him by Tacitus, Philo and Josephus. We know he was corrupt, feared being reported to the Emperor and finally was sent back to the Emperor however by the time he arrived in Rome Tiberius had died.

This tells us that Pilate was a real person.

Herod was also real. We have found his tomb and several of the grand building projects he was responsible for.

We know that two of the people in the Gospels were real. We know that the lived and breathed in the right place at the right time.

So does this mean that science, specifically archaeology, supports the Bible?

No, it just means that these two men were real people. It doesn't mean that the Biblical accounts are accurate or factual.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was thought for a time that this man might have been fictional. However, putting together the EVIDENCE leads us to learn that Pilate was indeed a real person.

Oh.

The last thing I want for Christmas is the Bible being validated by science --

As I have said before: it will just make things worse, not better.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I thought that, rather than just ripping all the foolish attempts to say, "The Bible is supported by science" because of misunderstanding what that means, I'd offer an example.

The Bible mentions that the Roman who sent Jesus to his death was Pontius Pilate. It was thought for a time that this man might have been fictional. However, putting together the EVIDENCE leads us to learn that Pilate was indeed a real person. Wikipedia tells us that he was Prefect of Judea from 26 -36 CE. His name appears on a stone engraving found in a theater.

This reads:

This building - Tiberium
By Pontius Pilatus
Prefect of Judea
Has been built

There are also mentions of him by Tacitus, Philo and Josephus. We know he was corrupt, feared being reported to the Emperor and finally was sent back to the Emperor however by the time he arrived in Rome Tiberius had died.

This tells us that Pilate was a real person.

Looking at the rock, I can make out:
...TIBERIEVM...
...VSPILATV...
...ISNO...
The second line is probably 'PONTVSPILATVS' or something, but do you know how did they deduced the third line?

Herod was also real. We have found his tomb and several of the grand building projects he was responsible for.

If I recall correctly (which I probably don't), didn't Herod die before Jesus was born? I remember there being something iffy about the dates.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I recall correctly (which I probably don't), didn't Herod die before Jesus was born? I remember there being something iffy about the dates.

Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
Matthew 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

There are actually four Herods in the Bible:

1. Herod the Great
2. Herod [somebody]
3. Herod Antipas I
4. Herod Antipas II

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Oh.

The last thing I want for Christmas is the Bible being validated by science --

As I have said before: it will just make things worse, not better.

Is, AV, Is making things worse. You gotta' admit, the Dark Ages were a good time for theists, no?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

And to the OP, you know what they say about broken clocks?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is, AV, Is making things worse.

-- What?

 

[cupid dave]

I thought that, rather than just ripping all the foolish attempts to say, "The Bible is supported by science" because of misunderstanding what that means, I'd offer an example.

The Bible mentions that the Roman who sent Jesus to his death was Pontius Pilate. It was thought for a time that this man might have been fictional. However, putting together the EVIDENCE leads us to learn that Pilate was indeed a real person. Wikipedia tells us that he was Prefect of Judea from 26 -36 CE. His name appears on a stone engraving found in a theater.

This reads:

This building - Tiberium
By Pontius Pilatus
Prefect of Judea
Has been built

There are also mentions of him by Tacitus, Philo and Josephus. We know he was corrupt, feared being reported to the Emperor and finally was sent back to the Emperor however by the time he arrived in Rome Tiberius had died.

This tells us that Pilate was a real person.

Herod was also real. We have found his tomb and several of the grand building projects he was responsible for.

We know that two of the people in the Gospels were real. We know that the lived and breathed in the right place at the right time.

So does this mean that science, specifically archaeology, supports the Bible?

No, it just means that these two men were real people. It doesn't mean that the Biblical accounts are accurate or factual.

How is the written report of the history of 32AD and carved stones any more supportive of the people you mentioned than the jewish history in the New Testament?

If we want to doubt everything as evidence, why not assume that the carved rocks and such were merely concurrent aids and appendages to the lies being fabriacted back then?

We can discredit and deny anything for that matter.

But what about Big Bang which agrees that once there was an in the beginning.

Does not that speak for itself?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How is the written report of the history of 32AD and carved stones any more supportive of the people you mentioned than the jewish history in the New Testament?

Because historical documents don't really stand on their own - they need to be independently verified. Otherwise, any document from Ye Olde Times becomes a 'trustworthy' source, when it may well be just myth and legend. When there's real, concrete evidence (such as this rock), then the document has added credence.

Take the Qu'ran. I dare say there was a man called Muhammed - the Qu'ran's depiction of the unification of the Middle-East certainly did happen, and there's enough secondary evidence to support the influence of Muhammed, or some one close enough - but the secondary evidence only supports the mundane aspects of his life. There are no supporting sources for, say, the angel Gabriel.

Likewise, the rock in the OP supports the existence of Pontus Pilate (the existence of whom I was previously undecided on), not on its own, but in conjunction with the Bible. It's not that the Bible is inherently and uniquely disregarded as a valid source of historical information, simply that it must be supported by a second piece of evidence. There is evidence for the Pharaohs, but not for the Exodus (to my knowledge), so the Bible's account of Pharaohs is a valid piece of evidence for the existence of Pharaohs, along with all the other evidence we have. Its account of the Exodus, however, stands alone, and thus is no more reliable than any other stand-alone historical document.

We can certainly speculate about whether a singlularly mentioned event actually took place (such as the war at Troy), or whether a person actually existence (such as Socrates), but without any supporting evidence from anywhere else, we're confined to speculation. This isn't to say we affirm it's false, just that we can't affirm it's true.

If we want to doubt everything as evidence, why not assume that the carved rocks and such were merely concurrent aids and appendages to the lies being fabriacted back then?

Why not indeed. However, there's no evidence of a fabrication, so, we don't.

But what about Big Bang which agrees that once there was an in the beginning.

Does not that speak for itself?

The Big Bang doesn't state that there was an "in the beginning". It says the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old, but for all we know the universe could be far, far older.

 

[cupid dave]

Oh.

The last thing I want for Christmas is the Bible being validated by science --

As I have said before: it will just make things worse, not better.

make things worse...?

What things?

Do you mean the archaic church teachings that people devised before the middle ages.

 

[cupid dave]

The Big Bang doesn't state that there was an "in the beginning". It says the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old, but for all we know the universe could be far, far older.

lame.

Every reputable science sources states unequivically that time began ticking 13.5 billion years ago

This is the same science you try to use ellsewhere to show genesis is wrong.

Apparently, your kind of science can be iffy and vague when it suits your argument.

 

[Jazer]

It doesn't mean that the Biblical accounts are accurate or factual.

Accurate and factual has never been a problem. The problem seems to be in the ability people have to be able to understand the Bible. Now we have a better understanding then ever before, but people want to hold onto their traditions. Eden was all about biodiversity. Evolution teaches us a lot about biodiversity. But people still do not get it. They still do not understand what Eden was all about.

 

[Jazer]

The Big Bang doesn't state that there was an "in the beginning". It says the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old, but for all we know the universe could be far, far older.

They believe that the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years.

"
The Hubble Constant measures the current state of expansion in the universe, and the strength of the gravitational force depends on the density and pressure of the matter and in the universe, or in other words, the critical density of the universe. If the density of the universe is greater than the critical density, then the strength of the gravitational force will stop the universe from expanding and the universe will collapse back on itself. Conversely, if the density of the universe is less than the critical density, the universe will continue to expand and the gravitational pull will not be enough to stop the universe from expanding. This scenario would result in the 'Big Freeze', where the universe cools as it expands and reaches a state of entropy.[1] Some theory that the universe could collapse to the state where it began and then initiate another Big Bang, so in this way the universe would last forever, but would pass through phases of expansion (Big Bang) and contraction (Big Crunch)" wiki

 

[cupid dave]

Accurate and factual has never been a problem. The problem seems to be in the ability people have to be able to understand the Bible. Now we have a better understanding then ever before, but people want to hold onto their traditions. Eden was all about biodiversity. Evolution teaches us a lot about biodiversity. But people still do not get it. They still do not understand what Eden was all about.

People need to research the words, like "eden" and "garden."

They need to understand that eden means a place of pleasure, and a garden is a fenced off area.
These ideas suggest the importance of human consciousness in its ability to separate man from lower life forms.

It suggests that this place is the mind.

With that view, it becomes a story concerned withthe differentiation of the seven Freudian sources of our internal thoughts, (the seven spirits of Revelation).

We see the logical Superego interacting with the Anima, the woman's intuition found in us all.
Influenced by these thoughts the Libido acts upon the drives and desires that send "him" on the mission that opposes the good shepherd of Conscience.

 

[AV1611VET]

make things worse...?

What things?

You let someone discover something tangible that supports the Bible and scientists will be all over it saying it does anything BUT support the Bible.

I've given the example before that if Noah's Ark were to be found, scientists would examine it and determine it not floatworthy, uninhabitable, and even unsafe to live in w/o a flood -- in other words, they would condemn it.

After that, anyone saying that there was a flood in Noah's days would have the Ark used as evidence against them, and the latter state would be worse than the former.

 

[Cabal]

lame.

Every reputable science sources states unequivically that time began ticking 13.5 billion years ago

This is the same science you try to use ellsewhere to show genesis is wrong.

Apparently, your kind of science can be iffy and vague when it suits your argument.

Time is an element of the universe. It is not the universe.

Try again.

 

[cupid dave]

Take the Qu'ran. I dare say there was a man called Muhammed - the Qu'ran's depiction of the unification of the Middle-East certainly did happen, and there's enough secondary evidence to support the influence of Muhammed, or some one close enough - but the secondary evidence only supports the mundane aspects of his life. There are no supporting sources for, say, the angel Gabriel..

LOL

Of course that is quite different in that it pertains to what mohammed said, not that he had said it.

Today we might assume mohammed had one of those rare but documented experiences or epithanies that scientist report gave them an insight in a flash that astonished them as if it came unbidden upon them from "the blue."

Such an "Eureka" moment in those days might well be attributed to an outside "messenger" which is the definition of an angel, after all.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

lame.

Y'know, I keep a running total of the number of times a Christian, Muslim, or Jew on CF insults me or makes an argumentum ad hominem against me when my post they're responding to doesn't itself contain any such ad hominem itself. You are number 100. Congratulations.

Every reputable science sources states unequivically that time began ticking 13.5 billion years ago

This is the same science you try to use ellsewhere to show genesis is wrong.

Apparently, your kind of science can be iffy and vague when it suits your argument.

Except, of course, I'm not making an argument: I'm correcting a common misunderstanding. It's common, even amongst scientists, to believe that electrons literally orbit the nucleus of an atom, to believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes everything become chaotic, and, yes, to believe that the Big Bang theory describes the creation of the universe, yet that isn't the case.

Electrons don't literally orbit nuclei, the Second Law doesn't engender chaos, and the Big Bang wasn't the creation of the universe. As common as these misconceptions are, they're still misconceptions.

Wikipedia, for instance, characterises the age of the universe as follows:

The age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years since the Big Bang (433.6 x 1015 seconds in SI units, or 13.75 Gigayears) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. It is not known if something existed before the singularity that we call Big Bang, nor if time is linear, since the expansion estimated by Hubble's law assumed a linear expansion, and later work indicates there may have been variations.

Emphasis mine. The number '13.5 billion' refers to the length of time the Big Bang has been occurring, the duration since the singularity existed. The singularity could have come into existence at that time, but we don't know. We don't know if there was a pre-existing universe that collapsed into a singularity and then 'bounced' back out (qv. the Big Bounce). We don't know if the singularity existed for trillions and trillions of years, before spontaneously expanding.

The Big Bang is the 'beginning' of the universe in the same way the forge is the beginning of a piece of armour: yes, the armour certainly began to exist when it comes out the forge, but the constituent steel predates the armour. Since we don't know what, if anything, occurred 13.5 billion years ago, it is customary among scientific publications to refer to the Big Bang as the 'moment' the universe came into being - this is incorrect, yet the practice has carried over to lay publications. It's an innocent enough claim that we don't really bother correcting it - except when the claim is itself used to bolster some argument or other (such as the Cosmological argument).

Short version: common misconceptions and convention do not an argument make.

Of course that is quite different in that it pertains to what mohammed said, not that he had said it.

Today we might assume mohammed had one of those rare but documented experiences or epithanies that scientist report gave them an insight in a flash that astonished them as if it came unbidden upon them from "the blue."

Such an "Eureka" moment in those days might well be attributed to an outside "messenger" which is the definition of an angel, after all.

Muhammed did not transcribe the Qu'ran in the Cave of Hira in one sitting. According to Islam, it was revealed in fits and bursts over his life. That's a rather prolonged 'Eureka' moment. Regardless, Islam and the Qu'ran really do assert that a real, physical angel appeared to Muhammed - not a flash of inspiration characterised as an angel, like a muse of Ancient Greece, but a real angel. There is no evidence for this.

If you don't like that example, there are countless others. Just pick any unsubstantiated myth from any religion.

 

[Huram Abi]

The age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years since the Big Bang (433.6 x 1015 seconds in SI units, or 13.75 Gigayears) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. It is not known if something existed before the singularity that we call Big Bang, nor if time is linear, since the expansion estimated by Hubble's law assumed a linear expansion, and later work indicates there may have been variations.

Emphasis mine. The number '13.5 billion' refers to the length of time the Big Bang has been occurring, the duration since the singularity existed. The singularity could have come into existence at that time, but we don't know. We don't know if there was a pre-existing universe that collapsed into a singularity and then 'bounced' back out (qv. the Big Bounce). We don't know if the singularity existed for trillions and trillions of years, before spontaneously expanding.

The Big Bang is the 'beginning' of the universe in the same way the forge is the beginning of a piece of armour: yes, the armour certainly began to exist when it comes out the forge, but the constituent steel predates the armour. Since we don't know what, if anything, occurred 13.5 billion years ago, it is customary among scientific publications to refer to the Big Bang as the 'moment' the universe came into being - this is incorrect, yet the practice has carried over to lay publications. It's an innocent enough claim that we don't really bother correcting it - except when the claim is itself used to bolster some argument or other (such as the Cosmological argument).

I've tried to explain this many times to Cupid, but he just continues to ignore it.

I guess since he keeps making the claim the best thing to do is to ask him to show the scientific literature that states nothing existed before the big bang.

 

[Phred]

There are actually four Herods in the Bible:

1. Herod the Great
2. Herod [somebody]
3. Herod Antipas I
4. Herod Antipas II

I'm sorry, I was referring to Herod the Great. Although there is evidence for Herod Antipas both 1 and 2 as well.