Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Silver

The bible

Do you find any of it believable?

Did the OT prophets exist?
Did a human Jesus exist?
Is the history broadly correct, though the miracles not?
Lexilogio

Yes.

Is the simple answer.

I have no reason to doubt that the OT prophets existed, that Jesus existed, and that the history is broadly correct.
northernstar

Just out of curiosity, what makes you so sure these stories are true?
Shaker

Quote:
Do you find any of it believable?

The cover.

It's all downhill from there.  
Lexilogio

steve455 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what makes you so sure these stories are true?


Ok.

It depends on the story.
Noah? Because there is a tale of a flood in other literature of the period.
The later OT prophets?
Because there is no good reason not to. I don't doubt the existence of Plato, Socrates, or Heraclitus, so why should I doubt the existence of Isiah, or Hosea?
Shaker

Quote:
Because there is no good reason not to.

Silver

Lexilogio wrote:
steve455 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what makes you so sure these stories are true?


Ok.

It depends on the story.
Noah? Because there is a tale of a flood in other literature of the period.
The later OT prophets?
Because there is no good reason not to. I don't doubt the existence of Plato, Socrates, or Heraclitus, so why should I doubt the existence of Isiah, or Hosea?


While there are flood legends in a number of lands, they are local floods and up to thousands of years apart. Some areas have not been flooded in maybe millions of years.

No evidence for the OT prophets other than David and Solomon and they were just small timers.

No good reason? How about archaeology?

There is a slight difference between Plato who did just normal stuff and Moses who did miracles. Miracles need proof, which is lacking.
Lexilogio

Archaeology.

These things happened thousands of years ago - archaeology cannot answer every question. The evidence gets destroyed.

Much knowledge of early history is conjecture and best guess on what little evidence we do have. The Bible has to be taken as another source of evidence along with everything else. You can't just ignore it because it's part of a religion.

Take, for example, a work of fiction - the Iliad.
It is fiction, yet some of it is evidence of a world around in both the bronze and iron ages (mixed, which suggest that it is an amalgamation). The Odyssey follows on from the Iliad, and is fiction. It describes the party visiting a palace, home to Nestor. This palace was found in the 19th century - and the inside is exactly as was described in this work of fiction.

Everything we have is evidence - including the Bible.
The Littlest Homo

Lexilogio wrote:

Everything we have is evidence - including the Bible.


You start to make sense then say something like this! There is no evidence of anything in the bible being historically accurate. Why would you think this?
Lexilogio

I didn't say it was historically accurate. I said it was evidence.

For example, a cave talked of in Maccabees has been found and identified, with the nearby town of the same name.
The Bible is a series of clues.

If I were an archaeolgist, I would consider using the Bible as a piece (amongst others) of evidence to build up a picture of where to look for something of that period.
Dove

Re: The bible

Silver wrote:
Do you find any of it believable?


Yes Lynne, I do.
Lexilogio

Re: The bible

The man with many names wrote:
Silver wrote:
Do you find any of it believable?


Yes Lynne, I do.


No. I checked.
Silver

Lexilogio wrote:
If I were an archaeolgist, I would consider using the Bible as a piece (amongst others) of evidence to build up a picture of where to look for something of that period.


Archaeologists have done just that and found the OT untrue. Try Finkelstein and Silberman's The Bible Unearthed
Shaker

Silver, you beat me to it. I was just thinking of that very book myself.
Lexilogio

I repeat, its a source of evidence, amongst others.
Just as if I was looking into early Greek history, in the linear B time, I would consider any Greek literature which referenced an oral tradition.

I dont' subscribe to the literal idea that the Bible was written at the time things happened. Moses may have written some things, but it wouldn't have survived unaltered and untouched. Plus it was a bit hard for him to describe his own death after the fact.
The Bible, to an archaeologist, would be clues.

For example - Noah's flood, otherwise known on NGLR as Bernie's Favourite Topic. The Bible is not the only document to reference a flood. Geologists have found evidence of a flood (not global - I'm thinking of the Black Sea). Archaeologists have been there - with the hope of finding an ark (somehow I think the chances of finding a boat from that far back unlikely - the geology suggests around 5600BC), but what they did find was evidence of a village under the depths of the sea. So this shows how the Bible was a clue. Something had happened, there would have been villages etc.. and human habitation.

Archaeology does not find evidence of every thing which existed - we are lucky to have found some of the "prehistory" things we have. Entire palaces referenced in early documents remain unfound - or possibly unexisting. St Columbus was documented as visiting a palace by Inverness. It's never been found. Entire civilisations referenced by ancient documents have eluded archaeolgists (eg the Sea Peoples - mentioned in Egyptian temples, The Odyssey, and other Greek texts - and they weren't talking about Atlantis in these either).
Farmer Geddon

Re: The bible

Lexilogio wrote:
The man with many names wrote:
Silver wrote:
Do you find any of it believable?


Yes Lynne, I do.


No. I checked.


Ohhh who is this "Man with many names" then?
Farmer Geddon

This is what I think about the Biblical Deluge:

The 'Deluge' and the parallel stories from different cultures in different parts of the world does not mean that this deluge actually occurred.

The stories of massive flood started to take shape when man began to recognise fossilised sea creatures far inland from the seas and even in the mountain passes.

We now know why they are there, but to ancient man it must have been a great puzzle...

Why are we finding shellfish and starfish and stonefish so far from the water?
There must have been a great flood that covered the land, even the mountains..

What must have caused that?  
Our mighty god...

Why would it do that?  
Because he didn't like what he saw so decided to destroy his creation....

Why are we still here then?  
It save the most devout followers and through them repopulated our world - Be fearful, if we do not respect our god, it may do it again..

…and so on and so forth (Don't forget that ancient mans world was only as big he could walk..)

That is more likely to be the cause of the World-wide "Deluge" stories, not just some myths based on locised flood events.
Silver

There were many local flood legends, hundreds even thousands of years apart. Each of these people who spent their life living and dying in tiny areas must have felt everywhere was being flooded, as in the whole world.

The Noah story is accepted by biblical scholars as being based on the older Gilgamesh Saga.
Lexilogio

Silver wrote:
There were many local flood legends, hundreds even thousands of years apart. Each of these people who spent their life living and dying in tiny areas must have felt everywhere was being flooded, as in the whole world.

The Noah story is accepted by biblical scholars as being based on the older Gilgamesh Saga.


Now here we agree.

When the Black Sea flooded, it must have appeared to those there that the entire world was being flooded.
david_geoffrey

Lou Smorels wrote:
There is no evidence of anything in the bible being historically accurate.
As I have challenged before, how about the Sennacherib campaign against Judah?
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
Lou Smorels wrote:
There is no evidence of anything in the bible being historically accurate.
As I have challenged before, how about the Sennacherib campaign against Judah?


You have used one example in the past. Whether its historically accurate or not, I don't know. What about the rest of the bible? Any evidence for that?
david_geoffrey

Lou Smorels wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
Lou Smorels wrote:
There is no evidence of anything in the bible being historically accurate.
As I have challenged before, how about the Sennacherib campaign against Judah?


You have used one example in the past. Whether its historically accurate or not, I don't know. What about the rest of the bible? Any evidence for that?
It's quite a simple point really, you say that there is no evidence for anything in the bible being historically accurate, but there is evidence from Ninevah that corroborates Isaiah and Chronicles. So your statement is inaccurate
The Littlest Homo

david_geoffrey wrote:
It's quite a simple point really, you say that there is no evidence for anything in the bible being historically accurate, but there is evidence from Ninevah that corroborates Isaiah and Chronicles. So your statement is inaccurate


Okey doke, then. I admit my original statement was inaccurate.

"There is little evidence of anything being historically accurate"

Is that better?
david_geoffrey

Lou Smorels wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
It's quite a simple point really, you say that there is no evidence for anything in the bible being historically accurate, but there is evidence from Ninevah that corroborates Isaiah and Chronicles. So your statement is inaccurate


Okey doke, then. I admit my original statement was inaccurate.

"There is little evidence of anything being historically accurate"

Is that better?
I would say that there is evidence for some of it being historically accurate. But now we are discussing the extent to which the bible is backed up by archeological evidence which is much more civilized
Silver

david_geoffrey wrote:
You have used one example in the past. Whether its historically accurate or not, I don't know. What about the rest of the bible? Any evidence for that?
Quote:
It's quite a simple point really, you say that there is no evidence for anything in the bible being historically accurate, but there is evidence from Ninevah that corroborates Isaiah and Chronicles. So your statement is inaccurate


Pages 290, 291 of The Bible Unearthed say that the bible account was wrong.
Silver

The bible does have some real places, real people and real events but often distorts them completely so they bare little resemblance to what really happened.
david_geoffrey

Silver wrote:
david_geoffrey wrote:
You have used one example in the past. Whether its historically accurate or not, I don't know. What about the rest of the bible? Any evidence for that?
Quote:
It's quite a simple point really, you say that there is no evidence for anything in the bible being historically accurate, but there is evidence from Ninevah that corroborates Isaiah and Chronicles. So your statement is inaccurate


Pages 290, 291 of The Bible Unearthed say that the bible account was wrong.
I don't have the book to hand, so in what respects does the book say the account in the bible is wrong and on what evidence?
Silver

Unfortunately I can't cut and paste this and typing up a few pages is out too. It tells us that the biblical account of Josiah's death in battle was probably a fiction. Possibly he was summoned by Necho who decided to execute him.
chadivarus

Quote:
It tells us that the biblical account of Josiah's death in battle was probably a fiction.


Probably???????????????????

Obama is probably going to win the election.

G Brown is probably going to survive till the election.

Certainity is not always the same.
Guest

The truth is Silver you only know what others have told you and what you have read from books. You have no evidence and no proof. It is in all essence what you chose to believe.
Isn't that the same everywhere today?

Love is... Smilie_PDT
The Littlest Homo

Love is... wrote:
You have no evidence and no proof. It is in all essence what you chose to believe.


The same can be said, more aptly, for believers of any of the cults!
Silver

Love is... wrote:
The truth is Silver you only know what others have told you and what you have read from books. You have no evidence and no proof. It is in all essence what you chose to believe.
Isn't that the same everywhere today?

Love is... Smilie_PDT


Shame on me for reading books when I could be having delusions instead. Doh!

Evidence? The real world in so many ways says god does not exist. The bible is nonsense from the first page to the last so not evidence. Not remotely accurate, full of contradictions, mistakes and impossibilities. Aesop's Fables is more believable.

As to love, god would need a dictionary to find out what the word means.
Silver

omshafoo wrote:
Quote:
It tells us that the biblical account of Josiah's death in battle was probably a fiction.


Probably???????????????????

Obama is probably going to win the election.

G Brown is probably going to survive till the election.

Certainity is not always the same.



Probably as you have shown is based on evidence and educated guesses. We cannot know what happened to King Josiah with absolute certainty but archaeologists can make educated guesses, based on what they know, and they believe he was murdered.


If anyone here has the slightest interest in bible history, how accurate it really is, The Bible Unearthed is a brilliant book and costs very little.
david_geoffrey

From a brief trawl through the internet it seems that Finkleman's findings are not universally agreed upon, his educated guesses are different to other scholars educated guesses - but guess what they are both guesses!

Its not their fault - we are talking about things that happened 2000-4000 years ago amongst a generally nomadic set of people and unless you speculate about what happened then there is little point in doing the digging in the first place.

I'm not a total bible literalist by the way...
Farmer Geddon

Talmudic/Torah Scholars cannot agree on their subject. They just make guesses

Christian Scholars cannot agree on their subject. They just make guesses

The best we can do is absorb the information available and come to a conclusion that we are comfortable with...
david_geoffrey

Lucifers Duck wrote:
Talmudic/Torah Scholars cannot agree on their subject. They just make guesses

Christian Scholars cannot agree on their subject. They just make guesses
Depends on the subject but I would say informed guesses based on their worldview and interpretation.

Quote:
The best we can do is absorb the information available and come to a conclusion that we are comfortable with...
Well I would agree with that
SusanDoris

The Bible a Biography by Karen Armstrong is good. I have the audio version and listened straight through earlier this year. I intend to listen again more slowly and try to take more in.
Lexilogio

SusanDoris wrote:
The Bible a Biography by Karen Armstrong is good. I have the audio version and listened straight through earlier this year. I intend to listen again more slowly and try to take more in.


I agree. I read the book this year. It's quite fascinating. Some of her assertions about the development of the Torah were interesting, and would be very threatening to literalists.
Silver

david_geoffrey wrote:
From a brief trawl through the internet it seems that Finkleman's findings are not universally agreed upon, his educated guesses are different to other scholars educated guesses - but guess what they are both guesses!


Finklestein and Silberman tell you what the evidence is and then give their conclusions on it.

It is difficult to pin down exactly what happened from around 1300 BC to 600 BC as there is little evidence, though lack of evidence can be just as good at times but I think they have done a good job on it. Of course, there will always be people who disagree but their evidence, if any, should be judged and is not automatically right. Some are paid by Jewish and christian universities and groups for their work and there is always a suspicion that they are not being as neutral as they should be.

As to internet sites, there are apologist sites who will automatically say any book that contradicts the bible is wrong, and give laughable reasons for it that are wrong to anyone who has read the book
Silver

SusanDoris wrote:
The Bible a Biography by Karen Armstrong is good. I have the audio version and listened straight through earlier this year. I intend to listen again more slowly and try to take more in.


Can you tell me something about the book?
SusanDoris

Silver wrote:
Can you tell me something about the book?

It examines the original sources of the book, tracing the many changes and translations, inclusions and omissions which have occurred and which are historical and on record. The chapters deal with separate aspects, but I cannot remember more details because it is crammed full of facts.
Lexilogio

SusanDoris wrote:
Silver wrote:
Can you tell me something about the book?

It examines the original sources of the book, tracing the many changes and translations, inclusions and omissions which have occurred and which are historical and on record. The chapters deal with separate aspects, but I cannot remember more details because it is crammed full of facts.


I thought the chapters dealing with the changes in interpretation of the scriptures post Jesus were fascinating. There was a real move both in Judaism as well as in the Early Christian church to reinterpret earlier passages.
Farmer Geddon

For different purposes...
Powwow

Hi Jim,
Well I don't know. I do know that all the words I recite on occasion are found in Matt. 6 KJV
Jim

Eh?
Pow Wow;
I haven't posted on this thread.
What are you on about?
Powwow

Jim, I wasn't paying attention and obviously posted on the wrong thread. This was for the Lord's Prayer thingy. Sorry

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum