Spam & Scams1 min ago
biblical evidences,
124 Answers
????
Any evidences of biblical stories?
Fact or fable?
Any evidences of biblical stories?
Fact or fable?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kryptic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Despite considerable effort, absolutely zero archaeological evidence has been found for any of the events in the Bible. No trace of the grand cities that were supposed to exist.
Not one mention of Jesus in contemporary literature. Given the extraordinary powers attrubuted it would be surprising that none of the other writers of the day considered it noteworthy.
The Old Testament was nothing more than a collection of ancient myths that reflect the accumulated implausibilities of ignorance and corruption through many generations of being passed on orally.
The Jesus story is a complete hoax written specifically to fulfill the prescriptions of the Old Testament "prophecies".
Not one mention of Jesus in contemporary literature. Given the extraordinary powers attrubuted it would be surprising that none of the other writers of the day considered it noteworthy.
The Old Testament was nothing more than a collection of ancient myths that reflect the accumulated implausibilities of ignorance and corruption through many generations of being passed on orally.
The Jesus story is a complete hoax written specifically to fulfill the prescriptions of the Old Testament "prophecies".
Honestly I think a bit of both. Beso mentions oral tradition. There are stories in Austrailia trailing back at least 12,000 years ago entirely by oral tradition. I don't know how many contemporary writers lived in that neck of the woods but as a backwater I can't imagine many. I doubt that a small cult of a small cult at the edge of the Empire would have attracted much attention anyway. There is no proof one way or the other. At least not yet.
Indeed there are very old oral traditions in Australia. Like the Biblical stories, they have incredulous themes too. People turn into animals, plants and geographical features.
A small cult on the edge of the Empire may not have attracted much attention but a man who could bring the dead back to life surely would have.
A small cult on the edge of the Empire may not have attracted much attention but a man who could bring the dead back to life surely would have.
"The preservation of Aboriginal history through an oral tradition and stories has increasingly been recognised. Aboriginal coastal dwellers in both the south and the north of Western Australia, not only preserve stories about extinct Australian megafauna, but also preserved stories about the rising sea levels and the loss of lands offshore as a result of the sea level rise of the Flandrian transgression, at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_
history_of_Western_Australia
I know wikipedia isn't the end all-be all of information but its the first place I looked and I'm not digging out books.
Magicians and charlatans probably claimed lots of things. If you heard that somebody knew somebody that met someone from Scotland that said his brother's third cousin's uncle had heard that somebody had risen from the dead how much credit would it have?
history_of_Western_Australia
I know wikipedia isn't the end all-be all of information but its the first place I looked and I'm not digging out books.
Magicians and charlatans probably claimed lots of things. If you heard that somebody knew somebody that met someone from Scotland that said his brother's third cousin's uncle had heard that somebody had risen from the dead how much credit would it have?
CowTipper ///If you heard that somebody knew somebody that met someone from Scotland that said his brother's third cousin's uncle had heard that somebody had risen from the dead how much credit would it have?///
About as much credit as is deserved by the equally ridiculous story of Jesus bringing people back to life.
About as much credit as is deserved by the equally ridiculous story of Jesus bringing people back to life.
Would this do for one of them ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/...-environment-11383620 - and yes I did note the use of the word "could" in that report, but eyewitness reports from the usual news sources seem to be a bit thin on the ground.
Ratter15 & beso. you are both entitled to your opinion on this subject but do please bear in mind that it is just your opinion. I am not a churchgoer but I do firmly believe that Jesus Christ WAS the son of God & suffered the terrible things that mankind did to him & overcame death to show us what we achieve at the end of our life when we pass into a spiritual dimension which is called Paradise or Heaven or Nirvana.Ron.
Beliefs are not evidence of fact. Beliefs that have no basis in reality (other than a warm and fuzzy feeling inside) are in fact no more valid than the fable from which they proceed. Facts, not beliefs, are what lend legitimacy to opinion. Beliefs, apart from the evidence of reality to support them, are the hallmark of a mind that has abandoned objectivity in favour of a cherished delusion paid for at the expense certain knowledge of what could and should be.
I wasn't making a point about Jesus and the resurrection. It would be unscientific for me to toss out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to the Bible. Just like the oral tradition down under there are going to be fact and fiction. The great flood has some basis for example. Not of flooding the world but the small world they lived in. I don't remember the details but I've heard theories about the formation of of the smaller seas by flood. Corrupted stories, perhaps, but still it would be foolish to ignore the possibility. The Exodus certainly has some archaeology to back it up. Its not conclusive, no. I'm a creative evolutionist. Some people say we came from monkeys(or shared ancestors with) and some people we were raised from the earth. At one point that monkey came from somewhere, and if you chase it far enough there was nothing but earth, water, and energy. The OP asked about the bible evidences, and while nothing conclusive has been done for, nothing conclusive has been done against. There's a lot of dirt to sift yet before you can conclusively say its all fable.
//There's a lot of dirt to sift yet before you can conclusively say its all fable.//
There's a lot of dirt being thrown into the face of established facts and objectivity in asserting it is essentially anything more than fable. The truth does not expose its secrets to those who seek only to twist the facts to make them conform to ones presumptions while selectively and willfully ignoring any facts that contradict those presumptions. Those who choose to believe in the absurd at the expense of the truth make of themselves enemies of their own objectivity and ability to realise anything worth knowing. Respect for the value of life and the desire to pursue the virtue of reason are both sacrificed on the alter of the refusal to acknowledge that both life and death are absolutes and that reason only serves those who use it invariably in defense of reason for the sake of and to the benefit of those who do.
The Bible, far from being a guide to life and reason, celebrates death as a victory over life and reason. Far from being an innocent fable, the Bible espouses the grimmest of fairy tales, from which believer's throughout the centuries have pronounced a curse on all those who dare defend humanity and reason, decrying, if not burning any book that exposes the inherent evil in believing and promoting its dogma.
The religious are famous for burning any book other than the right one . . . their own.
There's a lot of dirt being thrown into the face of established facts and objectivity in asserting it is essentially anything more than fable. The truth does not expose its secrets to those who seek only to twist the facts to make them conform to ones presumptions while selectively and willfully ignoring any facts that contradict those presumptions. Those who choose to believe in the absurd at the expense of the truth make of themselves enemies of their own objectivity and ability to realise anything worth knowing. Respect for the value of life and the desire to pursue the virtue of reason are both sacrificed on the alter of the refusal to acknowledge that both life and death are absolutes and that reason only serves those who use it invariably in defense of reason for the sake of and to the benefit of those who do.
The Bible, far from being a guide to life and reason, celebrates death as a victory over life and reason. Far from being an innocent fable, the Bible espouses the grimmest of fairy tales, from which believer's throughout the centuries have pronounced a curse on all those who dare defend humanity and reason, decrying, if not burning any book that exposes the inherent evil in believing and promoting its dogma.
The religious are famous for burning any book other than the right one . . . their own.
So point to me the truth in philosophy. Socrates taught Plato but wrote nothing of his own. Do you argue that Plato made up his stories and theories that were "supposedly" Socrates? Did Socrates exist? Should we deny the validity of his arguments based on lack of physical elements?
Hitler was famous for book burning. That doesn't mean that he's Christian. Most often the book burning is political.
Arguments have been made that the Bible is rubbish and has no value. To say that it doesn't have historical value is to devalue the Louvre. Just old eggshells and pigment, fragments of rock, and imaginary things because those have no basis in fact. Did the Mona Lisa represent a real person? We don't know.
If we could separate the mind from the soul would it represent an afterlife? What proof can you offer that death is just death? None. Nor can I prove that there is life after death. Non-believers scoff and eliminate the possibility in the same ways that believers do. There is no difference between the two- only philosophy.
Hitler was famous for book burning. That doesn't mean that he's Christian. Most often the book burning is political.
Arguments have been made that the Bible is rubbish and has no value. To say that it doesn't have historical value is to devalue the Louvre. Just old eggshells and pigment, fragments of rock, and imaginary things because those have no basis in fact. Did the Mona Lisa represent a real person? We don't know.
If we could separate the mind from the soul would it represent an afterlife? What proof can you offer that death is just death? None. Nor can I prove that there is life after death. Non-believers scoff and eliminate the possibility in the same ways that believers do. There is no difference between the two- only philosophy.
Both philosophies yes but a world of difference between them.
The theists insist that their selective reading of stories in a book be used as the basis for the values of our society. They claim that their interpretation of these stories is beyond reproach and should be accepted without question.
Yet any rational analysis of their book shows it as based on what at best could be described as circular logic that exalts the bigotry of its devotees.
Far from being the sound basis of a moral compass, the books teach deeply disgusting, essentially fascist philosophy.
The theists insist that their selective reading of stories in a book be used as the basis for the values of our society. They claim that their interpretation of these stories is beyond reproach and should be accepted without question.
Yet any rational analysis of their book shows it as based on what at best could be described as circular logic that exalts the bigotry of its devotees.
Far from being the sound basis of a moral compass, the books teach deeply disgusting, essentially fascist philosophy.
I think that killing other people is wrong. I think that to worship an idol is stupid. I think its wrong to lie. I think its useless to swear by something other than my word. I think its wrong to have promiscuous sex. I think its wrong to feel blameworthy desire for another man's property or wife. I don't follow these tenants out of fear, or in hope of reward. Heaven and hell don't apply. Philosophically I believe theses things represent the right way to live.
I don't force my beliefs on anyone, but I hope that I could argue that its the best way for man to live in a world of his choosing. There have been times when killing, lying , stealing, rape, and plundering was acceptable. Where the strong ate the weak; where whoever was biggest set the rules.
These tenants were set in the book being disparaged, and so I defend the book.
Sorry about the off-topic post. Its just where it landed.
I don't force my beliefs on anyone, but I hope that I could argue that its the best way for man to live in a world of his choosing. There have been times when killing, lying , stealing, rape, and plundering was acceptable. Where the strong ate the weak; where whoever was biggest set the rules.
These tenants were set in the book being disparaged, and so I defend the book.
Sorry about the off-topic post. Its just where it landed.
Latest Posts
News10 mins ago
Perhaps The Prince Should Sort Them Out.
News12 mins ago
Film, Media & TV14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.