ChatterBank0 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.
chakka,
///Its a fairy story, nothing more! Absolutely no facts whatsoever. /// is an opinion, not a fact.
And as for ///No trace of the grand cities that were supposed to exist./// - I suppose Jericho, Babylon, Jerusalem, Jaffa, Tyre, Sidon, to name a few, along with places like Egypt and Assyria are just figments of the collective imagination of the people who wrote the bible ?
///Its a fairy story, nothing more! Absolutely no facts whatsoever. /// is an opinion, not a fact.
And as for ///No trace of the grand cities that were supposed to exist./// - I suppose Jericho, Babylon, Jerusalem, Jaffa, Tyre, Sidon, to name a few, along with places like Egypt and Assyria are just figments of the collective imagination of the people who wrote the bible ?
Beso //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.// Are you really putting this forward as a fact? Don't you know any archaeology? Most of the "grand cities" have been excavated at one time or another across the geography where the Biblical stories are set. Jerusalem, Jericho, Megiddo, Babylon, Memphis, Bethel, Ashkelon, on and on and on. Of course, none of the archaeology proves that such and such an event happened, any more than excavation at Troy proves all the events of the Iliad took place exactly as Homer wrote. But they provide a context in which the recorded events could have happened, and make the historical likelihood more or less likely, and constantly improve our capacity to interpret the various histories, whether part of Scripture or not.
You may have read recently of the famous "Cyrus cylinder", the clay artefact which bears witness to the Persian King Cyrus and his enlightened policy of repatriation of captured peoples, against which the detail of the return of the Jews from Babylon to Palestine after 583BC looks distinctly plausible, It's only one of 10's of 1000's of objects which help to reconstruct Middle East history. If you are really saying "there's nothing" then you are displaying a breathtaking and possibly wilful ignorance which calls into question your capacity to commentate on the issues raised.
You may have read recently of the famous "Cyrus cylinder", the clay artefact which bears witness to the Persian King Cyrus and his enlightened policy of repatriation of captured peoples, against which the detail of the return of the Jews from Babylon to Palestine after 583BC looks distinctly plausible, It's only one of 10's of 1000's of objects which help to reconstruct Middle East history. If you are really saying "there's nothing" then you are displaying a breathtaking and possibly wilful ignorance which calls into question your capacity to commentate on the issues raised.
In my first post I answered Beso's argument that "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. "
I countered with actual factual events where oral traditions have basis in fact.
Beso put forward the idea that some oral traditions were obvious myths, and I countered that not -all- of them were based on myth.
mibn2cweus put forward "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 realize anything worth knowing."
I asked them to show me the truth in philosophy. Part of my premise was to show that by eliminating the possibility of some truth because of preconceived notion about the bible by their own arguments they were doing the same- by failure to be objective about what truths might be there. That is eliminating the possibility that it has redeeming value.
Beso countered that the philosophy's were diametrically opposed. "Far from being the sound basis of a moral compass, the books teach deeply disgusting, essentially fascist philosophy. "
I countered that the ten commandments are not disgusting and essentially fascist but a sound foundation of the society of man.
Beso counters that (paraphrased) I should shut up or stand up.
I appreciate a sound mind and a valid philosophical argument. Nothing in what I said or what he said seemed to me to be vehement or unkind. Merely two people having a rational discussion. It soon went off topic because of the various points postulated, but really is just laying out a foundation for points we were discussing.
I will now attempt to rationalize genocide, perceived sexual discrimination, and slaughter of animals.
I countered with actual factual events where oral traditions have basis in fact.
Beso put forward the idea that some oral traditions were obvious myths, and I countered that not -all- of them were based on myth.
mibn2cweus put forward "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 realize anything worth knowing."
I asked them to show me the truth in philosophy. Part of my premise was to show that by eliminating the possibility of some truth because of preconceived notion about the bible by their own arguments they were doing the same- by failure to be objective about what truths might be there. That is eliminating the possibility that it has redeeming value.
Beso countered that the philosophy's were diametrically opposed. "Far from being the sound basis of a moral compass, the books teach deeply disgusting, essentially fascist philosophy. "
I countered that the ten commandments are not disgusting and essentially fascist but a sound foundation of the society of man.
Beso counters that (paraphrased) I should shut up or stand up.
I appreciate a sound mind and a valid philosophical argument. Nothing in what I said or what he said seemed to me to be vehement or unkind. Merely two people having a rational discussion. It soon went off topic because of the various points postulated, but really is just laying out a foundation for points we were discussing.
I will now attempt to rationalize genocide, perceived sexual discrimination, and slaughter of animals.
Because these events are from a subjective story I need to be subjective in my arguments.
Imagine yourself the leader of a homeless tribe. Every man, woman, and child has seen evidence of God and his works and there is no doubt that miracles exist. You personally are responsible for every one of them. Your homeland has been divided, your people were enslaved, and you can't stay where you are because there are no resources to support you.
As the leader of your tribe you have been appointed by God to lead them into this land and re-establish your nation. Because you're a person of your word and love your people and God you want to do what's best for the continued survival of your people. God was ready to wipe every one of you off the face of the earth because he had run out of patience. Failure means your nation will dissapear forever.
You're ordered to go forward and kill every man, woman, and child. To take none of their animals (again animals are wealth) because they have been made unclean by Women and men copulated with them.
To kill the men is understandable. They are the strongest defense against your occupation of their territory and will do their best to throw you out, enslave your women, and raise your children in their pagan worship or worse. The Cannonites practice ritual child sacrifice by fire.
But what about the women? The women are insidious. They will infect your people with their wickedness. Your men will take them as wives and be corrupted by them. They will lead your men into temptation and they will be lost.
The children will be a problem. Again, in a single generation they will lead people against you. Better to kill them now before they get strong enough to threaten the tribe. Harsh yes, but from an objective standpoint totally sensible. Pagan children; they have been taught and will teach the corruption taught by their fathers. Many were born by incest or weakened by line breeding. Ob
Imagine yourself the leader of a homeless tribe. Every man, woman, and child has seen evidence of God and his works and there is no doubt that miracles exist. You personally are responsible for every one of them. Your homeland has been divided, your people were enslaved, and you can't stay where you are because there are no resources to support you.
As the leader of your tribe you have been appointed by God to lead them into this land and re-establish your nation. Because you're a person of your word and love your people and God you want to do what's best for the continued survival of your people. God was ready to wipe every one of you off the face of the earth because he had run out of patience. Failure means your nation will dissapear forever.
You're ordered to go forward and kill every man, woman, and child. To take none of their animals (again animals are wealth) because they have been made unclean by Women and men copulated with them.
To kill the men is understandable. They are the strongest defense against your occupation of their territory and will do their best to throw you out, enslave your women, and raise your children in their pagan worship or worse. The Cannonites practice ritual child sacrifice by fire.
But what about the women? The women are insidious. They will infect your people with their wickedness. Your men will take them as wives and be corrupted by them. They will lead your men into temptation and they will be lost.
The children will be a problem. Again, in a single generation they will lead people against you. Better to kill them now before they get strong enough to threaten the tribe. Harsh yes, but from an objective standpoint totally sensible. Pagan children; they have been taught and will teach the corruption taught by their fathers. Many were born by incest or weakened by line breeding. Ob
born by incest or weakened by line breeding. Obedience to the Lord requires this, or your nation will perish.
Sexual discrimination.
This isn't the fault of the message as it is the messenger. Men justify whatever they care to. I just tried to justify genocide. What God said to Eve (I think this is the first point of chauvinists) because most of the other passages point to it.
(Genesis 3:16) - "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.'"
But in the very next passage he cursed man.
To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
So... Punishment for a woman when she has a kid. Punishment to man for life. It doesn't sound like favoritism to me.
As far as innocent slaughter goes here in the US we produced 26.4 billion pounds of beef in 2007. In the UK 882,000 tonnes of beef were produced in 2007. That's a lot of innocent cows.
Sexual discrimination.
This isn't the fault of the message as it is the messenger. Men justify whatever they care to. I just tried to justify genocide. What God said to Eve (I think this is the first point of chauvinists) because most of the other passages point to it.
(Genesis 3:16) - "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.'"
But in the very next passage he cursed man.
To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
So... Punishment for a woman when she has a kid. Punishment to man for life. It doesn't sound like favoritism to me.
As far as innocent slaughter goes here in the US we produced 26.4 billion pounds of beef in 2007. In the UK 882,000 tonnes of beef were produced in 2007. That's a lot of innocent cows.
Yes, in my haste I overstated the lack of evidence of cities mentioned in the Bible. What I should have said is there is no trace of those cites ONLY mentioned in the Bible. The examples given by others are all found in other literature from the time.
The lack of corroboration of so much in the Bible is the central issue of the tread.
The lack of corroboration of so much in the Bible is the central issue of the tread.
CowTipper //Beso counters that (paraphrased) I should shut up or stand up. //
That is well beyond paraphrasing. I simply asked if you backed everything in the Bible. Indeed it is an attempt to misrepresent what I also saw as simply a debate.
I am curious as to what exactly you considered as "unkind". Theists often counter any criticism with accusations of unfairness. None more so than the Jews who attribute all criticism to antisemitism.
That is well beyond paraphrasing. I simply asked if you backed everything in the Bible. Indeed it is an attempt to misrepresent what I also saw as simply a debate.
I am curious as to what exactly you considered as "unkind". Theists often counter any criticism with accusations of unfairness. None more so than the Jews who attribute all criticism to antisemitism.
CowTipper typically follows the pattern of circular reference evident in all defense of the Bible. Hitler used exactly the same technique to justify the Holocaust. The same thing happened in Rwanda.
Vilify the intended victims, portray them as a threat and incite a murderous riot with fervent and impassioned words. Fact is the victors always write the history hence the victims were portrayed in the worst possible light. Bestiality, incest, child sacrifice and debauchery.
According to the Hebrew's own book, the wrongs against them were committed by the Egyptians. God was quite capable of killing them however He wished yet He directed the Hebrews to walk for forty years in the desert (covering what should have taken a few weeks at most) and then telling them to massacre those they found.
Why did God not simply kill their tormentors in Egypt and give them that land? Moreover why did God not kill the victims of the Hebrew genocide Himself as He was demonstrably capable of doing? Was there some reason to subject the Hebrews to what any sane person would find extremely disturbing.
Simple answer. There was no God. The Hebrews wanted the land and were willing to kill for it. They also took the gold and silver, put in a box which they proceeded to worship. The only difference between Hitler and the Hebrews is that the Hebrews finished the job, leaving nobody to tall the tale.
Vilify the intended victims, portray them as a threat and incite a murderous riot with fervent and impassioned words. Fact is the victors always write the history hence the victims were portrayed in the worst possible light. Bestiality, incest, child sacrifice and debauchery.
According to the Hebrew's own book, the wrongs against them were committed by the Egyptians. God was quite capable of killing them however He wished yet He directed the Hebrews to walk for forty years in the desert (covering what should have taken a few weeks at most) and then telling them to massacre those they found.
Why did God not simply kill their tormentors in Egypt and give them that land? Moreover why did God not kill the victims of the Hebrew genocide Himself as He was demonstrably capable of doing? Was there some reason to subject the Hebrews to what any sane person would find extremely disturbing.
Simple answer. There was no God. The Hebrews wanted the land and were willing to kill for it. They also took the gold and silver, put in a box which they proceeded to worship. The only difference between Hitler and the Hebrews is that the Hebrews finished the job, leaving nobody to tall the tale.
Good point Zabadak. Aside from one family spared for betraying their city, the Hebrews enslaved those they didn't massacre. Bible supports enslavement too.
An interesting story in itself. These people pretended to come from far away and negotiated a truce with the Hebrews. How disgusting. They wanted peace!
The Hebrews enslaved them as punishment for their dishonesty.
If someone cares to explain how this is great advice for us on how to live a decent life then please do go ahead.
An interesting story in itself. These people pretended to come from far away and negotiated a truce with the Hebrews. How disgusting. They wanted peace!
The Hebrews enslaved them as punishment for their dishonesty.
If someone cares to explain how this is great advice for us on how to live a decent life then please do go ahead.
the biblical stories *are* evidence; presumably you mean corroborating evidence. There is some - I don't know why beso thinks there is no evidence of biblical cities' existence; of course there is.
If you mean of Jesus's life, no, there's no evidence dating from his lifetime. I wouldn't expect there to be; there's not actually much written evidence of anything or anyone specific except big government in those days, and archaeological evidence is pretty random - you wouldn't expect it to prove the existence of any named individual much lower down the food chain than an emperor.
But absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; you can't prove Jesus didn't exist any more than you can prove he did. Personally, I think he did; you'd have to be quite a conspiracy theorist to believe people got together to invent a prophet, when there seem to have been any number of real ones to choose from... but some people will believe anything, of course.
Many of the biblical stories are indeed fables - stories told to point a moral. That also doesn't mean they didn't happen. I'm inclined to discount the story of creation altogether; but with Noah's flood, for instance, there seems good evidence that it did happen - just not the way the Bible tells it.
If you mean of Jesus's life, no, there's no evidence dating from his lifetime. I wouldn't expect there to be; there's not actually much written evidence of anything or anyone specific except big government in those days, and archaeological evidence is pretty random - you wouldn't expect it to prove the existence of any named individual much lower down the food chain than an emperor.
But absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; you can't prove Jesus didn't exist any more than you can prove he did. Personally, I think he did; you'd have to be quite a conspiracy theorist to believe people got together to invent a prophet, when there seem to have been any number of real ones to choose from... but some people will believe anything, of course.
Many of the biblical stories are indeed fables - stories told to point a moral. That also doesn't mean they didn't happen. I'm inclined to discount the story of creation altogether; but with Noah's flood, for instance, there seems good evidence that it did happen - just not the way the Bible tells it.
Sacrifice of animals.
The Bible decrees that the animal to be sacrificed is to be burnt to a crisp and nothing allowed to be eaten by anyone. An utterly pointless death. How does this help atone for the sins of its owner?
When I eat of an animal I am conscious of the fact that this animal died for my nutrition. There is a world of difference between this and a stupid sacrifice to a mythical God.
The Bible decrees that the animal to be sacrificed is to be burnt to a crisp and nothing allowed to be eaten by anyone. An utterly pointless death. How does this help atone for the sins of its owner?
When I eat of an animal I am conscious of the fact that this animal died for my nutrition. There is a world of difference between this and a stupid sacrifice to a mythical God.
jno
"but with Noah's flood, for instance, there seems good evidence that it did happen - just not the way the Bible tells it. "
Well you cant really go wrong there jno can you since there have always been floods. Unless you also believe that a big boat stuffed full of animals existed as well and then it becomes ludicrous.
"but with Noah's flood, for instance, there seems good evidence that it did happen - just not the way the Bible tells it. "
Well you cant really go wrong there jno can you since there have always been floods. Unless you also believe that a big boat stuffed full of animals existed as well and then it becomes ludicrous.
The conspiracy to invent a prophet would be easier than any time since because writing was so rare. Those creating the hoax had much to gain by supposedly fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament.
However the archaeological evidence suggest the books that became the New Testament dated from at least eighty years after the purported birth of Christ. Just a convenient time such that living memory of times would have been extremely rare.
Yes there have been others described as prophets but none who could return life to the dead. Common sense and medical knowledge tells us that this is a fiction.
However the archaeological evidence suggest the books that became the New Testament dated from at least eighty years after the purported birth of Christ. Just a convenient time such that living memory of times would have been extremely rare.
Yes there have been others described as prophets but none who could return life to the dead. Common sense and medical knowledge tells us that this is a fiction.
Indeed Kryptic.
Engineering tells us that it would be impossible to build a wooden boat of such dimensions. And with just one window two feet square everything on board would have died of asphyxiation.
Genetic science tells us that the reduction to just two individuals would be evident in the genetic variability of the species today.
The Ark story is lies upon lies to explain how anything survive an impossible flood.
Engineering tells us that it would be impossible to build a wooden boat of such dimensions. And with just one window two feet square everything on board would have died of asphyxiation.
Genetic science tells us that the reduction to just two individuals would be evident in the genetic variability of the species today.
The Ark story is lies upon lies to explain how anything survive an impossible flood.
Beso: you are being extremely selective in what looks like a desperate attempt to prove your point that Hebrew theology is all about genocide and revolting ritual. There is plenty of evidence of (for example) the Hebrews living a reasonably peaceful co-existence with their neighbours, or just about holding their own against civilisations that were superior. It wasn't all eradication. Hebrew theology also showed encouraging signs of moving away from animal sacrifice, with prophets such as Micah.
The Bible (Old Testament in particular) is not by any means a homogeneous whole, but itself, perhaps remarkably given the history of its development, contains theological, social and philosophical development in all sorts of directions. That's why you (and I, and most everyone else in this discussion) have no difficulty in picking bits and pieces to suit our purpose.
The Bible (Old Testament in particular) is not by any means a homogeneous whole, but itself, perhaps remarkably given the history of its development, contains theological, social and philosophical development in all sorts of directions. That's why you (and I, and most everyone else in this discussion) have no difficulty in picking bits and pieces to suit our purpose.
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.