Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2016, 02:25 PM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
Whenever I'm asked by a Christian about the archaeological proof of the Bible I always ask them about the archaeological proof of the Hindu Vedas and how many historians and scholars agree that Lord Krishna actually existed and there is proof of it, he would've lived about 3,000 years before Jesus was even born, does that mean Hinduism is the right religion? Does that mean everything else in the Bhagavad Gita is true, even the magical mystical stuff?

I could go on and on, even the ancient Greeks thought lightening in the sky was proof of Zeus, of course the Vikings thought thunder was proof of Thor's might hammer Mjolner, were they all right?

It's easy to take one aspect of factual history and evidence and skew it to your religious perspective. Yes many events in the bible actually happened but not always exactly how it's presented but many major plot lines never happened, for example:

* There is no proof of a global flood, if it did happen it would've happened about 100-300 years before the great pyramids were built in Egypt, how did an entire civilization show up suddenly after everyone died except one family? They wouldn't have enough time to populate the country plus every other country, it's just not possible.

*There is no evidence that the Egyptians had Israelite slaves and that suddenly many plagues befell them, all the first borns died and there was a mass exodus led by one prophet who traveled through the desert to a promised land.

*There is no genetic proof or otherwise to believe we all descend from one couple and their incestuous kids or from one incestuous family who lived 6,000-10,000 years ago. Even a cursory study of the fossil record clearly shows the emergence of our most closely related genetic ancestors 100,000 years ago.

These are all very important stories in the Bible, any Christian would agree even if we can't prove they didn't happen that doesn't prove they did but anything that can be asserted without direct evidence can also be dismissed without direct evidence As an atheist I am under no obligation to accept any mythical or fairy tale story as fact just because it's someone's sincere belief. Any faith based claim is just a claim, it's on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.

But really for me any historical proof wouldn't matter, it's still in dripping layers of confirmation bias so we still need evidence of magic and spirits and angels. You still expect us to believe in a God who created beings who are by their nature sinful beings but this God will now punish us for not being free of sin (our very nature is to sin and he made us that way) and we have free will so we will sin and the only way to avoid eternal punishment is to wash your soul in the blood of a God man who may or may not have lived, no thanks.

Your God is evil and has no right to punish beings he created a certain way, I'm glad he doesn't exist so yeah by using reason and logic alone I have no choice but to reject this God claim just like all the others and yeah some of them have archaeological proof backing them up, so what? Still doesn't prove magical spirits exist.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SitaSky's post
28-10-2016, 03:13 PM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2016 04:15 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
I posted this at an earlier time about the whole archeological bible question, in regards to the Tower of Babel, it's pretty blatant:

In Genesis chapter 10 it asserts that Nimrod and Asshur built cities, archeology shows that they couldn't have built those cities, in the case of Accad, it was Sargon of Akkad that founded that city. They would have had to live over 4500 years to build these cities.

Genesis 10:10-11:
10 And the beginning of his kingdom(Nimrod) was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city

So let's go over the list of cities:

Babel/Babylon founded in 1894 BC

Erech built/settled around 5000 BC, one myth has Gilgamesh as the founder.

Ninevah settled around 6000 BC and notable prominence in 3000 BC


Accad founded/settled around 2350-2050 BC


Calneh -unknown

Resen -unknown


I left verse 11 in there because it references Asshur, the son of Shem and cousin of Nimrod, he would've obviously been a contemporary of Nimrod and this helps specify dates and timelines based on two contemporaries.

Now let's go through the cities that Asshur founded:

Ninevah founded around 6000 BC

Rehoboth -unknown

Calah - founded in 1263-1234 BC by Shalmaneser I


So here we have date ranges for these cities of 6000 BC -1234 BC, a range of 4766 years!

And of course the Tower of Babel myth asserts that only one language existed before the Tower of Babel, Answers in Genesis, and other apologist sites, give the date of 2200-1900 B.C. for the Tower of Babel.

Simple question, and I can leave it to anyone curious enough to search. Did more than one language exist before 2200 B.C. ?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
28-10-2016, 04:35 PM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
the whole thing is ludicrous from the start.
Let's go dig in the dirt for questions we have the answers for here in this handy dandy key. You are not going to find unbiased results.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2016, 08:52 PM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
I want to clarify before I begin that I am not at all interested in what you believe, and I will not be trying to court you into considering my religion. Judaism is a terrible fit for most people, and we are not interested selling our religion to anyone. Christians would have you to believe that their religion is based in Judaism and they want people to believe that some people are going to heaven, while the rest are going to hell. Ergo, according to Christianity, you need to be one of them to be ‘saved’.

They did not get this from us.

Of course, Christianity bases its entire claim on the presumption that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, but their definition of messiah differs from that of the Jewish definition. In Christianity, one must believe that this guy, Jesus, is god, and that he died on the cross to atone for their sins. If you believe then you are ‘saved’. In Judaism, we believe that G-d is incorporeal and that if you screw up, you must correct the wrongs you’ve committed personally. -We could get into a whole conversation about the difference between intentional sin and unintentional sin’s atonement process, but I’m just trying to deliver the highlights Smile.

The point I’m trying to make is that Judaism had a defined set of parameters that we can clearly see through examining Jewish literature that dates back to the era of Jesus, and well before that. Jews clearly believed a certain thing, and Christians tried to rewrite our history by claiming that we believed something entirely different. Their claims lack merit, and Jesus lacks the necessary credentials to be the Jewish messiah. If he had the appropriate credentials and had accomplished the necessary tasks, then the Jews would have accepted his resume, and he would have been hired for the job

So if Christians are basing their entire faith on an unauthorized copy of the Jewish bible, and the Jews are refuting that claim, then how can we have confidence that the Christians are speaking from a position of authority on anything at all?

I know my post is kind of vague, but as I was writing this, it occurred to me that the evidence that I have to support my claim is (in my humble opinion) so overwhelming that I was having difficulty in choosing where to begin. I was hoping you might give me some direction. Would you like to discuss supposed biblical support for Christian claims, evidence that the New Testament was written by non-Jews for a non-Jewish audience (presumably because they couldn’t sell their story to actual Jews), or would you like to discuss what the parameters are for the Jewish messiah and why Jesus didn’t fulfill them. All of this information factors into the collective decision by the Jewish people, for a 2,000 year span of history, to reject the Christian claim that Jesus was our messiah, and we somehow missed the boat. For 2,000 years, the Christians have tried to convert the Jews and have failed. They’ve been overwhelmingly successful in every other demographic of people (who didn’t write the book), but with the people who wrote the book and hold the key to its proper translation and interpretation (according to texts and traditions thousands of years old), the Christians totally, utterly, and completely failed.

TL/DR: So where would you like to start first? Crash course on what it takes to be the messiah, evidence that the New Testament was written to appeal to Romans and Pagans, but never written to appeal to Jews, or just debunking Christian “proof texts” that claim that the “old testament” points to Jesus?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Aliza's post
29-10-2016, 07:52 AM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
The recent Price/Ehrman debate on the historicity of Jesus isn't public yet but Matt Dillahunty moderated it and did a talk about the experience

https://www.patreon.com/posts/atheist-debates-7094057

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
29-10-2016, 09:00 AM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
(28-10-2016 01:28 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  And since I have volunteered (calmly) to answer the questions you brought: I am still not sure what your claim actually is. What parts of the Bible do you think we should be refuting?
I don't have a claim. I just wanted to know what you(as a group) thought about this particular subject. I don't need a definitive answer as much as a pointer in the right direction.
Which have been provided and also a plethora of literature I will probably have to spend months to look over.
BUT, since I have your attention, if you know of any book/site that does not scoff at the very idea of religion, but understand that it has become a psychological necessity for some and still presents all the facts and some of his(writer's) opinion but no speculation, that would be helpful.Something that systematically brings up every part of the Bible that have been definitively disproven by any form of science.

(28-10-2016 08:52 PM)Aliza Wrote:  TL/DR: So where would you like to start first? Crash course on what it takes to be the messiah, evidence that the New Testament was written to appeal to Romans and Pagans, but never written to appeal to Jews, or just debunking Christian “proof texts” that claim that the “old testament” points to Jesus?
Hmmm, you have told me a lot of things I didn't know... Given the info, I'm sure I can find out the rest(Ty anyways!). What I am interested in knowing is (If you don't mind), why you believe in God at all? I'm sure the literature exists, but as others pointed out there is no proof of miraculous events taking place. Is it more of a way of life thing? Actually, I bet you must have had this conversation before with someone else. A link to that would save you the time and effort Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2016, 09:03 AM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
(29-10-2016 09:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  
(28-10-2016 01:28 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  And since I have volunteered (calmly) to answer the questions you brought: I am still not sure what your claim actually is. What parts of the Bible do you think we should be refuting?
I don't have a claim. I just wanted to know what you(as a group) thought about this particular subject. I don't need a definitive answer as much as a pointer in the right direction.
Which have been provided and also a plethora of literature I will probably have to spend months to look over.
BUT, since I have your attention, if you know of any book/site that does not scoff at the very idea of religion, but understand that it has become a psychological necessity for some and still presents all the facts and some of his(writer's) opinion but no speculation, that would be helpful.Something that systematically brings up every part of the Bible that have been definitively disproven by any form of science.

(28-10-2016 08:52 PM)Aliza Wrote:  TL/DR: So where would you like to start first? Crash course on what it takes to be the messiah, evidence that the New Testament was written to appeal to Romans and Pagans, but never written to appeal to Jews, or just debunking Christian “proof texts” that claim that the “old testament” points to Jesus?
Hmmm, you have told me a lot of things I didn't know... Given the info, I'm sure I can find out the rest(Ty anyways!). What I am interested in knowing is (If you don't mind), why you believe in God at all? I'm sure the literature exists, but as others pointed out there is no proof of miraculous events taking place. Is it more of a way of life thing? Actually, I bet you must have had this conversation before with someone else. A link to that would save you the time and effort Tongue

Bart Ehrmans' The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction and The New Testament: A Historical Introduction are both great books. I read the first one as a Christian. Ehrman has a very easy style and he's not out to get your religion. He just presents facts and scholarly research.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
29-10-2016, 09:18 AM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
I would also add that the Ehrman books take a more historical approach (hence the titles)--but if you are looking for a more scientific approach, a good starter is Bill Nye's Undeniable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2016, 09:39 AM
RE: Arguments against Biblio-archaeological findings
(29-10-2016 09:00 AM)underdogFTW Wrote:  
(28-10-2016 08:52 PM)Aliza Wrote:  TL/DR: So where would you like to start first? Crash course on what it takes to be the messiah, evidence that the New Testament was written to appeal to Romans and Pagans, but never written to appeal to Jews, or just debunking Christian “proof texts” that claim that the “old testament” points to Jesus?
Hmmm, you have told me a lot of things I didn't know... Given the info, I'm sure I can find out the rest(Ty anyways!). What I am interested in knowing is (If you don't mind), why you believe in God at all? I'm sure the literature exists, but as others pointed out there is no proof of miraculous events taking place. Is it more of a way of life thing? Actually, I bet you must have had this conversation before with someone else. A link to that would save you the time and effort Tongue

My reason for being a theist boils down to this: When I review the literature, I come to a different conclusion than the atheists have come to. Theism, as defined by Judaism, makes sense to me, it "adds up", and I like it.

I’d be happy to have a conversation with you specifically about this subject, but if you just want to poke around at some of my older threads, you’re welcome to do that as well. A good starting point would be with a debate I had with a Christian. I think we started off the debate addressing the point that my debate partner, NASB, made in a different thread about Jews converting to Christianity in recent years. His position was that the recent swell of Jews converting to Christianity must be a sign that Christianity is the one true religion. Our conversation went on to cover other topics as well.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ristianity
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: