the newly discovered pool of Siloam

hahahah this should be good for a laugh, I've got to repeat the question Brian asked "how do you get in the army?"You seem to swallow any old piece of tat that pushed in front of you.So how do you know this is Ayyub's tomb then?(and remember "how do you prove it's not" is not evidence - it's the answer of an half-wit - oh and we are still waiting for the evidence that you were going to present that provided Jesus did the things that are claimed in the bible - you seem to have forgotten to present it).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 15-Aug-2005 10:57 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 15-Aug-2005 11:34 AM

I've been to the Hospital and seen Cabbage Patch Dolls born. They really do come from a head of Cabbage and we were fortuunate enough to see my daughter's Cabbage Patch baby born. It was a moving experience. She was called over the loudspeaker, pulled out of the tour line and rushed to the waiting room. She (my daughter) had to wear a special hospital gown and mask when the Nurse brought the baby from the birthing room out into the nursery.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sad really.

quote:

---

Tal, how on God's green earth did you get into the army?

---

Well, the Army has doubled the number of high school dropouts they accept.

Wow, those are really deep replies.So instead of adding to thread you simply insult me.Good point.

---

'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that (solar system model) and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'. -Sir Isaac Newton

Tal - others have pointed this out but come now, you don't seriously think that evidence for a place that is mentioned in the Gospel of John proves its "historical accuracy"? Have you ever heard of historical novels? Maybe we should ask, how do you define "historical accuracy"?edited extraneous wordThis message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-16-2005 01:53 PM

People probably have gotten a little carried away here, Tal. But to be fair, you kind of opened yourself up to a wide open discussion when you implied that this discovery of evidence for a pool was
a) evidence that THIS pool was THE Pool of Siloam mention in John.
b) an indication that John is historically accurate when if true it obviously only confirms one historical location detail in John but doesn't say anything about EVENTS in the gospel story told by John.Also, you opened the discussion with "Comments?" Perhaps you should have given more direction as to what part of this "story" you wanted people to address?edited format of reply for clarity.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-16-2005 02:11 PM

In the case of the bible, I define historical accuracy as the people and places written about in the bible are believed to be true, and archeological finds either confirm or deny what it written about people and places in the bible.For instance, the Book of mormon claims that Indians are decendants of Jews. But in recent DNA tests, Indians have proven to be of Siberean descent (suprise?).No, there is no archeology to prove the flood. Examples of historical accuracy for the bible are things like Pilate being confirmed to be a real person, the high priest Ciaphas being a real person (he was the political leader that lead the charges against Jesus), King David/Solomon being confirmed to be real, the Hittites mentioned in the bible were not thought to exist until recently..etc.Some things are not clear, like some Cannanite cities that are recorded in the bible that have not been found, or the Hebrews in Egypt. But as more is actually found, the more those finds are found to be in line with what his written in the bible.

---

'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that (solar system model) and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'. -Sir Isaac Newton

Hi, Tal.

quote:

---

...King David/Solomon being confirmed to be real....

---

While I don't necessarily disbelieve that these were real people, I wasn't aware that there was any definitive evidence (outside the Old Testament) that either of these two people actually existed.

The only evidence that I am aware of for either is the Tel Dan stele - and even that isn't solid (it's a matter of how the inscription is interpreted).And AFAIK there is no evidence of Jerusalem being capital of a united kingdom of Israel and Judah - the archaeological evidence is that Samaria was a far more important site at the time.

Check out the list of Isreali Kings that have been identified by neighboring counties. It is interesting, but I haven't read any further on it. Search | United Church of GodFrom a skeptics point of view No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bibleinterp.com/commentary/McKensie_020301.htmProfessor McKenzie says that the evidence for David is meager, but it does exist, and he refers to the finds made in 1993.THIS JUST IN...KING DAVIDS PALACE FOUND!!! 5 August 2005. New York TimesOk that is huge. May want to start a thread on that too.This message has been edited by Tal, 08-16-2005 02:57 PM

---

'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that (solar system model) and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'. -Sir Isaac Newton

ROFL talk about timing! I just made a thread on the King David's palace, and I probably posted the last message as you were posting yours.Awesome.

---

'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that (solar system model) and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'. -Sir Isaac Newton

And if you read the article you know that the identification of the building and even the date were uncertain. So it MAY turn out to be significant or it may turn out to have no connection to "David at all.

It might not, but already it is turning up evidence of biblical accuracy. That's getting pretty detailed there. Can't wait to see what else they find.

---

'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that (solar system model) and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'. -Sir Isaac Newton

The pottery only gives the earliest date it could have been constructed: This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-16-2005 03:17 PM