There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

You have evaded the evidence posted. I posted a link that you have erased without indicating. Everyone knows what this means. You are lying for Darwin under a pretext of being open to said evidence.We know that you have no knowledge in History or Archaeology. You should not be authoring topics of which you have no competence in while only seeking to make pro-Atheism rhetorical points.Ray

So you are saying you agree with the following statement?

quote:

---

There’s more than enough historical evidence backing the Bible’s veracity

---

If so, I'm sure you can produce something of near-infinite more substance than your examples? Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing your examples - they are fascinating. But if you think they are sufficient to raise the Biblical narratives from the level of myth to sound historical document, then I think your evidentiary requirements are rather weak. Perhaps you, like Nem, need to be more acquainted with the technical concept of "myth" rather than the colloquial usage. Really You, like Nem, seem to think that I am approaching this as some atheistic funde. I have been an evangelical Christian for 24 years, and my viewpoint on this subject was initiated 14 years ago studying the relevant journals, publications and books.You don't seem to like the strength of the message, but you do very little to counter it.

No Ray, I just don't possess the book to which you referenced. I was assuming you do possess the book as you feel confident that it is exceptional evidence. Please produce some examples from the book that will make us realise the historical veracity of the Bible. Ray, we can smell your fear from here

BlueJay,
If you read it carefully the other three accounts do not directly contradict that of the Bible and Esar-haddon. The latter two provide a detail which the first three do not. So anyone who is objective would not construe this as a lie. Giving more information is just the opposite of lying. Also, while it may be possible that the person in question has a bias, we don't know that for sure, or have any evidence for it, and we, at this point, have no other expert testimony to the contrary.

CFO, by now you should know that you need to bring the relevant parts of any linked information into your posts.Until you do you haven't supplied the evidence.

CaveDiver,
It is too easy to get personal. I don't agree with Ray's comment about your lack of qualifications. It doesn't matter to me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't agree with yours, but that doesn't matter. I just want to discuss the facts. Perhaps you could point out where you feel the Bible is inaccurate in something it says which conflicts with a secular view of history. All you have done is to complain about a lack of information, which is an entirely negative approach aimed at entirely putting the burden of proof on the opposing side without having to prove anything yourself. So why not prove something, or is all you are going to do is to tell others "prove it" and then discount whatever they say?

Hi, Bambootiger.Try using quote boxes. If you click on the "Peek" button at the bottom of the message, you can see how I make these:

quote:

---

Here is where you put your cited text.

---

or Also, when composing messages, you'll have, on the left margin, a few options, including "dBcodes On," beside which is a "help" link: that'll list all the formatting codes you can use in posting.-----Also, Message 6 and Message 7 appear to be cut-and-pastes (Message #6 even has the footnotes still written in), but there is no source documentation provided.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

MythsMyth from Rakefet Dictionary Note: the Bold part is my won emphasisThe Fact that myths can & have been based on actual ocurrances means that even though the Biblical accounts may me myths there is aat least a sence of truth to many of the stories. I don't deny the existance of David, Solomon, Moses, Abraham etc. I just disagree that the Biblical accounts are totally historical.Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

I think your message deserves consideration and administrative discussion. I have taken a copy of it to the Private Administration Forum for such.NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE.Adminnemooseus

Once again, this is from the Forum Guidelines:

7. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.

In your Message 27 in violation of the Forum Guidelines you provided material not your own without attribution. Twice. You've done this in other messages, too. Continue in this way and you'll be suspended 24 hours, and subsequent Forum Guidelines violations will draw longer suspensions.No replies, please. As I said, this is cut and dried and there's nothing to discuss. Also, members should only raise moderation issues in the Windsor castle thread.-----{Adminnemooseus adds: Admin and I discussed this situation in the "Private Administration Forum" and I examined the evidence he presented. I have found it to be extremely convincing, that you copied/pasted much of your message 17 from online sources, without proper attribution. Please stop doing such.In regards to some of your other comments about others not doing a good and proper job of giving references and/or credit for source materials - I personally agree with you that that is too often the case. I think that anytime a member uses information from an off-line or on-line source, credit/references and/or links should also be supplied. Your example, however, is a rather extreme case of unattributed copy and paste.Of course, like much in life, there can be considerable gray areas. One persons "common knowledge" will be anothers "need a referemce". It's probably possible to "over-reference" a message.Again, please no replies to this message. If you would like to further discuss considerations of proper citing of references etc., you can start a Suggestions and Questions topic on the matter. For that forum, new topics can be started directly without having to go through the "Proposed New Topics" forum.Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add my comments.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi, Bambootiger.Let me preface my remarks by saying that I do not particularly have an opinion, either way, as to whether this particular mentioning in the Bible is historically accurate, at all. My intention with this argument was to show that the evidence still does not provide definitive proof of the historicity of the Bible. Philip Biberfield seems to think they do: I guess, since he found two sources that added the other brother into the mix where the other three sources didn't, you could make the case that the other three simply left out a detail, for whatever reason. And, I think that's the case you're making, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.But, this approach automatically assumes that the extra detail is correct, when the only basis for this is that the extra detail is included in some maniscripts. If Esar-haddon thought that both of his brothers were involved, no doubt his record would reflect this, even if the second brother was not, in fact, involved. And, if his record was the source of the information used by the writer of Second Kings, no doubt Second Kings would also reflect this, even if the information was only learned by hearsay.Granted, the same applies to the three on the opposite side. But, the fact is that, given the information you have provided so far, you cannot make the judgment that one side is correct and the other isn't unless you first attach a historical credibility to one side or the other. Anyone who is objective would also not take it for granted that the extra detail is historically accurate. Lots of historical figures say lots of things that aren't true, often for propaganda or self-glorification or for their own misunderstanding of the actual events.Objectivity demands that we say there are two conflicting accounts, not that one of them is necessarily superior. If I were to say, "And Bambootiger is an actual tiger made out of bamboo," I would be giving more information. However, I would also (most likely) be lying.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

BlueJay,
It's hard to accept that you are impartial, or do not have an opinion either way when your message says "Darwin loves you". Personally I think that the person who would be the one who would be more likely to know the details would be the third brother who was also the the one who was the next King, and this is the account which agrees witht he Bible. Your illustration about additional information is really consistent with what we are talking here. It would be more consistent to say "Bambootiger is a poster on this site, and on Yahoo Answers." That would show that you knew more about what you are talking about, the other statement you made is just something you made up entirely, and that isn't what the quote is talking about; none of the sources made up facts which were not literal true. So you are try to takes this and claim it is a lie? That is illogical.

Hi, Bambootiger. Therefore, everything I say is clearly untrustworthy, right?It's clear to me that you are a Christian who feels that it's your duty to prove that the Bible is true. That's why you agree with Biberfield that the record that agrees with the Bible is truthful, while all the other records are inaccurate.This sort of argumentation is called ad hominem---attack on the character or disposition of your opponent instead of on the evidence he presents. It's considered fallacious reasoning.And, before we get too deeply into this, you should know that I am also a Christian who believes in the Bible. I hope that changes your perspective somewhat about my partiality.Besides, you have to admit that "Darwin loves you" is quite funny in its complete meaninglessness. That example was merely a rebuttal to your claim that "giving more information is the opposite of a lie." Clearly, I can provide a whole lot of information and still be lying (See Battle of Kadesh for an example). Clearly, then, Esar-haddon could be giving a lot of information and still be lying. Actually, he doesn't even have to be lying: he might have had every reason to believe that both of his brothers were involved in the assassination. Maybe it wasn't until later that the truth was learned.But, since Esar-haddon apparently had a quarrel with his brothers for the throne, he definitely had a motive to slander his brothers and turn them into public enemies. That sort of thing certainly happened quite often.Granted, I realize that historians must generally accept eyewitness accounts over later historical records, but there are many reasons why eyewitness accounts could be inaccurate. So, my contention is merely that, in the end, it is still an assumption that Esar-haddon was correct. We may someday find a record written by the second brother the flatly denies his involvement in Sennacherib's assassination: who's account do we then accept as accurate?While it is a good possibility that Esar-haddon was being truthful, it is just as likely, from what I can tell, that the later historians' accounts were a correction of Esar-haddon's account based on information that Esar-haddon did not have or was simply not providing.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Message 40My opinion/verdict on the situation.NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE.Adminnemooseus

---

Bambootiger writes:Hello BBT, I am also a fundamentalist christian that has been debating with secular fundamentalists and humanists for many years. On this website I,Jaywill and numerous others have spent in the past few years thousands of posts defending our positions and that is what this website is all about. I am still thanking the admin people for creating it. Most recently myself, ICANT, Jaywill, have spent 1500 posts in (Eden 1-5) discussing some of the same issues you are now discussing in this thread and I encourage you to not get "discouraged" .Learning how to post things and reference things will come to you as you go along, they were very patient with me in the beginning as well. Even though most of them here are knuclehead evolutionists (by the way keep asking them "where did all the hominan go?), they are willing to help you along with the process.I am sensing some frustration on your part early on here, simply present your arguments as you have been doing and you will do fine. You are correct that abuse and intimidation are a common practice, but overlook it and move forward, pay little or no attention to it.You are dealing for the most part, with secular fundamentalists, that feel as strongly about thier positon as you do yours. You have presented some fine arguments and examples thus far. You need to understand my following point very well though. You should not be surprised that no amount of evidence will convince most of the fellas here, as you said, they are prepared to avoid it at all cost.
The most important thing to remember is that there are always vistors to the website that are viewing what you are writing and you could very well have a positive impact on them in you presentations.It has been my experience here, that after all of the physical evidence has been presented that most of these threads will reduce or produce themselves to philosophical mental discussions and exercises. Ironically, this is where you might have the most success in conjuntion with the hard evidence you present.Evidence, facts, belief, reasons for belief and proof have different meanings for some, than they do for others. Also, what one requires from us, as proof of this or that, is not always what they require for themselves, you will see this disposition as you proceed.Again, you and NEM have presented some fine examples and arguments thus far, but bear in mind that thier disagreements, have really to do with the supernatural and miraculous that are attached with that fine evidence you are presenting. This is I believe the real source of contention and inability to accept it as factual or historical.You can take my words here for what ever they are worth to you but keep up the good work and fine examples.here is a website and viedo that I think will help answer some questions about the bible. rzim.orgOops, something lostD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.