Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for the Biblical Record
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 306 of 348 (585408)
10-08-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ZenMonkey
03-14-2010 12:28 AM


ZenMonkey wrote:
Buz refers to this corroborating evidence a lot. But what exactly is it?
Second, this evidence has to be substantial.
So I'd like some specifics. What factual claims are being made about the Bible for which someone has independent evidence that isn't trivial?
===========
BarackZero:
Books have been written on the subject. Books.
Given that you said you'd "like some specifics," have you ever searched for "some specifics"? If so, please explain how.
What books on the subject have you read, if any?
If you read any such book, did you dismiss 100% of what the author(s) wrote?
I would suggest you read "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell, unless you are afraid of what you might find.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-14-2010 12:28 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 307 of 348 (585410)
10-08-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by cavediver
08-15-2010 4:49 AM


Re: So little evidence for it, so much evidence against it...
Nelson Glueck, the renowned Jewish archaeologist, wrote: It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference. He continued his assertion of the almost incredibly accurate historical memory of the Bible, and particularly so when it is fortified by archaeological fact.
W.F. Albright adds: The excessive scepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth- and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.
He later writes: Archaeological discoveries of the past generation in Egypt, Syria, and Palestine have gone far to establish the uniqueness of early Christianity as an historical phenomenon. - The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell, Page 61
Robert Dick Wilson’s brilliant observations trace the veracity and trustworthiness of Scriptures back to the surrounding cultures of Old Testament Israel:
The Hebrew Scriptures contain the names of 26 or more foreign kings whose names have been found on documents contemporary with the kings. - page 70
Wilson adds that there are about forty of these kings living from 2000 B.C. to 400 B.C. Each appears in chronological order: With respect to the kings of the same country and with respect to the kings of other countries. no stronger evidence for the substantial accuracy of the Old Testament records could possibly be imagined, than this collection of kings. In a footnote he computes the probability of this accuracy occurring by chance. Mathematically, it is one chance in 750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that this accuracy is mere circumstance.
William Green concludes that it may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted. - page 71
For example, it was long believed that the Bible erred when it spoke about Hittites. (Gen. 23:10) But since the discovery of the Hittite library in Turkey (1906) this is no longer the case. - page 94

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by cavediver, posted 08-15-2010 4:49 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Huntard, posted 10-08-2010 8:46 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 323 of 348 (585471)
10-08-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by ringo
10-08-2010 11:23 AM


Ringo: Water turning to blood doesn't seem very plausible.
===================
BarackZero:
The natural fabrication of a hard, solid material, from a gas and a liquid doesn't seem very plausible to me either. But plants do just that every second of every day. They convert carbon dioxide gas and water into wood, which can last thousands of years. I have seen such wood at the British Museum. It was fabricated into coffins for people of high stations in Egypt millenia ago.
The incredible consistency of solar energy to within less than 1% for millions of years doesn't seem very plausible to me, when human operated atomic power cores require extreme care and maintenance, while our sun enables our comfortable lives to continue.
If you could have asked Wolfgang Mozart or Ludwig von Beethoven if their music could be enjoyed seven miles in the sky, traveling at 650 miles per hour, as played by an orchestra one night forty years ago, they would have thought you insane. Such ideas would not have seemed very plausible, to put it mildly.
But you see, we do have things to learn.
Drop one drop of concentrated sodium hydroxide in phenolphthalein solution and you can turn it from clear to pink instantly. It's not magic at all. But even if it were, why is that so implausible for a Creator who can create a universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 11:23 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Huntard, posted 10-08-2010 12:36 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 325 by Granny Magda, posted 10-08-2010 12:46 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 326 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 1:12 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 335 by bluescat48, posted 10-09-2010 11:17 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 344 by Coragyps, posted 10-11-2010 2:05 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 327 of 348 (585540)
10-08-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Granny Magda
10-08-2010 12:46 PM


GrannyMagda:
And your point is? This is a thread for "Evidence for the Biblical Record", not "Evidence That Wood Exists".
BarackZero:
This isn't hard. You're just trying to confuse the point rather than see it.
Your Darwinist friend said thus and such "doesn't seem very plausible."
One person's opinion, or millions of people's opinions may not "seem very plausible." This does not make them either wrong, nor unscientific. Rather than accept this very logical statement, you turn to condescension, asking what my "point is". You know very well.
Granny:
If the Bible accurately said that wood was made from carbon dioxide, I would be impressed. But it doesn't, so I'm not.
BarackZero:
Science, and facts, are not determined by what impresses YOU.
There are countless facts that are well documented in the Holy Bible. That you find some excuse to reject them in toto is not surprising in the least, for you have an atheist ax to grind.
This is unscientific.
Granny with yet more condescension:
Yes. And I have a chip of wood on the shelf next to me as I write this that is over 160 million years old. So what?
Barack: It was made from gas and water. No big deal.
Why don't you take some gas, some water, and go outside and make some wood yourself. Please feel free to use flasks, beakers, and even some common reagents, including of course sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid. Should be no problem for you.
Granny:
And if the Bible correctly predicted that we might enjoy recorded music whilst flying in an aeroplane, I would be impressed. But it doesn't, so I'm not. Y'see how this works?
Barack:
And if you were to acknowledge even one point made, I would be impressed.
See how this works? It's called a "dialogue," or would be called that if you were to participate, instead of being insistently argumentative and condescending.
goodbye

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Granny Magda, posted 10-08-2010 12:46 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Granny Magda, posted 10-08-2010 6:19 PM BarackZero has replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 328 of 348 (585543)
10-08-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by ringo
10-08-2010 1:12 PM


ringo:
Photosynthesis is more than plausible because we know how it works.
///
Barack: So YOUR definition of "plausible" is when "we know how it works." Otherwise it's not "plausible."
Evidently the fusion of hydrogen atoms inside the sun isn't "plausible" to you, because nobody on earth knows now, nor will they ever know why two particular hydrogen atoms fuse today, while innumerable atoms around them do not fuse.
Plausibility is no scientific test. Not remotely so.
Not a few eminent physicists have said in different ways that the universe is not only very, very strange, which is to say, implausible, but moreover that it is implausible in ways which we cannot imagine.
You select out those implausibilities you dislike and reject them for that reason.
Most unscientific of you. Much that has been discovered was implausible before we learned more. I mean except in the present case of all the esteemed Nobel Laureates here of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 1:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by jar, posted 10-08-2010 5:34 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 330 by ringo, posted 10-08-2010 6:04 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 332 by AZPaul3, posted 10-08-2010 6:33 PM BarackZero has replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 333 of 348 (585815)
10-09-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by AZPaul3
10-08-2010 6:33 PM


AZPaul3, I cited portions of the individuals remarks.
You responded in typical leftist fashion, by attacking my ability to read and think.
Ad hominem attacks are the sine qua non of leftists everywhere.
Leftists always, always pretend to be enlightened, intellectual, smart, scientific, and all things moral, good, and brilliant.
Likewise, leftists ascribe the exact opposite of themselves to everyone who does not march in leftist lockstep.
This is the definition of "plausible" at http://www.dictionary.com:
having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot.
Nowhere does the word "proof" appear.
Plausibility is clearly a matter of perspective, a matter of how the subject "appears" to the observer in question.
Over time, or geography, or other dynamics, "plausibility" changes. It is relative. What anyone may THINK is "plausible" is subject to their knowledge and other factors at that time, which of course may change.
That you and so many of your pals here must engage relentlessly in jejune ad hominem attacks speaks volumes about your true scientific and intellectual acumen. It is not a positive message either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by AZPaul3, posted 10-08-2010 6:33 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Panda, posted 10-09-2010 10:05 PM BarackZero has replied
 Message 340 by ringo, posted 10-10-2010 10:39 AM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 343 by AZPaul3, posted 10-11-2010 1:21 PM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 336 of 348 (585860)
10-10-2010 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Granny Magda
10-08-2010 6:19 PM


GrannyMagda:
Hi BZ,
Your Darwinist friend said thus and such "doesn't seem very plausible."
No. Ringo (I presume this is who you're referring to) was referring to water turning to blood, and not as part of a natural process, but in reference to the clearly supernatural events described in Revelation. Comets do not turn water to blood; the fact that plants produce wood does not appear to be immediately relevant to this issue.
If I have missed the connection here, please feel free to point it out.
BarackZero points it out:
1. Context is everything. Context is very often tossed out the door by leftists with an ax to grind. What seems plausible to one individual may not seem plausible to others. Plausibility is clearly relative, not only to the person, but to a particular person's background and training, which of course change dramatically over the years.
2. To the extent that Darwinists trivialize so many things, and take so very much for granted, I thought it would be appropriate to cite an example which any individual on earth, in any culture, could immediately relate to. Everyone everywhere almost without exception knows what wood is, indeed takes wood for granted.
Not so fast. It is amazing stuff, a solid constructed from water and gas. Whereas scientific enlightenment can amaze and delight the better it is understood, Darwinists have the nasty habit of taking precisely the opposite position, trivializing and dismissing the beauties all around us. Carl Sagan said that spectroscopy was something that STILL amazed him. Had an interloper said that here, he would have been dismissed with: "Well, it's all science, so no big deal. WE understand it. YOU do not."
The unfairness of all dialogues within EvC refutes the very theme at the top right of your screen: "Understanding through Discussion".
My remarks have been interpreted as so incredibly ignorant that one of your co-Darwinists has accused me of being a teenager in high school, unworthy of even wiping "Al Gore's ass."
Does that sound like "Understanding" to you?
Did you ever challenge one of your Darwinist friends for their intolerance or hatefulness?
Granny:
No, the lack of any sane suggestion of how a comet might turn water to blood makes Big Al's argument unscientific. If You or Big Al could come up with a sensible explanation of how a "scorching ball" might turn water to blood and how this supports the Biblical record, then we might have something worth debating.
Barack: First, I pointed out the simplicity of subtle chemical changes which might mimic such an observation. I did not promote or defend any contention that a comet did anything. You infer things I neither said nor even implied. This happens all the time. Your side calls it "debate."
Second, do you call the relentless attacks by Darwinists "something worth debating"? Your pal mocking me as a teenager, unworthy of "wiping Al Gore's ass"? Is that your style of "debate"?
It is anything but.
Granny:
As you can see above, I do not reject the Bible as completely untrue. Just mostly untrue. Like your accusations of bad faith.
Barack :
Then you see it as "good faith" as a fellow Darwinist calls me a teenager unworthy of "wiping Al Gore's ass"?
I say again, I do not. It would be one thing if his behavior were rare, and were condemned by most or even a few of you.
That such behavior by Darwinists is almost ubiquitous at any such forum as this, and that such behavior is almost never condemned by the Darwinian masses is disgusting, reprehensible, cowardly, and anti-scientific.
Edited by BarackZero, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Granny Magda, posted 10-08-2010 6:19 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Granny Magda, posted 10-10-2010 2:50 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 342 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-10-2010 4:04 PM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 347 by Nuggin, posted 10-12-2010 5:16 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
BarackZero
Member (Idle past 4854 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 337 of 348 (585861)
10-10-2010 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Panda
10-09-2010 10:05 PM


Panda:
The irony is strong in this one...
Point out where I accused anyone else of being an ignorant teenager, as your fellow leftist accused me.
Point out where I accused anyone else of something so demeaning, so vulgar, as being unworthy of "wiping Al Gore's ass".
"Understanding through Discussion" - yeah, right.
Good one, Panda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Panda, posted 10-09-2010 10:05 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by jar, posted 10-10-2010 9:28 AM BarackZero has not replied
 Message 339 by Panda, posted 10-10-2010 10:11 AM BarackZero has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024