Bible's Buried Secrets

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm telling you that at its base is a false premise: That the scriptures are in error. It goes foreward from that assumption to find reasonable hypothesis why it is error. The Bible starts off as guilty.

If you took a look at their various historical theories closely you would find very little merit in them. At best they could have happened that way. The reason why conjecture is so readily accepted is because it fits with their false premise.

Tell me how trying to discover the historical authenticity of the existence of David and his empire, or anything else, as recorded in the bible, is assuming the scriptures are in error to begin with. Make no mistake (or willful mistake), it isn't "the bible is wrong on this subject, therefore let's show where it is wrong," it's "let's see if the bible is right or wrong on this subject." It's not until determining this that a premise is formed and a hypothesis follows. Just because the bible is incorrect more often than not is no fault of the scholars who study it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

So is that to just to be all overlooked.

Well if you think any scholar looking at history would overlook your obvious contrary evidence, well you're basically begging the question.

But if you really want to know, email her and ask her and let us know what you find out.

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Like i said before. Photon it would appear you and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum on the discussion of the Bible's exsistance and Gods exsistance. I can respect that.

It's kind of difficult to dispute the Bible's existence, seeing as there's whole lines of scholarship dedicated to it. I never claimed the Bible didn't exist and neither is she.

And I don't think anything in this thread has had anything to do with God's existence, as I've already said just because one of the many authors and editors of the Bible's books got something wrong historically doesn't say anything about God's existence.

I have no idea what spectrum you are talking about (unless you are talking about not accepting something without supporting evidence vs believing something for no reason), and I don't know if I respect your position or if I should take it seriously or not since you really haven't answered anything or supported your position.

[afc wimbledon]

If I was a commited christian, as opposed to the back sliding anglican that I am, the last thing I would want to believe is that the bible is the word of God as if it was then God would be a racist mysoganistic arsehole with definite pedophile tendancies.

My God is a loving forgiving God, not the unpleasent indecisive vindictive ####### the bible portrays.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Which bible, out of the effing hundreds that have been writen, would be the one that is the word of god?

I only ask so I know which one to reference when making important moral decisions like whether I should keep a slave or stone my ex wife to death.

If you are talking english translation I would suggest the King James version.

Here is a little non-biblical evidence for the historical King David:

Jerusalem appears in several ancient documents, apart from the Bible. The earliest known reference dates to 1900 bce in the so-called "Execration Texts." The names of the enemies of the Egyptian ruler were inscribed on pottery, which was then smashed in the hope of bringing destruction upon them. Jerusalem at that time was apparently an enemy of Egypt, as indicated by letters written on clay tablets found in the ruins of Amarna, the palace of the reforming Pharaoh Akhnetan. In one of them, dating to the 14th century bce, Abdu-Heba, the king of Jerusalem, writes pledging his loyalty to the Egyptian ruler.

Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century bce, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period. Another piece of significant evidence comes from Dr. Avi Ofer's archaeological survey conducted in the hills of Judea during the last decade, which shows that in the 11th-10th centuries bce, the population of Judah almost doubled compared to the preceding period. The so-called Rank Size Index (RSI), a method of analyzing the size and positioning of settlements to evaluate to what extent they were a self-contained group, indicates that during this period - David's supposed period - a strong centre of population existed at the edge of the region. Jerusalem is the most likely candidate for this centre.

It should also be said that David is mentioned in several books in the Old Testament. Early in his grandsons reign the kingdom divided in two with a northern and southern kingdom. The southern kingdom followed the house of David. Up to and including Jesus' time the kings of Israel could trace their lineage back to David. Much the same as American kids learn the names of all the Presidents in order.

Many Kings of Israel are mentioned outside of the Bible. Naturally the further you go back the less evidence there is.

[photon]

Unless you wrote that yourself, copy/pasting something without referencing a source would be violating copyright, please post a source.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Tell me how trying to discover the historical authenticity of the existence of David and his empire, or anything else, as recorded in the bible, is assuming the scriptures are in error to begin with. Make no mistake (or willful mistake), it isn't "the bible is wrong on this subject, therefore let's show where it is wrong," it's "let's see if the bible is right or wrong on this subject." It's not until determining this that a premise is formed and a hypothesis follows. Just because the bible is incorrect more often than not is no fault of the scholars who study it.

Because something hasn't been found doesn't prove it doesn't exist. Your dealing with three thousand years of time, invading armies that attempted to destroy what they couldn't steal, and very little access to some historical sites. The city of David(Bethlehem) is located in the West Bank. The Temple mount in Jerusalem is occupied by a Mosque today.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Unless you wrote that yourself, copy/pasting something without referencing a source would be violating copyright, please post a source.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive...0and%20Reality

[Vulcan]

I know this is a serious thread but here's an example of atheists and believers in the rapture uniting for a common purpose.

You've committed your life to Jesus. You know you're saved. But when the Rapture comes what's to become of your loving pets who are left behind? Eternal Earth-Bound Pets takes that burden off your mind.

http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If you are talking english translation I would suggest the King James version.

Here is a little non-biblical evidence for the historical King David:

Jerusalem appears in several ancient documents, apart from the Bible. The earliest known reference dates to 1900 bce in the so-called "Execration Texts." The names of the enemies of the Egyptian ruler were inscribed on pottery, which was then smashed in the hope of bringing destruction upon them. Jerusalem at that time was apparently an enemy of Egypt, as indicated by letters written on clay tablets found in the ruins of Amarna, the palace of the reforming Pharaoh Akhnetan. In one of them, dating to the 14th century bce, Abdu-Heba, the king of Jerusalem, writes pledging his loyalty to the Egyptian ruler.

Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century bce, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period. Another piece of significant evidence comes from Dr. Avi Ofer's archaeological survey conducted in the hills of Judea during the last decade, which shows that in the 11th-10th centuries bce, the population of Judah almost doubled compared to the preceding period. The so-called Rank Size Index (RSI), a method of analyzing the size and positioning of settlements to evaluate to what extent they were a self-contained group, indicates that during this period - David's supposed period - a strong centre of population existed at the edge of the region. Jerusalem is the most likely candidate for this centre.

It should also be said that David is mentioned in several books in the Old Testament. Early in his grandsons reign the kingdom divided in two with a northern and southern kingdom. The southern kingdom followed the house of David. Up to and including Jesus' time the kings of Israel could trace their lineage back to David. Much the same as American kids learn the names of all the Presidents in order.

Many Kings of Israel are mentioned outside of the Bible. Naturally the further you go back the less evidence there is.

I love the King James, but it would seem particularly unlikely that God's prefered choice of language was english or would choose a gay king to talk through.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

As the woman said, there is very slim, if any, actual evidence for the existence of David and his empire. Lots of conjecture and legend, though. That doesn't mean David didn't exist, or that he didn't have an "empire" (though it was probably puny, if he did), but that it should be thought of with a healthy heaping of skepticism.

This is not what she's saying at all, the existence of David is a pretty well established idea in archeology, but more so the depth of his rule. She's arguing along side with many religious scholars that David's empire was at most a chiefdom which was later scribed to sound more impressive as the Jews were needing all the help they could get being inspired after the destruction of their temple mount and the exile from Jerusalem.

I think what's happened more recently in the last 10-30 years in archeology is that more and more it looks as if a lot of exaggeration is done in order to give the Jewish people a greater divine background and examples of that is surely the exodus from Egypt which is now pretty well considered a tale to inspire the people of the age, and was likely tied to a small group fleeing Egypt and settling in the hills of Canaanite country to tell stories of their great exodus, their one true God Yahweh who they encountered in yahoo and attributed for their salvation.

TC could hopefully give us his insight, I'm way to early on in my readings to give any trustworthy accounts, just what I've read/seen briefly in my last month of delving seriously into biblical history

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Because something hasn't been found doesn't prove it doesn't exist. Your dealing with three thousand years of time, invading armies that attempted to destroy what they couldn't steal, and very little access to some historical sites. The city of David(Bethlehem) is located in the West Bank. The Temple mount in Jerusalem is occupied by a Mosque today.

Can I cut and paste this when we discuss fossil evidence for evolution?

looking for a 3000 year old city= looking for a billion year old fossil of a hybrid

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Thor

This is not what she's saying at all, the existence of David is a pretty well established idea in archeology, but more so the depth of his rule. She's arguing along side with many religious scholars that David's empire was at most a chiefdom which was later scribed to sound more impressive as the Jews were needing all the help they could get being inspired after the destruction of their temple mount and the exile from Jerusalem.

I think what's happened more recently in the last 10-30 years in archeology is that more and more it looks as if a lot of exaggeration is done in order to give the Jewish people a greater divine background and examples of that is surely the exodus from Egypt which is now pretty well considered a tale to inspire the people of the age, and was likely tied to a small group fleeing Egypt and settling in the hills of Canaanite country to tell stories of their great exodus, their one true God Yahweh who they encountered in yahoo and attributed for their salvation.

TC could hopefully give us his insight, I'm way to early on in my readings to give any trustworthy accounts, just what I've read/seen briefly in my last month of delving seriously into biblical history

The Japanese Emperors(Empress) have an unbroken line going back 10 thousand years. This EMPIRE was smaller than Calgary at it's beginning and rarely exceeded the archipelago of Japan we know today.

Empire is in the eye of the beholder. The British and Genghis have warped our views of Empire into being something extending over multiple time zones!

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I love the King James, but it would seem particularly unlikely that God's prefered choice of language was english or would choose a gay king to talk through.

Although I doubt King James was gay it really doesn't matter. He had no influence in the translating of the Bible into english beyond allowing it to happen. If you read your King James Bible you'll find God has often used unsaved Kings to accomplish his will.

I chose an english translation because I knew you read english.

For original texts try the Ben Chayyim edition of the Hebrew scriptures and Stephanus' third edition of the greek New Testament.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Thor

give the Jewish people a greater divine background and examples of that is surely the exodus from Egypt which is now pretty well considered a tale to inspire the people of the age, and was likely tied to a small group fleeing Egypt and settling in the hills of Canaanite country to tell stories of their great exodus, their one true God Yahweh who they encountered in yahoo and attributed for their salvation.

This is a Muslim/Arabic view of this occurrence. Mecca and Medina and most of the current Saudi Arabia was settled by the Jews. A minimum number would have been 50-100,000 people. The Muslims celebrate their genocide by Mohammed. So the million may have been exaggerated. Though Troy was once fiction. Babylons garden as well.

Lets invent a time machine!

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Although I doubt King James was gay it really doesn't matter. He had no influence in the translating of the Bible into english beyond allowing it to happen. If you read your King James Bible you'll find God has often used unsaved Kings to accomplish his will.

I chose an english translation because I knew you read english.

For original texts try the Ben Chayyim edition of the Hebrew scriptures and Stephanus' third edition of the greek New Testament.

Not only was James very gay, he liked em young as well. There is really no doubt about that.
Ben Chayyim and Stephanus' which one of them is God then? as there can only be one bible writen by God, anything and everything else is just someones elses idea of it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Can I cut and paste this when we discuss fossil evidence for evolution?

looking for a 3000 year old city= looking for a billion year old fossil of a hybrid

You can but, of course if you aren't looking for a particular dinosaur named Gus it probably won't prove much.

For evolution to work you have to have mutations within species which benefit that species and eventually replaces that original species. This new and improved species then exists until another mutation comes along that again is an improvement on what is already there. Even when this rare improvement occurs it would probably take thousands of years for the pre mutant species to die out.

Your talking about a ton of time for each stage of each species to change just slightly. Although the conditions for fossilization are rare they aren't that rare. It is unreasonable to expect anything less than a complete fossil record. Moreover, we should expect to find many more fossils considering how long this earth is supposed to have supported life.

With King David we are looking for writings in clay or stone which has survived constant human activity for three thousand years and mentions the King. Thanks to the Hebrew record we know the order of Kings beginning with Saul and then following the lineage of David up to 400 bce. Evidence of the existance of many of these later Kings has been verified through archeology. It is reasonable to expect that David existed as well.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Not only was James very gay, he liked em young as well. There is really no doubt about that.
Ben Chayyim and Stephanus' which one of them is God then? as there can only be one bible writen by God, anything and everything else is just someones elses idea of it.

You've got to be careful here. The homosexual cheering section on this site likes to differentuate between men who like men and men who like boys. Apparently the later is somehow not counted as gay but, is is in a special pedephile catergory. In any case, show your compeling proof. I want to see how little it takes for you to believe something.

Ben Chayyim and Stephanus compiled there texts by viewing thosands of copies of the original autographs. They rejected the ones that were obviously corrupted and identified copying errors in the trustworthy texts. The end result was a trustworthy copy of the Old and New Testament.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Ben Chayyim and Stephanus compiled there texts by viewing thosands of copies of the original autographs. They rejected the ones that were obviously corrupted and identified copying errors in the trustworthy texts. The end result was a trustworthy copy of the Old and New Testament.

What about the instances where they contradict each other? And what about the Septuagint, which is the oldest collation of the Hebrew Bible that we have (even if it is in Greek)? Or, for that matter, the more recent archaeological finds which include snippets of the text which are older than anything available at the time when Stephanus (for example) was working?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You've got to be careful here. The homosexual cheering section on this site likes to differentuate between men who like men and men who like boys. Apparently the later is somehow not counted as gay but, is is in a special pedephile catergory. In any case, show your compeling proof. I want to see how little it takes for you to believe something.

Ben Chayyim and Stephanus compiled there texts by viewing thosands of copies of the original autographs. They rejected the ones that were obviously corrupted and identified copying errors in the trustworthy texts. The end result was a trustworthy copy of the Old and New Testament.

We have existing letters James wrote to Buckingham addressing him as his 'dear sweet child and wife' and referring to himself as Buckinghams husband. Then there is James's address to the Privy council
'
"I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man, like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George."

Short of a photo of them shagging I don't know what more you want?, he had 5 boyfriends over the years we are very aware of, it caused no end of political problems for him at the time, there really is no doubt about this.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Not only was James very gay, he liked em young as well. There is really no doubt about that.
.

Well like all gays. They like them tight. But then politics rules. Was this a true perception or one manufactured by the Scots to formant rebellion? He was the King of the Scots before taking over from Elizabeth.

When the Earl Of Lennox died he preferred the company of men. A very poor evidence for homosexuality. Especially, considering, the fact, that after he was infatuated with his one and only wife AND PRODUCED 3 CHILDREN.

METROSEXUAL before his time!!!
We here! We're kind of wierd!