[PetriFB]

Link: The Bible and history


When it is a question of events mentioned in the Bible, we can often read and hear how some researchers doubt the historicity of these accounts. This is especially so concerning the initial accounts of the fall, the Flood and the tower of Babel and miracles which appear in the gospels. These are matters, which researchers regard as unreliable. They may regard them only as legends, and they think that those accounts aren’t worth taking seriously.

We are going to examine this difficult matter in this study by looking at many examples. This study has been directed expressly at such persons as who sincerely want to research this area and who struggle with this matter. In other words it has been targeted at such persons who want to know whether the events mentioned in the Bible are really historically correct.

In this writing we will also try to bring out archaeological finds, because they have often confirmed those events, which are mentioned in the Bible. They have confirmed the information found only in the pages of the Bible many times:



"Generally, archaeological research has undoubtedly added confidence in the truthfulness of the Bible. More than one archaeologist has noticed that his respect towards the Bible has grown with excavations carried out in Palestine (1). The archaeological evidence has, in many cases, proved the modern critics to be wrong. It has been proved in many case that these views have been based on incorrect hypotheses and unreal, fictitious views. There is no reason to belittle this genuine help from archaeological resources." (2)



"It is important to understand that archaeological resources have provided a large body of evidence through diggings which indicate clearly that the Bible is not mere pious faking. To this day, none of the historical points of the Bible have been proved to be false on the basis of this evidence obtained by archaeological research." (3)

[Boerseun]

Apart from being an attempt at spam (read the rules), the poor buggers are wasting their time.

Things like the the "flood" was most likely invented as an explanation of why sea shells are found on top of mountains miles away from the closest beach.
This is now, scientifically, adequately explained by geology, through the raising and lowering of tectonic plates. Besides, even if the whole Antarctica (the storehouse of 90% of the planet's fresh water - in solid form) were to melt, and the whole of the Greenland ice sheet melted as well, not nearly enough water would be released to cover the world's major mountain ranges, where plenty of these shells are to be found.

What other 'historic' biblical facts are to be proven? How a whale can eat a human and regurgitate him intact? How eating an apple can condemn the human race to a life of strife and hardship?

Come on.

[PetriFB]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Apart from being an attempt at spam (read the rules), the poor buggers are wasting their time.

Things like the the "flood" was most likely invented as an explanation of why sea shells are found on top of mountains miles away from the closest beach.
This is now, scientifically, adequately explained by geology, through the raising and lowering of tectonic plates. Besides, even if the whole Antarctica (the storehouse of 90% of the planet's fresh water - in solid form) were to melt, and the whole of the Greenland ice sheet melted as well, not nearly enough water would be released to cover the world's major mountain ranges, where plenty of these shells are to be found.

What other 'historic' biblical facts are to be proven? How a whale can eat a human and regurgitate him intact? How eating an apple can condemn the human race to a life of strife and hardship?

Come on.

Which one can be possible alternative; creation work of God or by accidently formed evolution?

How evolution could make multiple life... eye, which can see...... heart, which can pump blood to body.. a hand which has a fingers....

Come on ....?

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by PetriFB

How evolution could make multiple life... eye, which can see...... heart, which can pump blood to body.. a hand which has a fingers....

Come on ....?

Here we go again. First, read something ELSE than the bible and you might end up learning what evolution is. Then we'll discuss it. Or, failing that, you could join one of the OTHER discussions on this topic that are already dying a slow death in our forums.

[YYYY]

Hey Petri
If you can reply rationally I will participate. There is some truth in the bible but a lot of disinformation.

Lets start by telling me what you KNOW of the Council of Nicea?

[ughaibu]

The Bible begins with a creation account that is clearly untrue. This seems to me to imply a statement, by the authors, that the book isn't intended to represent any historical truth. According to this article: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/ Biblical literalism is a recent deviation from traditional christianity and is confined to members of certain christian sub-cults.

[Boerseun]

Interesting, actually. Genesis 1 and 2 tells two different stories of the Creation, but if you take Genesis 2 out of the equation, there's no need for the whole of the New Testament in that there won't be any Original Sin. It actually seems as if Genesis 2 might have been shoehorned into the Bible to justify the new religion, Christianity. Might this have been done at Nicea as well? And if that's the case, they (the councillors at Nicea) ignored the final commands in Revelations, and they should be burnin' in hell as we speak.
Yea, Verily.

[PetriFB]

Originally Posted by YYYY

Hey Petri
If you can reply rationally I will participate. There is some truth in the bible but a lot of disinformation.

Lets start by telling me what you KNOW of the Council of Nicea?

In first council of Nicea formed doctrine of trinity .........

In second council of Nicea was accepted honouring of images ....and then was set 22 canons...........

Bible is not rational book, but spiritual book .....and is the word of God ........

[InfiniteNow]

The Christian god anyway...

Bible is not the book of Allah, or the book of Krishna, or buddha or whatever...

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by PetriFB

In first council of Nicea formed doctrine of trinity .........

In second council of Nicea was accepted honouring of images ....and then was set 22 canons...........

Bible is not rational book, but spiritual book .....and is the word of God ........

This is not a spiritual site, but a rational site that seeks rationality of spiritualism. While it does have some spiritual benfits to those who's spirits are lifted by rational discussion with kindred spirits, the rejection of rationality for spiritualism will not get you far here at Hypography.

Bill