More Archaeological Confirmation of OT Events

No it isn't.

 

Even if I accept your premise, what would be acceptable evidence to you that Jesus really walked on water 2,000 years ago other than the testimony and changed lives of those who were there?

How do you prove Caesar crossed the Rubicon?

 

I'm not making that claim, just rebutting some on this forum who say the OT isn't historically accurate. IMHO, if it can be trusted on those details it can be trusted on the rest, at least for those not bringing an anti-supernatural bias to the table.

 

I think the following addresses your question rather well.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/rubicon.htmlhttps://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/rubicon.html

Also I have to add the claims involving the supernatural should have a very high standard of proof. Not some claims by unidentified authors.

Are you aware that most scholars consider the Gospels to be written by anonymous authors?

People claim to be changed by all religions.

 

Carrier isn't any authority to me, he doubts the existence of Jesus which is a fringe position that even Bart Ehrman rejects. As far as the Rubicon, all you have is quotes from promoters of the Rubicon-crossing myth, got anyone independent? See how that works?

He also downplays oral history, which is basically what we use in modern court's to sentence people to prison and death. We even use hearsay testimony.

You didn't answer my question, what evidence would suffice IF Jesus really walked on water 2,000 years ago, other than the testimony and changed lives of those who saw it? If you are a priori rejecting any supernatural claims it makes this discussion a waste of time.

Most revisionist liberal scholars, yes, most biblical scholars, no. The early church fathers had a good idea, here is a summary presenting both sides: https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-gospels

Even if we didn't know who wrote them it wouldn't automatically follow that the events described never happened, we have other ancient histories with unknown authors.

People don't knowlingly die for a lie, as it is alleged the apostles did. Would you?

 

I don't suppose you'd care to show us exactly how you logically get from here...

...to there.

 

Imagine that, floods occur all over the world. It doesn't sound remotely like a global flood that wiped out mankind and the animal world.

No, its a philosophy vs science issue.

I have a pretty good idea based on what the science tells us. Sorry weren't we talking about archaeology of bible and your claim of accuracy? I'd say the age of the earth is germane in accessing your opinion.

I am not at all sure there needed to be a "who". I am an agnostic atheist. I am comfortable in my belief in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/

 

If you are not adverse to science you could read this.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0069924

And I don't suppose you will give me your proof for the man in the sky did it?

Don't you think it is a little strange to believe in a version of creation that has humans being created in God's image considering humans have over 98% DNA in common with a Chimp?

 

Why don't you just boil it down and tell me how information came from anything other than intelligence?

Another myth. From Science, 1975, M.C. King and A.C. Wilson:

"Human beings and apes differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits. Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape and size from its human counterpart. Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture, mode of locomotion, methods procuring food, and communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families."

 

Information is the result of intelligence processing inputs. What is your point?

 

Just shows you what a difference a small change in DNA can make. But the ape behavior and human behavior are very similar as discussed in this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Ape-De...esmond+morris&qid=1565030212&s=gateway&sr=8-2

Humans did not evolve from the chimp but share a common ancestor. The thing you don't seem to grasp about DNA sequencing is you can work backwards. That along with radiometric data totally invalidate Bible claims of creation.

 

Are you not aware that modern archeology shows the Exodus story to be bogus? Not only is NOAH not real the Christians go so far as to make the bogus claim that NOAH wrote the first four books of the Bible.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodushttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus

 

How can being anti-supernatural indicate a bias since there is no science that has ever proven any supernatural occurence.

 

Yep That's some myth about chimps and humans sharing most of their DNA.

Imagine chimps have detectable physiological differences from humans. Its almost like they are a different species or something.

 

What are the names of these 500 people?

 

Different species with a lot of DNA in common. Are you going to get back to me on your explanation for vestigial organs?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...humans-and-other-primates-pervade-the-genome/

 

Did it ever occur to you why people would have a bias against believing in the supernatural?

I have a bias against believing in astrology, mind reading, hauntings, bad luck, and the like. And you know why? Total lack of evidence.

 

Exactly. You can't have a bias when your position is fact based.

 

My explanation of vestigial organs? er, evolution? jus' guessin'.

 

The abstract appears to claim evolutionary theory - whatever that means to the authors - is a better model than one based on pure chance. Why the hell anyone would find that proposition interesting I have no idea; but it also offers an utterly hilarious challenge, to wit:

It is time that [] researchers insisted that doubters put up testable alternatives to evolution.​

I don't defend assertions I haven't made.

Not in the least. However, I think it's passing strange to believe humans evolved from non-sapient species when, AFAIK, no prokaryote-eukaryote transition has been observed, despite the fact that bacterial life cycles are measured in hours; and to compare such a transition to one from non-sapience to sapience is more preposterous than comparing the transition from crawling infant to walking infant to the transition from zygote to Einstein.

 

The Bible says that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. No proof exists. The Bible says that Joshua led the Israelites into Palestine. No proof exists. In fact the Egyptians tell us that there was already a tribe called Israel in Palestine around the time supposed Moses lived. And why would Hebrews be led from their enemy - Egypt - into Palestine, which was under Egyptian control. Isn't that rather 'out of the frying pan......' Archaeology tells us that the conquest of Palestine was from inside. Israel and other tribes rebelled against their Egyptian masters and threw them out. Letters found at Armana by archaeologists show the Egyptians governors pleading with Pharaoh for troops to quell the tribes. Pharaoh had no spare troops, he was embroiled elsewhere in fighting a bigger foe. The rebels gained control of Palestine. Maybe David was the ruler of the tribe of Israel and took over. We don't know.
The Bible tells us that the invading Israelites overthrew 3 cities. We know that many more were overthrown - by the tribes. Archaeology shows this.
There is no evidence that Jericho was overthrown by 'Joshua'. The walls may have tumbled - again, as in the past. Jericho lies in an earthquake zone and has been rocked several times - the last in 1926 when damaged was caused over a wide area. Back in the 12th century the same thing happened. This 'mighty' city, although its walls were thick, was no bigger than a large village. You could walk round its walls in about 15/20 minutes.
Archaeology proves the Bible in some things, not in others.

 

Was that the same crowd that saw the graves open and crowds of the dead walk into Jerusalem? Zombies? Skeletons?

 

It does - as does geology and numerous other sciences. Archaeology completely disproves the flood myth - that the flood covered the entire earth and that every land creature was destroyed around 2300 BC.

 

If you insist on using "Big Words" to seem intellectual, I suggest you use them properly and research what context is. It would also be wise to read up on current findings in archaeology.

 

Well then pointing out the specific errors will surely be child's play for such a puissant paragon of perspicacity as yourself, so do feel free to get the hell on with it already.

Not necessary, trust me.

To hell with that - you cite one that militates against anything I said.