Parts of the Old Testament proven true

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Whew, bit of a strong reaction to what I posted, maybe I should have taken more time to clarify my thoughts, anyway, here goes... Maybe these things differ from region to region (what am I saying, of course they do), but where I live there are numerous christian lobbysist who dismiss the theory of evolution and want to have it banned from schools (and considering religious studies has ben removed from the curriculum I guess that may be fair enough). A main criticism that these lobbyists offer is that carbon dating cannot be irrefutably ratified, and thus evolution is not based upon fact, and thus should not be taught in the public curriculum. Now I'm not agreeing, nor disagreeing with that statement, just relaying it on [img]smile.gif[/img] I never said evolution was scientific fact, I never even said that I believe it myself (but I do). I don't want to start a religious debate and I apologise if what I said detracted from the core of the thread. I only said that it can be amusing to see how some people hold particular data in a positive light when it says what they want it to say, and ignore/debunk it when it 'disagrees' with their hypotheses.

And I was just pointing out that that argument swings both ways, Heirophant. I apologize if you felt I was reacting too strongly to your comments, because that was not my intent. In fact, you are absolutely correct that many Christians criticize carbon-dating and point out it's many flaws when the discussion concerns evolution. And you make a valid point that they then applaud this same process when it proves something they agree with. As I said, I'm just pointing out that this trait occurs on both sides.

I've seen several members here make the statements I mentioned above regarding the Bible. I have seen it openly ridiculed as nothing more than a book of fables and fairy tales and seen these members say they would only believe that which could be scientifically proven. I didn't mean to single you out, because I can't recall if you have made these statements or not. However, you were echoing much of the same sentiment these others have expressed, so that was why I chose to respond to your post.

I wasn't angered by your comments in the least, but I apologize again if you felt I overreacted to your comments.

[The Hierophant]

Heh heh, no worries Cerek. And I agree with you: the door swings well and truly both ways [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Link: I agree with Luvian here. I'd like to add though, that the Bible we know today is totally different from the one we knew in the Middle Ages (to name an example). Things have been changed so thoroughly that IMHO you still cannot trust these kinda facts.

Many of the new translations of the bible, are in fact, direct translations from the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts that were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and other various archealogical finds as well as texts that were preserved in various libraries and institutions from around the world and are probably much more accurate than the King James Version of the Bible from the Middle Ages. Of course the King James Version is still in wide use through out the Western World, but it is not as widely accepted as it used to be.

[Stratos]

I second what Luvian said. There's no reason to doubt that most of the events in the Bible took place but if they happened the way the Bible decribes is a different matter.

[Night Stalker]

That's really interesting to hear. But, you do realize that one "proofs" Creationists use against Evolution or that the Earth is apx 4.5 billion years old is that radio carbon dating is in accurate? Given the time frame, the error range should only be in the years to tens of years range, so this is really intriguing to me.

I believe alot of the events accounted in the Bible happened, just not that it is an accurate history, but an alegory. For example the Great Flood was told of in Assyrian legend - oldest known acount apx 6000 yrs BC: 2000 yrs before the Bible accounts for it.

Anyway, interesting thanks Yorick! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: By the same token, Heirophant, most non-believers dismiss the Bible as "nothing more than a book of fables" and claim they only believe in those things that can be scientifically proven. Then science comes along and verifies that a specific portion of the Bible is true and non-believers dismiss this as being meaningless also.

I couldn't care less about Bible issues, though I think your argumentation is a bit unfair now... What exactly does this prove, then?
I'm with Luvian on this; pointing out that the setting is genuine doesn't automatically make the Bible's actual messages and miracles any more believable. I mean, the country of Egypt exists as well, but that doesn't mean anything along the lines of proof for or against the Bible. The Roman Emperors referred to in the Bible have existed as well, but yet again that information was added to place the events in a realistic and historical setting - and even when it could be proven that for example Jesus has actually lived, in what way does that prove all the miracles ascribed to him? To provide you with an extreme illustration, have you ever seen the movie Life of Brian?
And more down to Earth, most modern day fictional novels are set in realistic, genuine settings just the same - but that doesn't make the novels themselves any less fictional (and I'm only adding this remark to point out that the genuineness of the setting doesn't necessarily have to say anything about the genuineness of the actual story - I'm not trying to imply that the Bible is automatically fictional itself).

This scientifical discovery helps to put the period in which the Bible-events have supposedly taken place in a historical context, but it doesn't say a single thing about what most skepticists regard as the events that are hard to believe due to a lack of proof.

[ 09-22-2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Tancred]

Hm... You see the collosseum in the film 'Gladiator'. The collosseum definitely exists. Does this mean that the events in the film 'Gladiator' truly occurred?

[Vaskez]

Originally posted by Tancred: Hm... You see the collosseum in the film 'Gladiator'. The collosseum definitely exists. Does this mean that the events in the film 'Gladiator' truly occurred?

That's a stupid example. The film was never stated to be true, how can you compare a story to a multi-hundred million believer, 2000 year-old religion? Yorick was merely posting an example of one thing that's been proven. If one part of it's true, surely there is that little bit less doubt about some other parts of it and so on. What I'm trying to say is analagous to when a person tells the truth one time then you are more likely to believe them next time. The people writing the Bible had no reason to write things they believed were false so they were either deluded, misguided or right.
Hehe, I can already see people going "What??! No reason to write false things? But they had this and this reason!" Blah blah, the Bible writes about such "nice" things as people say, do you really think they people writing it were so utterly and completely evil that they would spout such nice things if they didn't truly believe them? Therefore my statement remains: they were either deluded, misguided or right.

[ 09-22-2003, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Vaskez ]

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Tancred: Hm... You see the collosseum in the film 'Gladiator'. The collosseum definitely exists. Does this mean that the events in the film 'Gladiator' truly occurred?

But it's not in the same place IRL So this makes me doubt the events of "Gladiator"

[Tancred]

Originally posted by Vaskez: If one part of it's true, surely there is that little bit less doubt about some other parts of it and so on. What I'm trying to say is analagous to when a person tells the truth one time then you are more likely to believe them next time. The people writing the Bible had no reason to write things they believed were false so they were either deluded, misguided or right.

Using this line of reasoning, you could affirm the truth in all manner of things; Greek mythologies, the Arthurian legends, even other contemporary religions. That's insane!