Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is Bible history fact or fiction?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
313 replies to this topic

#35 Rincewind

Rincewind

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 09:17 PM

... You have to remember that this is a story that is comprised of many different people passing the stories on to others. You know...like the telephone game.....some of it has to be exaggerated..right?...

I think it's worth pointing out a significant difference here that makes this a bad analogy.

The process of passing myth and legend down the generations involves the learning of songs, poems, epics and stories that are listened to by children from the time they are born, and learnt by continuous repetition, often in community recital, over many years. They are thus learnt verbatim, and repeated in concert with members of several generations at the same time.

The telephone game is a game that relies on one person hearing (mishearing?) something once and then passing on what they remember of that message to one other person once, and observing the resultant unavoidable corruption of the original message.

This argument is a bit of a straw man used to downplay the importance of myth and legend in our evolving and current story.

#36 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 09:32 PM

The Dead Sea scroles are a great example of the survival of the Bible. dateing roughly (as I can remember) all the way to 300-600 BC. containing the old testements, they (compared to today's Bible) are alike.

#37 Rincewind

Rincewind

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 30 April 2005 - 09:47 PM

... there is a under water land bridge connected to a large beach goint strate to the other side with Egypyion chariot wheels stretching for miles on eather side...

Why at the top of the mountian (clamed to be the real Mt. Sinai), is there a large place where it looks to have been burned to charcoal?...

Can you give some references to these discoveries? I'm unaware of them.

#38 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 12:02 AM

The Dead Sea scroles are a great example of the survival of the Bible. dateing roughly (as I can remember) all the way to 300-600 BC. containing both the new and old testements, they (compared to today's Bible) are alike.


I assume we have read different versions of the Dead Sea scrolls, then. The copy I have here on my desk (Geza Vermes, "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English", Allen Press, originally published 1962, completely revised edition 1991) says differently.

1) "The Qumran Scrolls date from roughly between 200 BCE and 70 CE, with a small portion of the text possibly stretching back to the third century BCE, end the bulk of the extant material dating to the first century BDE" (pages 13-14)

2) The scolls contains mostly text (including apocrypha) not contained in the bible

3) There are no parts of the New Testament in the Dead Sea scolls, as the scrolls predate the testament. The community responsible for the Dead Sea scrolls was wiped out in 70 CE

#39 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 12:04 AM

Here are some links to some websites explaining there archeological clames...now, some of these websites have more archeological findings that suport more stories from the Bible, But at least one story I do question...and that is Noah's ark natural outline remains being found some miles from Mt. Ararat, not on. there have been numberous times that the Ark has been found on the mountain...but whoever finds it doesnt seem to stay alive to give any more information(seems to be)...only sketchings..and all the sketchings are similar, whatever photos of it are lost.

http://www.exchanged...yatt/sinai.html

http://www.arkdiscov.../MtSinaiPAX.htm

http://www.cnn.com/b...02/howard.blum/

http://www.bibledisc...olyplaces1.html

these are not cheap discoveries.

the dead sea scroles also contain other books that arent included in the Bible...the book of Isaiah is word for word (if you get my meaning). sorry...I must have misinformed you that they included the new testement.

#40 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 12:19 AM

the dead sea scroles also contain other books that arent included in the Bible...the book of Isaiah is word for word (if you get my meaning). sorry...I must have misinformed you that they included the new testement.


Well...you wrote

The Dead Sea scroles are a great example of the survival of the Bible. dateing roughly (as I can remember) all the way to 300-600 BC. containing both the new and old testements, they (compared to today's Bible) are alike

(you have later edited this out which is fine).

The book of Isaiah and several other OT texts have counterparts in the Dead Sea scrolls. Now, this is to expected since the Qumran sect was a Jewish sect and as such had to observe the OT.

But the text is extremely fragmented, and in many cases is completely different from other sources we have. As compared to the modern bible it would appear to be a completely different text.

I assume you have read it.

#41 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 12:24 AM

If you are refering to the quoran, that book is not God's book....you might as well say the Book of Mormon influinced the Bible. Ishmail (however you spell it) was a decendent of Abraham..Ishmail was the first Muslem.

#42 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 12:26 AM

Here are some links to some websites explaining there archeological clames...


Some events in the bible may well be supported by archeological finds, but it does not validate that any of the supernatural events happened. For example, some may have found remains of a boat appearing to be Noah's Ark, but there is no evidence of a global flood in the past 6,000 years. The last ice age, which by the way did not span the entire Earth, ended 10,000 years ago and had lasted for 60,000 years. So the story of Noah and his ark will not be redeemed by the finding of boat remnants, except of course to the faithful who will accept a Christian interpretation and not a scientific interpretation.

It would be nice to see some non-creationist sources (because they are extremely biased, which is to be expected from religious sources, but works against their scientific credibility).

#43 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 12:27 AM

If you are refering to the quoran, that book is not God's book....you might as well say the Book of Mormon influinced the Bible.


You did not read the Dead Sea scrolls, did you? Qumran is the place where the dead sea scrolls were found, and the society which produced them has been labeled the Qumran society for that very reason. I never implied the Q'uran in any of my posts.

#44 lindagarrette

lindagarrette

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 865 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 12:31 AM

But the text is extremely fragmented, and in many cases is completely different from other sources we have. As compared to the modern bible it would appear to be a completely different text.

I assume you have read it.

I don't think many perple other than biblical scholars and history buffs have studied the Dead Sea Scroll research. It tells a somewhat different story than what is being taught by most Christian sects, so it would raise doubts.

#45 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 12:32 AM

Are you an athiest?

I'm sorry to have misunderstood.

can you look in the eye of somone...and say to them with no doubt that you have no doubt about the suport and honesty of the theory of evolution?

have you been to a creation science seminar lately?

#46 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 12:35 AM

If you are refering to the quoran, that book is not God's book


That does of course depend on which god you believe in.

#47 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 12:38 AM

Are you an athiest?

I'm sorry to have misunderstood.

can you look in the eye of somone...and say to them with no doubt that you have no doubt about the suport and honesty of the theory of evolution?


Are you just now realizing that this is a science site and not a site for non-critical religious musings?

Why are you evading the discussion by asking unrelated questions? This topic is about whether bible history is fact or fiction.

The theory of evolution is as honest as any theory. The evidence supporting it is enormous. But that is a discussion for our evolution forum.

#48 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 12:42 AM

That does of course depend on which god you believe in.


yes...I guess it does...the god of the Qu'ran is not the God of the Bible...there are many books that adopt some of it's text...and there are others that do have their ouw history...and similar to the Bible's (and possably so the same). But the Bible has suport like none other religous book.

#49 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 12:46 AM

I'm all for science...I love to learn about the history of the Earth and universe...I came here to talk about science creation vs evolution, it enthralls me..it is fasinating...but the Bible also does...and sorry for getting so excited.

And in as many times as I said that the flood story has mountains of scientific evidence as well as archeoligy to back it up, you all still say it's all based on religion.

#50 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 01:02 AM

But the Bible has suport like none other religous book.


That depends on which people you ask. I doubt that the follower of Islam would agree with you.

#51 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 01:06 AM

That depends on which people you ask. I doubt that the follower of Islam would agree with you.


This is interesting. I will not doubt your word, can you give me some of the archeological evidence of their book, or give me a link to a website?