Furthermore, there is a 100% accuracy rate in the archeological record for the Bible referencing historical cities, towns, kings/monarchs, and other sites/events. So don’t even attempt to refute the truthfulness of Biblical history. Do you really think the Bible is accurate, trustworthy, and true about everything except it’s history?!
64 comments
But it's not accurate, trustworthy, and true about everything?
Also, if there was a global flood of Noah proportions, you'd think there'd be SOME evidence somewhere.
Furthermore, there is a 100% accuracy rate in the archaeological record for the Harry Potter series referencing historical cities, towns, prime ministers and other sites/events. So don't even attempt to refute the truthfulness of Hogwarts History. You you really think the Harry Potter series is accurate, trustworthy, and true about everything except its history?!
There... I fixed it for you.
Really? I seem to recall the gospels mentioning something about Jesus being run out of Nazareth to a hill or ridge of some sort.
No such hill or ridge exists, or has ever existed.
Also, ever heard of a genre known as "historical fiction"? I'm inclined to think the Bible dabbled in quite a bit of that.
Also, @ Heathen Angel: Goblet of Fire makes mention of the PS1. Canonically, Goblet of Fire takes place in 1994. The PS1 was not released until a few years later. This is because, while J.K. Rowling is quite skilled at writing interesting and engaging stories, there are two things she's quite bad at: math (by her own admission), and exact consistency (Apparating makes different sounds in different books, for example).
No, there isn't. Torah has at best a 50% strike rate against the archaeological record; most of the claims of Torah, and the other books of Tanach, are essentially unverifiable. But the idea that the Hebrews left Egypt and settled in Canaan en masse is flat out contradicted by archaeology. And nothing, absolutely nothing, claimed in the New Testament can be verified by archaeology. Nazareth, for example, does not seem to have been inhabited at the alleged time of Jesus' life.
100% you say? How interesting... Does that include the complete lack of archeological (or any other) evidence for the flood, exodus, tower of babel, a pre-jesus Nazareth and a post-jesus mass grave rising.
Also, can we say something is 100% accurate if it doesn't mention something it should? Such as the names of the Pharaohs who the jews encountered.
Show me Sodom and Gomorra,or show me The Garden of Eden. You'd think that with the satellite technology we have now we could have seen evidence of them.
And don't say the devil is blocking them or some other lame cop out like that doesn't require you to use your damn evolution given brain.
It is accurate when it doesn't contradict itself. Or doesn't tell anything about subject. Or when it is not accurate in any way imaginable. So yes, it is 100% accurate in a way that people don't fall down is 100% accurate (in space, that is).
Here's a biggie.
"Nazarene" meant "a member of the Nazarene cult", not a person from Nazareth.
The Gospel writers, 100 to 300 years after the fact, didn't know that, and so they got their fables all nastily confused and mixed up.
Then the Mithrais worshiping Roman emperor who wanted Christians to follow a proper set of orderly rules and stop having inter-sect riots interfering with his economy instructed the consolidation of a fixed bible for all sects. As part of the process he sent his mother in law (he must have hated her) to Israel to find and document Nazareth. She couldn't, because it didn't exist. So she located a previously un-named hamlet, declared it Nazareth and left.
Hows that for biblical accuracy on the geographical front? The main character was probably only a character from a fable ("Tales of Yeshua and Yudah (Jesus and Judas), a moral guide for instructing 4-year-olds in how to be good Nazarenes", see also related works by Aesop) and they couldn't even get his home-town right.
"Furthermore, there is a 100% accuracy rate in the archeological record for the Bible referencing historical cities, towns, kings/monarchs, and other sites/events."
Archeology is as much based on theory as evolution, probably more so. Finding a few bricks doesn't tell a whole story. There are ancient city foundations all over the middle east, it's very easy to attach a biblical connection to any of them. We have no way of knowing how truly accurate any of it is, and never will know.
"So don’t even attempt to refute the truthfulness of Biblical history."
And yet you want to refute history and theories that have way more evidence backing them up?
"Do you really think the Bible is accurate, trustworthy, and true about everything except it’s history?!"
No, I think it's hardly accurate, trustworthy or true about anything at all.
The Exodus
Even Israeli archaeologists have had to admit that there is not one shred of concrete evidence for it.
No evidence
So you accept this was a good thing?
I don't think BrandtMichaels ever read a factual book on history, let alone archeology, or any other PROVEN factual information about anything.
Isaiah 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
Damascus remains the world's oldest continually inhabited city. QED.
1. No, there isn't.
2. We don't have to try, it does it for itself.
3. No, and that's because it isn't accurate, trustworthy, or true in any way.
I talk about George Bush, New York City, Obama, and the US in a novel. Therefore, it is completeley true, regardless of there being a giant meteorite hitting it in the year 2000.
"Do you really think the Bible is accurate, trustworthy, and true about everything except it’s history?!"
Do you really think the bible is accurate, trustworthy and true about anything?
Here's where that "100%" comes from, kids:
-Archaeological evidence proves that the cities of Ur and Jericho existed. This does not prove that certain events in the Bible actually took place there.
-Archaeological evidence proves that such personages as Solomon existed. This does not prove that Solomon did all the things that the Bible says he did.
-Some idiots continue to insist that the remains of Noah's Ark have been found and use badly doctored photos to make this claim. Tellingly, most of these photos show a large rectangular boat-like structure. If a wooden boat that size had been built 5000 years ago, then left dry-docked in a mountainous area, it probably would have rotted away to nothing by now.
-There is no archaeological evidence of anything in the book of Genesis (save the aforementioned acknowledgment of the existence of the city Abraham was allegedly from) and I doubt there ever will be.
Exodus: No evidence that it happened, no record in Egyptian hieroglyphics. No physical evidence of a massive migration.
Numbers 23: Israelites supposedly spent 40 years in the desert before invading Canaan. No evidence of a massive migration.
Same for the invasion of Jericho, it had been abandoned centuries before the Israelites are dated by biblical scholars to have been there.
Want to keep going?
Oh yes, the ancient city of Jericho was very real. In fact, according to archeologists there have been settlements there for longer than the 6,000 years that fundamentalists insist the world has been in existence. Care to explain that?
And the book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn referenced real places too, like Cairo, IL. So I guess that makes Huckleberry Finn a real person.
And I'd really like to see a cite for this 100% accuracy rate. It's strange how certain places have never been found, like Nazareth for instance. And Bethlehem didn't exist at the time of Jesus' supposed birth. And the fact that there is no archeological evidence of a mass migration of thousands of people from Egypt or that they wandered in the desert for 40 years.
Frankly, I don't think the bible is accurate, trustworthy, or true about anything, including its history.
"Furthermore, there is a 100% accuracy rate in the archeological record for the Bible referencing historical cities, towns, kings/monarchs, and other sites/events."
I'm not terribly impressed that people living in the area got the names of cities, rulers and sites correct.
"So don’t even attempt to refute the truthfulness of Biblical history."
Saying Jerusalem existed and being correct is a far cry from saying god appeared on Earth in human form.
One requires much more substantial evidence than the other. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which it is.
"Do you really think the Bible is accurate, trustworthy, and true about everything except it’s history?!"
No. On the contrary, I think it's inaccurate about almost everything except for the history--and it's even a bit dodgy on that at times.
So, every fiction book that takes place in New York City is 100% factual now?
Yep, if you put a moment of thought into it, you'd realize that this argument is bullshit. Simply because a story references real places doesn't mean the story is true.
"Furthermore, there is a 100% accuracy rate in the archeological record for the Bible referencing historical cities, towns, kings/monarchs, and other sites/events. So don’t even attempt to refute the truthfulness of Biblical history."
If the Bible is 100% accurate, why are you afraid of someone trying to refute it?
"Do you really think the Bible is accurate, trustworthy, and true about everything except it’s history?!"
Of course not. I see that the Bible is inaccurate, untrustworthy and untrue concerning many things including history.
Sure there's a 100% accuracy ... just take a vague Bible story and look around for something that matches. Take the Exodus. One guy says it was around 1450 BC under Thutmose II because it was 480 years before the reign of Solomon. Another says it was during the reign of Pepy II (2450 BC) because he's the only Pharaoh whose reign was long enough to span 80 years between Moses' birth and the Exodus. Since the Bible doesn't actually give the name of the Pharaoh, one BS story pulled out of the air is as good as another. Neither one "proves" that Moses turned his staff into a serpent or a host of frogs and insects.
Get back to me on the history issue after you prove that the bible was correct in stating that insects only have four legs.
Explain also why there is no evidence of a global flood (except the mention in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which early christians plundered for their own flood story), why you don't have a clue where the Garden of Eden is, or why you don't know that Gehenna (which you think means 'hell') was actually a site outside of Jerusalem where people burned their garbage?
Fucking dunce.
100% accuracy rate?
Source, please.
> 100% accuracy rate in the archeological record for the Bible referencing historical cities, towns, kings/monarchs, and other sites/events.
Yeah, it helps a lot that, say, Moses's people were oppressed by "a Pharaoh". That's entirely plausible, even if other sources are scant. Now, it'd help tremendously if the Bible would have specified, say,which Pharaoh it was...
...and once you get that done to establish the timeline of the Exodus, you still need to explain the population hyper-growth between the Flood and the height of the Egypt's civilization. I mean, you don't get that much people in such an allegedly short period of time, huh?
A second problem is that Joseph of Nazareth was a Galilean and as such was not under the rule of Rome. He, and Mary, would not have needed to register - it was the Judeans who were affected by the census.
(For the sake of lulz, I'm assuming Nazareth existed. I think the comments are correct and it didn't exist 2000 years ago.)
"Do you really think the Bible is accurate, trustworthy, and true about everything except it’s history?!"
No.
[Do you really think the Bible is accurate, trustworthy, and true about everything except it’s history?!]
As a matter of fact...no.
"Furthermore, there is a 100% accuracy rate in the archeological record for the Bible referencing historical cities, towns, kings/monarchs, and other sites/events."
Do you really think the Bible is accurate, trustworthy, and true about everything except it’s history?!
Nope.
a) (regarding the old testament) give the israelites after their babylonian captivity some kind of national identity, by introducing some kind of foundation myth (with the israelites being promised a land and being victorious with divine help [well, except against the inhabitants of the valley of course, as they had chariots of iron :D ])
b) Bring more power to the priests who edited, collected or even wrote the books in the bible and do away with the belief in other gods (or regarding christianity in other forms of christian faith [like gnosticism or jewish christianity]). Also involved to either ban/destroy all scriptures about other gods (or other forms of christian faith) and force convert their believers (or kill them) or to rewrite said scriptures to make it appear as if they support the belief in YHWH (or in orthodox christianity)
In a way the bible is comparable to Homer.
We have ancient climate records because the Egyptians were good enough to provide us with records of their grain harvests. The same Egyptians who even recorded the most mundane things never mention enslaving thousands of Isrealites, or losing an army to the Red Sea. King Herod was real, but never mentions executing an upstart claimant to the title of king who had thousands of followers.
The Bible claims the walls of Jericho fell. Archeology proves that whilst Jericho existed, it never had any walls (no cities in the area did at that time).
The Bible claims that King David built a great empire. Archeology proves that whilst he existed, he was the tribal leader for a few thousand goat herders.
Great historical accuracy there!
Not a word concerning Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa. Silence on the topic of the Minoan civilization. It would have been useful to have some concrete facts about the "Sea Peoples" as well, but NO!
History, you say? I break wind in your general direction.
I don't think '100%' means what you think it does.
Unless it's a typo, and you actually meant .001%. That would make at least a tiny bit more sense.
"Do you really think the Bible is accurate, trustworthy, and true about everything except it’s history?!"
nope, i think its morality is pretty bankrupt, too.
"there is a 100% accuracy rate in the archeological record for the Bible referencing historical cities"
According to Ezekiel, Tyre was erased from the map.
174,000 people today would dispute that.
Furthermore, as for 'the Bible referencing historical cities, towns, kings/monarchs', which pharaoh did Moses deal with?Prefect or Governor?
Archaeologists have proved that Jericho never had walls to start with; even other sites have rubble & broken remains of walls.
Certain ones on the border of Scotland & England, and around parts of China prove that.
Oh, the Bible is 100% accurate: at LYING.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
