Did You Know That The Bible is Historically Accurate

1. 56

   Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years ago

   Did you know that with every archaelogical find each year, the Bible is proven more and more to be 100% accurate?

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No, I don't know that. Can you prove it?
      
      GA

      replyreport
2. 73

   cheaptrickposted 7 years ago

   So who's gonna tell women their a Mc rib?...or should we just start dousing them with BBQ sauce?
   You cant be serious with a question like this...on YT it's called "click bait" and shame on you for stooping so low...

   replyreport
   1. 56

      Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It is not a "low" thing in telling The Truth.

      replyreport
3. 95

   wildernessposted 7 years ago

   My impression of what we have found is that the bible is very often wrong.  For instance, the whole story of creation is out of sequence; it doesn't follow what we know happened.  There was no world wide flood as reported in scripture.  There was no mass extinction as reported.  There was no quick scattering of peoples as reported. 
   
   Can you be more specific as to finds that show biblical stories to be 100% correct?

   replyreport
   1. 56

      Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I will be more specific. But first, can you back up your claims with facts?

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Easy enough - God did not make light before stars; the stars are what made light.  Bible is wrong.  God did not make birds before land animals; birds evolved from land animals.  Bible is wrong.  God did not cover the world with water (unless you want to count millenia of snow as "raining for 40 days": the entire earth has never been covered with water.  Bible is wrong.  While there have been several mass extinctions, none have occurred in the last million years.  Bible is wrong.  There was never a time when the population of the middle east suddenly left and occupied the far corners of the earth: it took thousands of years and happened long before the bible says the first humans were created.  Bible is wrong. 
         
         Is that enough or should I continue?  I look forward to your specifics on your claim, though.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Seriously?
            
            While you know my reply to most of the above I'd like to address this in particular ...
            
            "There was never a time when the population of the middle east suddenly left and occupied the far corners of the earth
            
            Actually ...
            
            "The 5.9 kiloyear event was one of the most intense aridification events during the Holocene Epoch. It occurred around 3900 BC (5900 years Before Present) and ended the Neolithic Subpluvial and probably initiating the most recent desiccation of the Sahara.
            
            It also triggered migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organized, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
            
            "Corners of the Earth", not necessarily, but the entire region of the middle east turned into the Sahara desert which did cause the population to leave "suddenly". It's well documented.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               We have a different feeling for "suddenly", it seems.  Suddenly, in a geologic time frame, is far different than suddenly in a human time frame.  You're right - the middle east turned into the Sahara desert...over hundreds/thousands of years.  Not overnight as scripture implies.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  No, this event is called the "5.9 kiloyear event" because it happened in 3900 BC. It was very sudden. In fact, it's thought that the dry band across that part of the world shifted, possible due to a wobble in the Earth's rotation. But it was very sudden. Not centuries. Not even decades. It was very sudden.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     From wikipedia: "It also triggered migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organized, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC.[1] It is associated with the last round of the Sahara pump theory."
                     
                     This is NOT the event dictated in scripture following the tower of babel.  Being unable to understand your neighbors does not give rise to complex societies.

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        You're right. Being unable to understand your neighbors does not give rise to complex societies. These people ended up in different cultures, with each speaking different languages, so the confusing of their language was just a product of that.
                        
                        No, what caused the rise of complex societies was that the people that migrated to these cultures along river valleys had free will. Like God said in Genesis 12, they can do anything they imagine. And just as history shows, that's exactly what happened. This event, as you see here, is directly associated with the emergence of these societies. And as DeMeo's and Taylor's works illustrate, in each case behavior changes consistent with the emergence of the modern ego can be seen appearing in each of those cultures upon the arrival of these people.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           "Being unable to understand your neighbors does not give rise to complex societies.
                           
                           "This event, as you see here, is directly associated with the emergence of these societies."
                           
                           You're arguing in circles again and contradicting yourself as you do so.  The societies along the rivers already existed.  Any (large) influx of people with a different language and culture will only serve to delay, not form, complex societies (unless, of course, those immigrants already had a complex society, which in this case they did not).  You're also ignoring that biblical stories have it taking place over hours or days, not centuries.  And that river and hill peoples almost certainly traded and communicated with each other before god made them all relatively unintelligible.

                           replyreport
                           1. 85

                              HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Sure, your assumption makes sense in that a large influx of people might delay the formation of complex societies. The evidence, however, disagrees. No matter how much you think your assumptions make sense to you doesn't matter. What the evidence says does.
                              
                              And the bible doesn't specify a timeline here for how long this took. But the evidence is consistent with what is described. It all lines up location wise, logistically, and chronologically.
                              
                              And yes, I'm sure they did trade and interact with one another on some level, but they all spoke wildly different languages because each culture developed independent of one another.

                              replyreport
                              1. 95

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 "The evidence, however, disagrees."
                                 
                                 The evidence is that there was no great diaspora of large numbers of people that could not speak to each other.  That people moved into river valleys is almost irrefutable: that they then could not speak to each other is not.  As you say (and the bible does not), this move took centuries, during which language was learned even if it was not known before the move.
                                 
                                 It's kind of like saying that the people of Germany cannot understand those of England because they are separated by a large distance: the interaction between the two belies that just as it did in prehistory.  When two peoples interact and trade with each other they will share enough common language (perhaps even a third one) as to make communication possible.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 85

                                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    There you go assuming again. The people of this region were dispersed in all directions, each group ending up integrating with different cultures. Sumerian, Egyptian, the Indus Valley. Each culture speaking a different language. So that, over time, their language was "confused".

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 95

                                       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Absolutely.  The people migrated to the nearest river valley, whether that meant 2 miles or 200.  Which does NOT mean the culture they eventually ended up in, after centuries of slow migration, were unintelligible.  You're still trying to say it happened in just a few months or years, but geological and environmental changes don't work that way, and forced migrations due to those factors don't either.

                                       report
                                       1. 85

                                          HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          This climatological change did happen very rapidly. And when people can't eat, they're motivated to move, so that happened quickly as well. This isn't my interpretation of the bible we're arguing here. This is a highly documented event in actual history that has evidence to show what happened. There's nothing to argue.

                                          report
                                          1. 95

                                             wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             "This climatological change did happen very rapidly."
                                             
                                             You are once more confusing geological/environment time frames with that of humans.  That it happened over a half century (2 or 3 generations), spreading out in succeeding centuries (20 generations?  50?), does not make it "rapid" in terms of a human sense of "rapid".  While the term is technically identical in both cases, it does not mean the same thing in terms of actual hours passed.

                                             report
                                             1. 85

                                                HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                The only thing I find confusing is your point. What is the point of your argument?
                                                
                                                Here, maybe this will help ...
                                                
                                                "A model by Claussen et al. (1999) suggested rapid desertification, associated with vegetation-atmosphere interactions following a cooling event, Bond event 4." -
                                                
                                                "For example, Cremaschi (1998) describes evidence of rapid aridification in Tadrart Acacus of southwestern Libya, in the form of increased aeolian erosion, sand incursions and the collapse of the roofs of rock shelters."
                                                
                                                "In the eastern Arabian Peninsula, the 5.9 kiloyear event may have contributed to an increase in relatively greater social complexity, corresponding to an end of the local Ubaid period." - http://cof.quantumfuturegroup.org/events/5370

                                                report
                                                1. 95

                                                   wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                   All correct.  Rapid in the time frame of environmental changes. 
                                                   
                                                   But the biblical tale indicates a rapid change in human terms.  A matter of days or months at best, then.  And you continue in the same vein - instead if a slow (human term) migration over generations you want it rapid as well - too rapid to learn languages.  And you base that on an environmental "rapid", but the two are not the same.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 85

                                                      HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Again, I'm not getting the point you're trying to make or how it's relevant. Where does the bible indicate a rapid change?

                                                      report
         2. 56

            Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            God is light. It is called the Shekina Glory.....WHen God said "Let there be light, He showed the Shekina Glory......Darwinian evolution is based on assumptions that can only be backed hypothetically using mathematical equations that can only show possible outcomes.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               That would mean that you and I are photons as well, as we are created in god's image.  There is also the small problem that photons (light) are not intelligent.

               replyreport
               1. 56

                  Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You are thinking about regular light....I am talking about the Shekina Glory...The light that created the universe.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     "Shekinah is derived from the Hebrew verb שכן. The Semitic root means "to settle, inhabit, or dwell".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah
                     
                     It has nothing to do with light at all, then, and the phrase refers only to a mythological place.  It certainly is not what the word "light" meant in Genesis.

                     replyreport
                     1. 56

                        Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Where ever God showed himself to dwell, there was light, made from Himself -  it is synonymous.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           That you wish the word "light" to have multiple meanings, in both Hebrew and English, does not make it so for anyone but you. 
                           
                           "Light" means photonic energy we can detect with our eyes, not some philosophical or mythological place, and it means that whether in the original Hebrew or translated into the English spelling.

                           replyreport
                           1. 56

                              Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              God's light is different than photonic energy.

                              replyreport
                              1. 95

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 I understand that.  Which is why the term "light" should not be applied to it at all.  And why Genesis doesn't refer to whatever you think "God's light" is, but rather to photonic energy.
                                 
                                 You don't get to assign new meanings to centuries old words in order to satisfy your own belief systems.  Doing so does not change the original meaning of the writings.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 56

                                    Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    God said let there be light (Shekina GLory)......Then, he made the stars later, which produced photonic energy.....I went to college for discussions like these. My professors are the ones who taught me these things.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 95

                                       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       No, God said let there be light (photonic energy).  And it was presented in the original Hebrew as just that.  You don't get to change the meaning to something else - if the writers of that tale were wrong then they were wrong.  You don't get to change into something else that makes it right, and certainly not through the use of semantics to change the meaning into what it never said.
                                       
                                       I went to college, too, but MY professors taught me to accept what is rather than pretend it is something else if I don't like the truth.

                                       report
                              2. 85

                                 HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Come on, let's evaluate and really think about this.
                                 
                                 Genesis 1:3-5 - And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”
                                 
                                 It's talking about light. As in light of day, as it specifies. Opposite of dark of night, as it specifies. Is that not obvious? How in the world do you get from that that it's actually talking about 'Shekina Glory'?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 56

                                    Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Because God did not create the stars yet.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 85

                                       HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
                                       
                                       So what are the "heavens" then? If God hasn't yet created stars? The "heavens and the earth" is a very common phrase and ALWAYS means the earth beneath us and the heavens above. And when they speak of "heavens", they're not talking about the space in between the celestial bodies, they're talking about the planets and stars and the sun.
                                       
                                       On day 4, God positions them in the sky, but there cannot be light, and day and night, without a sun.

                                       report
            2. 56

               Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Wilderness, it looks like we were taught two different views of the Bible in college, We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  What college did you go to?

                  replyreport
                  1. 56

                     Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Epic Bible College

                     replyreport
               2. 95

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes we do.  My view is that it is to be accepted for what it is.  Whether it is right or whether it is wrong it is to be taken as it is without change to force it to be right.  There are errors, there are exaggerations and there are some stories that are reported but just did not happen - OK, that is what we have and I see no possible justification to changing scripture to make it conform to reality.

                  replyreport
                  1. 56

                     Reluctant Revivalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     We will have to agree to disagree on those issues too.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm not surprised.  Yes we will.

                        replyreport
4. 60

   Live to Learnposted 7 years ago

   I think people are reading too much into the OP's claim. Archeological discoveries are pushing evidence of the historical accuracy of the Bible back, slowly but surely. There was a time when scholars thought the Bible was made up in Babylon to help keep some sense of unity to the Jewish people. I can remember when the suggestion that Abraham had camels was scoffed at but now we know that could easily be true.
   
   Did God say 'let there be light' and there was light? I don't know that anyone could prove that with archeological evidence.

   replyreport