It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Shane
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Now you are just interpreting things to fit your view.
I take it you did not appreciate anothers attempt at clarifying the events of Creation, which lead to the Recreation Account in Genesis 1 Verse 3 and on.
Or did you even review it?
I am. You just have not quite understood that yet, have you.
The Stele, 1000 BC Walls of Jerusalem, and David's Palace.
I believed that response was to Miriam, and not part of what we have discussed. I understand what you are saying. Let's take a look at it from MY perspective.
If someone wrote a Novel about a family, which lived in a place called Hanok, (Enoch for the English), and that Novel, which is a fictional account of something, expressed Where Hanok was, How long it had been there, Where the people who built it came from, The Kings and Queens of Hanok, How their religious practices took place, and then add some HISTORIC Facts like when it was destoryed and who was taken captive, and why did some not become captured, and so on, and so on.
Here's the "KICKER". Everything this work of Fiction expressed about Hanok led to the discovery of Hanok when prior to this, no one believed it was a place in reality.
Happenstance? Luck? Wierd?
I would have to say it was an Accurate Archaeological Piece of work, despite it being a Fictional Acount. It led "others" to search in the proper area inorder to excavate and research Hanok. Yeah, the team leader in the Dig had a copy in his back pocket.
I have, I hope, explained this for you now, and sorry if I had thought those views you expressed where for Miriam.
AH, but there you go. Backsiding my Friend?
Davids Palace did not exist on a Map, and prior to it's discovery, a majority of people doubted it ever existed. Just like the Walls found for the Old City of Jerusalem. Sure, in the Bible, we are told of these, but people doubted these ever existed on a Map, but here they are, and discovered throught the USE of the Bible as an source.
The Topic is not if the Bible is True. I am sure that is another post.
The Topic is Archaeological Evidence for the Bible, vs Coverups.
People have been offering this, since the begining of this post. And rather than even getting an opportunity to see if things have been covered up, the post has been either a debate on whether Acrhaeological Evidence can be presented as Archaeological Evidence or if it needs to jump thru hoops to be offered, or some people off on the GOD hating Tirades.
We have not even addressed anything "Covered Up" as of yet.
Just got in from work. Need sleep. Good night my friend.
Ciao
Shane
Originally posted by The time lord
reply to post by K J Gunderson
I personally do not need all this so called evidence, the evidence is how belief effects one self for the better and how God comes into you life and how coincidences and God's spirit works within and around us and opens new understandings.
If they find Noah's Ark then good but for some people they need that extra evidence to believe in something which I feel is maybe not what the Bible intended, it is about taking a leap of faith sometimes.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I just dismissed this did I? I guess addressing it over and over again was too obvious for you?
So responding to someone else about the exact same thing means it is invalid until I say it again directly to you?
The bible is a narrative, not a catalogue of people and places.
I see where you are coming from and I just hope you realize it is not logical and wishful thinking at best.
...and discovered evidence of that narrative that is the bible? God, Eden, Satan, Jesus, Noah, Miracles?
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Shouldn't they be? Most books that claim to be historical texts though can actually be backed up.
I have a book right here that is on the history of M.C. Escher. We can confirm he existed, we have his artwork and writing, we have his documented life. The book is about a man that did some stuff we can check out.
The bible on the other hand is about magical beings and miracles...that just happens to also contain parts about people and places.
You do see that difference right?
Nope. You will notice that I agreed that all kinds - not all - but many many historical accounts are questionable. History has been written by the winners and the powerful. Those are rarely the most honest people in society.
is there any physical evidence besides word of mouth accounts that george washington actually crossed the patomic?
Not sure. I would not spend my life worshiping anything based on that story either.
why does your standard of prove apply to the bible but not to other historical accounts?
Actually it does. The only difference is that often we can confirm people, places, and events. We cannot confirm your god, angels, demons, Satan, miracles, you know the stuff the bible is all about.
Look at it this way. One story is about a guy stabbing another guy. Another is about a man crossing a river. The third is about things like Noah's Ark.
What is the big difference? Can we prove that men can stab other men? Yep. Is it believable then? At least.
Can we prove that men can cross rivers? Sure can. Is it believable then? At least.
Can we prove two of every single creature on the planet could be rounded up and kept on a boat for 40 days? Uh...well actually we can easily prove that is not even remotely possible. Is it believable? Not even a little.
Do I put blind faith in all historical accounts? NOPE. Have I seen evidence that people get stabbed and cross rivers? YEP! Have I seen evidence that any of the stuff about God, miracles, or any other supernatural phenomena the Bible is all about? NOPE.
See the difference?
Gosh, it would probably be embarrassing to the Nazi party to let people find out Hitler died by his own hand in a bunker eh?
It might be embarrassing to find out Chris Columbus thought he made it all the way around to India and landed far south of the America he is credited with discovering.
It might be super embarrassing for people to find out about Chernobyl.
How proud was the U.S. to report Lincoln getting shot watching a play?
I am not sure I follow that line of reasoning but it does not really help even if I do.
Tell me, does writing about miracles make all miracles true - regardless of the god or religion they were written into?