View Full Version : The bible is fiction?
Pages :
[
1]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
Ninjaman09
08-09-05, 10:59 AM
Neato. :D
Zelda_fan
08-09-05, 11:23 AM
lol archeology agrees with the Bible. This concept honestly isn't anything new, but I'm glad to hear yet another Biblical site has been found. This should keep the anti-Bible whiners at bay for a few months.
DiscipleDOC
08-09-05, 11:59 AM
lol archeology agrees with the Bible. This concept honestly isn't anything new, but I'm glad to hear yet another Biblical site has been found. This should keep the anti-Bible whiners at bay for a few months.
Yea...right. Give it about an hour. Then you will have zak or drump in here talking about something that is totally off the wall.
netviper13
08-09-05, 12:02 PM
Meh. The Bible is as much a historical document as it is religious word. Very few people will argue that the entire Bible is fiction, the debate is over where there really is a God and/or whether Jesus was/is the Messiah.
Very cool finding though.
A place described in the Bible turned out to be real? Wow, that means Rome must be a real place too!
Really, it doesn't prove anything other than that much of the Bible is based on real places. Much like how the story of King Arthur is based in a real place called "England" - its still fiction though.
DiscipleDOC
08-09-05, 12:06 PM
Wait for it.....
Am_I_Evil
08-09-05, 12:07 PM
1. anyone who thinks that every single word in the Bible is false is an idiot
2. anyone who thinks that every single word in the Bible is true is an idiot
sytaylor
08-09-05, 12:18 PM
I'd comment, but DaveW summed up pretty much the only sensible response I can muster better than I could.
DiscipleDOC
08-09-05, 12:27 PM
A place described in the Bible turned out to be real? Wow, that means Rome must be a real place too!
Really, it doesn't prove anything other than that much of the Bible is based on real places. Much like how the story of King Arthur is based in a real place called "England" - its still fiction though.
Actually, King Arthur is based on Camelot--a fictional place. If you know of any places that are in the bible that ARE fictional, I ould like to know. As it stands, people are discovering places all the time that the Bible have made mention of.
Zelda_fan
08-09-05, 12:30 PM
A place described in the Bible turned out to be real? Wow, that means Rome must be a real place too!
Really, it doesn't prove anything other than that much of the Bible is based on real places. Much like how the story of King Arthur is based in a real place called "England" - its still fiction though.
So they found the pool that King Arthur drew his sowrd out of? Man I didn't know that. ;) The point is a specific place mentioned in the Bible has been found.
A lot of people say that Bible is a book of fairy tales becasue several places mentioned in it have yet to be found. I don't see how many more examples people need to see that the Bible, as a historical text at least, is quite accurate.
The debate is over whether or not the theology in the Bible is correct. I can't prove that to you, but it bothers me when people use lame brain arguments like "nothing in the Bible correlates with history" becasue that is simply not true.
Rakeesh
08-09-05, 12:34 PM
Something I have always said, is that 80% of the bible is a farce.
Actually, King Arthur is based on Camelot--a fictional place. If you know of any places that are in the bible that ARE fictional, I ould like to know. As it stands, people are discovering places all the time that the Bible have made mention of.
You are avoiding my point and just nit-picking over the example. Heres more:
Sherlock Holmes, War of the Worlds, The Time Machine, Moby Dick...
All fictional books set in real places.
If you know of any places that are in War of the Worlds that ARE fictional, I would like to know. Otherwise it must be true - according to your arguement.
DiscipleDOC
08-09-05, 12:44 PM
No...you're the one that's avoinding the point. The point was that the Pool of Siloam was proven to be a factual place, and you are the one that tried to derail the topic by talking about King Arthur. I took your example and illustrated the holes in your arguement.
I find that most people (no matter how much evidence is provided for them) will not allow Jesus to become Lord of their lives. I say that because, rather you are willing to tell us or not, deep down inside you too believe that God exist. To me, that is a moot point (check out my sig).
Again, I will ask: If you know of any place that has proven NOT to have existed in the Bible...I'm listening.
Zelda_fan
08-09-05, 12:44 PM
DaveW, the point is that that argument "the Bible is false because the places in it don't exist" is not a valid argument.
A lot of people say that Bible is a book of fairy tales becasue several places mentioned in it have yet to be found.
No they don't. They say its fairy tales because of the supernatural events it describes. You can't prove a story of a supernatural event is true just by finding the place where it was set.
"I turned my poop into solid gold this morning. It was in my bathroom. I can prove that my bathroom exists, therefore my story must be true."
DaveW, the point is that that argument "the Bible is false because the places in it don't exist" is not a valid argument.
Which has never been an arguement of myself or anyone I know who disbelieves the Bible. Yours is a strawman arguement.
DiscipleDOC
08-09-05, 12:47 PM
No they don't. They say its fairy tales because of the supernatural events it describes. You can't prove a story of a supernatural event is true just by finding the place where it was set.
"I turned my poop into solid gold this morning. It was in my bathroom. I can prove that my bathroom exists, therefore my story must be true."
Ok...in your own reasoning...can you prove that it's false? We can do this circular arguement until the day He returns.
No...you're the one that's avoinding the point. The point was that the Pool of Siloam was proven to be a factual place, and you are the one that tried to derail the topic by talking about King Arthur. I took your example and illustrated the holes in your arguement.
The point of my example was to show that finding a place described in the Bible is not proof that is not fictional. YOU ARE THE ONE AVOIDING THE POINT.
I find that most people (no matter how much evidence is provided for them)
If you want to find evidence to prove that the supernatural events described in the Bible occured, find the Arc of the Covenent and show it melting off some guys face when he opened it.
will not allow Jesus to become Lord of their lives. I say that because, rather you are willing to tell us or not, deep down inside you too believe that God exist. To me, that is a moot point (check out my sig).
Even if I did believe in a God of Miracles like you, it doesn't necessarily lead to me believing in Jesus and the rest of christianity.
Again, I will ask: If you know of any place that has proven NOT to have existed in the Bible...I'm listening.
Garden of Eden. Not that this proves anything. Because I don't disbelieve the miracles of the Bible because of some place that has not been found. Every place mentioned in the bible could be real. It does not prove it. Again, if you listened to my ORIGINAL POINT you would not be asking that.
Ok...in your own reasoning...can you prove that it's false? We can do this circular arguement until the day He returns.
I did not say I could prove it is false, just that its not proven as true.
BTW, I'm pretty sure most of the Quran is set in real places too.
ricercar
08-09-05, 01:11 PM
the story of King Arthur is ... still fiction though.It's great we have an historian at NV News who can state definitively what the accumilated body of British scholarship finds unproven.</sarcasm>
This is a hot button, not to pick on you specifically Dave. As a displaced Arthurian scholar, I'm much disturbed when people state what is not-proven as either fact or fiction. Like Schrodinger's Cat, it's neither; it's objectively indefinite. Until someone opens the right box, the existence of a single historical King Arthur's is only a probability, neither truth nor fiction.
Back on topic, I agree that Arthurian tradition is at peerage with biblical tradition. Many events and places written within either body are unquestionably related to real-world events and places. This doesn't validate the complete literature as fact.
Ninjaman09
08-09-05, 01:23 PM
No...you're the one that's avoinding the point. The point was that the Pool of Siloam was proven to be a factual place, and you are the one that tried to derail the topic by talking about King Arthur. I took your example and illustrated the holes in your arguement.
DaveW used the King Arthur example to illustrate a point that just because a place is shown to exist does not mean that a work of literature in which the place appears is immediately elevated to the category of non-fiction. He makes a very valid point given that the thread title attempts to imply that this discovery (while interesting) somehow diminishes claims that the Bible is mostly fictitious. It does not; the Bible contains accounts of many real places yet that alone does not prove to us non-believers that Jesus was the son of God and that he died to save us, nor does it unquestioningly validate God's existence in our eyes. That's all he's saying.
ricercar
08-09-05, 01:26 PM
My poop is always gold. My bathroom doesn't exist.
Ok...in your own reasoning...can you prove that it's false? It's not DaveW's job to prove anything false. He's correctly pointing out that archaeological evidence of a literary location doesn't prove the literature is non-fiction.
CybrSage
08-09-05, 01:44 PM
1. anyone who thinks that every single word in the Bible is false is an idiot
2. anyone who thinks that every single word in the Bible is true is an idiot
What do you base this assessment upon?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.