Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Tre on July 24, 2007, 07:18:58 AM
-
On either the National Geographic or History channels, have any of you seen that show about Exodus?
They gave clear scientific theories on what may have caused the first six Plagues and even answered the mystery of the burning bush.
Really cool show.
-
Saw it last night...there is no proof other than the Bible of the Jews Exodus, nothing...You would think that Ramses would have left a little footnote. I had question this in high school, why was there no proof provided by the Egyptians?
-
On either the National Geographic or History channels, have any of you seen that show about Exodus?
They gave clear scientific theories on what may have caused the first six Plagues and even answered the mystery of the burning bush.
Really cool show.
There have been other plausible scientific theories of the parting of the sea, and walking on water as well.
-
There have been other plausible scientific theories of the parting of the sea, and walking on water as well.
::) ::) ::) ::)
-
why was there no proof provided by the Egyptians?
Maybe because they got "pwn3d" :-\
-
When 600,000 slaves, and plagues of that magnitude happen, the "heroes" (Egyptians who took over leadership) who brought them back to "greatness" (a recovery from the economic collapse or problems they dealt with) would make sure the legacy of their contributions would be remembered.
the fact that there isn't a historical record of anything similar in the mists of thousands of historic records of Egypt's ancient history available and discovered, only points to the very strong possibility that exodus isn't factual.
It's not like what a person who experienced a embarrassing situation would do and not tell anyone.
-
It's not like what a person who experienced a embarrassing situation would do and not tell anyone.
My post was a joke.....sorry .... :P it was lame...
OzmO, on kind of another note, what do you think about how the Jews are portrayed in the bible? Coming from your perspective in not believing major portions of the bible why do you think it presents such a scathing review of God's "chosen people?"
-
My post was a joke.....sorry .... :P it was lame...
OzmO, on kind of another note, what do you think about how the Jews are portrayed in the bible? Coming from your perspective in not believing major portions of the bible why do you think it presents such a scathing review of God's "chosen people?"
i think they are indicative of the social struggles and events attach to any culture or history of a nation, race or what have you. i believe their struggles are no different from anyone and i don't believe they are any more chosen than your local pagan, Muslim, Buddhist, German, Italian etc..
They made mistakes, they did good things, bad things etc..
We must remember the people who chose the books to be included in the bible chose books that fit into what they believed was the truth or what support the direction of the new religion: Christianity.
Those books were written from a a number of people's perspective who may or may not have certain beliefs that caused them to look at things a certain way. For example a very morally conservative person might see an earth quake that destroyed a city they they believe was evil becuase the city allowed gay sex without penalty as a direct act of GOD. Logic and science tells us different.
-
i think they are indicative of the social struggles and events attach to any culture or history of a nation, race or what have you. i believe their struggles are no different from anyone and i don't believe they are any more chosen than your local pagan, Muslim, Buddhist, German, Italian etc..
They made mistakes, they did good things, bad things etc..
We must remember the people who chose the books to be included in the bible chose books that fit into what they believed was the truth or what support the direction of the new religion: Christianity.
Those books were written from a a number of people's perspective who may or may not have certain beliefs that caused them to look at things a certain way. For example a very morally conservative person might see an earth quake that destroyed a city they they believe was evil becuase the city allowed gay sex without penalty as a direct act of GOD. Logic and science tells us different.
They did a special on the "Lost Years" of Jesus...There are gospels that were not included about Jesus that stated he killed a man...They wanted to present Jesus in a different light, and that wouldn't fit in.
-
There have been other plausible scientific theories of the parting of the sea, and walking on water as well.
Specifically?
-
Saw it last night...there is no proof other than the Bible of the Jews Exodus, nothing...You would think that Ramses would have left a little footnote. I had question this in high school, why was there no proof provided by the Egyptians?
the fact that there isn't a historical record of anything similar in the mists of thousands of historic records of Egypt's ancient history available and discovered, only points to the very strong possibility that exodus isn't factual.
Are you guys serious? You really believe that just because no archaeological evidence has yet been found to support something that the Bible mentions automatically means that it isn't true? Has archaeology already found everything? Then they should stop looking.
The Hittite civilization
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/hittite-faq.htm
The Old Testament mentions the ancient Hittite civilization more than 50 times, either by their Hebrew name "Chitti" or by their designation as the sons and daughters Heth. However, prior to their rediscovery in the 19th century, there appeared to be no evidence for their existence outside of the Bible. Skeptics cited the missing evidence as evidence that the Bible actually fabricated their existence. This called the reliability of the biblical account into question. Basically the skeptics said, "We can't find any evidence for the Hittite civilization outside of the Bible. This demonstrates that the Bible cannot be trusted as an historical source."
Then, in the 19th and 20th centuries archaeologists hit the jackpot, not only identifying extrabiblical references to the Hittite civilization, but by actually finding and excavating the ancient Hittite capital city of Hattusa (modern day Boğazköy in northern Turkey). The rediscovery of this ancient civilization vindicated the Biblical record.
Evidence for the Hittites was bolstered in Egypt with the discovery of a treaty between Pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite Empire. Originally written on silver tablets in Heliopolis and Hattusus, a huge copy was found on a wall of the great Karnak Temple. After years of fighting between the Hittites and the Egyptians, Ramses II and the Hittite king settled on a treaty whereby the territory of Syria and Canaan would be divided between them.
King David
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/the-house-of-david-inscription-faq.htm
The House of David Inscription (also known as the "Tel Dan Inscription") was discovered in 1994 during excavations at the ancient city of Dan. It is considered by many to be the first reference to the "House of David" discovered outside the biblical text.
The House of David Inscription appears to be a fragment of a victory monument erected by a king of Damascus (Aram) during the 9th century BC, some 250 years after King David's reign. The fragment specifically mentions victories over a "king of Israel" (probably Joram) and a king of the "House of David" (probably Ahaziah).
The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) currently resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.
Ancient Roman Crucifixion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Archaeological_evidence_for_ancient_crucifixion
Despite the fact that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, refer to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus which was discovered in Jerusalem. It is not surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archaeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular individual a customary burial.
The remains were found accidentally in an ossuary with the crucified man's name on it, 'Yehohanan, the son of Hagakol'. The ossuary contained a heel with a nail driven through its side, indicating that the heels may have been driven through the sides of the tree (one on the left side, one on the right side, and not with both feet together in front). The nail had olive wood on it indicating that he was crucified on a cross made of olivewood or on an olive tree. Since olive trees are not very tall, this would suggest that the condemned were crucified at eye level. Additionally, the piece of olive wood was located between the heel and the head of the nail, presumably to keep the condemned from freeing his foot by sliding it over the nail. His legs were found broken. It is thought that since in Roman times iron was expensive, the nails were removed from the dead body to cut the costs, which would help to explain why only one has been found, as the back of the nail was bent in such a way that it couldn't be removed.
-
Are you guys serious? You really believe that just because no archaeological evidence has yet been found to support something that the Bible mentions automatically means that it isn't true? Has archaeology already found everything? Then they should stop looking.
The Hittite civilization
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/hittite-faq.htm
King David
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/the-house-of-david-inscription-faq.htm
Ancient Roman Crucifixion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Archaeological_evidence_for_ancient_crucifixion
We are talking about exodus not king David, roman crucification etc.... An incredible thing happen to them in exodus and there is no record of it any where. Which indicates to a strong possiblity it never happen the way it was portrayed in the Bible.
Stay on subject..... BTW just becuase you find a physical location wrote about in the bible like jericho's well doesn't mean the rest of the BS is exactly true.
-
We are talking about exodus not king David, roman crucification etc.... An incredible thing happen to them in exodus and there is no record of it any where. Which indicates to a strong possiblity it never happen the way it was portrayed in the Bible.
Stay on subject..... BTW just becuase you find a physical location wrote about in the bible like jericho's well doesn't mean the rest of the BS is exactly true.
OzmO, you crack me up. ;D
Skeptics in the past made fools out of themselves by saying the very same thing that you are saying now about Exodus. The Hittite civilization, King David and Roman crucifixion are just several of many examples of this.
Foolish skeptics in the past said that if the Hittite civilization was mentioned so many times in the Bible and if they were so influential to Egypt and the Hebrews, you would think there would be a record of it somewhere outside of the Bible. Well, not only did archaeologists recently find Egyptian records of the Hittites, but they also found the ruins of the Hittite civilization itself. The existence of the Hittites was denied until 1906.
Foolish skeptics in the past said that King David was a myth because you would think that if such a great king of Israel really did exist, there would be at least one record of him outside the Bible. Well, archaeologists did in 1994 find evidence of King David outside of the Bible.
Foolish skeptics in the past said that if what the Bible and what the great Historian Josephus wrote, that thousands of people were crucified by the Romans around the time of Jesus, then why do we not have a single archaeological evidence of it? Archaeologists recently found that evidence.
The list goes on and on. These skeptics made fools out of themselves by saying the very same things that you guys are now saying about Exodus. If you want to give a better reason for believing that Exodus is BS, that's a different story. But to say that it is BS only because no record of it has yet been found outside of the Bible is not very intelligent, especially in light of the example these foolish skeptics have already left for you.
-
It was said that the Exodus could of happened over a period of time, but not a mass Exodus...But there is a arch. who has found a place which used to be a water way, and their is tons of Bronze (the Egyptians-Ramses warriors had bronze weapons), also thru the dessert area where it was said that the Jews had walked, there were tons of grinding stones for germ.
-
OzmO, you crack me up. ;D
Skeptics in the past made fools out of themselves by saying the very same thing that you are saying now about Exodus. The Hittite civilization, King David and Roman crucifixion are just several of many examples of this.
Foolish skeptics in the past said that if the Hittite civilization was mentioned so many times in the Bible and if they were so influential to Egypt and the Hebrews, you would thing there would be a record of it somewhere outside of the Bible. Well, not only did archaeologists recently find Egyptian records of the Hittites, but they also found the ruins of the Hittite civilization itself. The existence of the Hittites was denied until 1906.
Foolish skeptics in the past said that King David was a myth because you would think that if such a great king of Israel really did exist, there would be at least one record of him outside the Bible. Well, archaeologists did in 1994 find evidence of King David outside of the Bible.
Foolish skeptics in the past said that if what the Bible and what the great Historian Josephus wrote, that thousands of people were crucified by the Romans around the time of Jesus, then why do we not have a single archaeological evidence of it? Archaeologists recently found that evidence.
The list goes on and on. These skeptics made fools out of themselves by saying the very same things that you guys are now saying about Exodus. If you want to give a better reason for believing that Exodus is BS, that's a different story. But to say that it is BS only because no record of it has yet been found outside of the Bible is not very intelligent, especially in light of the example these foolish skeptics have already left for you.
no, what i said it because of the lack of evidence in such a huge event there is a strong possibility it didn't happen the way the Bible says it did.
What's funny is how in writing our meanings can get mistaken.
-
Ozmo,
Do you believe that:
Jesus is the Son of God?
Jesus Died for Your Sins and Mine?
God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one in the same? (the Trinity)
Jesus was sinless?
Jesus rose from the dead to conquer death, and that he resides in heaven with the Father?
Jesus will return as ruler over all?
(i didn't know where else to put this post, so i thought i'd just put it here. i hope you don't mind.)
-
Ozmo,
Do you believe that:
Jesus is the Son of God?
Jesus Died for Your Sins and Mine?
God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one in the same? (the Trinity)
Jesus was sinless?
Jesus rose from the dead to conquer death, and that he resides in heaven with the Father?
Jesus will return as ruler over all?
(i didn't know where else to put this post, so i thought i'd just put it here. i hope you don't mind.)
I believe in God and I believe in the truth what ever that maybe. I don't believe the Bible is 100% true or the 100% word of God.
-
I believe in the truth what ever that maybe.
What the hizznet ???
-
What the hizznet ???
What's a hizznet????
BTW...... I believe in the truth. GOD should not be a mystery. But unfortunately if you take every message sent to us over time, he has never be very direct. Oh yes, he's been direct as far as Exodus is concerned but that was written so many years ago and so much of it is un-provable and when viewed objectively it's easy to see it was written with an agenda. A human agenda.
Every religion believes they bring the truth. How is one to know? And in this modern era GOD has not come out and communicated with us as he allegedly did to moses, buddah, Mohamed, etc....
So what am i to believe in the absence of direct contact from GOD and the chaos of religious turf wars?
I believe in GOD. I believe in the truth...what ever that may be.
-
I believe in GOD. I believe in the truth...what ever that may be.
Do you believe God to be truth? Do you believe that God loves you? How can you believe in something you are unsure about?
-
Do you believe God to be truth? Do you believe that God loves you? How can you believe in something you are unsure about?
Yes.
yes.
I'm not at all unsure about GOD.
-
Yes.
yes.
I'm not at all unsure about GOD.
But you said you believe in God and you believe in the truth "whatever that may be". ??? Doesn't that mean that truth and God are two separate entities?
-
But you said you believe in God and you believe in the truth "whatever that may be". ??? Doesn't that mean that truth and God are two separate entities?
No it doesn't.
the truth is what the reality of what God is and his message. I believe in that. In almost all religions there are similar constants; messages. those aren't the whole truth but they certainly parts of the truth.
-
My post was a joke.....sorry .... :P it was lame...
i thought it was brilliant.
-
Specifically?
yeah, these theories are "off the books" . . . they are not to be revealed to ordinary people like you. Just the truly enlightened, like j____s & B__G__M.
-
the truth is what the reality of what God is and his message. I believe in that.
Where does the message come from?
-
Where does the message come from?
All over the place.
It's hard not to see his message now-a-days.
-
OzmO, you crack me up. ;D
Skeptics in the past made fools out of themselves by saying the very same thing that you are saying now about Exodus. The Hittite civilization, King David and Roman crucifixion are just several of many examples of this.
Foolish skeptics in the past said that if the Hittite civilization was mentioned so many times in the Bible and if they were so influential to Egypt and the Hebrews, you would think there would be a record of it somewhere outside of the Bible. Well, not only did archaeologists recently find Egyptian records of the Hittites, but they also found the ruins of the Hittite civilization itself. The existence of the Hittites was denied until 1906.
Foolish skeptics in the past said that King David was a myth because you would think that if such a great king of Israel really did exist, there would be at least one record of him outside the Bible. Well, archaeologists did in 1994 find evidence of King David outside of the Bible.
Foolish skeptics in the past said that if what the Bible and what the great Historian Josephus wrote, that thousands of people were crucified by the Romans around the time of Jesus, then why do we not have a single archaeological evidence of it? Archaeologists recently found that evidence.
The list goes on and on. These skeptics made fools out of themselves by saying the very same things that you guys are now saying about Exodus. If you want to give a better reason for believing that Exodus is BS, that's a different story. But to say that it is BS only because no record of it has yet been found outside of the Bible is not very intelligent, especially in light of the example these foolish skeptics have already left for you.
Here's another example: Belshazzar.
He is listed in the book of Daniel, specifically in chapter 5 as the king of Babylon. When skeptics looked up the history of Babylon, they found that Nabonidus was listed as the last king of Babylon. Therefore, they declared that the account in the book of Daniel was inaccurate and went further, stating that Daniel was written by an anonymous in 2nd century B.C., who didn't really know the history.
In the mid-19th, a cylinder was found mentioning the name of Nabonidus. I believe it's called "The Nabonidus Chronicles". And that cylinder mentions the fact that Nabonidus has a son, a crown prince, named Belshazzar.
As it turns out, Nabonidus was indeed king of Babylon. What the skeptics missed was the fact that about three years after Nabonidus usurped the throne, he left for Arabia (a city called Tema, I think) for several years. Before leaving, he made a decree that put Belshazzar, in charge making him co-regent or (for all practical purposes) acting king.
When the Bible says that Daniel appears before the king, that king is Belshazzar, because Nabonidus is gone. Also, of note is the fact that whoever solved the "writing on the wall" mystery that had the king scared silly would received lots of weath and the position of THIRD highest ruler in the kingdom. That indicates that the author of the book (which traditional scholars hold to be Daniel, himself) knew of the co-regency situation, involving Nabonidus and Belshazzar. That is part of the evidence used to show that the book of Daniel was written in 6th century B.C., not 2nd century B.C., as skeptics (and some "liberal" Bible scholar have proposed).
And, this is yet another example of skeptics, claiming that certain Biblical accounts are false, only to end up with their feet in their mouths, once the evidence clearly points towards the Bible's accuracy.
-
Saw it last night...there is no proof other than the Bible of the Jews Exodus, nothing...You would think that Ramses would have left a little footnote. I had question this in high school, why was there no proof provided by the Egyptians?
Let's see:
- Crops emaciated by locusts
- Livestock stricken with disease and rendered worthless
- Boils covering every Egyptian
- The precious Nile River turned to blood
- Firstborn of all Egypt (including Pharoah's child).....DEAD
- Slaves, whose God is responsible for all this, leaving town with Egypt's wealth
I'm sure Ramses was just eager to hack the account of that beating that he and his nation took into stone, for mankind to remember for all time.
The mere fact that this TV special exists is proof of what Loco mentioned earlier: Skeptics back-tracking and looking rather silly, when evidence affirms Biblical accounts.
At one time, certain folks claimed that Israel was never even in Egypt, in the first place. When that quip got shot to pieces, they played the minimalizaiton game. They grudgingly admitted that it happened but tried to downplay the number of Israelites, enslaved in Egypt and claimed that the plagues were just legends, made up by the Jews.
Now, the trend is to suggest that the plagues actually happened; but, they were just run-of-the-mill natural occurences, with no Deity playing a part in the matter. Never mind that the plagues hit when Moses said they would, how Moses said they would, and for as long as Moses said they would. And, what random cause of nature would solely the firstborn of Egypt (and any Jewish folks, stupid enough to not heed Moses' instructions), to the point where Ramses would "tap out" (if you will), not only releasing the Israelites but letting them walk with his loot?
Then, there's the little matter of Egypt's reputation for not recording some of its more embarrassing defeats, the pounding from the plagues occurring in Exodus at or near the top of the list.
-
Here's another example: Belshazzar.
He is listed in the book of Daniel, specifically in chapter 5 as the king of Babylon. When skeptics looked up the history of Babylon, they found that Nabonidus was listed as the last king of Babylon. Therefore, they declared that the account in the book of Daniel was inaccurate and went further, stating that Daniel was written by an anonymous in 2nd century B.C., who didn't really know the history.
In the mid-19th, a cylinder was found mentioning the name of Nabonidus. I believe it's called "The Nabonidus Chronicles". And that cylinder mentions the fact that Nabonidus has a son, a crown prince, named Belshazzar.
As it turns out, Nabonidus was indeed king of Babylon. What the skeptics missed was the fact that about three years after Nabonidus usurped the throne, he left for Arabia (a city called Tema, I think) for several years. Before leaving, he made a decree that put Belshazzar, in charge making him co-regent or (for all practical purposes) acting king.
When the Bible says that Daniel appears before the king, that king is Belshazzar, because Nabonidus is gone. Also, of note is the fact that whoever solved the "writing on the wall" mystery that had the king scared silly would received lots of weath and the position of THIRD highest ruler in the kingdom. That indicates that the author of the book (which traditional scholars hold to be Daniel, himself) knew of the co-regency situation, involving Nabonidus and Belshazzar. That is part of the evidence used to show that the book of Daniel was written in 6th century B.C., not 2nd century B.C., as skeptics (and some "liberal" Bible scholar have proposed).
And, this is yet another example of skeptics, claiming that certain Biblical accounts are false, only to end up with their feet in their mouths, once the evidence clearly points towards the Bible's accuracy.
Great post, MCWAY! Thank you!
-
Great post, MCWAY! Thank you!
You're welcome. That blurb was just part of three accusations by Biblical skeptics that the book of Daniel wasn't accurate and thus was written late (especially given the prophetic material within the book itself).
Skeptic claim #1: Belshazzar didn't exist and was a figment of the alleged anonymous writer's mind - FALSE
Skeptic claim #2: (once #1 got smashed to bits) Belshazzar (Belly, for short) was never king - FALSE
And now....
Skeptic claim #3: Nebuchadnezzar was not Belly's father:
The book of Daniel does refer to Nebuchadnezzar (Nebby, for simplicity's sake) as Belly's father. Outside sources cite Belshazzar's father as Nabonidus. A conflict? Hardly!!!
Keep in mind that, in ancient cultures (especially in Hebrew) the word, "Father" means ancestor and is not limited to a first-generation biological parent. Jacob refers to Abraham as his father, as did many Hebrews.
In terms of royalty, a preceding king has often been referred as the "father" of a current king, with relation to the throne, whether there's an actual blood relation or not.
So, describing Nebby as Belly's father is quite accurate in those context. Furthermore, many Biblical scholars suggest that Nebby was actually Belly's maternal grandfather, which would make the term, "father", even more valid.
Historically, after Nebuchadnezzar, came his son, Evil-Merodach. He ruled Babylon for two years, before being killed by his brother-in-law, Neglissar.
Neglissar ruled for 4 years, before dying. His yound son, Labashi-Merodach was on the throne for a few months, before he was killed. Nabonidus usurped the throne but three years later, he bailed and put Belshazzar in charge.
The writing-on-the-wall incident predicts that the Medes and Persians would conquer and destroy Babylon. That's why Daniel refuses the title of third-highest ruler of Babylon (that was like being name VP of Enron).
You will recall a prophecy in Jeremiah 27, that states that the nations of the world would serve Nebuchadnezzar, his son, and his grandson, until the time of his end comes. Based on the historical account, that would mean that Nebby would rule, followed by his son (Evil-Meradoch) and his grandson (Belshazzar), until the time of his end comes (Medes and Persians conquer Babylon).
Score one more for Biblical accuracy!