Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[donlor]

post 3 Chad32  “Christians will say he created everything, and yet outer space and a globe of water seemed to exist before the story even started. I'm not sure how you can have light without the sun. And the light can't be god, unless the verse means he turned himself into light, whereas he wasn't light beforehand. It mentions the sun and moon will be lesser and greater lights, but the first light is just an enigma.”
Re post 3  Perhaps some thoughts of a literalist Bible-believer will help to clarify. First, God is, & He is the God who created. Creation is not something that observational science has a tremendous amount to say in regard to this one-time, unique event.
As for the light source in vs 3 - I agree it is an unknown as to what exactly it was. Could’ve it been from God - maybe. God does not need to turn Himself into light - 1 John 1:5 “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.”
Another small reality - a lightning bolt gives off light. A firefly & glow worm give off light. So, there can be light without the sun. Wouldn’t it be great is science could learn how to make “cold” light?

post 4 Minimalist “I always use the KJV.  Piss-poor though it is all the morons swear by it!” 
Personally, I use the NAS version. Many use the NIV. Some prefer the Living Translation. Others find the KJV good. I do very much like some of the KJV translations of the psalms. They are all but translations. 

post 6 BrianSoddingBoru4 “why would the ineffable, all-powerful omnimax being require a day of rest? What sort of rest did he take?  Was he doing and discarding designs for the Garden, deciding how many noses Adam should have, or was God just having a kip?  No one seems to know.”
Quite a silly question - but it was asked. Why does all the world have the week? This is not a trick question. God could’ve created in whatever time span He felt like. Six days of work & one of rest - repeat until death. After the creation of man God finished His creation activities. Good luck finding some mysterious place where matter just pops into existence. Perhaps you should petition the ACLU, etc to have the week done away with as it is of a distinctive RELIGIOUS origin & has no place in “modern” society.

post 8 Belaqua “Augustine, and Aquinas also thought that a literalist reading was untenable. Not to mention all the non-literalist Christians there are today.” 
Augustine, and Aquinas, though valuable contributors to theology, are just fallible humans. All of mankind is quite fallible. Since the dawwinian myth of evolution gained traction there have been many who been led astray by this fairy-tale. I daresay that if darwin tried to have his seminal works published today he would be hard-pressed to find a publisher.
If you have the time & inclination - where did you find what you say Augustine, and Aquinas believed?  

post 11 vulcanlogician “I think this about sums it up.” 
Yes, nature red in tooth & claw. But, you were too gentle on your fellow atheists. A picture of the emaciated bodies of the holocaust victims or some other likewisee horrific rendering of mans inhumanity would’ve been so much better.
We have these two Scriptures - the first before sin the second after sin. Before sin- nature NOT red in tooth & claw; after sin,  nature red in tooth & claw. This is not rocket science. 
Genesis 1:29, 30 “Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.” 
Gen 9:3 “Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.” 

post 14 vulcanlogician “ the myth-value of stories like Adam and Eve. In some respects, the story might even be saying something pertinent about our predicament as moral agents:”
Were we (mankind in Adam & Eve) created as moral agents. Yes, there was but one prohibition given them. They had choice. As it is, they filed miserably - they choose disobedience. The wonder of God is in that He has made a way unto reconciliation - repentance unto the Lordship of Christ. The Bible gives us the problem, sin. It gives us the remedy, repent. It explains what the problem is; why it is; what has happened because of it; & what to do because of it. 

post 15 Minimalist “If "adam and eve" are not taken literally then who the fuck needs jesus to save mankind from their "sin?"  I think the literalists are shitheads but the fact is they are the ones who understand the story.  It's the allegorists who do not have a leg to stand on.”
Absolutely true that Genesis is meant to be taken literally & is the foundation for why Christ had to come & die.
From a previous post - Here is something that truly amazes - the consistency of the Bible from cover to cover. There are 66 books & 40 authors. These authors range from kings to tax collectors & fisherman. Yet, the message remains focused on this - man is a sinner who will reap eternity in one of two places - either separated from God or eternity in fellowship with God & communion with others. Scripture is not ambagious. There is also this that is most often overlooked about the Bible. It is filled with prophecy - no other religious work can say this. 
Is the Bible true in everything it affirms whether it be science, health & medical issues, relationships, history? I say yes. Scripture offers abundant evidences that just wait to be weighed in the scales of reason & logic. 

post 17 wyzas “why would the ineffable, all-powerful omnimax being require a day of rest?” “And now we have the cosmic microwave background radiation that you can still hear today.” 
The day of rest is answered above in my reply to post 6
As for the “cosmic microwave background radiation” this does pose quite a dilemma for evolutionists. The “big-bang” says creation came into being all at once at a specific time. Many are the religious implications but now is not the time for this. 

post 18  “rather a god with physical form who modeled humans in his own image. Later interpreters would, of course, spiritualize this to mean God made humans in his spiritual image, giving them the capacity to think and know things, to reflect, to have morals, and all that.” 
I have no idea why you are propounding such folly? God is spirit. Man is a corporal being with a spirit. Where does the Bible teach that God is anything but spirit? When doing a study on a book of the Bible it is only proper to know what the BIBLE teaches.

[GrandizerII]

That was a remark on one particular verse in Genesis. I might be wrong, but it seems to me words like "image" and "likeness" seem to indicate physicality rather than spirituality, at least originally. Furthermore, we have many instances in Genesis where God is depicted physically as a human being who does such things as walk in the middle of a garden and be fed food as a guest by an old couple.

Of course, the Bible also depicts God as a spirit in other instances, but this doesn't rule out the fact he is depicted as physical as well.

[Bucky Ball]

@Bucky Ball @Gae Bolga, you guys expect others who differ from you to be respectful toward you, why? You call the Bible the magic book, you either can't spell Jesus or you're misspelling it to get under the skin of Christians ( I believe the latter), you quote scriptures as you know their meaning and you in general disrespect those who challenge you. Don't expect common courtesy when you do not show any in post after post and thread after thread. Most Christians would rather have good conversation than to argue but, when you disrespect what we choose to believe by mocking many parts of it (ie. the Bible, Jesus, God and ect.) by using disrespectful wording for them then you should expect some kind of defensive front to be thrown up at you. 
  By the way I was watching a show the other day about archaeology in the middle east and a secular archaeologist said that the Bible was still a valuable book to use in the discovery and understanding of ancient sites. This is from one who is there digging to find the truth, words from his own mouth, not from some paper that is written to impress more than to enlighten.

GC

No one is "mocking" the Bible. We may be mocking your ignorant understanding of it.
Are you trained in ancient Near Eastern literature ?
You don't chose to believe anything. You were TOLD what to believe and you swallowed it. 
Faith is a gift, in your cult. 
It's not a choice. One does not get to chose what is reality. 

THESE are the BEST archaeologist in Israel. 
They would have a vested interest in the Bible being literally true. 
It isn't. None of it. 

Thanks for the little sermonette. Another troll, not posting honestly in this thread. 
You do realize that a "god creating" is meaningless. Creating is an action process which requires time. There was no time (yet). 
Therefore you cannot use a verb with a temporal meaning. Try again, and next time actually THINK about what you're saying. 

[donlor]

Amazing how & what a lack of vision can lead to loss. Grandizer said in post 522 “Or if you're really keen, go gradually through my prior posts in this thread and see which ones you'd like to reply to.” I neglected this offer to the loss of the Gospel. 
As I went through & spoke to some postings - it became frustrating to me as I saw responding to many contentions & their proffered sites to be a waste of the precious coin of time. 
Yet, I was also truly here to see how my understanding of God’s word would stand before the fiercest criticisms. Was this to “stroke” me - no. I am secure in who & what I am. But, if you have the winning mega-millions lottery numbers - please pm them to me.

post 21 KevinM1  “I could never make it through Genesis. When your first statement is "In the beginning god created heaven and earth," my brain screams "prove it!" “I just nope right out of there.”

Amazing confession of a broad-minded person - how impressive - give me some time to reflect on this. This is so vogue & titillating that your brain is screaming. 
But then again, duh, who is this first statement of Genesis attributed to - God through Moses. 
I did have your back bro - but then you came against God & Moses - I gotta pass on this one. 

“prove it!”  - this is not possible. I have no problem with this & also co-joining this with that which I know, that the God of the Bible exists & He is as revealed in the Bible. This is my experience & that of combined multi-millions over 2,000 years. Yup, there are many dummer & dummest people out there. 

“I just nope right out of there.” Here is one of the points that I can say, at bare minimum, that atheists lack in & at most sorely leave everything to be desired. 
I can, & do freely meditate on the majesty of God revealed in creation - in all the myriad ways this can & came be understood. Much will come to light in future years. 
From the unaccountable ways that creatures of life came to be with their unique distinctive’s & operating systems, to fractals (wish this was around in the 60ths & 70ths), space-time quantum physics, etc - all proclaim the majesty of God. 
Why do I say this - to simply show how much I can rejoice in & hope for greater scientific understandings of anything & everything. I totally love real science - that which can be validated. 

post 25 vulcanlogician - “it is rare to find even Christians who mine the text so deeply for meaning.” ...” ...none of those who take the Bible literally go that deep.”

This is ignorance at it’s best pretending intelligence. It is a simply making a statement of untruth with no supporting evidence. There are multiplied hundreds if not thousands of works on Genesis to be plumbed from a literalist interpretation. Is my assertion correct - or yours? Please show me to be ignorant or wrong - which I contend that you are both. 

post 28 Neo-Scholastic “The Swedenborgian perspective the interior meaning of Gen 1 is about the regeneration of the individual soul as it comes to know God. That sounds to me very similar to the Return to the All in the Enneads. Similarly the interior meaning of Gen 2 is about the corruption of the individual soul as it moves away from God. That sounds like Plotinus's Emanations from the All. As far as I can tell the concepts overlap very well.”

I will just laugh & leave it there. Have fun.

post 29 SteveII   “You can't study Genesis 1 without textual criticism:”
thank you for your insight & wisdom. How ignorant & misguided thousands of years of commentators have been. I can now just throw out all of their anti-evolution conjectures. Phew, - what a weight has been lifted! 
Just a small note - textual criticism is just another of mans presumptuoms. Your statement about textual criticism means nothing. Why & how should I believe this textual criticism to be better (in being validated) than the Bible - God’s word to mankind?
I am simple but hardly simplistic. I ascribe to the Bible being absolute truth. 

post 31 “Robert Price does a nice job explaining how the J ( Yahwist ) and E (Elohim)  sources  of the OT were merged into one document...”
Again - all you atheists do is to use simply conjecture pretending to be some small manner of truth. Please, do better than this. 
How has this really disproved the testimony of the Bible. You stand on a vacuum of proof & expect me to say WOW - not gonna happen - prove your assertion.

post 32  Belaqua “I honestly don't know how many Christians in history have used it that way. Some of the early smart guys were happy enough to read it as a spiritual lesson.”
First, you do not know because you speak out of your ignorance. If you cared for reality a simple search would uncover how many Biblical scholars believed Genesis to be literal. 
Who were these luminaries you are so ready to speak of. Some names please. 

post 35 Jehanne  “Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.”
Another laughable post. You would contend that the Biblical account is based on the Mesopotamian account.  What validates or even supports this assumption? I say assumption for one reason - as the truth has many was of being validated. I say this Mesopotamian account is just a poor perversion of the Biblical account. How do you prove me wrong? Ball is in your court.

post 36 SteveII   “...who wrote it, when, the type of literature and that it is different...”
This is not complicated. The Torah is authored by Moses through God’s impartation to him. It is meant to be read as it was written - fact is fact, history is history, allegory is allegory, poetry is poetry. 

post 37  Jehanne “Genesis was written by multiple authors:” “Quote: The documentary hypothesis (DH)...” 
OK - another speculation of man. Am I to be cowered by it - no - it is just more folly to me. All this multiple author speculation is just that - speculation
let us deal with what is important. What is God - why is man in the condition he is in - is there hope?

post 38 SteveII “My point is that Grand wants to just read through the verses and pontificate on what they could mean. You cannot do that without FIRST looking at the text critically and identifying things like you brought up.”
Wow - I am so relieved that I came to this site! I now know that my simplicity of believing that something should be understood as what is written is naive.  Wow - I am 70 - time to grow up! 

post 40 Bahana “I've heard from Biblical scholars that the NIV translators were evangelically biased and used some funny business to cover up the difficult verses.”
Ah - excuse me - have you personally heard from these “Biblical scholars”? Wow - you must be in the loop! Just another pot of crap presented as something to eat. I shall abstain.  Are you to be taken seriously?

---

re post 562  Grandizer  “....it seems to me words like "image" and "likeness" seem to indicate physicality rather than spirituality, at least originally. Furthermore, we have many instances in Genesis where God is depicted physically as a human being who does such things as walk in the middle of a garden and be fed food as a guest by an old couple.”
There is nowhere in Scripture that there is any of the slightest intimation that God is a physicality,  excepting Jesus Christ. If I have missed this - please show me.
As for  "image" and "likeness” is this strange according to the Bible? Man is created - man has the image & likeness of God in his ability to reason, understand, & be a moral agent. What other document of history has anything near to being compatible with such true deep of the deepest realities?

[donlor]

re post 563  Bucky Ball
“No one is "mocking" the Bible. We may be mocking your ignorant understanding of it. 
Are you trained in ancient Near Eastern literature ? 
You don't chose to believe anything. You were TOLD what to believe and you swallowed it. 
Faith is a gift, in your cult. 
It's not a choice. One does not get to chose what is reality. 
THESE are the BEST archaeologist in Israel. 
They would have a vested interest in the Bible being literally true. 
It isn't. None of it. 
Thanks for the little sermonette. Another troll, not posting honestly in this thread. 
You do realize that a "god creating" is meaningless. Creating is an action process which requires time. There was no time (yet). 
Therefore you cannot use a verb with a temporal meaning. Try again, and next time actually THINK about what you're saying. “

Well, first, how can you confidently assert that any belief of the Bible is “your ignorant understanding of it.” Yes, this might be true - but it might also be totally wrong. Where does the empirical evidence lead? I do very much like empirical as far as it can be validated.
Do I need to be trained in Elizabethan literature to enjoy Shakespeare of the King James Version of the Bible? No? - so, relationally, I say that I do not need training in ancient Near Eastern literature to understand, & process what is said here in the gist of what is revealed by such studies. But, most importantly - PLEASE show me where these stdies have proved the Bible to be wrong. 
Also, in relation to ancient Near Eastern literature & archeology - please answer this question. How many have went from a Christian to an anti-Christian-Biblical bias after delving into this particular of scholarship? I would like a very few name is you could provide them. I can provide the opposite. Are you ready to swap cards?
Hah - as for your presumption “You were TOLD what to believe and you swallowed it.” I was not quite such a “swallower” that you may presume.
My 8th grade teacher (religious school)  said of & to me “if you do not end up in prison they might as well tell teat them down.”  
Went to catholic high school - was expelled for desecrating the church when the blessed sacrament was exposed the church in my senior year of high school.
Was suspended from college (not religious) so that I would (hopefully) be drafted & killed in Vietnam, this is a statement from the dean of students.
This is a simplicity of my “track record.” None who know me would say I am an easy believer. 
As for archeologists - I can refer some of the most prominent who have found the Bible to be accurate beyond any secular source. Actually, some were initally ardent anti-Biblical researchers whose main task was to disprove the Bible. What happened - they came to become believers because of the veracity of the historical evidences found first in the bible. But, I assume you have no knowledge of these actualities.
I do marvel at this wisdom of yours - “that a "god creating" is meaningless. Creating is an action process which requires time. There was no time (yet).”
Duh - what does the Bible say? Acts 17:28 “for in Him we live and move and exist,...”  Do I understand this; yes & no. I know what it says - but the incomprehensibility of such a God - this I can’t fathom.

[Bucky Ball]

Well, first, how can you confidently assert that any belief of the Bible is “your ignorant understanding of it.” Yes, this might be true - but it might also be totally wrong. Where does the empirical evidence lead? I do very much like empirical as far as it can be validated.

You are incompetent to even begin to discuss the Bible.
You have NO training in that literature and culture. 

You talking about "empirical" is utterly hysterical. 
Where is your empirical evidence for your gods ? 

Do I need to be trained in Elizabethan literature to enjoy Shakespeare of the King James Version of the Bible? No? 

A dishonest analogy if there ever was one. Do you "believe" that Shakespeare is the word of a god ? LMAO
You are doing FAR FAR more than "enjoying" the Bible. Stop lying to yourself. 

How many have went from a Christian to an anti-Christian-Biblical bias after delving into this particular of scholarship?
I would like a very few name is you could provide them. I can provide the opposite. Are you ready to swap cards?

Irrelevant. (BTW, "have went" is improper English"). Nice try at evasion and moving the goal-posts. 

As for archeologists - I can refer some of the most prominent who have found the Bible to be accurate beyond any secular source. Actually, some were initally ardent anti-Biblical researchers whose main task was to disprove the Bible. What happened - they came to become believers because of the veracity of the historical evidences found first in the bible. 

Great. Let's have a list. Now. 

I do marvel at this wisdom of yours - “that a "god creating" is meaningless. Creating is an action process which requires time. There was no time (yet).”
Duh - what does the Bible say? Acts 17:28 “for in Him we live and move and exist,...” 

Totally irrelevant. Your babble verse has NOTHING to do with the point, which obviously went WAY over your head.

Go start your own thread and stop trolling here, and trying to DERAIL this thread.

That was a remark on one particular verse in Genesis. I might be wrong, but it seems to me words like "image" and "likeness" seem to indicate physicality rather than spirituality, at least originally. Furthermore, we have many instances in Genesis where God is depicted physically as a human being who does such things as walk in the middle of a garden and be fed food as a guest by an old couple.

Of course, the Bible also depicts God as a spirit in other instances, but this doesn't rule out the fact he is depicted as physical as well.

With all sorts of human characteristics (an anthropomorphized deity), ... like getting angry, becoming appeased, changing his mind, being sorry he did things, (even though he's supposed to be omniscient), .... but just don't forget, this deity is a timeless-changeless deity. LOL

[donlor]

post 41  Bahana Wrote:
I do not trust the NIV. I've heard from Biblical scholars that the NIV translators were evangelically biased and used some funny business to cover up the difficult verses. In older versions of the NIV on Genesis 1:14 they used the word expanse when firmament may be more accurate. In ancient Mesopotamia the sky was viewed as a solid dome that held back water. I just checked and they changed it to "vault" in the current version. I admit it's easy to read but I no longer trust it based on what several scholars have said.

Not sure what your point is, but it is funny that you do not (“I do not trust the NIV. I've heard from Biblical scholars”) trust the NIV. 

post 42 possibletarian  For instance in the story it gives the impression Adam & Eve were blissfully naked, then they understood what nakedness was and covered up.
That is not to say that nakedness is a sin, but that the knowledge of it forced a reaction to it. 

We can’t know most about what the fall brought about but there are things to be considered. How was it that A & E now “knew that they were naked;” How is it that they now “knew” evil? Why was it that they “sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.” Was this from guilt & shame? 
“...the man and his wife hid themselves...” This was the first not good day on the earth. So it is & so it shall be till the end of time. Man, in sin, hides from God. Why, because there is nothing man can do, in & of himself, to rectify his sin - disobedience or whatever you want to call it
“The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me...” Nothing has changed in the ensuing ages since this first sin. People blameshift all the time. “...the woman said, “The serpent deceived me,...” Eve got no further than Adam with the blameshift game. I fail to see how you or I would fare any better when we stand before God on judgment day.
All of these points, issues, conjectures were not covered in the posts so I bring them up. 

post 45  Shell B   "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In doing so, he would have had to create the Sun. Well, then why isn't there any light until two lines later?

This creation is obviously a one-time event. What the new creation will be - I will wait & see, being totally grateful to God that I am there to marvel in it.

post 47 Bahana  I'm an atheist that reads it like mythology. I'd like to get the original author's intent though, if possible.

2 Timothy 3:16  “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” 

post 49 Shell B  And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
What is this fucking gibberish? Did they think the sky is made of water?
I'm so bored.

Lets think - a vault - this is something that is used to place something precious in. Water comes from the sky - water is precious as life ceases without it. Am I missing something?

post 50 sdelsolray  According to the story, water existed on the first day. Water contains oxygen. Oxygen is only formed in stars and only dispersed at the end life of some of those stars. According to the story, stars were not created until the fourth day. Therefore, no oxygen was available on days 1-3 to form water.

Duh - I am so dummm! I thought this was a creation narrative. Now it’s somewhat clearer to me. God waited till the stars gave Him the oxygen He needed. Thanks for showing me my ignorance.

[The Grand Nudger]

Lets think - a vault - this is something that is used to place something precious in. Water comes from the sky - water is precious as life ceases without it. Am I missing something?

Word association is precious.

[donlor]

re Grandizer post 566 
“...words like "image" and "likeness" seem to indicate physicality...” 
Yes, they could be understood thusly if we had no other Scripture then Genesis. 
It is hard to imagine having any “concrete” comprehension’s of God without using any anthropomorphisms. It is quite clear that God created man to have “fellowship” with him/her. A painful reality is that of sin & the breaking of what this “fellowship” was meant to be. Hence, there was a devolution of communion & communication. Thankfully, God still speaks to our limited understandings. What is it that God is angered with - sin in all or any of it’s manifestations. 
Back to the Holy Book - does it anywhere say that God is man outside of Christ? 
Does it say that God is spirit?

re Bucky Ball post 566 

“Great. Let's have a list. Now.”
 
Archaeology is “the scientific study of extinct peoples through skeletal remains, fossils, and objects of human workmanship (as implements, artifacts, monuments, or inscriptions) found in the earth” The most important artifact any civilization leaves is its literature.

Sir William Ramsay graduated from Oxford University with a doctorate in philosophy, for his work with ‘orthotoluic acid’. He discovered Krypton and Neon and received distinguished awards from numerous societies (including Pope Leo XII, and the Royal Geographical Society). He taught at Cambridge and Oxford. Ramsay was raised as a Biblical non-believer, by his atheist parents.
Sir Ramsay, was determined to undermine the historical accuracy of the Bible (which he preferred to call a “Book of fables”).  He studied archaeology with the aim of disproving the Biblical account. Once ready with the necessary scientific tools and learning, he travelled to Palestine and focused on the book of Acts, which he fully expected to refute as nothing more than myth.
After 25 years of work and research, travelling Asia and the Middle East. Ramsay was awestruck by the historical accuracy and evidence of the New Testament. In his quest to refute the Bible, Ramsay discovered many facts which confirmed its precision. He was forced to concede that Biblical events and settings were exact even in the smallest detail. Far from attacking the Biblical account, Ramsay produced a book, St. Paul, the Traveler and Roman Citizen, which supported Biblical events.
Eventually, William Ramsay shocked the intellectual world by writing that he had converted to Christianity. Ironically, this man who set out to refute the Bible, found himself accepting the Bible as God's Word because of his academic explorations and factual discoveries.
Dr. Simon Greenleaf one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion.
He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated: "it was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead,” 

Professor William F. Albright - He received his PhD from Johns Hopkins University, and was best known for his role in the authentication of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948.
He is considered the leading authority in theorist and practitioner of Biblical archaeology. Albright was awarded the "Worthy One of Jerusalem”- the first time it was awarded to a non-Jew. He insisted that the Biblical book of Genesis was historical and the details should be considered accurate.

Sir Frederic Kenyon - He was President of the British Academy and also director of the British museum. His expertise in archaeology showed us how science can corroborate many of the historical events of the Bible. A British palaeographer, Biblical and classical scholar, he made a life-long study of the Bible, especially the New Testament as an historical text. His book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, showed how Egyptian papyri and other evidence from archaeology can corroborate the historical events in the Gospel.
Sir Frederic Kenyon is considered second to none, as an authority on ancient manuscripts by secularists, Muslims, and Christians. A former Director of the British Museum and one of the greatest authorities on the subject, said in his book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts: “The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, or early translations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world”.
He was convinced of the historical reality of the events described in the New Testament - and is often quoted by those who share this most commonly with these words: “the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”

Professor Nelson Glueck - He was President of the British Academy and also director of the British museum. His expertise in archaeology showed us how science can corroborate many of the historical events of the Bible. Specifically, he pursued the correlation between history and Biblical facts.
Gluck’s contention is that very little was lost in the transmission of text from more than 24,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. He states, “There is more evidence for the reliability of the text of the New Testament than there is for any ten pieces of classical literature put together. It is in better textual shape than the 37 plays of William Shakespeare which were written a mere 300 years ago, after the invention of the printing press!”
Besides the massive numbers of early New Testament documents, the Old Testament can also be substantiated by the Jewish community who continue to corroborate the proof for its accuracy, as well as documents such as the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls which give added weight to the claim that it has never been changed. Even the Qur'an, possibly written during the 7th-8th centuries recognized the authority of our scriptures (see suras 2:136; 3:2-3; 4:136; 5:47-52, 68; 10:95; 21:7; and 29:46).
It has been proved that, outside of the very few scribal errors, the historical events and personages are adequately correct, as they do not confuse names, dates and events, and in fact, surprisingly, continue to coincide with current archaeological findings. This is indeed significant, since with each successive year, ongoing documental and archaeological discoveries fail to divulge any historical contradictions. Instead they continue to corroborate what the Bible has been saying for 2,000-3,000 years (examples such as the Ebla tablets, or the newly discovered tomb of the priest Caiaphus give continuing credibility to the scriptures historical trustworthiness).”

ALSO FOR CONDIDERATION
Professor Antony Flew was a prominent British philosopher, belonging to the analytic and ‘evidentialist’ schools of thought. He was considered to be one of the most influential and committed advocates of atheism. Flew took the position that atheism should be presupposed until the evidence for God was presented. However, in 2004 he shocked the academic world by stating his allegiance to a belief in the existence of God, and authored the book "There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind".
In a published interview shortly after his conversion Flew stated that, “reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God…and the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries.”
Flew expressed his belief in God was the result of his “growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientist that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe” and “my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself, which is far more complex than the physical universe, can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.

Gerald L. Schroeder was a scientist, author, and noted lecturer. He attained a reputation of focusing on a perceived inherent relationship between science and spirituality.
In 1965, Schroeder received his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts institute of technology in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences. His authored works include Genesis and the Big Bang, the Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom and the Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth.


C.S. Lewis a British literary critic, scholar and author who became the chair of medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge. During his time at Oxford, Lewis went from being an atheist to being one of the most influential Christian writers of the 20th century.

Sir Isaac Newton was a physicist, theologian mathematician, astronomer and natural philosopher. His brilliant work in physics has influenced all of science. He established the foundation for mechanical science, with his work on laws of gravitation and the three laws of motion.
However, many are not aware of his factual Biblical writings, spending more time on Christian Theology than on science. His methodical scientific nature caused him to approach the Bible on a more pragmatic factual level. Newton was not one to waste his time on mythical fiction. He was motivated to pursue factual truth writing over 1.2 million words on Biblical subjects. One will have to question what logical premise motivates brilliant individuals to pursue the Biblical truth and why many skeptics choose not to understand or pursue the truth.

donald

[Bucky Ball]

2 Timothy 3:16  “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;” 
Lets think - a vault - this is something that is used to place something precious in. Water comes from the sky - water is precious as life ceases without it. Am I missing something?

Yes indeed. You are totally ignorant. And you are missing everything.

1. When Timothy said that, there was no canon of scripture (yet), (for quite a long time), so in fact there is no way to even know what he was talking about.
"Scripture" means "that which is written", and at that time there were almost 200 gospels being written, and all kinds of other crazy shit, (100 books of Revelation), ... which of course you knew nothing about as you know nothing about the field in general. Is all that "scripture" ? LMAO

2. The Hebrew cosmos was TOTALLY inaccurate, (also something you know nothing about).

---

re Bucky Ball post 566 

“Great. Let's have a list. Now.”
 
Archaeology is “the scientific study of extinct peoples through skeletal remains, fossils, and objects of human workmanship (as implements, artifacts, monuments, or inscriptions) found in the earth” The most important artifact any civilization leaves is its literature.

Sir William Ramsay graduated from Oxford University with a doctorate in philosophy, for his work with ‘orthotoluic acid’. He discovered Krypton and Neon and received distinguished awards from numerous societies (including Pope Leo XII, and the Royal Geographical Society). He taught at Cambridge and Oxford. Ramsay was raised as a Biblical non-believer, by his atheist parents.
Sir Ramsay, was determined to undermine the historical accuracy of the Bible (which he preferred to call a “Book of fables”).  He studied archaeology with the aim of disproving the Biblical account. Once ready with the necessary scientific tools and learning, he travelled to Palestine and focused on the book of Acts, which he fully expected to refute as nothing more than myth.
After 25 years of work and research, travelling Asia and the Middle East. Ramsay was awestruck by the historical accuracy and evidence of the New Testament. In his quest to refute the Bible, Ramsay discovered many facts which confirmed its precision. He was forced to concede that Biblical events and settings were exact even in the smallest detail. Far from attacking the Biblical account, Ramsay produced a book, St. Paul, the Traveler and Roman Citizen, which supported Biblical events.
Eventually, William Ramsay shocked the intellectual world by writing that he had converted to Christianity. Ironically, this man who set out to refute the Bible, found himself accepting the Bible as God's Word because of his academic explorations and factual discoveries.
Dr. Simon Greenleaf one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion.
He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated: "it was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead,” 

Professor William F. Albright - He received his PhD from Johns Hopkins University, and was best known for his role in the authentication of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948.
He is considered the leading authority in theorist and practitioner of Biblical archaeology. Albright was awarded the "Worthy One of Jerusalem”- the first time it was awarded to a non-Jew. He insisted that the Biblical book of Genesis was historical and the details should be considered accurate.

Sir Frederic Kenyon - He was President of the British Academy and also director of the British museum. His expertise in archaeology showed us how science can corroborate many of the historical events of the Bible. A British palaeographer, Biblical and classical scholar, he made a life-long study of the Bible, especially the New Testament as an historical text. His book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, showed how Egyptian papyri and other evidence from archaeology can corroborate the historical events in the Gospel.
Sir Frederic Kenyon is considered second to none, as an authority on ancient manuscripts by secularists, Muslims, and Christians. A former Director of the British Museum and one of the greatest authorities on the subject, said in his book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts: “The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, or early translations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world”.
He was convinced of the historical reality of the events described in the New Testament - and is often quoted by those who share this most commonly with these words: “the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”

Professor Nelson Glueck - He was President of the British Academy and also director of the British museum. His expertise in archaeology showed us how science can corroborate many of the historical events of the Bible. Specifically, he pursued the correlation between history and Biblical facts.
Gluck’s contention is that very little was lost in the transmission of text from more than 24,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. He states, “There is more evidence for the reliability of the text of the New Testament than there is for any ten pieces of classical literature put together. It is in better textual shape than the 37 plays of William Shakespeare which were written a mere 300 years ago, after the invention of the printing press!”
Besides the massive numbers of early New Testament documents, the Old Testament can also be substantiated by the Jewish community who continue to corroborate the proof for its accuracy, as well as documents such as the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls which give added weight to the claim that it has never been changed. Even the Qur'an, possibly written during the 7th-8th centuries recognized the authority of our scriptures (see suras 2:136; 3:2-3; 4:136; 5:47-52, 68; 10:95; 21:7; and 29:46).
It has been proved that, outside of the very few scribal errors, the historical events and personages are adequately correct, as they do not confuse names, dates and events, and in fact, surprisingly, continue to coincide with current archaeological findings. This is indeed significant, since with each successive year, ongoing documental and archaeological discoveries fail to divulge any historical contradictions. Instead they continue to corroborate what the Bible has been saying for 2,000-3,000 years (examples such as the Ebla tablets, or the newly discovered tomb of the priest Caiaphus give continuing credibility to the scriptures historical trustworthiness).”

ALSO FOR CONDIDERATION
Professor Antony Flew was a prominent British philosopher, belonging to the analytic and ‘evidentialist’ schools of thought. He was considered to be one of the most influential and committed advocates of atheism. Flew took the position that atheism should be presupposed until the evidence for God was presented. However, in 2004 he shocked the academic world by stating his allegiance to a belief in the existence of God, and authored the book "There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind".
In a published interview shortly after his conversion Flew stated that, “reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God…and the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries.”
Flew expressed his belief in God was the result of his “growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientist that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe” and “my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself, which is far more complex than the physical universe, can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.

Gerald L. Schroeder was a scientist, author, and noted lecturer. He attained a reputation of focusing on a perceived inherent relationship between science and spirituality.
In 1965, Schroeder received his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts institute of technology in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences. His authored works include Genesis and the Big Bang, the Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom and the Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth.


C.S. Lewis a British literary critic, scholar and author who became the chair of medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge. During his time at Oxford, Lewis went from being an atheist to being one of the most influential Christian writers of the 20th century.

Sir Isaac Newton was a physicist, theologian mathematician, astronomer and natural philosopher. His brilliant work in physics has influenced all of science. He established the foundation for mechanical science, with his work on laws of gravitation and the three laws of motion.
However, many are not aware of his factual Biblical writings, spending more time on Christian Theology than on science. His methodical scientific nature caused him to approach the Bible on a more pragmatic factual level. Newton was not one to waste his time on mythical fiction. He was motivated to pursue factual truth writing over 1.2 million words on Biblical subjects. One will have to question what logical premise motivates brilliant individuals to pursue the Biblical truth and why many skeptics choose not to understand or pursue the truth.

donald

Too bad for you, Donny-boy, your list of archaeologists is WAY WAY WAY out of date, and totally bogus. Totally.

1. You can't possibly be serious. Sir William Ramsay. Died in 1916. LONG before carbon dating, DNA, and all the modern archaeological tools even existed.

Dismissed.

2. Thanks for picking William F. Albright. He was the editor (actually in the 1950's) also LONG before carbon dating, and modern tools, of the "Interpreters Bible", where more than 100 scholars agreed with this :

"In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others."

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

He then continues by discussing the details of what a "faith document" is and how it differs from what we would consider an historical text today. The next chapter, authored by Dr. Arthur Jeffrey, Professor of Semitic Languages at Columbia, deals with the formation of the Old Testament canon. He wrote what is seen as the fundamental insight in modern Biblical Study and summarized the central academic position of every mainline, respected, and credible center of Biblical scholarship in the world today :

"Historians can merely state that a canon of scripture is not something given, but something humanly devised. From the historical point of view, the canon is the result of human decision as to which among the religious writing existing in a community are those in which it recognizes the authentic voice of religious authority speaking to man."

Albright EDITED this work ... so no. He in no way supports literalism, or that the Bible is supported by archaeology.

Dismissed.

3. Sir Frederick Kenyon .... LMAO. AGAIN, died in 1931. WAY before modern tools and methods, and excavations. Can't you do any better ?

Dismissed.

4. Nelson Glueck was a JEW. You didn't say what work you are quoting. The thing is, there are NO original New Testament texts to even check, (as Ehrman says), so the POINT is fatuous and not taken. They have no way to know if anything ever changed. Again, he died in 1971 ... before current modern methods were being used.

Dismissed.

5. Flew Schroeder, Lewis and Newton are not Biblical scholars. YOU bringing them into this shows how desperate you are, and is the argumentum ad vericundiam fallacy, (argument from authority fallacy) .... they are not experts in THIS FIELD. They in fact knew NOTHING about modern archaeology. Nothing.

Just because there was a place called Jericho, doesn't mean the STORY about it is true. Any more than Harry Potter mentioning London makes that true.

4 more dismissed.

The Qu'ran saying anything is support of nothing, (unless you are trying to say you are a Muslim, and you buy into their scripture).

So there we have it. NOT one claimed expert in archaeology can he find to support the Bible as accurate.
We know for a fact, (they have the correspondence in Egypt) that the supervisors of he Egyptian strongholds in Canaan WROTE to their supervisors in Egypt, and they controlled the entire Near East. Going from Egypt to another place they controlled (Exodus) makes NO SENSE, and there is no evidence for it.  

We KNOW how the Hebrews viewed the cosmos.
It was totally inaccurate.

Literalism desperately grasps at straws to try to make literal what was never meant to be literal, as that culture's literature had no interest in, or concept of "literal writing" ... which these Fundies don't know, as they have never actually gone to school, and studied the matter.

Why is it, there are no CURRENT modern archaeologists who can bring modern tools and dating to this ?
LOL
We know the answer.