Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[possibletarian]

So what?   Does that mean that they are unjustly biased?  It seems to me, that we are both biased, but what matters, is if we are unjustly so.   Would you agree?

For as often, as I hear that Christians are just in an echo chamber (as ironic as that is; to say to Christians who come here).  I don't find that Christians are the ones who dismiss things, because of their source!

I thought I would look at this, so I picked a link at random, I choose this one.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/a-b...oboration/

Here we have someone who claims to be some kind of cold case investigator and I went to the first example of his ‘proof’ here is the passage .

*Related to Belshazzar
The existence of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, was once doubted by critics. Belshazzar is named in Daniel 5, but according to the non-Biblical historic record, the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus. Tablets have been discovered, however, describing Belshazzar as Nabonidus’ son and documenting his service as coregent in Babylon. If this is the case, Belshazzar would have been able to appoint Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” for reading the handwriting on the wall (as recorded in Daniel 5:16). This would have been the highest available position for Daniel. Here, once again, we see the historicity of the Biblical record has been confirmed by archaeology.

From link above and italics mine*

Lets break it down a little…

The existence of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, was once doubted by critics. Belshazzar is named in Daniel 5, but according to the non-Biblical historic record, the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus. Tablets have been discovered, however, describing Belshazzar as Nabonidus’ son and documenting his service as coregent in Babylon.

He completely ignores that the bible says that he was the son of Nebuchadrezzar.
He (Belshazzar), was never actually King as listed in Daniel.
Nabonidus  is not mentioned in the bible.

He then goes on to say..

Here, once again, we see the historicity of the Biblical record has been confirmed by archaeology.

How?  no it hasn’t we see the usual theist practice of simply declaring something as true

That took me longer to cut and paste than to find clear flaws in. and was the very first one I read.

This is decent read of Daniel..

https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblica...#ref597863

For many centuries the apocalyptic character of the Book of Daniel was overlooked, and it was generally considered to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. In fact, the book was included among the prophetic books in the Greek canon. It is now recognized, however, that the writer’s knowledge of the exilic times was sketchy and inaccurate. His date for the fall of Jerusalem, for example, is wrong; Belshazzar is represented as the son of Nebuchadrezzar and the last king of Babylon, whereas he was actually the son of Nabonidus and, though a powerful figure, was never king……..

This is the kind of thing we are up against when we look at 'biblical proofs' That wouldn't be so bad, inaccuracies, and getting it just wrong is explainable in archaeology, but when we are also faced with the claim that a mighty god (who cannot get things wrong)  inspired and protected these accounts, it's then we have a problem.

Sure the bible gets some things right(ish) but that's exactly what we would expect of uninspired human writers writing about their own history or times.