Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[vorlon13]

If you believe anything that Luke says (I don't), then, yes, Jesus was literate.

Um . . .

Luke has Jesus (on the cross) denying the 3 day resurrection.


Luke 23 (KJV)
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.


So, I'd be very cautious with the Gospel of Luke.

[Shell B]

What do you consider as an unbiased source?  

Probably not the clearly biased sources you provided, but I will try to take each of them on the merit of their content, which, so far as I've read, contain statements like "some experts agree," which usually means, "the sources I cherry picked agree."

It seems to me, that archeology is constantly finding things which go a long with the Biblical story (and that many of the arguments against are just absence of evidence arguments with a misunderstanding of what expectations should be in ancient archeology).

Complete absence of evidence is a good argument. You can actually expect quite a lot from ancient archaeology. We have extraordinary evidence of events predating Jesus by thousands of years.

It seems that there are numerous examples where "experts" have claimed that the evidence doesn't match up, and entire people groups mentioned in the Bible did not exists, only to have to eat their words upon later discoveries. 

Examples?

The main issue that I am aware of, is the exodus, which revolves around some disagreements about dates.  Those holding to later dates, saying that their isn't evidence, and those who figure on earlier dates saying that there is support (along with Jericho that follows).  The other major disagreement with the exodus (even considering a earlier date) , is with the number of people.   And there are some reasonable explanations here as well. 

Such as?

And with the new testament because it is more recent, then we have better support for.  There are multiple accounts, hostile and third party corroboration, the history of the Church which followed.  I find that all this meets the historical method fairly well.

Like?

Here are a few links to some support for the Old Testament support.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/a-b...oboration/
https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com...-evidence/

http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-ar...the-bible/

Archeology and Ancient History are not an exact science.

Maybe not, but they're not a crap shoot by a long shot. Even before written history, we can piece together a shitload of history.

 

And when you look back, you can see trends in even the scholarly work, that move in favor of, and against the Bible.  I think we are moving back to a point where the popular expert opinion is against the Bible.  But when you look at this, it's not citing some new information which was discovered, or a pivotal point which has been reconsidered with new and better reasoning.  It's largely just the current trend in opinion and mood.  Which is why I always ask what are the facts, and what is the basis for the conclusion in this regard.

I don't care what's popular. I accept history that is supported by contemporary documents, geology and archaeological findings. Religious texts are notoriously bad stand-ins for actual history. Generally, I look at it like the Bible has some true history in it because writers writing about the world around them always include events that have actually happened to some degree. Even the presence of a toaster in a fictional story would tell someone a million years from now that the story was written after the advent of the toaster. You know what I mean? However, there are so many events in the Bible that could not have happened (the flood) that we can't treat it as non-fiction. Sure, there are a few toasters, but it's no textbook.

[Edwardo Piet]

This is one of several statements that clearly imply that evidence as you see it is necessarily conclusive. Do you want me to quote more?

It doesn't imply that at all! Damn you're bad at debates. You not only misrepresent what I said repeatedly but you draw completely false implications LOL.

There are atheist scholars who think the evidence indicates that a historical Jesus existed, and some who think that he didn't.

Which is completely irrelevant! Because, if Jesus existed, he was just a man and not the son of God: Christianity is still likely false.

That's because evidence (particularly historical) can be less than conclusive.

Yes. And I'm saying that you don't need faith if you have any evidence at all. I never mentioned conclusive evidence.

Saying that either there's evidence or not is simplistic in many situations.

No it isn't! That's called a true dichotomy! Either X or not X is as basic as logic gets.

Going beyond a statement such as In my opinion the evidence indicates he did/didn't exist, to one of I believe he did/didn't exist, requires an element of faith.

Then we define "faith" differently. Why would you need any faith if you had any evidence at all? Evidence puts the probability in your favor, if you have evidence, you don't need faith... because you actually have a legit reason to believe.

In any case, the historical Jesus is irrelevant.

---

No, you don't understand it.

A proposition is falsifiable if evidence which refutes it could possibly be produced.

A proposition is unfalsifiable if evidence which refutes it cannot possibly be produced.

Yes. And for something to be at all plausible within the realm of science it has to be falsfiable... and all evidence is empirical, and empirical evidence is exactly what science deals with.

So you have a very limited appreciation of falsifiablity.

A proposition can have some supporting evidence for it regardless of whether it's falsifiable or unfalsifiable.

Wrong. As soon as something is unfalsifiable it's outside the natural world and therefore non-empirical and therefore there's impossible to have evidence of it within our natural world... which is the only world we live in.

[RoadRunner79]

What do you consider as an unbiased source?  

Probably not the clearly biased sources you provided, but I will try to take each of them on the merit of their content, which, so far as I've read, contain statements like "some experts agree," which usually means, "the sources I cherry picked agree."

---

It seems to me, that archeology is constantly finding things which go a long with the Biblical story (and that many of the arguments against are just absence of evidence arguments with a misunderstanding of what expectations should be in ancient archeology).

Complete absence of evidence is a good argument. You can actually expect quite a lot from ancient archaeology. We have extraordinary evidence of events predating Jesus by thousands of years.

It seems that there are numerous examples where "experts" have claimed that the evidence doesn't match up, and entire people groups mentioned in the Bible did not exists, only to have to eat their words upon later discoveries. 

Examples?

The main issue that I am aware of, is the exodus, which revolves around some disagreements about dates.  Those holding to later dates, saying that their isn't evidence, and those who figure on earlier dates saying that there is support (along with Jericho that follows).  The other major disagreement with the exodus (even considering a earlier date) , is with the number of people.   And there are some reasonable explanations here as well. 

Such as?

And with the new testament because it is more recent, then we have better support for.  There are multiple accounts, hostile and third party corroboration, the history of the Church which followed.  I find that all this meets the historical method fairly well.

Like?

Here are a few links to some support for the Old Testament support.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/a-b...oboration/
https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com...-evidence/

http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-ar...the-bible/

Archeology and Ancient History are not an exact science.

Maybe not, but they're not a crap shoot by a long shot. Even before written history, we can piece together a shitload of history.

 

And when you look back, you can see trends in even the scholarly work, that move in favor of, and against the Bible.  I think we are moving back to a point where the popular expert opinion is against the Bible.  But when you look at this, it's not citing some new information which was discovered, or a pivotal point which has been reconsidered with new and better reasoning.  It's largely just the current trend in opinion and mood.  Which is why I always ask what are the facts, and what is the basis for the conclusion in this regard.

I don't care what's popular. I accept history that is supported by contemporary documents, geology and archaeological findings. Religious texts are notoriously bad stand-ins for actual history. Generally, I look at it like the Bible has some true history in it because writers writing about the world around them always include events that have actually happened to some degree. Even the presence of a toaster in a fictional story would tell someone a million years from now that the story was written after the advent of the toaster. You know what I mean? However, there are so many events in the Bible that could not have happened (the flood) that we can't treat it as non-fiction. Sure, there are a few toasters, but it's no textbook.

---

What is it about the sources that I used, that make them clearly biased? Could it be your bias, that makes you think they are biased? Also, I notice, that for this starting with your claims, that I am the one providing more of the information. Could you please be a little more specific, in what you think goes against the scriptures?

[Shell B]

I’m not making any claims. You claim the Bible is historically accurate. It’s for you to prove that.

Those are heavily Christian sites.

[RoadRunner79]

I’m not making any claims. You claim the Bible is historically accurate. It’s for you to prove that.

Ok... I thought you where saying that the Bible was inaccurate, according to historical standards.    I'm glad to learn that is not your opinion, and that I was mistaken.  

Those are heavily Christian sites.

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!

[Jehanne]

RR,

The sites that you link to simply are not representative of mainstream Biblical scholarship that is taught at the 3,000+ 4-year colleges and universities across the United States, let alone the World.

[RoadRunner79]

RR,

The sites that you link to simply are not representative of mainstream Biblical scholarship that is taught at the 3,000+ 4-year colleges and universities across the United States, let alone the World.

Are you saying we have not found corroborating evidence for the Hittites or for Pontious Pilate? That we have not found artifacts that reference the house of King David?

If you are saying that something is incorrect, or that you have a better explanation, then feel free to make your case.

{edit- Note to Shell- these examples are of thing which the experts where previously certain did not match up between history and the Bible.

[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.

[John V]

Yes. And for something to be at all plausible within the realm of science it has to be falsfiable... and all evidence is empirical, and empirical evidence is exactly what science deals with.

OK, you're merely dressing up materialism.

Wrong. As soon as something is unfalsifiable it's outside the natural world and therefore non-empirical and therefore there's impossible to have evidence of it within our natural world... which is the only world we live in.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Popper accordingly repudiates induction and rejects the view that it is the characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference, substituting falsifiability in its place. It is easy, he argues, to obtain evidence in favour of virtually any theory, and he consequently holds that such ‘corroboration’, as he terms it, should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a genuinely ‘risky’ prediction, which might conceivably have been false.