Friday, January 1, 2010

If it don't fit, you must aquit

We all have prejudices, and when we search for "evidence" if we are being honest, we don't want to find any evidence that is contrary to our beliefs. Matter of fact we usually just dismiss it until we find something that coincides with what we already believe.

Believing in God is easy and natural. I think you must really try hard not to believe in Him? Same said with the Bible. When I write something I sometimes think to myself "I don't know how they can answer these things, yet I know they will". And sometimes, I think you actually believe what you're saying?

Archeological discoveries that help claims made by the Bible don't seem to really matter. Things like the City of Ur, which once was used as skeptic fodder against Bible claims, but when the city was unearthed it didn't change anyone's opinion. Why? Because we only believe what we want to.

Some claim the Bible borrowed things from other religions, yet over 3000 yrs ago those same religions claimed that the Earth was supported by a Turtle or Atlas or by a Catfish or Elephant. While the Bible states "God stretches out the north over the empty place and hangs the Earth on nothing". (Job 26:7) Scientists used to claim that there's not enough water on Earth to have a worldwide flood. Then they discovered fountains of waters in the oceans depths. Which the Bible could have told you about. (Gen. 7:1) Do you think that changed anyone's mind.

My friend questions the validity of Moses, if they found a record of Moses tomorrow, you might believe that Moses existed, or you might not, but it wouldn't make you believe in Christ anymore. We can claim that Jesus never existed, or Paul or Moses, that list can get awful long. And we can play that game forever, and many have. And there are BTW many things that point to a Moses and plagues and Egypt etc. around the time he claims.

No matter how hard people try to debunk the Bible it just hasn't happened. How did these uneducated, simple minded goat herders write something with such truth, wisdom and power and be so far ahead of it's time in things like science and prophecy and biology, oh yeah I got biology and prophetic stats too. But so what, it's just more stuff to debunk.

I try to stay away from these type of arguments that "prove" something. And I know I haven't proved anything here today either? My point to this post is something I've said a few times before, "There is plenty of evidence to support your belief in Atheism, if that's what you want". And yes, I do want there to be a God, I'm just thankful that there is still so much evidence that supports my faith.

Happy New Year, feeno


  1. I'm curious how much mythology you have read. I feel if you took the time to read the Epic of Gilgamesh, the works of Homer, Greek tragedy, or various other mythological literature (I like Norse the best, personally), you might be surprised at what a non-unique collection of works the Bible truly is. You might also realize that mythology has a close relationship with history.

    Religion is a system of remembering and passing down knowledge. I am not at all surprised by the degree of accuracy attributed to the learned scribes who composed the various books of the Bible, but I think they would be a bit insulted by your portrayal of them. They were far less humble than you clearly picture them to be.

    Moses, Jesus, Abraham... their existence is really meaningless to both sides. The believer does not need proof, and any self-respecting skeptic should not care. Scholars agree that even gods like Zeus probably existed as human heroes who were later deified after their death. This process can be seen very clearly in historic figures like Orpheus and Asclepius, who were men worshipped as gods centuries after their death.

    Regarding your larger point: I think it's intellectually lazy and dishonest to discard evidence that disproves your theories. It is best to rethink your theories.

  2. Thanks Geenks,

    Yeah, I probably should have put my description of the Bible writers in quotations.

    I also agree with what you say about Zues etc., but that's part of my point, if we don't like the idea of Moses , we simply debunk him. I don't believe just because Moses existed that that proves Jesus is God. But a lot of skeptics are the ones in my mind who are intellectually lazy. They aren't dumb but do seem one sided in their search. Sure they've read the Bible and other "fundy" stuff, but it seems they do so while wearing rose colored glasses.

    I also agree with you about rethinking our theories, I left a response on T-Vicks blog about this same thing. Once we delve into these Atheist rebuttals and find them unconvincing what do we do? Keep looking 'til we agree with you guys?

    Hey Geenks, if you will just believe me and study Christianity diligently for the rest of your life you'll see the truth, and if not then you must be brainwashed or deceiving yourself. I know that's absurd but that's how we look at the other side?

    Thanks for commenting. Peace Brah, feeno

  3. Feeno- said "No matter how hard people try to debunk the Bible it just hasn't happened. How did these uneducated, simple minded goat herders write something with such truth, wisdom and power and be so far ahead of it's time in things like science and prophecy and biology..."

    Simple minded goat herders of the Levant wrote in perfect Coptic Greek too? (Not colloquial Greek, but Latin learned Greek?) Interesting.

    See, to me it's not about just believing why a goat herder or fisherman, known to live in a reigion and time perior where 99% of the people were illiterate, actually all had the ability to write in the perfect language of the upperclass citizens of the Empire?

    To me, this needs explaining before you can say such is what sustains your faith. By the looks of it, your ignoring a very obvious objection to your faith--i.e. these herders and fishermen could not have possibly written the Gospel tradition, so learned men must have!

    Then time frames become important, and textual style, because you're staking your claim on a written document are you not? All this is important to ask, precisely because we know that goat herders and fishermen did NOT write the Gospel accounts, and therefore there were NO eye witness accounts by those who the Bible claims to have saw and written it down.

    I'm not dismissing what I don't agree with. I'm dismissing what is impossible and totally improbable and looking for the answer with the most merit and dependability.

    That's a good thing, because when I find it, it supports my claim. Whereas I think you'll find, your faith based positions, is still riddled with the problems and inconsistencies, and that's no way to prove something is reliable.


  4. T

    This is a perfect point to what I'm trying to prove. I can find credible pieces of information suggesting that the Bible is written by who it's said to be written by. (Dead Sea Scrolls) for one. The reason these people who wrote the Bible like Moses, Isaiah, David the Apostle Paul etc. writings are so unique is because it was inspired by God.

    You can then just say, "well I think they are forgeries or they were written years later and that's how they predicted prophecies etc.

    I do owe you all an apology tho. I shouldn't have said Atheists are intellectually lazy. I should have said anyone who dismisses the other sides arguments based solely on prejudices are.

    Here's my problem, please help if you can?
    I've read many arguments for Atheism, many of these arguments are valid. Although they are valid, in order for them to "debunk" God you still have to make big leaps. Here's a few: ATHEIST CLAIM: Your faith depends on where you were born.
    ME: That's kinda obvious, but how do you make the leap that equals no God?

    ATHEIST CLAIM: There are so many gods out there how do you know yours is right?
    ME: Again, pretty obvious, but how do you make the leap there is no God?

    ATHEIST CLAIM: If there was a god he wouldn't allow .... pick any evil thing or natural disaster...
    ME: Really, there was a tornado so that means of course that God doesn't exist?

    ATHEIST CLAIM: You guys just want to scare children with stories about Hell.
    ME: uh, so that must mean there is no God?

    ATHEIST CLAIM: Christians are mean.
    ME: OK, sometimes.

    ATHEIST CLAIMS: People are starving
    ME:(first I must say any time some says "it's for the kids" I know the next thing out of the mouth is usually self serving. But anyway, and once again they make the leap to that there is no God.

    ATHEIST CLAIM: were just as a good as Christians.
    ME: what is with you people, do you have an inferiority complex? OK, I admit it, many of you are just as good as a bunch of us sinners.
    As always tho, another great leap.

    Then you got science, did you know that Scientists who lived a hundred years ago had a list of things they thought about the Bible that couldn't possibly be true, but as we continue to find new things the Bible is proven to be right. Not that this book try's to do that. It's a book to teach us about God, and those that like God will use it in a way that they think is right. Those that don't like the Idea of a god, or the God the Bible speaks of, will have to change their views and outlooks or change and or debunk the Bible?

    I will say some nice things about you all in a few hours, my daughter has a game, I'm running late. see ya in a bit.

    Peace be with you, feeno

  5. Hi there folks.
    Hmm I'm not gonna talk about the bible for it's a book and like every other book it should be read while reflecting about it, so (obviously) it's different to everyone.

    " we don't want to find any evidence that is contrary to our beliefs."

    Well, I'd put it differently. I'd say that what one side considers is "proof" is not considered as "evidence" to the other side. That's preety obvious but =P

    Regarding the "atheists claims" you put, those are pretty stupid. I would never be one because of such arguments.

    Firstly, they don't claim in any way that there is no God. They merely sound like angry opinions of god and religion. What's more, they don't go against deism, which can be a believe in a god creator. These s called claims are not atheists arguments, they are merely phrases which may be said by us. That could be the reason you keep saying :

    "That's kinda obvious, but how do you make the leap that equals no God?"

    I'd probably ask the same thing to someone that calls himself atheist and justifies himself with such weak arguments.

    Another thing. Many of this "claims" (such as this:" If there was a god he wouldn't allow .... pick any evil thing or natural disaster...")
    aren't only 'atheists' questions. This is, for example, a pretty old question that many ask, even inside religion. Each religious responds in a different way but usually they al respond to it.

    Nice post though. The caution people have when dealing with something they don't believe is, at least, not productive to humanity. =p

    However, the lack of thrust in ones arguments doesn't mean that person is not willing to listen to them.

  6. Dear Feeno, I think what you're trying to say is that people will believe what they want to believe no matter what.

    The thing with my fellow atheists and me, is that more often than not, we are open to new ideas and new evidence, even if it goes against previously held opinions.

    If I witness some unexplainable, undeniable miraculous event, before I jump to conclusions and start believing in God, by nature I will ask myself the following:

    1. Am I dreaming?
    2. Am I drunk?
    3. Am I crazy?
    4. Did I inadvertently venture onto a movie set?
    5. Am I on a hidden camera show?
    6. Is this the result of some unknown natural phenomenon?
    7. Is this the result of some highly advanced Earthly technology?
    8. Is this the result of some highly advanced technology from an alien civilization?

    And most likely, the answer will probably be numbered 1 through 7. If it is 8, I'll probably go home, load my rifle and go hide in the woods.

    Thing is, there are so many non-religious ways to explain something, that I'll probably never have to resort to religion for an answer.

    You see, science is based on observation. You observe a phenomenon, then based on available knowledge you formulate a hypothesis. Then you design an experiment to either prove or disprove your hypothesis. Then, you publish your theory. If another research laboratory can repeat your experiment and confirm your results, then and only then do you have a bona fide fact. It is this strict method for acquiring knowledge that has given rise to penicillin, the internet, motor vehicles, MRI machines, polio vaccines, cell phones, GPS, iPods(R), microwave ovens, alternating current, etc. So, given all the good things that science has to offer the world, can you blame people for following the scientific method and always asking for evidence?

    I mean, even though I am an atheist, based on my knowledge of Ancient Egyptian military history, I think it is quite probable that a Moses-like figure actually lived. I don't believe in the Plagues of Egypt or the parting of the Red Sea, but my point is I don't deny everything because of atheism. I just disbelieve in supernatural explanations, because I have never witnessed anything supernatural in my life. The result of that is that when I open up a Bible and start reading about strange miracles, I tend to dismiss it as fables and mythology.

    I mean, how come miracles happen all the time in the Bible, but they never happen on the nightly news? Funny, no?

    Happy New Year Feeno, peace and prosperity to you.

  7. Almeidinha

    K-Paso Amigo? You make very good points. I'm sorry I brought up such weak arguments from the Atheists perspective. I know not all Atheists are the same. Sometime when I post stuff I tend to paint with a broad brush. But most of my Atheist encounters I've learned have just been in the last year or so. From a site called "Debunking Christianity" by John Loftus. I read 2 of his books and spent some time reading and commenting on his site. So most of my ideas from Atheism I get is mainly from that.

    And I'm not saying his arguments are weak, actually there seems to be a lot of Christians who have become Atheist? At least as far as the internet is concerned. But most of these arguments just don't do it for me.

    P.S. Mi esposa de 25 anos es Mexicana. Pero mis hijas parecen gringas?

    Feliz ano nuevo, feeno

  8. Almeidinha

    Sorry cousin, my daughter just told me I'm a dork and you don't speak spanish. I guess you speak Portuguese. Peace out, feeno

  9. Lordship

    I totally understand what your saying about investigating everything and are willing to change based upon new evidence.

    But sometime when I hear the same old arguments that have been around for 2000 years just repackaged like those claims haven't been challenged. I'm only saying challenged because it's up to each individual to weigh the evidence for themselves.

    If #8 happens I can see you and me heavily armed, out in the woods smearing mud over ourselves hiding in a tree stand ready to kill Predator with a 6pack of some IPA. He wouldn't
    stand a chance.

    Thanks Lordship, you have a happy new year as well. Late, feeno

  10. Lordship: I find it unscientific you assumed the existence of aliens. Just... for the record. I find them to be as imaginary as gods, angels, demons or rappers with perfect grammar.

    Hey Geenks, if you will just believe me and study Christianity diligently for the rest of your life you'll see the truth, and if not then you must be brainwashed or deceiving yourself. I know that's absurd but that's how we look at the other side?

    Is that not how you see it? The problem is, I do study Christianity, and I would pit my understanding of it against any believer. Why? Because the more you know, the more you realize it ain't right. No one who believes it can possibly understand it that well.

  11. Feen, we can end the discussion on this thread real quick.

    Simply ask the question, "In what instance did archeology prove the Bible to be wrong, ever?" (Insert the sound of crickets chirpinghere)

  12. Feeno,

    A lot of the stuff you are saying (like about how the Bible has never been disproven, and as archaeologists unearth more things the Bible keeps being shown to be right) tends to get passed around in Christian circles. I've heard the same sort of thing in Sunday morning sermons and in other places, but they are never backed up with any sources, and I get the feeling that they just heard it from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone...and who knows where it came from originally. Certainly the same sort of thing gets done with atheist arguments as well, but it's best if you can actually cite your sources.

    But anyway, you're absolutely right that people tend to believe what they want to believe. You've hit on a well-known cognitive mechanism known as confirmation bias - when you believe something, you tend to remember information that confirms that belief, and discard information that does not. This is often helpful since it saves us from constantly having to re-evaluate everything, but in areas like this, it's important to at least try to combat that bias. One way to do that is to urge yourself to read from a variety of different sources. Most times when I hear a claim, watch a movie, or read a book about an issue, I will then go online and try to find what other people have to say about that same issue to get the general idea of what the arguments are for/against it. It's not a perfect method, but it helps.

    But at any rate, to end off, I'll just mention something I figured out a year or two ago. When you really think of it, there are several ways that the Bible can be "accurate". I came up with three: historically, scientifically, and theologically/morally. The important thing to keep in mind is that historical accuracy doesn't necessarily give weight to theological accuracy. So if a person writing a book correctly points out that there is a city called Bethlehem, or a king called Herod, that doesn't mean that what he says about it and about other things is true. Thus, if people find the city of Ur, well that's an interesting breakthrough for historians, etc. But that doesn't mean that what the Bible says happened to Ur actually happened, or that Abraham necessarily existed, or that Abraham's God is the right God. These areas are separate, and one doesn't prove the other.

    But anyway, that's all I've got. Peace out,

  13. JD, try this one - the discovery of a spearhead which is 13,000 years old. That's twice as long as the complete line of descent from Adam and Eve to the present, according to Christians' interpretations of the Bible.

    Here's where we find out once and for all whether you personally are a young earth creationist.

  14. Only a dozen comments into it and already the all too predictable attempt to hijack the thread to Young Earth Creationism. Bravo.

    Ginx, a free Clarke Bar to you if you can cite 1 single instance where I argued for a Young Earth.

    We're talking about an actual archeological find. A city, site or similar. With all of the atheistic apologea at your disposal, there must but at least 1 example you could cite.

    I've mentioned before that neither William Lane Craig nor Stephen C. Meyer argue for a young Earth.

    Insofar as arguments put forward by YEC'ers one of the better ones I've heard is thatof paraconformities. That's not to say that no good counter-arguments exist though.

  15. Dear Ginx, I never assumed the existence of aliens (option 8). I said that the realm of possibilities would probably include options 1 through 7, (with an emphasis on 1 as the most likely possibility). 8 was put on the list to imply that I have a sense of humor.

    However, if I DID see little green men coming out of a strange looking aircraft and eating my neighbor's cows, I might consider climbing into a tree stand with Feeno and observe them closely with night vision goggles in order to establish their identity and ascertain their planetary provenance. Then maybe capture one, tag it, and call my local game warden.

    In the meanwhile, since I have never seen anything to suggest the existence of little green men, my official position on the topic is that their existence is unknown to science. So rest assured, I do not believe in them anymore than you do.

    Jeff, I like your analysis. Separating 'truth' into moral, historic and scientific categories is a good idea. It gives more granularity to the investigation. That way Harry Potter can go to London in the story, but just because Harry Potter doesn't exist doesn't mean that London doesn't exist.

  16. I like your analysis. Separating 'truth' into moral, historic and scientific categories is a good idea. It gives more granularity to the investigation

    Granularity? GTA.....Put down the dictionary and slowly back away.....

  17. So...a spearhead is not an archaeological find? Exactly why does a find have to be city-sized to count?

    In order to determine whether an archaeological find proves the Bible wrong in your estimation, it is first necessary to determine what you think the Bible actually says. You may think Craig and Meyer are wrong not to argue for a young Earth. Nevertheless, if the Bible ultimately says that the Earth is young, whether or not people argue to support it, it is wrong as long as any archaeological find is dated beyond a certain age.

    Leaving that aside, here's something more along your guidelines. in the 1950s the ancient city of Jericho was investigated by Kathleen Kenyon. She dated its destruction 150 years too early to match the Biblical account. In 1990, Bryant Wood of Associates for Biblical Research tried to revise the date to 150 years later. His proposal was debated and dismissed at the time, and in 1995 was completely obliterated by fresh findings at the site.

    It's worth adding that Kenyon actually wanted her findings to match the Bible, and was very disappointed when they didn't.

  18. LX! What coincidence! Since you brought it up, in the 1st century ANE at the time of Jesus of Nazereth, how many different sites for the city of Jericho were there?

    A. 3
    B. 4, or
    C. 5

    Given your thorough grasp of the history of Jericho, what is the correct answer?

  19. Apparently only
    D. 2 sites,
    now described as the Jericho of Joshua and the Jericho of Herod. The third one at Er-Riha only dates from the Crusades.

    Regardless, the site at present-day Tell es-Sultan where Kenyon worked was only ever a candidate for Joshua's Jericho, the one which was destroyed in the famous Biblical battle. Furthermore it was the only serious candidate, and it just wasn't there at the right time.

  20. Thanks for helping me clear up future questions LX.

    "An objection popped into my mind, "Yes, but in his gospel, Luke says that Jesus was walking into Jericho when he healed the blind man Bartimaeus, while Mark says he was coming out of Jericho. Isn't this a clear-cut contradiction that casts doubt on the reliability of the New Testament?

    (John) McRay wasnt stung by the directness of my question. "Not at all," came his response. "It only appears to be a contradiction because youre thinking in contemporary terms, in which cities are built and stay put. But that wasnt necessarily the case long ago.
    "Jericho was in at least four different locations as much as a quarter of a mile apart in ancient times. The city was destroyed and resettled near another water supply or a new road or nearer a mountain or whatever. The point is, you can be coming out of one site where Jericho existed and be going into another one, like moving froM one part of suburban Chicago to another part of suburban Chicago."
    "What you're saying is that both Luke and Mark could be right?" I asked.
    "That's correct. Jesus could have been going out of one area and into another at the same time."

    Strobel, Lee: The Case for Christ, pg 198

  21. So much for reading Christian sources. The destroyed site is in fact also identified as Jericho City IV. The previous sites date back thousands of years further.

    That doesn't change the fact that we know where Jericho was when it was destroyed in a battle, one mile northwest of its New Testament-era site, and that it wasn't there when Joshua's battle is meant to have happened. There was no active Jericho for over 500 years after 1550 BC.

  22. JD-- "In what instance did archeology prove the Bible to be wrong, ever?"

    When we dug up God's wife (Polytheism anyone?) Oh, and when we failed to find the Ark (Well, it could be at the bottom of a frozen lake somewhere... right?).

    Oh, and when we failed to find the remains of Pharaohs drown army (no remains? The fish probably ate them... conveniently enough). The failure to locate Mt. Sinai. A whole mountains vanishes! Did aliens take it? Or more likely... was it fictional? The full Israeli archeological society agreeing it was fictional is sort of a blow to the Biblical claim of it's existence. It seems the Bible was, once again, proven inaccurate by real world investigation.

    Oh, and the discovery of the Q Gospel via Nag Hammadi. Proving that the Messianic sayings of Jesus were floating around before the production of the Gospels. Clink clink... not eye witness testimonies after all?

    And the Qumran baptism cave of John the Baptist which showed us his burial site proving he wasn't a cousin of Jesus (as the Bible states *wrongly). No real world documentation of King Herod's supposed "massacre of innocents" etc. (Where was our favorite historian Josephus Falvius then? Not writing about such an event? Preposterous! Unless...unless, of course, the event never happened. Ah, makes so much sense now!)

    And so the Bible is not just wrong on a few things, but on an unlimited variety of things, which has been confirmed by historical and archeological research. I could go on, but I don't see the point.


    I responded to your questions about the Atheist concerns in a full post on my Blog. The funny thing is, as I was writing it I kept getting interrupted.

    First the Biblical Historian James D. Tabor found me and left a few kind words. Then Theologian and Historian Robert M. Price dropped me a personal email and responded to Tabor on my comments section.

    I was ecstatic to be getting some big names giving me a friendly shout out. Now I have to go deflate my head... as it's getting pretty big.

    Catch you later! And I hope to hear from you soon.

  23. Hello there everyone.
    Well thanks for the compliment feeno. ^^
    Ah, don't worry man. I can speak portuguese (I am from brazil so =P), english and spanish (I've had classes of the last two). =)

    ". So most of my ideas from Atheism I get is mainly from that."

    Yeah, that often happens. I can't recall in which blog I read something about how a boy, who had just entered university, is confronted by his teachers about being atheist. As he said, they wasted more time of the "discussion" talking about Richard Dawkins and other famous atheist, not hearing what he believes in.
    Sometimes we talk about someone using another as an example or so. Even if they don't agree with everything.
    I'm just saying that despite you using that, not every atheist is one because of those "claims".


    And sure
    "But most of these arguments just don't do it for me.".
    You shouldn't become an atheist because of such arguments. And I'm glad you say so.

    Regarding what's being said about the bible.
    It's very likely that it has "facts" that did, indeed, happen. The thing most may not agree is the reasons, 'how', when (precisely), where (precisely), etc.

    For example. A long (LOOOOOONG) time ago we did not know what a thunder was. Seeing such an amazing event and not being able do determine how it worked, saying it was work of gods was an easy solution rather than fearing it could happen anytime and kill someone. =p
    What I mean is that it's possible (as it is possible it was the work of a god) that the so called plagues, miracles and etc were actually events those who lived couldn't explain properly. =/
    It's also possible that centuries of humans "translating" and editing the bible changed its content.
    There are several possibilities. And immediately
    throwing one aside would be reckless.
    However, everyone deserves to be able to have it's own opinion. As long as it's willing to listen to others opinions as well.

    REgarding the aliens ^^

    The universe is vast, right? Is it impossible to believe that in somewhere, other than Earth, there is life? That's an alien. Life that's not from Earth. However, beings with spaceships and stuff seem really unlikely. --'

    And just to say, I'm starting a version of my blog in english (it was in portuguese but they should be very similar).
    The address is:

    HOWEVER, despite the title I usually talk more about philosophical subjects. It's my style =D

    It's only at the beginning for I'm attempting to translate my posts, but it should be more complete soon. Hope you like it. And I always accept suggestions.

  24. Hmm I swear I try not to write much. -.-
    Yet I always end up writing too much.

  25. When we dug up God's wife (Polytheism anyone?)

    Might you kindly fill me in as to what the heck you are talking about here?

    and when we failed to find the Ark (Well, it could be at the bottom of a frozen lake somewhere... right?)..and when we failed to find the remains of Pharaohs drown army (no remains? The fish probably ate them... conveniently enough). The failure to locate Mt. Sinai. A whole mountains vanishes! Did aliens take it? Or more likely... was it fictional?

    Holy cow! Is this what passes for "argument"? I specifically asked for an instance in which archeology directly contradicted the Bible and this is what I get in response? Oy vay . Let's examine what you brought up anyway so you don't feel cheated, and if I didnt make myself clear about archeology contradicting the Bible, then that's what I meant.

    Insofar as the Ark of Noah and the ability to examine any sort of "evidence" surrounding the claimed events of Exodus, then you do realize of course that if physical evidence were to be extant of any of these, permission would have to be obtained from such governments as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to search for such things, don't you? If you or I were to approach such governments and ask if we can root around in their backyards for evidence in support of the Jewish Torah, what type of response do you think we would receive?

    C'mon in son, make yourself at home?

    Our resources are at your disposal?


    And yes, the location of Mt Sinai has been revised. If revision were synonymous with falsehood, then ND/TENS would have been chucked out the window a long time ago.

    Most interesing to me anyway would be how everything lines up in Rephidim with the account of Moses striking a rock with his staff and water came forth. I'll search for a website that has some good photos.

  26. A word on Job 26:7 - hanging the earth (not necessarily Earth, mind you, but perhaps physical earth) on nothing is one thing, but stretching out the north? The only thing you can do that with is a map or, for a god, an imagined flat world. It doesn't make sense with a globe. Where would you stretch the North Pole to?

    The author of Job may very well have genuinely hit upon the fact that the planet isn't hanging on anything, inasmuch as that makes any sense in space. That's no more likely to be divine inspiration than the result of a contemporary pre-astronomical observation that everything in the sky appears to pass under the ground every 24 hours. If anything solid were down there, it would get in the way. The Hindus solved this problem by saying the world-turtle swims in a sea. Jews thought the universe had been practically empty until relatively recently, so an expanse of nothing was a more natural intuition.

  27. "Holy cow! Is this what passes for "argument"? I specifically asked for an instance in which archeology directly contradicted the Bible and this is what I get in response?"

    You realize that lack of contradiction from archaeology doesn't therefore prove it to be true, right? That the Bible tends to get names and places correct does no more to prove its truth than a lack of contradiction in the memoirs of Apollonius of Tyana proves that he was a miracle worker.

    Not to mention that in some cases, the "contradiction" results from a lack of evidence where we would expect to find it. That doesn't nail it down concretely, of course, but if we take a look at the desert where Moses and thousands or millions of Hebrews were apparently wandering around for 40 years, we don't find any evidence of inevitable waste, dead people (since every adult that left Egypt apparently died in the desert before reaching the Promised Land), etc. Perhaps it doesn't show a "contradiction" like what you're expecting, but it's definitely an odd "inconsistency", don't you think?

  28. JD-

    I was referring to Elohim's wife Asherah, who later becomes the eternal mother and co-eternal being of YAHWEH, the one true God, before he defeats his father and takes Asherah as his goddess wife (yes--the God of the Bible marries his own mother).

    This archeological evidence makes it evident that YAHWEH was not the ONE true God, as attested to in revised scripture, but that before 1,000 BCE it appears Asherah was worshiped equally ALONGSIDE the Jewish deity YAHWEH.

    The archaeologist William Dever commented "We do not know for sure what the belief in the god Yahweh meant for the average Israelite. Although the biblical text tells us that most Israelites worshiped Yahweh alone, we know that this is not true... The discoveries of the last fifteen years have given us a great deal of information about the worship of the ancient Israelites. It seems that we have to take the worship of the goddess Asherah more seriously than ever before."

    Almost all Hebrew graves which have been excavated around or prior to this date have little shrines and idols of this goddess, and is proof that Asherah was worshiped as an important figure with the same vehemence and devotion as that which rivals Christians contemporary views of Christ today.

    Also I mentioned John the Baptist's relationship to Jesus was disproved several times over. The traditions preserved in the Bahá'í faith, pre-dating Christianity, prove John was never related to Jesus by blood. Yet textual analysis has revealed this as well. Two sources of strong evidence against a weak Biblical claim of kinship via the use of sturdy empirical evidence seems to contradict the Gospel account in an obvious way.

    Moreover, the Qumran ointment/baptism ceremonial caves have proven a valuable resource in tracing the historicity of John the Baptist, which shows that his spiritual mission was different than that of Christ's, and that they differed in their approach to their apocalyptic teachings. A good book to read on this subject is "The Masks of Christ" by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince.

    Happy researching!

  29. Here's another great quick overview on Asherah: