Proof Of The Bible

[Woodznutz]

Science can't see all the way back to the Big Bang, so we can only theorize what happened.

Scientific theory is presented as fact, re the ToE.

 

[Viktor]

You don’t know the language and it needs to be studied, not read.

The original Tanach was written in ancient Hebrew which is different from the language used in Israel today. The Talmud was written in Aramaic as far as I know.

 

[surada]

He killed a few Benjamite kids around Bethlehem. If he had killed Jewish kids there would have been an uprising.

There was also no tax census when Jesus was born.

 

[Canon Shooter]

That yoyo never read the bible.

That was pretty unnecessary. I would imagine that most of the world's population hasn't read the Bible.

I've read it. It took a long time (it's not an easy or casual read). It's absolutely fascinating, and there's not a single reason any sane person would doubt that there's historical accuracy contained in it. But it's still a story, and really nothing more.

Look at it another way: Mel Gibson's movie "The Patriot" contains an awful lot of accurate historical references, in both places and names; much as the Bible does. Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown, for instance, is something which actually occurred and which is spoken of in the movie and, while the character of Cornwallis was the depiction of an actual historical figure, the depiction of Colonel William Tavington was not.

The character of Benjamin Martin, likewise, was not a portrayal of a real person named Benjamin Martin. The character was loosely based on Francis Marion, also known as the "Swamp Fox". In the movie, Martin was famous for the Battle at Fort Wilderness. Well, the only place a Fort Wilderness has ever existed is at Disney World. Marion didn't lose two sons during the Revolutionary War. In fact, he had no children. But, in the movie, one of his seven children died in service and another one was murdered.

Still, the character in the movie, quite honestly, couldn't have been based on anyone but that one historical figure.

So, you see, it's very simple to intertwine references to actual people and places with references to things and people which never actually existed. The proof that Conrwallis was real and that the British took over Charleston is indisputable, but that doesn't mean everything else in the movie is true and accurate.

It's much like the Bible. Much of it makes reference to actual people and places which we know actually existed. But that doesn't mean the entire thing is proven accurate and true...

 

[Indeependent]

The original Tanach was written in ancient Hebrew which is different from the language used in Israel today. The Talmud was written in Aramaic as far as I know.

I don’t speak modern Hebrew.

 

[JoeBlow]

Why would there be?

Because such a flood would leave traces behind.

 

[JoeBlow]

Scientific theory is presented as fact, re the ToE.

Doesn't matter, as long as it has the word "theory" in it, it's a theory. If anyone would present that as fact, they'd be wrong.

Personally I think that evolution is real, but if people want to call it a theory, I'm good with that as well.

 

[alang1216]

Herod didn't kill all the baby boys.

The Romans never took a census requiring everyone to travel to their home city.

 

[surada]

The Romans never took a census requiring everyone to travel to their home city.

Exactly.

 

[Woodznutz]

Because such a flood would leave traces behind.

Such a flood would leave traces of tens of thousands of individual floods behind as it receded, but only for a short time. Most evidence would be blown, washed, or degraded away fairly soon.

 

[Woodznutz]

Doesn't matter, as long as it has the word "theory" in it, it's a theory. If anyone would present that as fact, they'd be wrong.

Personally I think that evolution is real, but if people want to call it a theory, I'm good with that as well.

Evolution theory = evolution fact to believers.

 

[Woodznutz]

The Romans never took a census requiring everyone to travel to their home city.

The Romans took all sorts of censuses in that day. Caesar Augustus was famous for them.

 

[surada]

Such a flood would leave traces of tens of thousands of individual floods behind as it receded, but only for a short time. Most evidence would be blown, washed, or degraded away fairly soon.

Floods leave a sediment footprint like you have in southern Iraq.

 

[surada]

The Romans took all sorts of censuses in that day. Caesar Augustus was famous for them.

There was no census in the years around Jesus birth.

 

[Viktor]

I don’t speak modern Hebrew.

I went to Hebrew school so I can read prayers in Hebrew very well and I still remember what some of the words mean. They grill that into you for 4 years of Hadar.(one day a week) I took German in school, so I understand Yiddish very well.

 

[Woodznutz]

There was no census in the years around Jesus birth.

The exact year of Jesus' birth is still being argued. Luke gives details of the census that might not be revealed the other records. Luke was very detail oriented.

 

[surada]

The exact year of Jesus' birth is still being argued.

No Roman census AROUND Jesus birth.

 

[Woodznutz]

No Roman census AROUND Jesus birth.

When Was Jesus Born? The Census

Which Census? Tertullian states that censuses (plural) were conducted in Palestine around the time of Jesus’ birth. There are two viable candidates for the census described in Luke 2. One is …

pursiful.com

 

[surada]

The exact year of Jesus' birth is still being argued. Luke gives details of the census that might not be revealed the other records. Luke was very detail oriented.

Luke never met Jesus and lived in Antioch. That's why he screws up the geography so badly.

 

[Viktor]

The exact year of Jesus' birth is still being argued. Luke gives details of the census that might not be revealed the other records. Luke was very detail oriented.

I saw several scholars agree that it was 3AD