Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
#51

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 06:54 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: Then by all means ignore me. But in all likelihood you won't. We'll see!
I've almost put you on permanent ignore twice. There is still a tiny fiber of my being that thinks you might be a serious person. Maybe you could give that part of me a little encouragement?
Reply
#52

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 09:38 PM)Astreja Wrote: Some of us (in fact, the vast majority of us) clearly have the ability to distinguish between history and silly supernatural assertions.

(01-01-2024, 09:50 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: But that wasn't MY point (just to clarify), which was: many atheists (many seen here) wish to entirely dismiss Luke [or the author of Acts, whomever it was] as a crackpot because he believes in miracles, including Jesus' resurrection and ascension and raising another person from the dead. But the same atheists don't have any problem respecting and citing Greek and Roman pagan historians who are just as religious and also believe in miracles.

This is a double standard which is so glaring that to me it suggests a strong emotional prejudice against Christianity that isn't extended to pre-Christian pagan Greek and Roman religion. It's not, as I see it, based on reason, but rather, angry or otherwise irrational emotionalism. The Greeks are so idealized among atheists (I love them, too: Socrates is a great hero of mine), so I think that's part of it, too. They overlook what they would see as "flaws" in Christians, when it comes to the same ones in Greek and Roman historians. Blind spots . . .

The problem with Luke, and in fact with the Gospels as a whole, is that there's relatively little "bang for the buck" in terms of historicity.  Herodotus also repeats ancient tales with mythic elements, but he makes a bit more of an effort to sort out the gold from the dross.  He isn't entirely successful, but at least his work can be checked against Xenophon and Thucydides.
The following 3 users Like Astreja's post:
  • epronovost, Szuchow, Deesse23
Reply
#53

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 09:51 PM)rocinantexyz Wrote:
(01-01-2024, 06:54 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: Then by all means ignore me. But in all likelihood you won't. We'll see!
I've almost put you on permanent ignore twice. There is still a tiny fiber of my being that thinks you might be a serious person. Maybe you could give that part of me a little encouragement?

No to the latter. It's already evident what I am and what I am not, in some 100 posts or so. I encourage you to do it! I haven't seen anything from you so far that strikes me as rational, open-minded engagement of the issues. So you get yourself away from me (that is, unless you change your approach to me) and have a happy new year!
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#54

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 10:02 PM)Astreja Wrote: The problem with Luke, and in fact with the Gospels as a whole, is that there's relatively little "bang for the buck" in terms of historicity.  Herodotus also repeats ancient tales with mythic elements, but he makes a bit more of an effort to sort out the gold from the dross.  He isn't entirely successful, but at least his work can be checked against Xenophon and Thucydides.

Herodotus, due to his repeating of ancient tales and his reliance on secondary accounts, has the unenviable title of "father of lies". Even his contemporaries didn't respect his method much. He is also the father of history as a discipline which means that my discipline ca pride itself on having a shitty dad... take that chemistry!
The following 4 users Like epronovost's post:
  • pattylt, Dānu, Astreja, Deesse23
Reply
#55

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 10:19 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: No to the latter. It's already evident what I am and what I am not, in some 100 posts or so. I encourage you to do it!
I was hoping you would answer the question I sent you, I was curious about what you would say; but now I'm guessing that isn't going to happen. You are the one blocking the discussion between you and I. I have ignored you as you have asked.
Reply
#56

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 11:27 AM)Cavebear Wrote: There are some valid statements in the bible.  Like, don't murder.  But that was understood before the bible and did not require it being chiseled in stone.  LOL!  So much of the bible is just about the obvious ways for humans to live together in peace.  It came from pre-bible days and remains true now.  For a particular religion to claim credit for so many obvious rules of village/city life seems very presumptuous.  Humans started to learn how to live together a LONG time ago.  Way pre-bible.

Theists don't seem to understand that.

Nonsense. This was the central thesis of G. K. Chesterton's brilliant apologetic, The Everlasting Man, written in 1925. Also, C. S. Lewis had an appendix in his Abolition of Man, in which he showed the great similarities in ethics of many different cultures and religions. Both argue that the Bible presupposes an innate moral sense.

Those two are considered the greatest Christian apologists of the 20th century, so it's impossible to claim that theists don't understand this point. We are already presupposing it. The Golden Rule works because it has the ring of truth and strikes something inside of us that is already there. Of course, we say God put it there: conscience: as part of His image.
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#57

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 10:23 PM)rocinantexyz Wrote:
(01-01-2024, 10:19 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: No to the latter. It's already evident what I am and what I am not, in some 100 posts or so. I encourage you to do it!
I was hoping you would answer the question I sent you, I was curious about what you would say; but now I'm guessing that isn't going to happen. You are the one blocking the discussion between you and I. I have ignored you as you have asked.

It makes no sense. One is not obliged to answer a query to the effect of, "prove to me that you're not an idiot and a moron." It's like the old "when did you stop beating your wife?" If 117 replies aren't enough to make a judgment as to my status, why would one answer be? The problem doesn't lie with me.

I won't be blocking anyone here (because then we get accused of other BS). But I don't have to reply to everyone. I'm already replying to ten or more people, writing day and night (about seven straight hours today).
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
The following 1 user Likes Dave Armstrong's post:
  • Aliza
Reply
#58

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(12-31-2023, 11:46 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote:
(12-31-2023, 11:19 PM)Chas Wrote: No, no one knows who the author was.

That's irrelevant. We're not sure who Homer was; it doesn't follow that we can't refer to this person who is known by that name. I asked you a question and you attempted to evade it with irrelevancy. That doesn't work with me.

That may not matter but we can state with certainty that the Greek gods did not come down from Mt. Olympus to participate in the war since we, and even religitards these days, don't beleive in those gods.  The fact that Homer wrote that stuff in his story ( and it is only a story) puts it into the realm of mythology.  Just like your silly-assed bible.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#59

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 10:37 PM)Minimalist Wrote:
(12-31-2023, 11:46 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: That's irrelevant. We're not sure who Homer was; it doesn't follow that we can't refer to this person who is known by that name. I asked you a question and you attempted to evade it with irrelevancy. That doesn't work with me.

That may not matter but we can state with certainty that the Greek gods did not come down from Mt. Olympus to participate in the war since we, and even religitards these days, don't beleive in those gods.  The fact that Homer wrote that stuff in his story ( and it is only a story) puts it into the realm of mythology.  Just like your silly-assed bible.

The Trojan War ain't mythology. It's been verified by archaeology. Not to imply that you are particularly good at ascertaining facts, but . . .

King David ain't mythology, either. They are finding things almost on a monthly basis in Israel right now. It's a very exciting time for biblical archaeology: the most exciting in my lifetime. That's why I wanted to write a book about it. I had new findings in it that came out within months of my writing the book.
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#60

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 11:37 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: The Trojan War ain't mythology. 

The Trojan War as described and told by Homer is mythology. It's a myth based on actual real world event of course, but many of it's characters, plot point and events are completely fictional. Archeology and history have attested a series of war between Troy and it's Ionian allies against continental Greek city-States and kingdoms, but the famous poem of Homer which immortalized those events in culture is fictional. The same could be said for Romance of the Three Kingdoms in China, la Chanson de Roland or even, by some accounts, the tales of King Arthur's Court.

As for King David, he is not a well attested historical figures and archeology provides us with some hinting that there was a "House of David" with no specifically named members of said house. There is very little to no archeological evidence that Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judea were of any significant size and power at that time. If David existed, he was a petty princeling/warlord of little influence and importance and the kingdom of Judea still not clearly established and very much under development. Evidence shows that Hebrews were still polytheistic at that point too. All of this is still hotly debated though by specialists on the subject and it would be false to claim that King David is a historical figure and that the Kingdom of Judea was a regional power in the region in the 11th and 10th century BC. There is not enough proof to state such a thing as of yet.
The following 1 user Likes epronovost's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#61

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 11:46 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(01-01-2024, 11:37 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: The Trojan War ain't mythology. 

The Trojan War as described and told by Homer is mythology. It's a myth based on actual real world event of course, but many of it's characters, plot point and events are completely fictional. Archeology and history have attested a series of war between Troy and it's Ionian allies against continental Greek city-States and kingdoms, but the famous poem of Homer which immortalized those events in culture is fictional. The same could be said for Romance of the Three Kingdoms in China, la Chanson de Roland or even, by some accounts, the tales of King Arthur's Court.

And Robin Hood and Braveheart (William Wallace), etc.
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#62

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 11:52 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote:
(01-01-2024, 11:46 PM)epronovost Wrote: The Trojan War as described and told by Homer is mythology. It's a myth based on actual real world event of course, but many of it's characters, plot point and events are completely fictional. Archeology and history have attested a series of war between Troy and it's Ionian allies against continental Greek city-States and kingdoms, but the famous poem of Homer which immortalized those events in culture is fictional. The same could be said for Romance of the Three Kingdoms in China, la Chanson de Roland or even, by some accounts, the tales of King Arthur's Court.

And Robin Hood and Braveheart (William Wallace), etc.

William Wallace is a well attested historical figure, but Robin Hood would be a good comparison to King David and Solomon as far as historicity goes.
Reply
#63

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
The Beatles are fucking awesome!
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#64

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-02-2024, 12:04 AM)Dānu Wrote: The Beatles are fucking awesome!

That they are. I was lucky enough to grow up with them (I was 5 1/2 when they came on Ed Sullivan). It was a wonderful time for music, and TV too.
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#65

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 11:57 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(01-01-2024, 11:52 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: And Robin Hood and Braveheart (William Wallace), etc.

William Wallace is a well attested historical figure, but Robin Hood would be a good comparison to King David and Solomon as far as historicity goes.

Robin Hood is certainly historical, too. It's just that myths were built around him. The Bible in referring to David and Solomon doesn't read like myth at all; rather, like straight history. And there is growing evidence, but I see that archaeology doesn't convince many folks here, so . . .
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#66

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-02-2024, 12:39 AM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: Robin Hood is certainly historical, too. It's just that myths were built around him. The Bible in referring to David and Solomon doesn't read like myth at all; rather, like straight history. And there is growing evidence, but I see that archaeology doesn't convince many folks here, so . . .

No actually Robin Hood is a completely legendary figure. The fact that his name is also extremely common and that there are multiple criminal in medieval England records under the name of Robin, Robyn, Rob or Robert Hood. It was also a common pseudonym for medieval thieves before the tale of Robin Hood became popular (think of Robin Hood as the equivalent of John Doe for criminals). The same goes for David and Solomon too unfortunately which are were common names and there is a bit of chicken or egg debate as to the name being popular because of the historical/legendary figures or those historical/legendary figures having popular names. 

I would also contest the "growing evidence" assessment since we are talking about some very fragmentary evidence whose interpretations are very contested in the field. Maybe something will emerge in the next decades, but so far these kings are legendary figures more than anything else. Could there have been a king David setting up a dynasty and a small kingdom in what is now modern day Palestine and Israel? Sure, it's possible. It's even probable that there was a princeling/warlord in the region under that name, but it's still a bit of a far cry from the glorious kingdom depicted in the Bible.
The following 3 users Like epronovost's post:
  • Szuchow, Deesse23, Gwaithmir
Reply
#67

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-02-2024, 12:58 AM)epronovost Wrote:
(01-02-2024, 12:39 AM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: Robin Hood is certainly historical, too. It's just that myths were built around him. The Bible in referring to David and Solomon doesn't read like myth at all; rather, like straight history. And there is growing evidence, but I see that archaeology doesn't convince many folks here, so . . .

No actually Robin Hood is a completely legendary figure. The fact that his name is also extremely common and that there are multiple criminal in medieval England records under the name of Robin, Robyn, Rob or Robert Hood. It was also a common pseudonym for medieval thieves before the tale of Robin Hood became popular (think of Robin Hood as the equivalent of John Doe for criminals). The same goes for David and Solomon too unfortunately which are were common names and there is a bit of chicken or egg debate as to the name being popular because of the historical/legendary figures or those historical/legendary figures having popular names. 

I would also contest the "growing evidence" assessment since we are talking about some very fragmentary evidence whose interpretations are very contested in the field. Maybe something will emerge in the next decades, but so far these kings are legendary figures more than anything else. Could there have been a king David setting up a dynasty and a small kingdom in what is now modern day Palestine and Israel? Sure, it's possible. It's even probable that there was a princeling/warlord in the region under that name, but it's still a bit of a far cry from the glorious kingdom depicted in the Bible.
The fabulist account of Solomon's reign seems highly unlikely to me and AFAIK there's no evidence that there was anything like that kind of former glory in Israel. There's also no evidence for Moses, or the Egyptian captivity. It all strikes me as legends of former greatness. I'll believe it when they dig up a giant palace.

It makes the Israeli government's attitude toward Palestinians particularly execrable. They treat the Old Testament as if it were a land deed, and as if people who had lived there already before them had no rights at all. Ironic and disgusting what they are doing now, given the holocaust should have taught them something. They could have had an inclusive single state with equal rights for all, which would have helped heal rather than exacerbate longstanding animosities and grudges. But they have proven just as bigoted and foolish as their former tormenters.
The following 1 user Likes mordant's post:
  • epronovost
Reply
#68

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
mordant:

The fabulist account of Solomon's reign seems highly unlikely to me and AFAIK there's no evidence that there was anything like that kind of former glory in Israel.

Depends what one means by "glory." I have some evidence about Solomon that I've written about. It won't convince anyone here because it's indirect, but I may post it some time for fun.

There's also no evidence for Moses, or the Egyptian captivity. It all strikes me as legends of former greatness.

There is a lot of evidence of many sorts to bring to bear on that topic. I've written a lot about all of this, and done much research. I have two books by archaeologist James Hoffmeier, about Israel in Egypt and Israel in Sinai, both published by Oxford University Press. They're very good, though often they get technical.

I wrote an article providing 50 external evidences that Moses wrote the Torah, in response to an atheist who goes by "Lex Lata."

I'll believe it when they dig up a giant palace.

If you mean the king's palace they have done exactly that in the City of David. I visited it. And they found the Pool of Siloam that sits at one end of ancient Jerusalem only in 2004.
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#69

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-02-2024, 01:39 AM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: ... They're very good, though often they get technical ...

That you couched that so as to imply being technical detracts from being good says quite a bit more than you intended.   Facepalm
Reply
#70

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-02-2024, 02:23 AM)airportkid Wrote:
(01-02-2024, 01:39 AM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: ... They're very good, though often they get technical ...

That you couched that so as to imply being technical detracts from being good says quite a bit more than you intended.   Facepalm

Technical is not opposed to good in context here. What I meant was that for lay readers and non-archaeologists sometimes it gets a bit heavy. That's all wonderful stuff for sure, but if a lay reader can't understand it, then the reading experience is not as good as it might be. Usually the archaeologists make it more accessible, but I think he could work on that aspect a bit.

In any event, the research in these is incredible, whatever one believes about it.
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#71

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 09:50 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote:
(01-01-2024, 09:38 PM)Astreja Wrote: Some of us (in fact, the vast majority of us) clearly have the ability to distinguish between history and silly supernatural assertions.

But that wasn't MY point (just to clarify), which was: many atheists (many seen here) wish to entirely dismiss Luke [or the author of Acts, whomever it was] as a crackpot because he believes in miracles, including Jesus' resurrection and ascension and raising another person from the dead. But the same atheists don't have any problem respecting and citing Greek and Roman pagan historians who are just as religious and also believe in miracles.

This is a double standard which is so glaring that to me it suggests a strong emotional prejudice against Christianity that isn't extended to pre-Christian pagan Greek and Roman religion. It's not, as I see it, based on reason, but rather, angry or otherwise irrational emotionalism. The Greeks are so idealized among atheists (I love them, too: Socrates is a great hero of mine), so I think that's part of it, too. They overlook what they would see as "flaws" in Christians, when it comes to the same ones in Greek and Roman historians. Blind spots . . .

From post #1 of this thread you stated:

"The following data is an example of one sort of thing out of many hundreds that -- together -- lead Christians to believe that the Bible is credible and not "nonsense"[b] ..."

"Luke was not only a reliable historian, but a remarkably and extraordinarily accurate one. Therefore (and this is the underlying point), he can be trusted when he reports things about Jesus and Peter and Paul,"[/b]... "

It sure sounds to me like you stated that because Luke (or the author(s)) was historically accurate that the rest of Luke should also be trusted. Stop trying to state that this has now changed and that you only cared about the historical accuracy in Luke.

No double standard has been used as you insist. If a 'pre-Christian pagan Greek and Roman' (or their modern day believers) came to the forum and stated that an author had accurate historical evidence therefore the religious parts of their writings are 'credible and not "nonsense"' or 'trusted' I would respond to them the same as I have to you. This would also apply to jews, muslims, hindus, and any other religion that worship god(s). I can't speak for others.

Stop trying to claim that we are engaging in some special kind of christian persecution. It's childish.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply
#72

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-02-2024, 03:06 AM)brewerb Wrote:
(01-01-2024, 09:50 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote: But that wasn't MY point (just to clarify), which was: many atheists (many seen here) wish to entirely dismiss Luke [or the author of Acts, whomever it was] as a crackpot because he believes in miracles, including Jesus' resurrection and ascension and raising another person from the dead. But the same atheists don't have any problem respecting and citing Greek and Roman pagan historians who are just as religious and also believe in miracles.

This is a double standard which is so glaring that to me it suggests a strong emotional prejudice against Christianity that isn't extended to pre-Christian pagan Greek and Roman religion. It's not, as I see it, based on reason, but rather, angry or otherwise irrational emotionalism. The Greeks are so idealized among atheists (I love them, too: Socrates is a great hero of mine), so I think that's part of it, too. They overlook what they would see as "flaws" in Christians, when it comes to the same ones in Greek and Roman historians. Blind spots . . .

From post #1 of this thread you stated:

"The following data is an example of one sort of thing out of many hundreds that -- together -- lead Christians to believe that the Bible is credible and not "nonsense"[b] ..."

"Luke was not only a reliable historian, but a remarkably and extraordinarily accurate one. Therefore (and this is the underlying point), he can be trusted when he reports things about Jesus and Peter and Paul,"[/b]... "

It sure sounds to me like you stated that because Luke (or the author(s)) was historically accurate that the rest of Luke should also be trusted. Stop trying to state that this has now changed and that you only cared about the historical accuracy in Luke.

No double standard has been used as you insist. If a 'pre-Christian pagan Greek and Roman' (or their modern day believers) came to the forum and stated that an author had accurate historical evidence therefore the religious parts of their writings are 'credible and not "nonsense"' or 'trusted' I would respond to them the same as I have to you. This would also apply to jews, muslims, hindus, and any other religion that worship god(s). I can't speak for others.

Stop trying to claim that we are engaging in some special kind of christian persecution. It's childish.

Right.
[F]anatical atheists . . . can’t hear the music of the spheres. (Einstein, 8-7-41)
Reply
#73

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
Quote:The Trojan War ain't mythology. It's been verified by archaeology. Not to imply that you are particularly good at ascertaining facts, but . . .

King David ain't mythology, either. They are finding things almost on a monthly basis in Israel right now. It's a very exciting time for biblical archaeology: the most exciting in my lifetime. That's why I wanted to write a book about it. I had new findings in it that came out within months of my writing the book.


You however, obviously suck at archaeology.

Schlieman found a city ( actually a tel with about 9 towns/cities stacked one upon another ) but not a single one of them has a sign that says "Welcome To Troy."  With so many habitations in the same spot it would be unlikely to not find one in roughly the right time period but there your troubles begin.  Troy Level VI was the grandest of them hitting its peak in the 14th century BCE but destruction was by a very common event in Asia Minor:  earthquake,  c 1300 BCE.  Over the course of the ensuing century the survivors rebuilt Troy VIIa but it was a ramshackle affair and was indeed taken out in an attack c 1200 but this was at a time when the amorphous group known as the Sea Peoples were running roughshod over the decrepit Late Bronze Age empires.  They took out your Mycenaeans, as well the Minoans, the Hittites, and came damn close to taking out Egypt but they were eiter defeated or decided it wasn't worth the effort and ended up on the coast of Canaan and we know them today as the Philistines - or the Peleset, as the Egyptians called them.  Even though Egypt controlled Canaan at the time - and had for 4 centuries - something your bible bullshitters seems to have forgotten, Egypt was unable to retain control of Canaan and withdrew c 1155 BCE.  One other point about the Sea Peoples bears consideration.  Although no one is certain where they originated there is a decidedly Mycenaen cast to Philistine pottery decoration.  So, if there was a Hellenic component to the Sea Peoples they may well have retained stories...otherwise known as yarns, tall tales, or gospels for you!... of those times and that is what Homer based his epic poetry on.  No one can tell at this point...any more that anyone can identify whoever it was who both parts of your silly bible.

As far as "David" I am well aware that Elad is always digging around and every rock they pick up is declared to be something that David sat on to take a shit.  They have not convinced mainstream archaeologists even in their own country that they are anything other than a Zionist plot to displace Palestinians from the homes in Jerusalem.  What can one say?  They learned well from their Nazi masters.  9th and 10th century BCe Jerusalem - or whatever it was called, if it was called anything... was at best a poverty-stricken and underpopulated shithole in the desert.  I suppose if you had to live there it was probably best to be the "king" although it does remind me of the scene in Holy Grail where Arthur goes through a village and one peasant says to the other " he must be a king or something."  The second peasant asks why he thinks that and the answer comes "he hasn't got shit all over him."

A scholar named George Athos wrote a painstaking dissertation on the Tel Dan Stele and, among other points mentioned that the text was written in Aramaic not Hebrew and that Aramaic used dots as word dividers and such dots are clearly visible on images of the stele.  He thus notes that Biran's "bytdwd" is actually "byt" . "Dwd" which makes it a toponym not a dynastic name.  I'd suggest that you read Athos' book but, frankly, I think it is beyond your comprehension.  You should probably stick to your fairy tales.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Deesse23, Szuchow
Reply
#74

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(01-01-2024, 11:37 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote:
(01-01-2024, 10:37 PM)Minimalist Wrote: That may not matter but we can state with certainty that the Greek gods did not come down from Mt. Olympus to participate in the war since we, and even religitards these days, don't beleive in those gods.  The fact that Homer wrote that stuff in his story ( and it is only a story) puts it into the realm of mythology.  Just like your silly-assed bible.

The Trojan War ain't mythology. It's been verified by archaeology. Not to imply that you are particularly good at ascertaining facts, but . . .

King David ain't mythology, either. They are finding things almost on a monthly basis in Israel right now. It's a very exciting time for biblical archaeology: the most exciting in my lifetime. That's why I wanted to write a book about it. I had new findings in it that came out within months of my writing the book.
The Trojan war wasn't verified, the existence of Troy was, you dumbbell. And when Schliemann was looking for Troy, guess what he found!? SEVEN troys buried below each other.

Please don't write your book, please do not embarrass yourself further than you already have here.
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 1 user Likes Deesse23's post:
  • Minimalist
Reply
#75

Luke's Minute & Extraordinary Historical Accuracy
(12-31-2023, 07:55 PM)Dave Armstrong Wrote:
(12-31-2023, 06:14 PM)Deesse23 Wrote: Lets say, for the sake of the argument, that You/Luke are correct. So what?

Then it would disprove "no one" 's claim, "All religious texts, are nonsense. Every. Single. One." A religious text that is verifiably historically accurate is not nonsense and not "mythology": just as a line in a history book that is verifiably accurate is not nonsense and not mythology.

I think most people here would say the bible contains some historical truths, but the vast majority and moreover the overall thrust is total bullshit so, on balance, the bible is bullshit.
The following 1 user Likes Dexta's post:
  • Deesse23
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)