What do you do when the Bible is proven right on something?

[JP1283]

Hey all,

I mostly post when I have concerns regarding religion...I'm not a very well-educated skeptic like the rest of you all. ;)

Right now my concern is, when the Bible is proven right on something, how do you respond to it? I read an article on the National Geographic website that talked about a tunnel in Jerusalem being discovered and how it was built under King Hezekiah in 2700 or so, just as the Bible describes in Kings and Chronicles.

Also, what do you all think of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Are they really that important to Christianity, and do they prove anything?

I'm not a 'hit-and-run' poster, nor am I a Christian...I just have a few questions that I'd like answered from people that don't have a religious bias.

[Bandersnatch]

Well, I'm definitely not a biblical scholar, but a fact does not a textbook make.

Euclid, while he formed the basis of geometry, also thought that light originates from your eyes and travels as a beam at infinite speeds.

[Roboramma]

Well, I don't know all that much about this, but it shouldn't be surprising that the bible will get some historical facts right.

The fact that it might have accurately recorded some of the things happening around the time it was written doesn't mean that all of the things written in it are accurate recordings - particularly the supernatural aspects. I'd be quite surprised if the bible didn't contain any accurate historical data - but you don't need to be the word of god to do some accurate reporting.

Similarly the fact that Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code" accurately mentions the Louvre, doesn't mean that the rest of the book should be treated as fact.

[Pope130]

Consider "Gone With The Wind": the burning of Atlanta happened, Scarlett O'Hara was made up.

Robert

[Huntster]

Well, I'm definitely not a biblical scholar, but a fact does not a textbook make........

That's almost signature material there:

"A fact does not a textbook make."

Facts are horrible things when you don't like them, aren't they?

[thaiboxerken]

According to the comic books, Spiderman lives in Queens, NY. We know Queens, NY is real, does that mean Spiderman is real?

There are a great many fictional books and stories based upon or around real places and events. This includes the Bible.

[JamesDillon]

I think that Roboramma pretty well nailed it, but to add my two cents: disbelieving the supernatural aspects of the Bible certainly doesn't require denying the truth of some of its historical claims. I'm not an expert on the Old Testament, but I believe the general consensus is that many of the later books were in fact probably written around the time they claim to have been, so it isn't really surprising that they would get some of the historical facts right. In this regard, the Bible can be a useful historical resource. But that hardly means that everything in the book is, to use an apt phrase, God's honest truth.

If you're debating the matter with someone who argues that, because some historical details in the Bible have been proven true, the entire book must be true, use one of my favorite anecdotes from the history of archaeology. For many centuries, the city of Troy was believed to be a mere legend, made up by Homer in the Iliad. In the late nineteenth century, though, Heinrich Schliemann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Schliemann), following the directions set forth in the Iliad, found the ruins of the actual city of Troy in western Anatolia, not far from modern-day Istanbul. So a lot of ancient myth contains some grain of truth-- but no one would argue for the literal existence of the Greek gods on the basis of Schliemann's find.

(Schliemann also inadvertently destroyed a fair amount of the buried city with his careless excavation, and looted much of the jewelry and other treasure for himself, causing the old Turkish man who was my tour guide at the ruins a couple of years ago to refer to Schliemann as "that god-damned bastard" every time his name came up, which was quite frequently).

[a_unique_person]

The dead sea scrolls are important for those who have an interest in those types of things. They are just as important as the writings of religious sects from around the world for the rest of us.

[empeake]

Right now my concern is, when the Bible is proven right on something, how do you respond to it? I read an article on the National Geographic website that talked about a tunnel in Jerusalem being discovered and how it was built under King Hezekiah in 2700 or so, just as the Bible describes in Kings and Chronicles.
Many parts of the Bible are based on events than actually happened, or places and people that really existed. In some cases, the stories about these events, places or people were passed on from generation to generation, each one leaving out facts and adding myths. In the end, the Bible is a mixture of fact and fiction, fantasy and reality.

[Huntster]

According to the comic books, Spiderman lives in Queens, NY. We know Queens, NY is real, does that mean Spiderman is real?...

What happens if hundreds of witnesses come forward and testify that they saw a man crawling on vertical walls in a blue and red suit like a spider? What happens if criminals show up bound in spider-like webbing at the front door of the police precinct?

Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

I'm sorry for your loss, but that's just the way it goes.

There are a great many fictional books and stories based upon or around real places and events. This includes the Bible.

What in Kings or Chronicles do you attest are "fictional"?

[thaiboxerken]

What happens if hundreds of witnesses come forward and testify that they saw a man crawling on vertical walls in a blue and red suit like a spider?

Has that happened with the bible?


What happens if criminals show up bound in spider-like webbing at the front door of the police precinct?

Has something like this happened with the bible?

Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

So? Queens is a real location in NYC.


What in Kings or Chronicles do you attest are "fictional"?

The god stuff.

[wollery]

Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

I'm sorry for your loss, but that's just the way it goes.

What in Kings or Chronicles do you attest are "fictional"?What other parts of Kings or Chronicles is there physical or first hand witness evidence for?

[a_unique_person]

I'm still waiting for god to come strolling along the footpath one day, like he does in genesis.

[JamesDillon]

Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

I'm sorry for your loss, but that's just the way it goes.

Are you really arguing that because some tunnel actually exists, an omnipotent, invisible man in the sky therefore must also exist? That is, to be charitable, something of a non sequitur.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
What happens if hundreds of witnesses come forward and testify that they saw a man crawling on vertical walls in a blue and red suit like a spider?

Has that happened with the bible?

Ummmm........yes.

What happens if criminals show up bound in spider-like webbing at the front door of the police precinct?

Has something like this happened with the bible?

Not really.............

Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

So? Queens is a real location in NYC.

How do you know?

What in Kings or Chronicles do you attest are "fictional"?

The god stuff.

Says who?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

I'm sorry for your loss, but that's just the way it goes.

What in Kings or Chronicles do you attest are "fictional"?
What other parts of Kings or Chronicles is there physical or first hand witness evidence for?

I don't know. I haven't been paying close attention.

What makes Kings or Chronicles more fictional than, say, the journals of Lewis and Clark?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

I'm sorry for your loss, but that's just the way it goes.
Are you really arguing that because some tunnel actually exists, an omnipotent, invisible man in the sky therefore must also exist? That is, to be charitable, something of a non sequitur.

Of course not. There is no "omnipotent, invisible man in the sky".

But I believe God exists.

If you don't, that's fine.

You don't even have to believe the tunnel exists.

[Huntster]

I'm still waiting for god to come strolling along the footpath one day, like he does in genesis.

Maybe the day you die, it will happen.

[a_unique_person]

Maybe the day you die, it will happen.

We'll never know, will we?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Maybe the day you die, it will happen.
We'll never know, will we?

You'll "know" or not after death.

[JamesDillon]

Of course not. There is no "omnipotent, invisible man in the sky".

But I believe God exists.

If you don't, that's fine.

You don't even have to believe the tunnel exists.
You didn't answer my question at all. In the post above to which I replied, you seem to be arguing that because the tunnel described in the Old Testament exists, therefore God must exist as well. Is that not what you're saying? In that case, what was

Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

I'm sorry for your loss, but that's just the way it goes.

supposed to mean?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Of course not. There is no "omnipotent, invisible man in the sky".

But I believe God exists.

If you don't, that's fine.

You don't even have to believe the tunnel exists.

You didn't answer my question at all. In the post above to which I replied, you seem to be arguing that because the tunnel described in the Old Testament exists, therefore God must exist as well.

I answered your sarcastic question verbatim, did I not?

Is that not what you're saying?

I wrote (precisely):

Of course not. There is no "omnipotent, invisible man in the sky".

But I believe God exists.

If you don't, that's fine.

You don't even have to believe the tunnel exists.

Simple, straightforward, and I would assume a schoolchild could understand it.

Why are you having trouble with it?

Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

I'm sorry for your loss, but that's just the way it goes.

supposed to mean?

Exactly what the English words used specify.

[wollery]

I don't know. I haven't been paying close attention.

What makes Kings or Chronicles more fictional than, say, the journals of Lewis and Clark?What makes it less fictional than, say, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?

[a_unique_person]

I don't know. I haven't been paying close attention.

What makes Kings or Chronicles more fictional than, say, the journals of Lewis and Clark?

The made up bits.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I don't know. I haven't been paying close attention.

What makes Kings or Chronicles more fictional than, say, the journals of Lewis and Clark?

What makes it less fictional than, say, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?

Now, the fact that a tunnel described in the Bible has been found. The fact that so many different authors are involved. Etc.

Why? Did you find any particular whitewashed fences?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I don't know. I haven't been paying close attention.

What makes Kings or Chronicles more fictional than, say, the journals of Lewis and Clark?

The made up bits.The made up bits.

Which ones?

[wollery]

Now, the fact that a tunnel described in the Bible has been found. The fact that so many different authors are involved. Etc.

Why? Did you find any particular whitewashed fences?No, but I have several sources that confirm to me that the Mississippi really exists. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which contains many references to the Mississippi, however, is a work of fiction. Many authors have written fictional books that feature the Mississippi. Does that mean that all of those books are actually 100% true? Of course not.

So several biblical authors mention a geographical feature that actually exists. Big whoop-de-doo. It says nothing about the overall factual or fictional status of the rest of the bible, and if you can't see that then I really pity you.

[brettDbass]

The bible is clearly a record of some historical events in a very factual way, as has been pointed out.
Many of the stories were embellished from historical events to make them more grandiose, like big floods for example.

The problem comes when the writers of the bible tried to portray things as fact divined from god and got it wrong. The debate over the value of Pi is a good example here... some people still believe that Pi really does = 3 and that all of man's maths is therefore wrong because it violates god's law.
http://www.truechristian.com/pi.html - a nutter.
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Arie/Bible/PiInTheBible.html - a collection of nutterisms and a debunking of them.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Now, the fact that a tunnel described in the Bible has been found. The fact that so many different authors are involved. Etc.

Why? Did you find any particular whitewashed fences?
No, but I have several sources that confirm to me that the Mississippi really exists. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which contains many references to the Mississippi, however, is a work of fiction. Many authors have written fictional books that feature the Mississippi. Does that mean that all of those books are actually 100% true? Of course not.

So several biblical authors mention a geographical feature that actually exists. Big whoop-de-doo......

Yeah. It's a damned big "whoop-de-doo." If you were an archeologist, you'd be "whoop-de-dooed" to delirium.

But you're not. And you're not. And we know why.

It says nothing about the overall factual or fictional status of the rest of the bible, and if you can't see that then I really pity you.

And if you can't see the significance of the archeological find, than I don't have pity on you.

And I really don't give a damn if you're happy or not about that fact.

[Huntster]

........The problem comes when the writers of the bible tried to portray things as fact divined from god and got it wrong......

Not in my opinion.

The problem comes when the readers of the bible tried to portray things as fact divined from god and got it wrong, then the Monday morning quarterbacks even got those signals wrong.

[brettDbass]

Not in my opinion.

The problem comes when the readers of the bible tried to portray things as fact divined from god and got it wrong, then the Monday morning quarterbacks even got those signals wrong.
I regularly see essays, theses and even entire books from people who have dedicated large portions of their lives to proving that pi equals three, because the bible tells them so.
That's not reading the signals incorrectly, just a statement of fact.

[TobiasTheViking]

* TobiasTheViking is very impressed by Huntster's ability to ignore arguments used against him, but use the same arguments against others.

[wollery]

Yeah. It's a damned big "whoop-de-doo." If you were an archeologist, you'd be "whoop-de-dooed" to delirium.

But you're not. And you're not. And we know why.

And if you can't see the significance of the archeological find, than I don't have pity on you.

And I really don't give a damn if you're happy or not about that fact.It's an incredibly interesting archeological discovery. Where do I say that it isn't interesting from an archeological standpoint? In fact, until the post I quote here, there has been no mention of archeology in this thread.

You were implying earlier in this thread that this discovery had implications for the veracity of the bible as a whole. I pointed out the fallaciousness of that argument. Stop trying to move the goalposts.

[Mojo]

And if you can't see the significance of the archeological find, than I don't have pity on you. What do you think its significance is?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Not in my opinion.

The problem comes when the readers of the bible tried to portray things as fact divined from god and got it wrong, then the Monday morning quarterbacks even got those signals wrong.
I regularly see essays, theses and even entire books from people who have dedicated large portions of their lives to proving that pi equals three, because the bible tells them so.,,,

I'm sorry. I don't see those essays.

I guess I don't pay much attention to them.

That's not reading the signals incorrectly, just a statement of fact.

Again, I'm sorry.

Maybe you need to hang out with a different crowd.

[Huntster]

* TobiasTheCommie;1751687 is very impressed by Huntster's ability to ignore arguments used against him, but use the same arguments against others.

Thank you. I'll see if I can impress you some more in many, many more ways.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yeah. It's a damned big "whoop-de-doo." If you were an archeologist, you'd be "whoop-de-dooed" to delirium.

But you're not. And you're not. And we know why.

And if you can't see the significance of the archeological find, than I don't have pity on you.

And I really don't give a damn if you're happy or not about that fact.
It's an incredibly interesting archeological discovery. Where do I say that it isn't interesting from an archeological standpoint? In fact, until the post I quote here, there has been no mention of archeology in this thread....

Ummmmmmmmmm, the very basis of the thread is archeology.

You were implying earlier in this thread that this discovery had implications for the veracity of the bible as a whole....

As an archeological foundation/confirmation, it has no match.

I pointed out the fallaciousness of that argument.

You pointed out what you thought at the moment.

Stop trying to move the goalposts.

I'm not playing football.

[Mojo]

As an archeological foundation/confirmation, it has no match.A confirmation of what?

What do you think its significance is?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
As an archeological foundation/confirmation, it has no match.

A confirmation of what?

The tunnel mentioned in Kings and Chronicles:

The rest of the acts of Hezekiah, all his valor, and his construction of the pool and conduit by which water was brought into the city, are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.

What do you think its significance is?

It was written, and physical evidence has been found.

Any more "significance" that you can add?

Detract?

[Mojo]

Why is it significant that whoever wrote the that part of the Bible knew about the tunnel?

ETA: Assuming that this is the specific tunnel that they were writing about.

[Huntster]

Why is it significant that whoever wrote the that part of the Bible knew about the tunnel?

Because it gives a historical reference to what was found. Otherwise it's just a tunnel with no history.

[Mojo]

And if you can't see the significance of the archeological find, than I don't have pity on you.

What do you think its significance is?

It was written, and physical evidence has been found.

Any more "significance" that you can add?

Detract?Why is it significant that whoever wrote the that part of the Bible knew about the tunnel?Because it gives a historical reference to what was found. Otherwise it's just a tunnel with no history.You're going round in circles. Asked what the significance you think the discovery of the tunnel has, you say it's mentioned in the Bible. Asked why the mention of a tunnel in the Bible is significant, you say it gives the tunnel a historical reference.

Do you think the discovery of the tunnel has any significance beyond confirming the existence of the tunnel?

[TobiasTheViking]

Because it gives a historical reference to what was found. Otherwise it's just a tunnel with no history.
Still totally irrelevant when it comes to whether or not god exists...

[Huntster]

You're going round in circles. Asked what the significance of the discovery of the tunnel, you say it's mentioned in the Bible. Asked why the mention of a tunnel in the Bible is significant, you say it gives the tunnel a historical reference.

How is that a circle? That above review looks accurate to me.

Do you think the discovery of the tunnel has any significance beyond confirming the existence of the tunnel?

Who's going around in circles here?

What came first? The tunnel or the tunnel?

The f**king tunnel is mentioned in Kings and Chronicles, and the f**king tunnel is there.

Is that simple enough for you, or do you need "pitures"?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Because it gives a historical reference to what was found. Otherwise it's just a tunnel with no history.

Still totally irrelevant when it comes to whether or not god exists......

Amazing.

[TobiasTheViking]

Amazing.
In what way?

[Mojo]

How is that a circle? That above review looks accurate to me.



Who's going around in circles here?

What came first? The tunnel or the tunnel?

The f**king tunnel is mentioned in Kings and Chronicles, and the f**king tunnel is there.

Is that simple enough for you, or do you need "pitures"?OK. A tunnel is mentioned in Kings and Chronicles. A tunnel has been discovered.

You seem to think this is in some way significant. What significance do you think this has?

[brettDbass]

I'm sorry. I don't see those essays.

I guess I don't pay much attention to them.
I expected you (and many other people) wouldn't have seen them, which is why I thought I would share my knowledge and experience for your benefit.



Again, I'm sorry.

Maybe you need to hang out with a different crowd.
Clearly you choose not to take any benefit from my offer above. I understand why you should be sorry about this.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Amazing.

In what way?In what way?

Do you think this is an episode of "Matlock" or something?

[Mojo]

The f**king tunnel is mentioned in Kings and Chronicles... Is that really what it says the tunnel was used for?

[Huntster]

OK. A tunnel is mentioned in Kings and Chronicles. A tunnel has been discovered.

You seem to think this is in some way significant. What significance do you think this has?

A historical, written record (recording a time some 2,500 years ago) describes a tunnel.

That tunnel may have been found.

And you ask "what significance" that has?

[TobiasTheViking]

Do you think this is an episode of "Matlock" or something?
No, but if you think this somehow proves the existance of God, you bloody well have to prove it. So, come on, tell me how this tunnel is in any way relevant to the existance of God any more than the existance of baker street is proof of sherlock holmes.

[TobiasTheViking]

A historical, written record (recording a time some 2,500 years ago) describes a tunnel.

That tunnel may have been found.

And you ask "what significance" that has?
Oh, it has significance, just not concerning the existance of God, or validating the bible.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I'm sorry. I don't see those essays.

I guess I don't pay much attention to them.

I expected you (and many other people) wouldn't have seen them, which is why I thought I would share my knowledge and experience for your benefit.

It sounds like your "knowledge and experience" isn't something I'm much interested in.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Again, I'm sorry.

Maybe you need to hang out with a different crowd.

Clearly you choose not to take any benefit from my offer above. I understand why you should be sorry about this.

Then we part in understanding.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Do you think this is an episode of "Matlock" or something?

No, but if you think this somehow proves the existance of God, you bloody well have to prove it....

Double proof?

Drive a hard bargain, don't you?

Please cite where I wrote that this "proved" anything.

So, come on, tell me how this tunnel is in any way relevant to the existance of God any more than the existance of baker street is proof of sherlock holmes..

Relevant?

Oh, yes.........

The Books of Kings and Chronicles establishes that the tunnel was written about, it appears that evidence of those tunnels may have been unearthed, and that the author/s of Kings and/or Chronicles was/were religious people, and that those books were deemed important to the Nicene Council as included in what we know today as the Bible.

[Mojo]

A historical, written record (recording a time some 2,500 years ago) describes a tunnel.

That tunnel may have been found.

And you ask "what significance" that has?Yes, I do. And your answer seems to be that the discovery of a tunnel is significant because it confirms the existence of a tunnel.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
A historical, written record (recording a time some 2,500 years ago) describes a tunnel.

That tunnel may have been found.

And you ask "what significance" that has?

Oh, it has significance, just not concerning the existance of God, or validating the bible.

Ummmmmmmmmm,........................it appears that the tunnel and the Bible are validating each other.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
A historical, written record (recording a time some 2,500 years ago) describes a tunnel.

That tunnel may have been found.

And you ask "what significance" that has?
Yes, I do. And your answer seems to be that the discovery of a tunnel is significant because it confirms the existence of a tunnel.

Let's see if different highlighting and font will somehow switch the light on:

A historical, written record (recording a time some 2,500 years ago) describes a tunnel.

[TobiasTheViking]

Double proof?

Drive a hard bargain, don't you?

Please cite where I wrote that this "proved" anything.
Actually, you are correct, you never said it proved anything, actually you said.



What makes Kings or Chronicles more fictional than, say, the journals of Lewis and Clark?


And i have to agree with you, Kings or Chronicles is no more, or less, fictional than the journals of Lewis and Clark.


Relevant?

Oh, yes.........

The Books of Kings and Chronicles establishes that the tunnel was written about, it appears that evidence of those tunnels may have been unearthed, and that the author/s of Kings and/or Chronicles was/were religious people, and that those books were deemed important to the Nicene Council as included in what we know today as the Bible.
So what?, i fail to see how that is in any way relevant, actually, you claim it is relevant, but you haven't said why it is relevant, how it is relevant, and what it is relevant too.

[TobiasTheViking]

Let's see if different highlighting and font will somehow switch the light on:
So what,?

A historical, written record (recording a time some 2,500 years ago) describes the sun.

[Mojo]

Ummmmmmmmmm,........................it appears that the tunnel and the Bible are validating each other.Only as far as the existence of a tunnel is concerned.

And you haven't even established that the tunnel that has been discovered is the same one mentioned in the Bible.

For example, in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1751832#post1751832) you state that Kings and Chronicles mention a tunnel used for sexual intercourse: The f**king tunnel is mentioned in Kings and Chronicles, and the f**king tunnel is there. Do you have any evidence that this is what the tunnel that has been discovered was used for?

[Huntster]

Relevant?

Oh, yes.........

The Books of Kings and Chronicles establishes that the tunnel was written about, it appears that evidence of those tunnels may have been unearthed, and that the author/s of Kings and/or Chronicles was/were religious people, and that those books were deemed important to the Nicene Council as included in what we know today as the Bible.

So what?, i fail to see how that is in any way relevant, actually, you claim it is relevant, but you haven't said why it is relevant,...

Because the written account corresponds with the physical evidence, so now we have both classes of evidence, which correspond with each other, help identify each other, help verify each other, and give reference to each other, thereby establishing both that the tunnel was significant to the city then, it was considered a significant engineering feat at the time, and it has been found, and {must I really continue?}

...how it is relevant,...

By linking the written evidence with the physical evidence, we have confirmation of both

and what it is relevant too.

They are relevant "too" each other.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Let's see if different highlighting and font will somehow switch the light on:
So what,?

A historical, written record (recording a time some 2,500 years ago) describes the sun.

And the sun is known to exist.

Halleluia!

Glory be to God!

[JamesDillon]

I answered your sarcastic question verbatim, did I not?
Exactly what the English words used specify.
I wouldn't consider pointing out the absurdity of your apparent argument sarcastic. If anything, I would consider my reply a model of restraint.

And, no, you still haven't answered my question, and unfortunately your use of the English language leaves much to be desired in terms of expressing a clear meaning. So how about walking me through it? Is it or is it not your position that, because this tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles actually exists (and I'll assume for sake of argument that this is the case), therefore the descriptions of God and his actions in the Old Testament must also be literally true?

No, you didn't answer that question yet. Your last reply to this question was, But I believe God exists.

If you don't, that's fine.

You don't even have to believe the tunnel exists.

The issue isn't about who believes in God. The issue is about whether you think the discovery of this tunnel provides any evidence for the existence ogf God. Please answer that question.

[JamesDillon]

Because the written account corresponds with the physical evidence, so now we have both classes of evidence, which correspond with each other, help identify each other, help verify each other, and give reference to each other, thereby establishing both that the tunnel was significant to the city then, it was considered a significant engineering feat at the time, and it has been found, and {must I really continue?}

Why don't you continue? It appears that you cut off just as you were getting to the good part. I believe this is relevant to my last question, too.

[Huntster]

And you haven't even established that the tunnel that has been discovered is the same one mentioned in the Bible.

Nope.

JP1283 did that in the opening post, remember?:

I read an article on the National Geographic website that talked about a tunnel in Jerusalem being discovered and how it was built under King Hezekiah in 2700 or so, just as the Bible describes in Kings and Chronicles.

You've been so busy screwing with me that you didn't even stop to consider that, did you?

But, then, it's your vaunted National Geographic Society! You don't have the credentials to dispute them, do you?

For example, in this post you state that Kings and Chronicles mention a tunnel used for sexual intercourse:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
The f**king tunnel is mentioned in Kings and Chronicles, and the f**king tunnel is there.

Actually, I ignored your question concerning the use of the tunnel.

If I was in the tunnel with the right person, it would have likely been used for sexual intercourse.

But, from what Kings records, it was used for water utility (not to deny that I haven't "done it" in "the water".

Do you have any evidence that this is what the tunnel that has been discovered was used for?

Do you have any evidence that some sex didn't occur in that tunnel?

Do you know of any tunnels that didn't?

And you haven't even established that the tunnel that has been discovered is the same one mentioned in the Bible.

Correct.

It might have been any one of several tunnels, subways, aqueducts, wells, illegal immigrant entry tunnels, fiber optic utilidors, or other underground utilities installed during the era of Hezekiah.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I answered your sarcastic question verbatim, did I not?
Exactly what the English words used specify.

I wouldn't consider pointing out the absurdity of your apparent argument sarcastic. If anything, I would consider my reply a model of restraint.

We have different views.

And, no, you still haven't answered my question, and unfortunately your use of the English language leaves much to be desired in terms of expressing a clear meaning. So how about walking me through it?

Okay.

Take my hand.........

Is it or is it not your position that, because this tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles actually exists (and I'll assume for sake of argument that this is the case), therefore the descriptions of God and his actions in the Old Testament must also be literally true?

It is not.

It is true that I believe that to be the case.

No, you didn't answer that question yet. Your last reply to this question was,
But I believe God exists.

If you don't, that's fine.

You don't even have to believe the tunnel exists.


The issue isn't about who believes in God.

It is to me.

The issue is about whether you think the discovery of this tunnel provides any evidence for the existence ogf God. Please answer that question.

It provides no more evidence than I already had or needed, and obviously does not provide enough for you.

[TobiasTheViking]

Because the written account corresponds with the physical evidence, so now we have both classes of evidence, which correspond with each other, help identify each other, help verify each other, and give reference to each other, thereby establishing both that the tunnel was significant to the city then, it was considered a significant engineering feat at the time, and it has been found, and {must I really continue?}



By linking the written evidence with the physical evidence, we have confirmation of both



They are relevant "too" each other.
Like the existance of Baker Street is relevant to the chronicles of Sherlock holmes by it being written evidence with physical evidence, that confirms both.

And being relevant to each other.

Gotcha.. Still fail to see why THAT is relevant

[TobiasTheViking]

And the sun is known to exist.

Halleluia!

Glory be to God!

So are you saying that because the sun exists god exists, and we should give him glory? or what are you saying?

[Huntster]

Because the written account corresponds with the physical evidence, so now we have both classes of evidence, which correspond with each other, help identify each other, help verify each other, and give reference to each other, thereby establishing both that the tunnel was significant to the city then, it was considered a significant engineering feat at the time, and it has been found, and {must I really continue?}Why don't you continue? It appears that you cut off just as you were getting to the good part. I believe this is relevant to my last question, too.

Okay:

..........and it has been found, and it is now providing fodder for ideological struggles between those who believe in God anyway and those who wouldn't believe in God if they were stuck upside down in a tunnel with Him, and it was primarily used to import water into the city but was occasionally used by young people hiding in order to fornicate, and rats used it to move into and out of the city, and it also served as an emergency egress from the city, and it took years of difficult labor to construct, and are you getting tired yet?

[TobiasTheViking]

Do you have any evidence that some sex didn't occur in that tunnel?

you supply evidence that sex DID occur in the tunnel. The burden is on you, not him.

[TobiasTheViking]

Okay:

..........and it has been found, and it is now providing fodder for ideological struggles between those who believe in God anyway and those who wouldn't believe in God if they were stuck upside down in a tunnel with Him.
Wait, are you saying this is evidence that God exists?

Because if i was stuck upside down in a tunnel with God i would certainly believe in him, i would see that at quite sufficient evidence.. But a tunnel is not evidence of God, a tunnel is evidence of a tunnel.

[Huntster]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Huntster :
By linking the written evidence with the physical evidence, we have confirmation of both

They are relevant "too" each other.

Like the existance of Baker Street is relevant to the chronicles of Sherlock holmes by it being written evidence with physical evidence, that confirms both.

The book of Kings and Chronicles exist like "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes".

Baker Street existed like the tunnel.

[TobiasTheViking]

Okay:

..........and it has been found, and it is now providing fodder for ideological struggles between those who believe in God anyway and those who wouldn't believe in God if they were stuck upside down in a tunnel with Him, and it was primarily used to import water into the city but was occasionally used by young people hiding in order to fornicate, and rats used it to move into and out of the city, and it also served as an emergency egress from the city, and it took years of difficult labor to construct, and are you getting tired yet?
Sorry, i do of course mean.

And it[The existance of Baker Street] has been found, and itis now providing fodder for ideological struggles between those who believe in Sherlock Holmes anyway, and those who wouldn't believe in Sherlock Holmes if they were stuck upside down in a tunnel with Him.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
And the sun is known to exist.

Halleluia!

Glory be to God!
So are you saying that because the sun exists god exists, and we should give him glory? or what are you saying?

I'm saying:

And the sun is known to exist.

Halleluia!

Glory be to God!

[TobiasTheViking]

[QUOTE=TobiasTheCommie;1751952]

The book of Kings and Chronicles exist like "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes".

Baker Street existed like the tunnel.
agreed, i fail to see the significance of the existance of Baker Street and the tunnel.

[JamesDillon]

Okay:

..........and it has been found, and it is now providing fodder for ideological struggles between those who believe in God anyway and those who wouldn't believe in God if they were stuck upside down in a tunnel with Him, and it was primarily used to import water into the city but was occasionally used by young people hiding in order to fornicate, and rats used it to move into and out of the city, and it also served as an emergency egress from the city, and it took years of difficult labor to construct, and are you getting tired yet?
I am indeed. Thanks for confirming that you really have no point.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Do you have any evidence that some sex didn't occur in that tunnel?

you supply evidence that sex DID occur in the tunnel. The burden is on you, not him..

Show me the tunnel. I'll then prove that it's a f**king tunnel.

[TobiasTheViking]

I'm saying:
And what does it mean?

[TobiasTheViking]

Show me the tunnel. I'll then prove that it's a f**king tunnel.
you don't have to prove that it IS a tunnel where people copulate, just that it WAS a tunnel where people copulate... Though i fail to see the relevance of whether or not people had sex in it, why did you bring this up?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Okay:

..........and it has been found, and it is now providing fodder for ideological struggles between those who believe in God anyway and those who wouldn't believe in God if they were stuck upside down in a tunnel with Him.
Wait, are you saying this is evidence that God exists?

Because if i was stuck upside down in a tunnel with God i would certainly believe in him,....

That appears "skeptical". You already appear to be "upside down", and "in a tunnel", yet you don't see s**t.

Then Jesus said, "I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind."
Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not also blind, are we?"
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, 'We see,' yet your sin remains.

i would see that at quite sufficient evidence.. But a tunnel is not evidence of God, a tunnel is evidence of a tunnel.

A tunnel is the proverbial "hole in the ground".

You know what goes along with that proverbial hole?

Good night, Commie. I'm tired.

It's been entertaining..............

[MRC_Hans]

Come on, Tobias, let him have his joke. I don't think it was bad at all.

Otherwise, I think the Troy example is ample answer to the real question here. Troy was real, but that doesn't mean the rest of the story is.



Hans

[TobiasTheViking]

That appears "skeptical". You already appear to be "upside down", and "in a tunnel", yet you don't see s**t.
What, i'm upside down in a tunnel?

I will agree that i don't see ****, i see my appartment. And i would like to state that i am the correct side up, and i'm in a room, not in a tunnel. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? because if you don't i'll choose to believe my sences.




A tunnel is the proverbial "hole in the ground".

You know what goes along with that proverbial hole?

Apparantly not, care to verbose.


Good night, Commie. I'm tired.

It's been entertaining..............
Sleep tight. Yes it has been vaguely entertaining.

[TobiasTheViking]

Come on, Tobias, let him have his joke. I don't think it was bad at all.

Otherwise, I think the Troy example is ample answer to the real question here. Troy was real, but that doesn't mean the rest of the story is.



Hans
NEVER :D

hehe

[Tricky]

Which ones?
Like these.

1 Kings 3:1-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=11&chapter=3&version=9)
10 And the speech pleased the LORD, that Solomon had asked this thing.

11 And God said unto him, Because thou hast asked this thing, and hast not asked for thyself long life; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life of thine enemies; but hast asked for thyself understanding to discern judgment;

1 Kings 9;2-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=11&chapter=9&version=9)
2 That the LORD appeared to Solomon the second time, as he had appeared unto him at Gibeon.

3 And the LORD said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

1 Kings 11:9-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=11&chapter=11&version=9)
9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,

10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.
11 Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.
***
You want more? I'm sure I can find them. If you think it is not fictional to have spirits appear out of thin air and speak, then you must certainly believe that the story of Aladdin and the genie of the lamp is also pure fact. After all, there is such a place as Arabia, and archaeologists have found ancient lamps.

Just out of interest (I don't actually know the answer) 1 Kings went on and on about the house of the Lord that Solomon was building. It went into very great detail about the building. Have these things been found that correspond with the biblical descriptions?

[Mercutio]

Just out of interest (I don't actually know the answer) 1 Kings went on and on about the house of the Lord that Solomon was building. It went into very great detail about the building. Have these things been found that correspond with the biblical descriptions?
You may have stumbled upon the true importance of the tunnel. It is not that there is great detail found in archaeological digs, continually reinforcing the stories of the bible...it is that there is practically nothing.

Remember all the fuss about the James Ossuary? Finding something--anything--corresponding to a verse in the old book is so rare and important that we will overlook recent chisel marks...How many times has Noah's Ark been located?

"When the bible is proven right on something" is celebrated for its rarity.

[ImaginalDisc]

That's almost signature material there:

"A fact does not a textbook make."

Facts are horrible things when you don't like them, aren't they?
Don't be obtuse. When the bible gets a few things right that doesn't change the fact that it gets many other things wrong. The signal to noise ratio is abyssmal.

[atari24]

Did you know that the city of Jeruselem exists? Just like it says in the bible!
Did you know that Egypt exists? Just like it says in the bible!
Did you know that Romans actually crucified people? Just like it says in the bible!

All this proves the bible is true.
QED

[ImaginalDisc]

Did you know that the city of Jeruselem exists? Just like it says in the bible!
Did you know that Egypt exists? Just like it says in the bible!
Did you know that Romans actually crucified people? Just like it says in the bible!

All this proves the bible is true.
QED
Indeed. The French Revolution happened; ergo, Les Miserables is true!

[Bandersnatch]

"A fact does not a textbook make."

Facts are horrible things when you don't like them, aren't they?


So, if I have the fact that water is composed of H2O in a book, I can write volumes on the 'fact' that electrons are actually very small Fig Newtons?

[sackett]

… when the Bible is proven right on something, how do you respond to it?...

Poor old JP1283 must wonder what and the hell he said to stir up so much scheitz.

Some thirty years ago, I attended a presentation at the University of Colorado by a Biblical archaeologist just back from a season’s dig. With much buildup and great, almost overwhelming glee, he announced “for the first time anywhere,” that “WE HAVE FOUND THE SEVEN CITIES OF THE PLAIN!”

Unfortunately, this talk was delivered to an audience of Classical, not Biblical scholars. The baffled silence went on, and on, and on, until I was literally twitching with embarrassment. That poor man.

Eventually the poor man had to explain to the Greek and Latin freaks about the references to the Seven Cities of the Plain in – what book of the O.T., Tricky? (Don’t worry, Trick’ll know. Hunty the Chrrristian has gone to sleep.) The remains of those cities, miserable mud-brick villages as we’d view them, had been located, thus proving what everybody, even classicists, already knew: the O.T. has scraps of real history mashed into it. Big-ass deal; old stuff; the specialists have known that for generations.

Of course, as Merc points out, archaeological confirmation doesn’t happen very often, but considering what a jumble the O.T. is, it’s bound to occur now and then.

When an archeological dig uncovers something mentioned in the Old Testament, I feel relief. “Hey, even those wacked-out old Hebrews could get at least something right now and then!” Yeah, something easy.

[ceo_esq]

When the bible gets a few things right that doesn't change the fact that it gets many other things wrong. The signal to noise ratio is abyssmal.

How exactly did you determine the signal-to-noise ratio? And what is a benchmark "good" ratio for this kind of text (or rather collection of texts, some of which are obviously poetic or parabolic)?

[Tricky]

Some thirty years ago, I attended a presentation at the University of Colorado by a Biblical archaeologist just back from a season’s dig. With much buildup and great, almost overwhelming glee, he announced “for the first time anywhere,” that “WE HAVE FOUND THE SEVEN CITIES OF THE PLAIN!”

Eventually the poor man had to explain to the Greek and Latin freaks about the references to the Seven Cities of the Plain in – what book of the O.T., Tricky? (Don’t worry, Trick’ll know. Hunty the Chrrristian has gone to sleep.)
Sorry to let you down, Sack, but my bible search engine can't find any reference to the "Seven Cities of the Plain". Closest I can find is this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=19&version=48) in Genesis which refers to Sodom and Gomorrah as cities of the plain. Maybe there were five more.

28 and he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld. And lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow when He overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.

[ImaginalDisc]

How exactly did you determine the signal-to-noise ratio? And what is a benchmark "good" ratio for this kind of text (or rather collection of texts, some of which are obviously poetic or parabolic)?
Let's see. The bible claims that the Earth is the center of the universe, that things which fly and have four legs are bad to eat (such as what, the pegasus?) that rabbits chew their cud, that world was once flooded over entirely wiping out all life but a single human family and some animals on a boat, and that thousands of Jewish people were slaves in Egypt. None of which is true, just as examples.

[sackett]

Pardon me, ceo, but I think you’re being just a leetle tad too cute here. The Western world has been shoveling away at the Near East for rather more than a century, besides poring over every fragment of papyrus and calfskin it can in search of confirmation of Biblical texts. If we define “noise” as the dreary acres of text in the O.T., and “signal” as the verifiable facts diligent and disciplined men have turned up, I think (with great submission) that we can each form an impression of the ratio of one to the other – and when we compare our impressions, we’ll find that we all come to pretty much the same conclusion.

Although I agree that most of the damn thing is a “collection of texts, some of which are obviously poetic or parabolic,” I suppose I could ask, How do you determine that “obvious” fact? Fierce Grristians like Huntsy would threaten your limb if not your life over that.

I love parabolic, by the way. Beats hyperbolic at describing the way Near Eastern writers blare and blather on. Let’s see, am I talking about the Book of Kings, or Al Jazeera?

[JP1283]

Wow. I just got up and got on the computer to check this thread. It's really taken off!

[thaiboxerken]

Come on, Tobias, let him have his joke. I don't think it was bad at all.

Otherwise, I think the Troy example is ample answer to the real question here. Troy was real, but that doesn't mean the rest of the story is.



Hans

The sad thing here is that this logic is lost on Huntster, but only because he already believes the bible to be a book of fact. I suspect he'd reject the Quran, though.

[ceo_esq]

How exactly did you determine the signal-to-noise ratio? And what is a benchmark "good" ratio for this kind of text (or rather collection of texts, some of which are obviously poetic or parabolic)?Let's see. The bible claims that the Earth is the center of the universe, that things which fly and have four legs are bad to eat (such as what, the pegasus?) that rabbits chew their cud, that world was once flooded over entirely wiping out all life but a single human family and some animals on a boat, and that thousands of Jewish people were slaves in Egypt. None of which is true, just as examples.

None of this is responsive to the two questions I put to you. At most, it merely supports the proposition that the Bible contains "noise" or errors, which I don't think was in dispute. On the other hand, what you've said is not even especially good support for that. Does the Bible really claim that the earth is literally and astronomically the center of the universe, or is that simply one way of reading the text? Was the author of Leviticus really making that morphological claim about flying animals, or are there translation issues at work here? Can it categorically be established that Israelites were never enslaved in Egypt, or do we lack certitude (as with so much of the Bible) as to whether this is "noise" or "signal"?


Pardon me, ceo, but I think you’re being just a leetle tad too cute here. The Western world has been shoveling away at the Near East for rather more than a century, besides poring over every fragment of papyrus and calfskin it can in search of confirmation of Biblical texts. If we define “noise” as the dreary acres of text in the O.T., and “signal” as the verifiable facts diligent and disciplined men have turned up, I think (with great submission) that we can each form an impression of the ratio of one to the other – and when we compare our impressions, we’ll find that we all come to pretty much the same conclusion.

Yours doesn't strike me as the appropriate definition of "noise" here, given that ID's post implied that "noise" corresponds to things we know that the Bible falsely asserted. (This, of course, raises additional issues, e.g. the difficulty of always knowing if we have properly understood the nature of the claim, and for that matter, the sense in and circumstances under which figurative text is "false").

I'm about to be a bit reductive, but perhaps we can agree that there are, for our purposes here (and broadly speaking), three kinds of content in the Bible: (1) things we know the Bible "got wrong", (2) things we know the Bible "got right", and (3) content the truth or falsity of which is not known.

The third category contains some content which is theoretically susceptible to verification or disproof but which we are not, at least currently, in a practical position to verify or disprove. (I daresay many claims about the history, movements and lifestyle of the early Hebrews fall under this.) The category also contains some content which does not seem susceptible to verification or disproof. (I would place spiritual/metaphysical/moral propositions - apart from those the truth or falsity of which can be deduced logically - here.)

If "noise" is true content, and "signal" is false content, then assessing the "signal-to-noise" ratio of the Bible (in light of the sheer size of category #3) would seem to be a particularly audacious enterprise. (A fortiori whether such ratio ought reasonably to be be viewed as high, moderate, or low.)

Even determining that category #1 is bigger than category #2 seems a highly problematic task.


Although I agree that most of the damn thing is a “collection of texts, some of which are obviously poetic or parabolic,” I suppose I could ask, How do you determine that “obvious” fact? Fierce Grristians like Huntsy would threaten your limb if not your life over that.

Well, some of the texts seem to bear the clear hallmarks of particular figurative or poetic genres and traditions. With others, it's not nearly so clear, though certain other kinds of clues exist. I suppose prudence dictates erring on the side of caution.

Hunster, who is (if I recall correctly) a Catholic, should have no problem with the assertion that significant portions of biblical texts are figurative. We might not agree on all the same ones, though.


I love parabolic, by the way. Beats hyperbolic at describing the way Near Eastern writers blare and blather on. Let’s see, am I talking about the Book of Kings, or Al Jazeera?

Does Al Jazeera speak in parables? That's all I meant.

[KingMerv00]

Wow. I just got up and got on the computer to check this thread. It's really taken off!

I'd say it crashed long ago.

[thaiboxerken]

I find it rather hilarious that some people actually equivocate the Bible to a history textbook.

[sackett]

I think “signal to noise” is a fine metaphor for the experience of reading almost any holy book: It’s like trying to listen to AM radio during a thunderstorm. The effort of picking meaningful fragments out of the uproar of silliness is just too much effort to be worthwhile, at least if you’re as unmotivated as I am. Huntsie (who also believes in Bigfoot, doesn’t he?), by contrast, is motivated as all hell, perhaps by a shaky faith, and the BRAAP and BWAZH of the O.T. come through to him like angels sweetly singing.

I’ve never heard “parabolic” used to denote speaking in parables, but hey! standard English can be SO boring! I hope I’m not too old to learn.

[Huntster]

The sad thing here is that this logic is lost on Huntster, but only because he already believes the bible to be a book of fact....

The humorous thing here is that you clearly have no idea what I believe.

I suspect he'd reject the Quran, though.

What I reject is you.

[Huntster]

I find it rather hilarious that some people actually equivocate the Bible to a history textbook.

What is even more hilarious is that there are clearly people who will reject the biblical books as historical reference because of the religiosity of the authors, even when physical evidence of it's accuracy is found, clucking like hens in a coop lest their mortal, ideological enemies enjoy the archeological find.

[Upchurch]

What happens if hundreds of witnesses come forward and testify that they saw a man crawling on vertical walls in a blue and red suit like a spider?
Has that happened with the bible?
Ummmm........yes.
Oh? Have there been hundreds of witnesses that came forward and testified that they saw someone work biblical miracles, or have there been a few people who wrote about hundreds of witnesses that came forward and testified that they saw someone biblical miracles?


And incidentally, there are millions of people who have seen Spider-man. I know because I see them depicted in the comic books. Heck, I even met the guy when I was kid. Got my picture taken with him and everything. (Who else would dress up like that and hang out in a kiosk in the mall?)

[JamesDillon]

Oh? Have there been hundreds of witnesses that came forward and testified that they saw someone work biblical miracles, or have there been a few people who wrote about hundreds of witnesses that came forward and testified that they saw someone biblical miracles?

To be fair, there probably have been at least hundreds, probably thousands, of people who have claimed to have witnessed miracles over the centuries. Just goes to show that even eyewitness accounts can be mistaken (or fraudulent).

[Steve]

Did you know that the city of Jeruselem exists? Just like it says in the bible!

This was also my main thought as I read this thread. The writers of the bible were correct about the existence of Jerusalem. There has now been a discovery which may possibly prove a particular biblical author to be correct about a particular detail of construction within the city. While interesting from an archaeological perspective, I fail to see any religious significance.

[ceo_esq]

I think “signal to noise” is a fine metaphor for the experience of reading almost any holy book: It’s like trying to listen to AM radio during a thunderstorm. The effort of picking meaningful fragments out of the uproar of silliness is just too much effort to be worthwhile, at least if you’re as unmotivated as I am. Huntsie (who also believes in Bigfoot, doesn’t he?), by contrast, is motivated as all hell, perhaps by a shaky faith, and the BRAAP and BWAZH of the O.T. come through to him like angels sweetly singing.

I like the imagery there!


I’ve never heard “parabolic” used to denote speaking in parables, but hey! standard English can be SO boring! I hope I’m not too old to learn.

I'm guessing you're of the mathematical/technical persuasion. "Of, relating to, or similar to a parable; allegorical" is often the first definition dictionaries give for parabolic. The other (geometric) one is the secondary sense (and a lot more recent, in fact).

;)

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :
Originally Posted by Huntster :
What happens if hundreds of witnesses come forward and testify that they saw a man crawling on vertical walls in a blue and red suit like a spider?

Has that happened with the bible?

Ummmm........yes. Oh? Have there been hundreds of witnesses that came forward and testified that they saw someone work biblical miracles, or have there been a few people who wrote about hundreds of witnesses that came forward and testified that they saw someone biblical miracles?

There has been a number of people who wrote about hundreds of witnesses that came forward and testified.

And incidentally, there are millions of people who have seen Spider-man. I know because I see them depicted in the comic books. Heck, I even met the guy when I was kid. Got my picture taken with him and everything. (Who else would dress up like that and hang out in a kiosk in the mall?)

How many people will have seen or known of Spiderman in the year 4010?

I got my photo taken with Santa Claus at the North Pole last year. Feed Donner and Blixen, too.

Santa Claus is already older and more widely known throughout the world than Spiderman, yet less so than Christ.

So?

[Huntster]

To be fair, there probably have been at least hundreds, probably thousands, of people who have claimed to have witnessed miracles over the centuries.

Many thousands at the same time at Fatima in 1917.

Even made the New York Times.

But, we want to talk about Spiderman............

[Upchurch]

There has been a number of people who wrote about hundreds of witnesses that came forward and testified.So, you see, you really don't know that there have been hundreds of witnesses that came forward and testified. You only have a what a few people have said about hundreds of witnesses that, etc.

How many people will have seen or known of Spiderman in the year 4010?I can't answer that question.

Santa Claus is already older and more widely known throughout the world than Spiderman, yet less so than Christ.

So?
Well, first, I'd love to know who it is that knows of Jesus, but has never heard of Santa Claus.

Second, you've met Santa Claus and I've met Spider-man (as well as Santa Claus). You and I are eyewitnesses. Does that mean Santa Claus and Spider-man are real people?

[sackett]

... "Of, relating to, or similar to a parable; allegorical" is often the first definition dictionaries give for parabolic. The other (geometric) one is the secondary sense (and a lot more recent, in fact). ;)



Nope, sorry. It turns out that I am too old to learn. For me, parabolic has ballistic connotations, e.g., in determining how high you have to aim to hit a target. Or how low, depending on how far below you the target is located. (I believe there’s sufficient material for a parable right there.)

Speaking in parables is just a form of poetry, familiar to people in the Near East since before the Flood.

Now I hope Huntsie will list all the real true historical facts in the Bible that have been confirmed by modern archaeology.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Why is it not equally amazing that Masaada exists?

[Upchurch]

But, we want to talk about Spiderman............analogy (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/analogy)


Besides, everyone knows that The Beatles were bigger than Jesus.

[KingMerv00]

What is even more hilarious is that there are clearly people who will reject the biblical books as historical reference because of the religiosity of the authors, even when physical evidence of it's accuracy is found, clucking like hens in a coop lest their mortal, ideological enemies enjoy the archeological find.

Ok...ok...you win. The Bible isn't always wrong. There! I said it! :(

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
There has been a number of people who wrote about hundreds of witnesses that came forward and testified.

So, you see, you really don't know that there have been hundreds of witnesses that came forward and testified. You only have a what a few people have said about hundreds of witnesses that, etc.

It works for me.

....you've met Santa Claus and I've met Spider-man (as well as Santa Claus). You and I are eyewitnesses. Does that mean Santa Claus and Spider-man are real people?

I've never met Spiderman, I have no desire to do so, and the background story lends me to believe that it is fiction.

Yes, the Santa Claus I met was a real person. He was about my size, had a white beard like mine, had a big belly like mine, had a gorgeous young lady on his lap (taking a picture with her), and as soon as he saw me he mistook me for his brother (he said).

Nice guy. I even sat on his lap for a photo.

[Huntster]

Besides, everyone knows that The Beatles were bigger than Jesus.

So said Lennon.

I wonder how many folks will know about him in the year 4010?

[Huntster]

...The Bible isn't always wrong. There! I said it! :(

That wasn't so painful, was it?

[KingMerv00]

I've never met Spiderman, I have no desire to do so, and the background story lends me to believe that it is fiction.

Funny, I think the same thing of Jesus. Wasn't he bitten by a radioactive angel?

Hundreds of people think Elvis is still alive too. Praise the King.

[KingMerv00]

That wasn't so painful, was it?

Well I never thought the Bible was entirely wrong...so no. It wasn't painful.

[Soapy Sam]

Even British railway timetables are right sometimes.

If a book as long as the bible, written about a place by people who lived there contained no facts at all, that truly would be miraculous.

I don't think anyone on this board would say the writers of the bible- in any of its phases- were themselves either stupid or "woo". They wrote in the context of their times; they wrote what they knew or believed, or was politically appropriate. If we, 2-4000 years on , misinterpret what they wrote , we can scarcely blame the writers. Nor need we resort to divine inspiration to explain why their statements are sometimes supported by archaeological evidence.

[Meffy]

The bible claims that [...] things which fly and have four legs are bad to eat (such as what, the pegasus?)
Insects, ya silly. The Bible says insects have four legs, so they do. Kinda helped Aristotle when he decided spiders have six legs. As proof that both are right, note that nlegs[insect] = nlegs[spider]-2. If you count the legs on a spider and subtract the number of legs on an insect, you get two -- showing that the Bible and Aristotle are both right!

[Meffy]

What is even more hilarious is that there are clearly people who will reject the biblical books as historical reference because of the religiosity of the authors, even when physical evidence of it's accuracy is found, clucking like hens in a coop lest their mortal, ideological enemies enjoy the archeological find.
You keep depicting skeptics as people who just hate to find anything factual in the Bible. Why? It's not an honest image. If you really do think that way you're doing yourself a disservice. I don't believe a bit of the religious stuff in the Bible but have always been ready to accept certain parts of it as reasonably accurate factually. I know of nobody calling her- or himself a skeptic who would declare everything the Bible says false. So why not drop the straw man, hm?

I, and many other people, reject the Bible as a "historical reference" because it is a misch-mosch of history (though often "spun" nearly beyond recognition) myth and prophecies, allegory, diatribes, and miscellaneous erotic verse. [edit: And it's not always easy to disentangle any facts from myth and distortions.]

"Sergeant Fury and His Howling Commandos" comic books depict World War II in considerable detail. They mention a number of historical figures and events, including ones that can be confirmed via archaeology. Do you think this means that "Sergeant Fury and His Howling Commandos" is a valid historical reference?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I've never met Spiderman, I have no desire to do so, and the background story lends me to believe that it is fiction.
Funny, I think the same thing of Jesus.

To each his own.

Wasn't he bitten by a radioactive angel?

Not to my understanding.

Hundreds of people think Elvis is still alive too. Praise the King.

To each his own.

Go with God.

[Huntster]

.......I don't think anyone on this board would say the writers of the bible- in any of its phases- were themselves either stupid or "woo"......

Oh, Kenny!

Comment? Any sig line masterpieces for us?

They wrote in the context of their times; they wrote what they knew or believed, or was politically appropriate. If we, 2-4000 years on , misinterpret what they wrote , we can scarcely blame the writers. Nor need we resort to divine inspiration to explain why their statements are sometimes supported by archaeological evidence.

Thank you for the obvious.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think anyone on this board would say the writers of the bible- in any of its phases- were themselves either stupid or "woo"......

Huntster predicted this one right. I would be one person that thinks teh writers of the bible were completely off their rockers, are stupid and woo. But, I also think the same thing about the writers of Scientology books, the Quran and the book of Mormon.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
What is even more hilarious is that there are clearly people who will reject the biblical books as historical reference because of the religiosity of the authors, even when physical evidence of it's accuracy is found, clucking like hens in a coop lest their mortal, ideological enemies enjoy the archeological find.
You keep depicting skeptics as people who just hate to find anything factual in the Bible. Why? It's not an honest image.

First, there are no absolutes here when discussing "skeptics". People are people, and not all "skeptics" believe alike.

Secondly, you're accurate. That's not an honest image.

Many skeptics don't necessarily hate to find something factual in the Bible.

They hate the Bible, period, and any and all reference to it.

If you really do think that way you're doing yourself a disservice. I don't believe a bit of the religious stuff in the Bible but have always been ready to accept certain parts of it as reasonably accurate factually.

Good for you.

I know of nobody calling her- or himself a skeptic who would declare everything the Bible says false.

I suspect I know an idiot or two who might do just that.

So why not drop the straw man, hm?

I prefer burning them. At the stake.

I, and many other people, reject the Bible as a "historical reference" because it is a misch-mosch of history (though often "spun" nearly beyond recognition) myth and prophecies, allegory, diatribes, and miscellaneous erotic verse. [edit: And it's not always easy to disentangle any facts from myth and distortions.]

Too bad for you. You would be a poor archeologist in the Middle East.

"Sergeant Fury and His Howling Commandos" comic books depict World War II in considerable detail. They mention a number of historical figures and events, including ones that can be confirmed via archaeology. Do you think this means that "Sergeant Fury and His Howling Commandos" is a valid historical reference?

Probably not, but the bibliography (if one is provided) might prove insightful.

[Huntster]

.......I know of nobody calling her- or himself a skeptic who would declare everything the Bible says false.

I suspect I know an idiot or two who might do just that....

Go ahead, Kenny.

Make me two-for-two..........

[thaiboxerken]

Go ahead, Kenny.

Make me two-for-two..........

Won't happen, the bible is fiction but it is also set in real historical places (for much of it).

[Upchurch]

They hate the Bible, period, and any and all reference to it.
Correction: The hate reference to the Bible as an unquestionable authoritative source on just about anything, save the Bible itself. And even then there are some translation and version issues that need to be taken into consideration.

I prefer burning them. At the stake.Um, yes. That's what you do with straw men. You build them up so that you can take them apart again in lieu of arguing against what someone has actually said.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
They hate the Bible, period, and any and all reference to it.

Correction: The hate reference to the Bible as an unquestionable authoritative source on just about anything, save the Bible itself. And even then there are some translation and version issues that need to be taken into consideration.

Apparently, that's your position.

As Kenny has shown above, there are different strokes for different folks, and that includes among "skeptics."

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I prefer burning them. At the stake.

Um, yes. That's what you do with straw men. You build them up so that you can take them apart again in lieu of arguing against what someone has actually said.

I prefer burning other people's straw men.

I kinda like mine walking and talking, like Dorothy's Scarecrow, with or without brains.

[Meffy]

Probably not, but the bibliography (if one is provided) might prove insightful.
:-} *cough* Erm, yes.

[Ducky]

Go ahead, Kenny.

Make me two-for-two..........


Kinda hard to when you can't keep your temper from getting you suspended. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59595) See you in 3 days Huntster.

[Meffy]

Wander well, o Huntster, in the desert. May you grow in wisdom. *salute*

Meanwhile, back at the topic: When I hear that something mentioned in the Bible seems to be confirmed by archaeology, I'm fascinated of course. The events that gets properly confirmed tend to be good solid historical happenings. Nobody's tried to pass off clay tablet flip-movies of Ezekiel's multi-gyrocopter in action. Leastways I hope not. (*knock on wooden head for luck*)

I for one like learning how people lived in ye olden dayes, and ye even older dayes, and what kinds of governments they lived under, and what they could and couldn't do, and who smote whom, all that stuff. When independent confirmation can be found for events, places, etc. mentioned the Bible, that's entirely cool with me.

The trick is to understand that Churchill and Stalin were real, but that Sgt. Fury was imaginary. And so forth.

[Mojo]

What is even more hilarious is that there are clearly people who will reject the biblical books as historical reference because of the religiosity of the authors...BZZZZT! Strawman!

[Mojo]

And you haven't even established that the tunnel that has been discovered is the same one mentioned in the Bible.
Nope.

JP1283 did that in the opening post, remember?:


I read an article on the National Geographic website that talked about a tunnel in Jerusalem being discovered and how it was built under King Hezekiah in 2700 or so, just as the Bible describes in Kings and Chronicles.
You've been so busy screwing with me that you didn't even stop to consider that, did you?That doesn't estasblish that it was the same tunnel. it just says that it was a tunnel built as the tunnel described in King and Chronicles was built.

But, then, it's your vaunted National Geographic Society! You don't have the credentials to dispute them, do you?Not vaunted by me, not my society, and not even my nation. That's 0 for 3 there.

[wollery]

Even British railway timetables are right sometimes.Now that I find really hard to believe!

[Meffy]

You would be a poor archeologist in the Middle East.
Huntster, when you're allowed back in, would you mind explaining exactly why you believe that refusing to accept claims until they have been substantiated would make one a poor archaeologist? I think most sensible people would consider this a qualification, not a drawback.

(I assume by "poor" you mean unsatisfactory, not impoverished. Few think of archaeology as a sure-fire road to vast wealth.)

[edit] Oh, I'd appreciate it if you'd give an actual reply addressing what I asked, rather than yet another string of snappy -- yet marginally relevant at best -- Spidermanesque one-liners. 'Kay? Ta.

[KelvinG]

Good for you.

I know of nobody calling her- or himself a skeptic who would declare everything the Bible says false.

I suspect I know an idiot or two who might do just that.


Which, of course, wouldn't come even close to approaching the number of idiots who think everything the Bible says is true.

[c4ts]

Well, I'm definitely not a biblical scholar, but a fact does not a textbook make.

Euclid, while he formed the basis of geometry, also thought that light originates from your eyes and travels as a beam at infinite speeds.

And I thought you were going to criticize the fifth postulate in the Elements.

[Ausmerican]

I've never met Spiderman, I have no desire to do so, and the background story lends me to believe that it is fiction.
Gotta love that. Being bitten by a radioactive spider and developing genetic abnormalities isn't a credible backstory. Being born of a virgin, walking on water, raising the dead, etc, yeah that's waaaay more credible.

[RandFan]

I've never met Spiderman, I have no desire to do so, and the background story lends me to believe that it is fiction.
Gotta love that. Being bitten by a radioactive spider and developing genetic abnormalities isn't a credible backstory. Being born of a virgin, walking on water, raising the dead, etc, yeah that's waaaay more credible.Things that make you go hmmm...

[Cleon]

Huntster, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

OK, the tunnel has been found. For brevity's sake, let's assume it's the tunnel mentioned in the Bible. So what? What, in your opinion, does this mean in the grand scheme of things?

[Tricky]

Huntster, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

OK, the tunnel has been found. For brevity's sake, let's assume it's the tunnel mentioned in the Bible. So what? What, in your opinion, does this mean in the grand scheme of things?
Though Hunster is currently suspended, I think I can summarize his chain of thought:


1) Nonbelievers think the bible is 100% false.
2) Something accurate has been found in it.
3) In yo face, suckahs. Hahahahahaha.

[supercorgi]

Meanwhile, back at the topic: When I hear that something mentioned in the Bible seems to be confirmed by archaeology, I'm fascinated of course. The events that gets properly confirmed tend to be good solid historical happenings. Nobody's tried to pass off clay tablet flip-movies of Ezekiel's multi-gyrocopter in action. Leastways I hope not. (*knock on wooden head for luck*)

I share your fascination Meffy. That's why I've majored in archaeology at the graduate level. I love understanding how ancient people lived and what forces shaped their socieites.

One of Hunster's many problems is that he confuses Near Eastern archaeology with the branch of archaeology known as Biblical archaeology. Near Eastern archaeology merely attempts to explore the ancient societies of the Near East with no focus on the Bible. Biblical archaeology is somewhat controversial. Its mainstream aim is to validate the historical background of the Bible; unfortunately, it's often co-opted by less scrupulous researches as a way to validate the Bible itself. Often, Biblical archaeolgy is not pure research because its underlying goal is religious in nature.

[Upchurch]

I prefer burning other people's straw men.That may be, but in this thread I've only seen you building the straw men. Working with what you have, I suppose?

[Pauliesonne]

I prefer burning other people's straw men.



BEHOLD THE WICKERMAN!!!!!

[KelvinG]

Though Hunster is currently suspended, I think I can summarize his chain of thought:


1) Nonbelievers think the bible is 100% false.
2) Something accurate has been found in it.
3) In yo face, suckahs. Hahahahahaha.

Has anyone ever met or heard of a nonbeliever who actually believes everything in the bible is 100% false?

It makes for a great strawman, though.

[RandFan]

Has anyone ever met or heard of a nonbeliever who actually believes everything in the bible is 100% false?

It makes for a great strawman, though.When I was a believer, every scientific discovery that even remotely confirmed any part of my belief was trumpeted as proof that I was right. Of course anything that contradicted my beliefs was dismissed.

[I'll_buy_that]

Hunster is arguing in circles. I would ignore him unless you like chasing his arguments.

I know this guy is a nut job... http://www.truechristian.com/03.html
but is he serious? a flat earth? or just someone looking for kooky things to write about to get a reaction? his hate mail generator is really funny.

[Huntster]

....One of Hunster's many problems is that he confuses Near Eastern archaeology with the branch of archaeology known as Biblical archaeology. Near Eastern archaeology merely attempts to explore the ancient societies of the Near East with no focus on the Bible........

So, do you claim that Biblical books are not used as a written reference for Near Eastern archaelology?

[Huntster]

Hunster is arguing in circles. I would ignore him unless you like chasing his arguments.

I know this guy is a nut job... http://www.truechristian.com/03.html
but is he serious? a flat earth? or just someone looking for kooky things to write about to get a reaction? his hate mail generator is really funny.

What does "this guy" have to do with me?

[buffalocust]

BEHOLD THE WICKERMAN!!!!!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/714144b2b37fbd677.jpg

Great movie!

[KelvinG]

When I was a believer, every scientific discovery that even remotely confirmed any part of my belief was trumpeted as proof that I was right. Of course anything that contradicted my beliefs was dismissed.

I'm sure it's very easy to find people who believe everything in the bible is 100% true. They're a dime a dozen.

But, are there people who claim the bible is 100% false? i.e. that absolutely nothing in it is true.

If such people do exist, surely they are in very, very small numbers. And I don't think you'd find many non-believers who would take them seriously.

[Huntster]

When I was a believer, every scientific discovery that even remotely confirmed any part of my belief was trumpeted as proof that I was right. Of course anything that contradicted my beliefs was dismissed.

You were idealogue.

I'm a believer. Every scientific discovery that even remotely confirms any part of my belief is accepted as support of my belief.

Every scientific discovery that contradicts my beliefs forces a re-evaluation and modification of my beliefs.

There have been few to no scientific discoveries which confirm or contradict my beliefs in God.

[JamesDillon]

But, are there people who claim the bible is 100% false? i.e. that absolutely nothing in it is true.

Wouldn't that entail, for example, denying the existence of the city of Jerusalem, or that there are such people as Jews? Or for that matter, that the Roman Empire existed? I can't conceive of anyone actually holding that position.

[I'll_buy_that]

What does "this guy" have to do with me?

Nothing, i'm ADHD....Oh look, a puppy!!:)

[Almo]

I'm curious... why do you guys argue with Huntster about stuff like this? All I can think of is that it creates a record of his argument patterns for future reference. But I'd think that with him at over 3000 posts that we have enough data for now.

[Cleon]

Huntster, there are numerous references in the Bible to places we know exist(ed), such as Jerusalem, Megiddo, Jericho, Egypt, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, Babylonia, etc. The Bible mentions Pontius Pilate--he was a real, historical figure. Maybe Jesus was, too--that's a topic for another thread. (Well, numerous threads.)

So what does the discovery of this tunnel prove, exactly?

[Mojo]

So what does the discovery of this tunnel prove, exactly?We've been here before. The discovery of the tunnel is significant because: It was written, and physical evidence has been found.

And the fact that the tunnel was written about is significant: Because it gives a historical reference to what was found. Otherwise it's just a tunnel with no history.It appears that the existence of the tunnel and the mention of a tunnel in the Bible are only significant with respect to each other.

[KelvinG]

Wouldn't that entail, for example, denying the existence of the city of Jerusalem, or that there are such people as Jews? Or for that matter, that the Roman Empire existed? I can't conceive of anyone actually holding that position.

My point exactly. Yet earlier in this thread Hunster implied there were such people.

[slingblade]

Besides, "everyone knows" the most believable lies have some truth to them, in varying amounts.

[CapelDodger]

What is even more hilarious is that there are clearly people who will reject the biblical books as historical reference because of the religiosity of the authors, even when physical evidence of it's accuracy is found, clucking like hens in a coop lest their mortal, ideological enemies enjoy the archeological find.
No-one's going to reject physical evidence because it corresponds with a Biblical reference. The physical evidence stands by itself. It doesn't make entirely unconnected Biblical references any more authoritative.

Some believers will reject physical evidence if it doesn't coincide with Biblical references, but that's another subject, obviously.

[Huntster]

Huntster, there are numerous references in the Bible to places we know exist(ed), such as Jerusalem, Megiddo, Jericho, Egypt, the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, Babylonia, etc. The Bible mentions Pontius Pilate--he was a real, historical figure. Maybe Jesus was, too--that's a topic for another thread. (Well, numerous threads.)

So what does the discovery of this tunnel prove, exactly?

That the tunnel can be added to the list of places/things we know exist(ed) and was referenced in a biblical book.

[Huntster]

I'm curious... why do you guys argue with Huntster about stuff like this? All I can think of is that it creates a record of his argument patterns for future reference. But I'd think that with him at over 3000 posts that we have enough data for now.

Yeah, if your assumption was correct, there'd be no further need to argue with the Huntster over such stupid issues.

But I believe you're incorrect. Some of these people argue with me because they:

1) Don't read what I'm writing, and assume what I'm thinking
2) Just can't stand the fact that Christians believe in God/Christ, and want to shoot them down
3) Enjoy arguing (like the Huntster)

Human psychology and behavior is an amazing thing, isn't it?

[TobiasTheViking]

That the tunnel can be added to the list of places/things we know exist(ed) and was referenced in a biblical book.
And that proves naught.

Yeah, if your assumption was correct, there'd be no further need to argue with the Huntster over such stupid issues.

But I believe you're incorrect. Some of these people argue with me because they:

1) Don't read what I'm writing, and assume what I'm thinking
2) Just can't stand the fact that Christians believe in God/Christ, and want to shoot them down
3) Enjoy arguing (like the Huntster)

Human psychology and behavior is an amazing thing, isn't it?
1) false for me
2) false for me
3) false for me.

Who exactly are you saying are arguing with yo ufor those reasons?

I'm arguing with you because
a) Sometimes you write something that looks like it is a statement, but it isn't, and i'm trying to figure out what your position is.
and
b) Sometimes you write something i disagree with because it doesn't make sence to me.

[Cleon]

It appears that the existence of the tunnel and the mention of a tunnel in the Bible are only significant with respect to each other.

I really hope Huntster doesn't think that. I really do.

Archaeology is absolutely fascinating, and there's so much more to it than whether it's related to the Bible or not.

If a tunnel found is mentioned in a historical document of ANY sort, whether fictional, non-fictional, or even graffiti at Pompeii, it's fascinating. It builds an actual human connection that we all can relate to.

But that's just the beginning! That's only scratching the surface.

The really interesting parts of this story are what's not in the Bible. So a tunnel was built--big whoop. Why was it built? How was it built? Who were the people who built it--not just the dude who ordered it, but the various middle-management types, the grunts, the slaves (if any). Who used it, and why? After it was built, what happened to it?

In short, what does the tunnel tell us about the society that built it?

All of these are the interesting questions, not whether it's a tunnel mentioned in passing in one of the gospels. "Was it mentioned in the Bible" is just a non-question, something of profoundly little importance. Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible; can you imagine if that was the sole bit of import we took from its history?

If Huntster's sole interest in this tunnel is that it was mentioned in the Bible, I feel bad for him. There's so much that's interesting about archaeology in the Middle East (well, in lots of places, really), to reduce it to such a mundane question of whether it's mentioned in a certain historical book really takes all the thrill out of it. It reduces the entire field, expanse, and history of archaeology into a question of whether a particular artifact or edifice confirms or refutes the Bible. And I think that not only disrespects archaeology, but the Bible as well.

[Cleon]

That the tunnel can be added to the list of places/things we know exist(ed) and was referenced in a biblical book.
So?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That the tunnel can be added to the list of places/things we know exist(ed) and was referenced in a biblical book.

And that proves naught.

Let me guess:

You've posted here numerous times without even reading the article mentioned in the OP (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0911_030911_SiloamTunnel.html), haven't you?:

....Structures described in the Bible are notoriously difficult to date. While some are poorly preserved or hard to identify, others are off limits to scientists because of political reasons. The age of the Jerusalem tunnel had been in dispute, with dissident scientists arguing it is not as old as the Bible suggests.

The new research should put those doubts to rest. The biblical text appears to present an accurate historical record of the tunnel's construction.....

I'm arguing with you because
a) Sometimes you write something that looks like it is a statement, but it isn't, and i'm trying to figure out what your position is.
and
b) Sometimes you write something i disagree with because it doesn't make sence to me.

So you don't understand what I write, so you feel the need to argue with me?

[Huntster]

.........Archaeology is absolutely fascinating, and there's so much more to it than whether it's related to the Bible or not.

If a tunnel found is mentioned in a historical document of ANY sort, whether fictional, non-fictional, or even graffiti at Pompeii, it's fascinating. It builds an actual human connection that we all can relate to.

But that's just the beginning! That's only scratching the surface.

The really interesting parts of this story are what's not in the Bible. So a tunnel was built--big whoop. Why was it built? How was it built? Who were the people who built it--not just the dude who ordered it, but the various middle-management types, the grunts, the slaves (if any). Who used it, and why? After it was built, what happened to it?

In short, what does the tunnel tell us about the society that built it?

Here's a clue, Dr. Indiana Jones:

Dating the tunnel to a written record answers many of those questions.


Again, if you'd read the article (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0911_030911_SiloamTunnel.html) you might also have learned:

It is one of the longest ancient water tunnels without intermediate shafts.

"The tunnel was a major technological achievement," said Amos Frumkin of the geography department at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who led the research. "It's one of the most ancient structures that's still in use."

If Huntster's sole interest in this tunnel is that it was mentioned in the Bible, I feel bad for him.

As I've repeatedly mentioned, it's the link between a written record and the physical evidence.

Is your sole dis-interest "in this tunnel is that it was mentioned in the Bible?"

[ceo_esq]

The Bible mentions Pontius Pilate--he was a real, historical figure.

Interestingly, IIRC, apart from a single mention in Tacitus (the same passage, in fact, that mentions Christ), we didn't have any extra-biblical evidence that Pontius Pilate was a historical figure until the unearthing of a single inscription bearing his name a few decades ago.

[Cleon]

Here's a clue, Dr. Indiana Jones:

...Who did for archaeology what you do for Bible study. But that's another matter.


Dating the tunnel to a written record answers many of those questions.

Again, if you'd read the article (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0911_030911_SiloamTunnel.html) you might also have learned:


Actually, I did read the article, Captain Bible, as I try to follow what's going on in the archaeological world. And yes, those are the interesting parts. Not to you, apparently.


As I've repeatedly mentioned, it's the link between a written record and the physical evidence.

But again, I ask...So what?


Is your sole dis-interest "in this tunnel is that it was mentioned in the Bible?"

Not at all. I find it an interesting footnote, but again, it's a minute, microscopic, part of the overall story.

You can't see anything in the article other than the word "Bible," and that's really unfortunate. You're missing out on a lot.

[TobiasTheViking]

Let me guess:

You've posted here numerous times without even reading the article mentioned in the OP (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0911_030911_SiloamTunnel.html), haven't you?:

What makes you make that assumption?


So you don't understand what I write, so you feel the need to argue with me?
Besides for the fact that you are misrepresenting what i wrote, of course i do.

When i don't understand you i try to get you to explain your position, or descripe how you reached that position(which you have yet to do)
When i disagree with you i tell you why your position is, in my opinion, wrong.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Here's a clue, Dr. Indiana Jones:

...Who did for archaeology what you do for Bible study. But that's another matter.

Funny; we both hate snakes. I even detest two-legged snakes.

Dating the tunnel to a written record answers many of those questions.

Again, if you'd read the article you might also have learned:

Actually, I did read the article, Captain Bible...

Really? Yet you repeatedly ask:

But again, I ask...So what?

Let's review (from the article):

The age of the Jerusalem tunnel had been in dispute, with dissident scientists arguing it is not as old as the Bible suggests.

The new research should put those doubts to rest.

The biblical text appears to present an accurate historical record of the tunnel's construction.

Scientifically linking the tunnel to the time of King Hezekiah, who ruled the Jewish kingdom from 727 B.C. to 697 B.C., was difficult because researchers had little archaeological evidence to work with.

(Huntster note: But they did have a historical record to work with.....)

An inscription written in ancient Hebrew, which was found at the lower entrance to the tunnel, describes how two groups of men dug the tunnel from different directions. Unlike other ancient inscriptions, however, this epitaph did not mention the king who commissioned the tunnel's construction.

Frumkin and his colleagues ignored the archaeological evidence altogether. Instead, they analyzed pieces of plants embedded in the floor of the tunnel. Since radiocarbon, which is found in all plants, disintegrates at a known rate, Frumkin was able to measure exactly when the plants died.

Using a similar radio-dating method to obtain a minimum age for the tunnel, the researchers also dated stalactites, which had formed inside it.

"We can constrain the age of the tunnel by analyzing things that grew before it was constructed and things that grew after it was built," said Frumkin. "We found that the tunnel is 2,700 years old, which corresponds with the Bible."

(Huntster's note: knowledge of the tunnel is being determined by the historical account as well as radio-carbon dating of material there before and after the tunnel was constructed.)

The construction of the tunnel is described in detail in Kings and Chronicles in the Bible. Scholars have long debated its historical importance.

"In the Bible, the city [of Jerusalem] was saved by a miracle," said Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. "However, the Bible does tell us that Hezekiah built this tunnel and apparently that is what enabled the Israelites to withstand the siege."

Is your sole dis-interest "in this tunnel is that it was mentioned in the Bible?"

Not at all. I find it an interesting footnote, but again, it's a minute, microscopic, part of the overall story.

Each little bit uncovered is "a minute, microscopic, part of the overall story," isn't it?

You can't see anything in the article other than the word "Bible," and that's really unfortunate. You're missing out on a lot.

I apparently see a whole bunch more than you do.

And I don't think that's unfortunate at all. I really don't care if you "get it" or not.

[RandFan]

Every scientific discovery that contradicts my beliefs forces a re-evaluation and modification of my beliefs. So your beliefs are flexible and provisional?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Let me guess:

You've posted here numerous times without even reading the article mentioned in the OP, haven't you?:


What makes you make that assumption?

Your focus on me and my posts and a complete absence of reference to the discovery itself.

Originally Posted by Huntster :

So you don't understand what I write, so you feel the need to argue with me?
Besides for the fact that you are misrepresenting what i wrote, of course i do.

Where did I misrepresent what you wrote?

How could I do that? You wrote it, right?

[TobiasTheViking]

Your focus on me and my posts and a complete absence of reference to the discovery itself.
Sure, i don't really care about the discovery that much, i care about the faulty assumptions you make of the discovery. Hence i argue against your assumptions, as i find them faulty, and not the discovery, because i find that mostly irrelevant.


Where did I misrepresent what you wrote?
In the last post. And in this one as well.

How could I do that? You wrote it, right?
You do that by ignoring some of my questions instead of answering all of them. That, in my opinion, makes it look like i'm saying something different than i was really saying.

You have, for instance, yet to give any reply on my many attempts to get you to explain why this discovery in any way proves anything important in the bible.

I find you misrepresent me when i ask you to descripe your position, and you instead only reply with "So you don't understand what I write, so you feel the need to argue with me?". Now if i don't add this sentence: "Which was a reply to my second item", then i would be doing the same as i feel you are doing to me. But now i have added it so other readers can see that you weren't non sequitur, and you did answer my post. but only some of it.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Every scientific discovery that contradicts my beliefs forces a re-evaluation and modification of my beliefs.
So your beliefs are flexible and provisional?

They have to be, don't they? When proof or overwhelming evidence is provided, there's no more need for "faith". Faith is only needed in the absence of proof.

[Cleon]

(Huntster note: But they did have a historical record to work with.....)


They had an archaeological record to work with, too. (Incidentally, the article is incorrect; use of plant deposits inside the tunnel to date the construction is most certainly archaeological. Everything that they use to investigate the tunnel is "archaeological," including historical texts.) You're reading only the bits and pieces that you can see "Bible" attached to them, you're missing the really good stuff.


(Huntster's note: knowledge of the tunnel is being determined by the historical account

I like how every time you see "historical" or "history," you assume "Bible." This is not how archaeological research is done. I can guarantee you their method of investigation did not involve pouring through Bible verses.

"Historical account" refers to not just what was (supposedly) written about it at the time, such as the Bible verse in question, but what's been written about it throughout the ages. Yes, we're talking the Bible, and we're talking about various works that have noted it since then.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the process involved was:

1. Read Bible.
2. Look at tunnel.
3. Radio-carbon date plants.
4. Bible! Yay!

Not so, bubbula. Not even close.

as well as radio-carbon dating of material there before and after the tunnel was constructed.)


Radio-carbon dating...Odd, Bible fans are always saying what a crock that is when it doesn't fit their beliefs.


I apparently see a whole bunch more than you do.

No, you don't. You really, really don't. And the sad thing is, you use your myopic ignorance as an excuse to be arrogant and condescending.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Your focus on me and my posts and a complete absence of reference to the discovery itself.

Sure, i don't really care about the discovery that much, i care about the faulty assumptions you make of the discovery.

Which "faulty assumptions" were those (please cite them), and why on Earth would you care more about my "assumptions" than on the discovery itself?!

Hence i argue against your assumptions, as i find them faulty, and not the discovery, because i find that mostly irrelevant.

The tunnel is scientifically dated, that dating corresponds to the written historic reference, and you find that "irrelevant", yet you find the Great and Powerful Huntster's "assumptions" so important, you must post repeatedly to correct them (which you haven't done yet)?

Please cite these Earth-shattering assumptions that are so important to correct.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Where did I misrepresent what you wrote?

In the last post. And in this one as well.

Well? How about a citation/explanation. I'm hanging here.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
How could I do that? You wrote it, right?

You do that by ignoring some of my questions instead of answering all of them. That, in my opinion, makes it look like i'm saying something different than i was really saying.

You have, for instance, yet to give any reply on my many attempts to get you to explain why this discovery in any way proves anything important in the bible.

I repeatedly wrote (even to the point of frustration), and I cite:

Because it gives a historical reference to what was found. Otherwise it's just a tunnel with no history.

The f**king tunnel is mentioned in Kings and Chronicles, and the f**king tunnel is there.

Is that simple enough for you, or do you need "pitures"?

Still totally irrelevant when it comes to whether or not god exists......

Amazing.

Commie, did I ever in this thread state ANYTHING that related the tunnel or the reference to the tunnel in the Old Testement books to the existence of God?

I kept my focus on archaelogy and the written historical link. IT WAS YOU who were obsessed with God, not me.

Now why do you think that is?

I find you misrepresent me when i ask you to descripe your position, and you instead only reply with "So you don't understand what I write, so you feel the need to argue with me?".

I described my position repeatedly.

You just don't like it, and you want me to write something else.

[Cleon]

I repeatedly wrote (even to the point of frustration), and I cite:


Because it gives a historical reference to what was found. Otherwise it's just a tunnel with no history.


And you're completely, 100%, totally wrong. Do you know why?

More to the point, do you want to know? Or do we mere mortals who don't have your divinely-inspired insight have nothing to offer your planet-sized brain?

[TobiasTheViking]

Which "faulty assumptions" were those (please cite them), and why on Earth would you care more about my "assumptions" than on the discovery itself?!

Yet again, you make it seem like i said something other than i said. What i said is that I THOUGHT THEY WERE FAULTY. Not that they were. Those faulty assumptions are, for one, that the tunnel in any way validates the bible.


The tunnel is scientifically dated, that dating corresponds to the written historic reference, and you find that "irrelevant", yet you find the Great and Powerful Huntster's "assumptions" so important, you must post repeatedly to correct them (which you haven't done yet)?

Please cite these Earth-shattering assumptions that are so important to correct.

Irrelevant.



Well? How about a citation/explanation. I'm hanging here.

I did explain it in the last post, you selectively respond to some of my post, and you ignore the rest.




I repeatedly wrote (even to the point of frustration), and I cite:

I have been trying to figure out what you mean by all that. You have yet to state it. At best you infer that you mean it proves something in the bible, but you have many times stated that that isn't what you say. You have still not explained it properly because what you have there is no different from me saying

"I have a banana, it is something to eat... dont' you get what i mean? I have it dated, i know how old it is, i have a banana".
While that is a sentence, it doesn't explain what i mean.


Commie, did I ever in this thread state ANYTHING that related the tunnel or the reference to the tunnel in the Old Testement books to the existence of God?

No you didn't say it proved god, but it seems like you infer it does. Since you have denied that(or rather, since you have attacked me when i made that assumption) i have been trying to make you state what it is you are saying, which you still haven't done.

The way you write it makes it look like the discovery proves the bible is true (and thus that god is true), you deny that it what you claim, but don't explain what it is you claim.

I kept my focus on archaelogy and the written historical link. IT WAS YOU who were obsessed with God, not me.

Now why do you think that is?

Because i'm trying to figure out what you mean, and while you haven't said god, it seems like that is what you mean, and you won't say what it is you really mean.

I described my position repeatedly.

You just don't like it, and you want me to write something else.
Well, if you did descripe it, could you please, for little old me that doesn't understand anything. Write it again, don't quote old posts, don't link, just write a paragraph, or two, that alone. Those paragraphs alone, state exactly what your position is, in a way that someone can enter this thread and read nothing but those two paragraphs, and be able to understand you point. If you can do that for me, then i would be very happy, because i am very annoyed that i don't understand your position.


And also
That's almost signature material there:

"A fact does not a textbook make."

Facts are horrible things when you don't like them, aren't they?
This was your first post. If that isn't you saying that facts are horrible when they goes us people that believe the bible is fiction? if it isn't please explain what it is about those facts that we shouldn't like.

Sincerely
Tobias

[ceo_esq]

I'm worried that this conversation is heading for a yellow card. Let's keep it calm.

[Huntster]

...(Incidentally, the article is incorrect; use of plant deposits inside the tunnel to date the construction is most certainly archaeological.

Again, from the article:

Frumkin and his colleagues ignored the archaeological evidence altogether. Instead, they analyzed pieces of plants embedded in the floor of the tunnel. Since radiocarbon, which is found in all plants, disintegrates at a known rate, Frumkin was able to measure exactly when the plants died.

Everything that they use to investigate the tunnel is "archaeological," including historical texts.) You're reading only the bits and pieces that you can see "Bible" attached to them, you're missing the really good stuff.

I read about the plants and the radiocarbon work.

Is the Bible "attached" to that?

I like how every time you see "historical" or "history," you assume "Bible."

That's because the only historical reference quoted in the article are Old Testament books.

I like how every time you see "Bible", you get worked up.

This is not how archaeological research is done. I can guarantee you their method of investigation did not involve pouring through Bible verses. "Historical account" refers to not just what was (supposedly) written about it at the time, such as the Bible verse in question, but what's been written about it throughout the ages. Yes, we're talking the Bible, and we're talking about various works that have noted it since then....

I agree 100%.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the process involved was:

1. Read Bible.
2. Look at tunnel.
3. Radio-carbon date plants.
4. Bible! Yay!

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm.............What gave you that "idea"?

Radio-carbon dating...Odd, Bible fans are always saying what a crock that is when it doesn't fit their beliefs.

I've heard that.

So, what does that have to do with me?

I apparently see a whole bunch more than you do.

No, you don't. You really, really don't.

Maybe you're right. You're apparently "seeing" things about me that I simply don't understand.

[Huntster]

And you're completely, 100%, totally wrong. Do you know why?

No. Please be frank in your explanation.

More to the point, do you want to know?

Yup. Please, show me.

Use pictures, if you can.

[Cleon]

Again, from the article:

Again, the article is incorrect. The plants involved mentioned in the [i]very next sentence[i] are very much archaeological evidence.



I read about the plants and the radiocarbon work.

Is the Bible "attached" to that?


Yes, but your admitted sole point of interest is the "Bible" part.



That's because the only historical reference quoted in the article are Old Testament books.


Well, maybe you should do yourself a favor and read up on how archaeology is done?


I like how every time you see "Bible", you get worked up.


I like how you're coming very close to making a very incorrect (and silly) assumption.


Ummmmmmmmmmmmm.............What gave you that "idea"?

Because your sole point of conversation falls into one of those four points, and you absolutely refuse to see beyond them.


Maybe you're right. You're apparently "seeing" things about me that I simply don't understand.

No, I'm seeing things about this discovery you simply don't understand, and unfortunately are so hung up on the "Bible" part you won't acknowledge.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Which "faulty assumptions" were those (please cite them), and why on Earth would you care more about my "assumptions" than on the discovery itself?!


Yet again, you make it seem like i said something other than i said. What i said is that I THOUGHT THEY WERE FAULTY. Not that they were. Those faulty assumptions are, for one, that the tunnel in any way validates the bible.

Your words, complete, and linked (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1758680&postcount=176) to the post:

Sure, i don't really care about the discovery that much, i care about the faulty assumptions you make of the discovery. Hence i argue against your assumptions, as i find them faulty, and not the discovery, because i find that mostly irrelevant.

You have faulty reading and memory skills.

[Cleon]

Because it gives a historical reference to what was found. Otherwise it's just a tunnel with no history.

This is 100% wrong because the tunnel is history, Huntster, whether or not it's talked about in a book. It tells a story in and of itself--beyond the story in the Bible. And unlike a story in a book, its existence is not clouded by human perceptions.

[RandFan]

They have to be, don't they? When proof or overwhelming evidence is provided, there's no more need for "faith". Faith is only needed in the absence of proof.I think that to find the truth our beliefs shold absolutely be flexible and provisional. I don't find many people of faith who feel that way. I would much perfer that to blind faith. So, sounds good to me.

[Huntster]

This is 100% wrong because the tunnel is history, Huntster, whether or not it's talked about in a book. It tells a story in and of itself--beyond the story in the Bible. And unlike a story in a book, its existence is not clouded by human perceptions.

The tunnel is even better understood when read about in a historical reference, then studied physically. The historical reference can tell us why the tunnel was built, help confirm when it was built, and who built it:

2 Kings 20:20-21 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2kings/2kings20.htm)
The rest of the acts of Hezekiah, all his valor, and his construction of the pool and conduit by which water was brought into the city, are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah.

Hezekiah rested with his ancestors and his son Manasseh succeeded him as king.

2 Chronicles 32:2-4 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2chronicles/2chronicles32.htm )
When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib was coming with the intention of attacking Jerusalem, he decided in counsel with his princes and warriors to stop the waters of the springs outside the city. When they had pledged him their support, a large crowd was gathered which stopped all the springs and also the running stream in the valley nearby. For they said, "Why should the kings of Assyria come and find an abundance of water?"

2 Chronicles 32:30 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2chronicles/2chronicles32.htm)
This same Hezekiah stopped the upper outflow of water from Gihon and led it underground westward to the City of David. Hezekiah prospered in all his undertakings.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah )
Between the death of Sargon, and the succession of his son Sennacherib, Hezekiah sought to throw off his dependence to the Assyrian kings. He refused to pay the tribute enforced on his father, and "rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not," but entered into a league with Egypt (Isaiah 30; 31; 36:6-9). This led to the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:13-16) in the 4th year of Sennacherib (701 BC). Hezekiah anticipated the Assyrian invasion, and made at least one major preparation: in an impressive engineering feat, a tunnel 533 meters long was dug in order to provide Jerusalem underground access to the waters of the Spring of Gihon, which lay outside the city. (The work is described in the Siloam Inscription, which has been dated to his reign on the basis of its script). At the same time, a wall was built around the Pool of Siloam, into which the waters from the spring flowed (Isaiah 22:11). An impressive vestige of this structure is the broad wall in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.

[RandFan]

The tunnel is even better understood when read about in a historical reference, then studied physically. The historical reference can tell us why the tunnel was built, help confirm when it was built, and who built it:Ok, and?

I don't know of anyone who believes that the Bible is 100% fiction. On the contrary. I would expect just about anyone to agree that the Bible is, to some degree, factual.

I honestly don't know why there should be any significant interest in this even among believers. What most everyone agrees was possible happened. And this isn't the first time. In fact, it's likely to happen again. And?

[thaiboxerken]

I think the bible is 100% fiction in the same way that I think Huckleberry Finn is 100% fiction. It's fiction that incorporates real world and real events of that time.

[Huntster]

I think the bible is 100% fiction in the same way that I think Huckleberry Finn is 100% fiction. It's fiction that incorporates real world and real events of that time.

So, in your opinion (which is always right {see sig lines below}), even though there is a tunnel, and radiocarbon dating strongly indicates that it was constructed about 2700 years ago, there was no Hezekiah, no Sennacherib, no siege, and no Pool of Siloam at that time?

The writings are fiction, but your opinion "has the authority of reality?" (see sig lines below)

[wollery]

So, in your opinion (which is always right {see sig lines below}), even though there is a tunnel, and radiocarbon dating strongly indicates that it was constructed about 2700 years ago, there was no Hezekiah, no Sennacherib, no siege, and no Pool of Siloam at that time?

The writings are fiction, but your opinion "has the authority of reality?" (see sig lines below)What part of;It's fiction that incorporates real world and real events of that time.did you not understand?

[JamesDillon]

So, in your opinion (which is always right {see sig lines below}), even though there is a tunnel, and radiocarbon dating strongly indicates that it was constructed about 2700 years ago, there was no Hezekiah, no Sennacherib, no siege, and no Pool of Siloam at that time?

I think the point is that while there may have been such things, the discovery of this tunnel is really no evidence whatsoever that there actually was.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
So, in your opinion (which is always right {see sig lines below}), even though there is a tunnel, and radiocarbon dating strongly indicates that it was constructed about 2700 years ago, there was no Hezekiah, no Sennacherib, no siege, and no Pool of Siloam at that time?

The writings are fiction, but your opinion "has the authority of reality?" (see sig lines below)

What part of;
It's fiction that incorporates real world and real events of that time.

did you not understand?

The part where "100% fiction" fits in, and how "real events" fit with fiction.

[thaiboxerken]

The part where "100% fiction" fits in, and how "real events" fit with fiction.

Classic.

[Roboramma]

Huntster, can you accept that it's not unreasonable to believe that some things in the bible refer to real things without believing that everything in the bible is true?

Can you accept that if one thing refered to in the bible is shown to have existed, that does not supply evidence that other unrelated things referenced in the bible are also true?

Niether of these requires you to believe that the bible is not 100% true. They only require you to accept that the tunnel doesn't tell us anything about the truth of anything therein, except for the tunnel, one way or the other.

[Mojo]

So, in your opinion (which is always right {see sig lines below}), even though there is a tunnel, and radiocarbon dating strongly indicates that it was constructed about 2700 years ago, there was no Hezekiah, no Sennacherib, no siege, and no Pool of Siloam at that time?Do you have any evidence for any of these?

[TobiasTheViking]

Your words, complete, and linked (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1758680&postcount=176) to the post:
So you bold what supports your point, instead of bolding the next sentece.

Hence i argue against your assumptions, as i find them faulty, and not the discovery, because i find that mostly irrelevant.

where i state "as i find them faulty" which makes it clear that this is an opinion, that might be changed, not a statement of fact. But you chose to disregard that to misrepresent my position.


You have faulty reading and memory skills.
And your ability to explain your position is faulty as well. again i ask that you



Well, if you did descripe it, could you please, for little old me that doesn't understand anything. Write it again, don't quote old posts, don't link, just write a paragraph, or two, that alone. Those paragraphs alone, state exactly what your position is, in a way that someone can enter this thread and read nothing but those two paragraphs, and be able to understand you point. If you can do that for me, then i would be very happy, because i am very annoyed that i don't understand your position.

[Cleon]

The part where "100% fiction" fits in, and how "real events" fit with fiction.

Are you serious, or just trolling? Can you really not see where fiction would be based on real places and events?

There was an episode of Quantum Leap based on the Kennedy assassination. According to that ep, the only reason Jackie Kennedy survived the assassination was because Sam Beckett saved her. Truth or fiction? It's based on real events.

Doctor Who frequently has had episodes based on historical events--yet, oddly, I rather doubt there's anyone actually travelling through time and space in a police box.

Saving Private Ryan was based on the invasion of Normandy. That certainly happened, but the rest was fiction.

Since you earlier mentioned Indiana Jones, you may recall a short-lived TV series called Young Indiana Jones, where the teenage Jones found himself in numerous historical situations--the Russian Revolution, World War I, Palestine, you name it. Indiana Jones is still, thank God, a fictional character.

[Meffy]

One of Hunster's many problems is that he confuses Near Eastern archaeology with the branch of archaeology known as Biblical archaeology. Near Eastern archaeology merely attempts to explore the ancient societies of the Near East with no focus on the Bible. Biblical archaeology is somewhat controversial. Its mainstream aim is to validate the historical background of the Bible; unfortunately, it's often co-opted by less scrupulous researches as a way to validate the Bible itself. Often, Biblical archaeolgy is not pure research because its underlying goal is religious in nature.
Zigactly. I'd been trying to formulate something along those lines but have no professional archaeological experience. Not the ancient kind.

[edit] Another problem with Huntster is his refusal to reply to direct, clear, polite requests for clarification. But I didn't really expect him to back up his throw-away insult, was just askin' on the off chance.

[Huntster]

Huntster, can you accept that it's not unreasonable to believe that some things in the bible refer to real things without believing that everything in the bible is true?

Of course I can.

Can you accept that if one thing refered to in the bible is shown to have existed, that does not supply evidence that other unrelated things referenced in the bible are also true?

Of course I can.

Niether of these requires you to believe that the bible is not 100% true. They only require you to accept that the tunnel doesn't tell us anything about the truth of anything therein, except for the tunnel, one way or the other.

So, do you claim that:

....even though there is a tunnel, and radiocarbon dating strongly indicates that it was constructed about 2700 years ago, there was no Hezekiah, no Sennacherib, no siege, and no Pool of Siloam at that time?

That was too difficult for "thai the right" to answer. How about you?

[Huntster]

Do you have any evidence for any of these?

Here (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1759041&postcount=189), here (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0911_030911_SiloamTunnel.html), and here (http://www.snunit.k12.il/njeru/eb26.htm).

[Roboramma]

Hey Huntster, thanks. If you can accept the things I said, I don't see any reason to argue with you about this. It doesn't seem like we disagree...

So, do you claim that:

I don't know, because I don't know enough about the bible or about the historical record to answer that. I can say that I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to exist.
I'd have to learn more about this subject to say I'd be surprised if they turned out not to have existed.

[Mojo]

Here (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1759041&postcount=189), here (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0911_030911_SiloamTunnel.html), and here (http://www.snunit.k12.il/njeru/eb26.htm).So are you saying that the significance of the discovery of the tunnel is that it appears to confirm the existence of a few things other than simply the tunnel? Fair enough, although I don't really see that anyone would have a problem with that.

But why didn't you just say so on page 1?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Your words, complete, and linked to the post:

So you bold what supports your point, instead of bolding the next sentece.

You bet I do. I've had to do that because folks around here have a real difficult time reading.

Hence i argue against your assumptions, as i find them faulty, and not the discovery, because i find that mostly irrelevant.

Yet again, please cite me where I "assumed" something.

You know; like I've cited your words.

where i state "as i find them faulty" which makes it clear that this is an opinion, that might be changed, not a statement of fact. But you chose to disregard that to misrepresent my position.

Yet again, please cite me where I "assumed" something.

You know; like I've cited your words.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You have faulty reading and memory skills.

And your ability to explain your position is faulty as well.

I put my position forward as simply as I could (for poor readers), and did so repeatedly.

Well, if you did descripe it, could you please, for little old me that doesn't understand anything. Write it again, don't quote old posts, don't link, just write a paragraph, or two, that alone. Those paragraphs alone, state exactly what your position is, in a way that someone can enter this thread and read nothing but those two paragraphs, and be able to understand you point. If you can do that for me, then i would be very happy, because i am very annoyed that i don't understand your position.


THE TUNNEL IS THERE, AND IT WAS CITED IN TWO OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS.

Please cite my words where I stated, indicated, inferred, or otherwise wrote otherwise or differently.

I'll go further (since, while playing your silly games, I've done a little reading on the subject):

It appears that the Siloam Inscription and Mr. Frumkin's work have fairly well confirmed that the tunnel was constructed during the time of the biblical description of Hezekiah's tunnel, is in the location described in the biblical description of Hezekiah's tunnel, and has removed doubt (except from the most extreme anti-bible zealots, as can be found here) that the tunnel is Hezekiah's tunnel.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
The part where "100% fiction" fits in, and how "real events" fit with fiction.
Are you serious, or just trolling?

I'm serious. Can Ken explain how "100% fiction" fits in with "real events." Is it "100%,", or not?

Can you really not see where fiction would be based on real places and events?

Yes, I can. I can understand "50% fiction, and 50% truth", or "25% fiction, and 75% truth", etc.

I'm trying to pin "thai the right" down:

....even though there is a tunnel, and radiocarbon dating strongly indicates that it was constructed about 2700 years ago, there was no Hezekiah, no Sennacherib, no siege, and no Pool of Siloam at that time?

The tunnel and it's citation in Kings and Chronicles is what this thread is about, is it not?

There was an episode of Quantum Leap based on the Kennedy assassination. According to that ep, the only reason Jackie Kennedy survived the assassination was because Sam Beckett saved her. Truth or fiction? It's based on real events.

The Kennedy assassination, truth. Sam Beckett, fiction.

Do I win a button now?

Indiana Jones is still, thank God, a fictional character.

So are "thaiboxerken," "Cleon", and "Huntster", right?

[TobiasTheViking]

xx

[Huntster]

Hey Huntster, thanks.

You're welcome!

I don't know, because I don't know enough about the bible or about the historical record to answer that. I can say that I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to exist.

Thank you.

[Mojo]

The tunnel and it's citation in Kings and Chronicles is what this thread is about, is it not?Well, the thread is more about people's reaction to the discovery of the tunnel confirming some of the historical information in the Bible. Interesting though this is (and thanks for providing the links), as I don't think anyone would claim that there are no historical figures or events mentioned in the Bible, I doubt that anyone would find this an Earth-shattering discovery.

[TobiasTheViking]

You bet I do. I've had to do that because folks around here have a real difficult time reading.



Yet again, please cite me where I "assumed" something.

You know; like I've cited your words.



Yet again, please cite me where I "assumed" something.

You know; like I've cited your words.



I put my position forward as simply as I could (for poor readers), and did so repeatedly.




THE TUNNEL IS THERE, AND IT WAS CITED IN TWO OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS.

Please cite my words where I stated, indicated, inferred, or otherwise wrote otherwise or differently.

I'll go further (since, while playing your silly games, I've done a little reading on the subject):

From the top of my head you have assumed:
1) Finding of this tunnel, in comparison to the bible, means something significant, i disagree with that, and you have yet to state in a succinct way what it is it should mean, so i haven't been convinced that it means anything significant in comparison with the bible.
2) That i am playing a game.


It appears that the Siloam Inscription and Mr. Frumkin's work have fairly well confirmed that the tunnel was constructed during the time of the biblical description of Hezekiah's tunnel, is in the location described in the biblical description of Hezekiah's tunnel, and has removed doubt (except from the most extreme anti-bible zealots, as can be found here) that the tunnel is Hezekiah's tunnel.
Ok, i'll do this one piece by piece


It appears that the Siloam Inscription and Mr. Frumkin's work have fairly well confirmed that the tunnel was constructed during the time of the biblical description of Hezekiah's tunnel,
Ok. Fine.


is in the location described in the biblical description of Hezekiah's tunnel

Ok. Fine.


and has removed doubt that the tunnel is Hezekiah's tunnel.

Ok. Fine.

All that i agree with, but as you might notice i removed one sentence.

This one:


(except from the most extreme anti-bible zealots, as can be found here)

Could you please bring some evidence to the table that i'm anti-bible, or that i'm a zealot? And preferably both.

In full context the line says.

and has removed doubt (except from the most extreme anti-bible zealots, as can be found here) that the tunnel is Hezekiah's tunnel.

Are you saying that some people here have denied that the tunnel found is Hezekiah's tunnel?

I haven't seen anyone do that.

Because of the way you write that sentence it appears that you are saying something else than "some people are denying this is the Hezekiah's tunnel".. Especially since i haven't seen anyone denying that.

[Cleon]

I'm serious. Can Ken explain how "100% fiction" fits in with "real events." Is it "100%,", or not?



Yes, I can. I can understand "50% fiction, and 50% truth", or "25% fiction, and 75% truth", etc.

I'm trying to pin "thai the right" down:


Oh, for crying out loud. You're just trying to get into a flame war with thai.


The Kennedy assassination, truth. Sam Beckett, fiction.

Do I win a button now?


So you CAN see how real events could fit in with fiction. No button, but maybe you get a nice gold star.



So are "thaiboxerken," "Cleon", and "Huntster", right?

Well, if I were a fictional character, I'd probably have a more interesting love life.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you don't really think Indiana Jones is/was a real person, so I admit being somewhat baffled by the question above. What exactly is that supposed to mean?

[Huntster]

So are you saying that the significance of the discovery of the tunnel is that it appears to confirm the existence of a few things other than simply the tunnel?

It appears to confirm that it is the tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles.

Fair enough, although I don't really see that anyone would have a problem with that.

I'm still waiting to hear from Kenny on that.

But why didn't you just say so on page 1?

I did: (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1751482&postcount=10)

Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

I'm sorry for your loss, but that's just the way it goes.

[Mojo]

There's an interesting quotation on the second page (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0911_030911_SiloamTunnel_2.html) of the National Geographic article: "In the Bible, the city [of Jerusalem] was saved by a miracle," said Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. "However, the Bible does tell us that Hezekiah built this tunnel and apparently that is what enabled the Israelites to withstand the siege." The discovery of the tunnel, while confirming part of what the Bible says, gives the Israelites a non-miraculous means of withstanding the siege.

[Huntster]

From the top of my head you have assumed:

Thank you. Those are the words I was looking for.

From the top of your head, not from the words I wrote.

[QUOTE]1) Finding of this tunnel, in comparison to the bible, means something significant, i disagree with that, and you have yet to state in a succinct way what it is it should mean, so i haven't been convinced that it means anything significant in comparison with the bible.

Still, we go around and around.

The tunnel is there. It was written about 2700 years ago. It has now been scientifically shown that the tunnel was constructed some 2700 years ago. The written word and the physical evidence confirm and compliment each other.

You say it's insignificant.

I say it's an archaeologist's dream, to have both physical and written (and any and all other) evidence confirming each other.

2) That i am playing a game.

If it's not a game, it's worse.

It appears that the Siloam Inscription and Mr. Frumkin's work have fairly well confirmed that the tunnel was constructed during the time of the biblical description of Hezekiah's tunnel,

Could you please bring some evidence to the table that i'm anti-bible, or that i'm a zealot? And preferably both.

I can't. Only you can do that, and you're working on it..............

Are you saying that some people here have denied that the tunnel found is Hezekiah's tunnel?

I haven't seen anyone do that.

Me, neither. Not yet. I'm waiting for Kenny's answer.

[TobiasTheViking]

Thank you. Those are the words I was looking for.

From the top of your head, not from the words I wrote.

That is exactly what i was talking about when i said you misrepresented me. "From the top of my head" means "this is what i can remember right now". It is an expression, and you know it.


Still, we go around and around.

apparantly


The tunnel is there. It was written about 2700 years ago. It has now been scientifically shown that the tunnel was constructed some 2700 years ago. The written word and the physical evidence confirm and compliment each other.

Yes, they do. so what?


You say it's insignificant.

I'm not saying it is insignificant, i'm just trying to figure out what significance YOU put in it.


I say it's an archaeologist's dream, to have both physical and written (and any and all other) evidence confirming each other.

I'm not saying that it isn't the tunnel in the bible, i'm just saying that i don't see what you meant with

That's almost signature material there:

"A fact does not a textbook make."

Facts are horrible things when you don't like them, aren't they?
So, what fact about this tunnel should Bandersnatch not like?



If it's not a game, it's worse.

What is it? I don't know what it is. if you know, please verbose. I believe that it is just missunderstanding.


It appears that the Siloam Inscription and Mr. Frumkin's work have fairly well confirmed that the tunnel was constructed during the time of the biblical description of Hezekiah's tunnel,

Agreed, and i'm not really surprised.



I can't. Only you can do that, and you're working on it..............

Well, i'm neither. Please tell me how i'm working on it so i can stop doing it.



Me, neither. Not yet. I'm waiting for Kenny's answer.
Well, you are saying some people here are "extreme anti-bible zealots", could you either substantiate that with evidence, or take it back. And what you said there was that there ARE "extreme anti-bible zealots" here, as a statement, so please take it back or substantiate it.

Sincerely
Tobias

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I'm serious. Can Ken explain how "100% fiction" fits in with "real events." Is it "100%,", or not?

Yes, I can. I can understand "50% fiction, and 50% truth", or "25% fiction, and 75% truth", etc.

I'm trying to pin "thai the right" down:

Oh, for crying out loud. You're just trying to get into a flame war with thai.

After this post:

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :
According to the comic books, Spiderman lives in Queens, NY. We know Queens, NY is real, does that mean Spiderman is real?...


What happens if hundreds of witnesses come forward and testify that they saw a man crawling on vertical walls in a blue and red suit like a spider? What happens if criminals show up bound in spider-like webbing at the front door of the police precinct?

Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

I'm sorry for your loss, but that's just the way it goes.


There are a great many fictional books and stories based upon or around real places and events. This includes the Bible.


What in Kings or Chronicles do you attest are "fictional"?

Came this (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1751517&postcount=14) from another:

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

I'm sorry for your loss, but that's just the way it goes.

Are you really arguing that because some tunnel actually exists, an omnipotent, invisible man in the sky therefore must also exist? That is, to be charitable, something of a non sequitur.

And this (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1751491&postcount=12):

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Kenny, a tunnel described in Kings and Chronicles was found.

I'm sorry for your loss, but that's just the way it goes.

What in Kings or Chronicles do you attest are "fictional"?

What other parts of Kings or Chronicles is there physical or first hand witness evidence for?

And this: (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1751687&postcount=32)

* TobiasTheCommie is very impressed by Huntster's ability to ignore arguments used against him, but use the same arguments against others.

Now, do you proclaim that it is my duty to ignore these posts? Do you claim that I am somehow required to slip into a dark, dank hole when people like this question me with such posts.

Sorry. Poke at me, and you can expect a poke back.

The Kennedy assassination, truth. Sam Beckett, fiction.

Do I win a button now?

So you CAN see how real events could fit in with fiction. No button, but maybe you get a nice gold star.

I'll take it.

So are "thaiboxerken," "Cleon", and "Huntster", right?

Well, if I were a fictional character, I'd probably have a more interesting love life.

My love life is going great. Our 30th wedding anniversary is in two weeks.

Thaiboxerken's love life is going great, too, as long as he still has a mirror.

[Mojo]

The tunnel is there. It was written about 2700 years ago. It has now been scientifically shown that the tunnel was constructed some 2700 years ago. The written word and the physical evidence confirm and compliment each other.Actually, the evidence shows that it was built somewhere in a 300-year period: Frumkin and colleagues measured the relative masses of the carbon isotopes within the plaster using an accelerator mass spectrometer at Oxford University. They calculated that the material in the plaster dates from between about 800 to 510 BC. (Source (http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/9/7))

The time Hezekiah is tought to have reigned falls more or less in the middle of this, but it's non watertight. By the way, is there any non-biblical evidence for the dates of his reign? I haven't been able to find anything via Google, but it's quite possible there's something I haven't been able to find among all the biblical sites.

You say it's insignificant.

I say it's an archaeologist's dream, to have both physical and written (and any and all other) evidence confirming each other ... It appears that the Siloam Inscription and Mr. Frumkin's work have fairly well confirmed that the tunnel was constructed during the time of the biblical description of Hezekiah's tunnel, It is certainly interesting to have physical and written evidence confirming each other, much as it was interesting that the rediscovery of Troy appeared to confirm some of the Iliad. You seem to think that the confirmation of the existence of the tunnel will somehow shake the world view of some of the posters on this forum. As I very much doubt that you will find that there is anyone here who claims that none of the Bible is based on historical fact, It seems to me that you are perhaps reading a little too much into it.

As Tobias said, what fact about this tunnel should Bandersnatch not like?

[Huntster]

There's an interesting quotation on the second page of the National Geographic article:
"In the Bible, the city [of Jerusalem] was saved by a miracle," said Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. "However, the Bible does tell us that Hezekiah built this tunnel and apparently that is what enabled the Israelites to withstand the siege."

The discovery of the tunnel, while confirming part of what the Bible says, gives the Israelites a non-miraculous means of withstanding the siege.

What is also interesting is that, finally, your post reflects your focus throughout this thread.

Like I fully suspected (but was hesitant to write until you folks wrote the golden words first {like Tobias admitting that he was thinking "out of the top of his head}), you folks are happy to ignore the archaeological situation, and are focused on rejecting the spirituality in the books.

And all along you were trying to pin me down into writing something like "the tunnel confirms the existence of God".

I think this thread stands as a monument to your zealotry.

[Cleon]

What is also interesting is that, finally, your post reflects your focus throughout this thread.

Like I fully suspected (but was hesitant to write until you folks wrote the golden words first {like Tobias admitting that he was thinking "out of the top of his head}), you folks are happy to ignore the archaeological situation, and are focused on rejecting the spirituality in the books.

Who, exactly, do you mean by "you folks?"

[Huntster]

The tunnel is there. It was written about 2700 years ago. It has now been scientifically shown that the tunnel was constructed some 2700 years ago. The written word and the physical evidence confirm and compliment each other.

Yes, they do. so what?

So, the tunnel is there. It was written about 2700 years ago. It has now been scientifically shown that the tunnel was constructed some 2700 years ago. The written word and the physical evidence confirm and compliment each other.

You say it's insignificant.

I'm not saying it is insignificant, i'm just trying to figure out what significance YOU put in it.

I say it's significant because the tunnel is there. It was written about 2700 years ago. It has now been scientifically shown that the tunnel was constructed some 2700 years ago. The written word and the physical evidence confirm and compliment each other.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That's almost signature material there:

"A fact does not a textbook make."

Facts are horrible things when you don't like them, aren't they?

So, what fact about this tunnel should Bandersnatch not like?

I don't know what he should not like about it. I suspect he doesn't like it because it was written about in the Bible.

If it's not a game, it's worse.

What is it?

I thought it was a game.

I don't know what it is. if you know, please verbose. I believe that it is just missunderstanding.

I'll accept that............for now.

Me, neither. Not yet. I'm waiting for Kenny's answer.

Well, you are saying some people here are "extreme anti-bible zealots", could you either substantiate that with evidence, or take it back.

I will not "take it back".

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
What is also interesting is that, finally, your post reflects your focus throughout this thread.

Like I fully suspected (but was hesitant to write until you folks wrote the golden words first {like Tobias admitting that he was thinking "out of the top of his head}), you folks are happy to ignore the archaeological situation, and are focused on rejecting the spirituality in the books.
Who, exactly, do you mean by "you folks?"

Whoever is "happy to ignore the archaeological situation, and are focused on rejecting the spirituality in the books."

[Cleon]

Whoever is "happy to ignore the archaeological situation, and are focused on rejecting the spirituality in the books."

So you are pontificating about nothing. Very Seinfeld. Very well, carry on.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Whoever is "happy to ignore the archaeological situation, and are focused on rejecting the spirituality in the books."
So you are pontificating about nothing.

I'm answering your question, Counselor.

Very Seinfeld.

I wouldn't know. I don't watch TV.

Very well, carry on.

Thank you. I shall.

[Mojo]

What is also interesting is that, finally, your post reflects your focus throughout this thread.

Like I fully suspected (but was hesitant to write until you folks wrote the golden words first {like Tobias admitting that he was thinking "out of the top of his head}), you folks are happy to ignore the archaeological situation, and are focused on rejecting the spirituality in the books. What have I posted that indicates that I'm ignoring the "archaeological situation"? Historians and archaeologists use whatever sources of information are available. At the sort of period we're talking about here, the sources tend to be to some extent legendary or to have some sort of religious content, as those are the sort of things that got preserved. I have no problem with the idea that biblical authors were writing about, for example, kings that existed and battles that actually happened, much as any other mythology tends to have some factual basis. I am not "focused on rejecting the spirituality in the books". It's just that the existence of the tunnel doesn't provide any evidence supporting the "spirituality" of the books. As the quotation above suggests, it may even give something claimed as a miracle a mundane explanation.

And all along you were trying to pin me down into writing something like "the tunnel confirms the existence of God". You have implied that there are facts associated with the discovery of the tunnel that at least one forum member doesn't like. What facts are those, and why do you think he dislikes these facts?

You have claimed that "the tunnel and the Bible are validating each other". Do you think the tunnel validates the Bible in any way other than as a source of historical information?

You have stated that "as an archeological foundation/confirmation, it has no match". A foundation and confirmation of what?

I think this thread stands as a monument to your zealotry.Or perhaps to yours.


Edited for typo

[Cleon]

I'm answering your question, Counselor.

No, you're blowing smoke. Unless you can actually specify who you're talking to/about, your statement that "you folks are happy to ignore the archaeological situation, and are focused on rejecting the spirituality in the books" is completely without substance.

[TobiasTheViking]

What is also interesting is that, finally, your post reflects your focus throughout this thread.

Like I fully suspected (but was hesitant to write until you folks wrote the golden words first {like Tobias admitting that he was thinking "out of the top of his head}), you folks are happy to ignore the archaeological situation, and are focused on rejecting the spirituality in the books.

And all along you were trying to pin me down into writing something like "the tunnel confirms the existence of God".

I think this thread stands as a monument to your zealotry.
you know that is not what i meant by "of the top of my head", so stop misrepresenting what i said

[TobiasTheViking]

So, the tunnel is there. It was written about 2700 years ago. It has now been scientifically shown that the tunnel was constructed some 2700 years ago. The written word and the physical evidence confirm and compliment each other.

Yes, what should Bandersnatch not like about that?


I say it's significant because the tunnel is there. It was written about 2700 years ago. It has now been scientifically shown that the tunnel was constructed some 2700 years ago. The written word and the physical evidence confirm and compliment each other.

Yes, what should Bandersnatch not like about that?




I don't know what he should not like about it. I suspect he doesn't like it because it was written about in the Bible.

YOU said it. Did you just do that to sully him? if you don't know why he wouldn't like it, and he hasn't said he didn't like it, then it is defamation of you to claim that he won't like it. Either prove it, or take it back.



I thought it was a game.

You just said it wasn't a game. Now you are saying it is. Which is it? choose!



I'll accept that............for now.

You just said it was a game. And before you said it wasn't a game. Which is it? choose!




I will not "take it back".
Why not, you have made unsubstantiated claims about posters here, and that is bad. Either prove it, or take it back. Now i won't stoop to your level and make unsubstantiated claims about you to prove me point, but think about how you are appearing to other people.

[Mojo]

I don't know what he should not like about it. I suspect he doesn't like it because it was written about in the BibleWhy do you think he wouldn't like that?

[Huntster]

I think this thread stands as a monument to your zealotry.

Or perhaps to yours.

The thread stands. Readers can interpret as they will (just like the Bible).

Goodbye.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I'm answering your question, Counselor.
No, you're blowing smoke. Unless you can actually specify who you're talking to/about, your statement that "you folks are happy to ignore the archaeological situation, and are focused on rejecting the spirituality in the books" is completely without substance.

The thread stands. Readers can interpret as they will (just like the Bible).

Goodbye.

[Huntster]

I will not "take it back".
Why not, you have made unsubstantiated claims about posters here, and that is bad. Either prove it, or take it back. Now i won't stoop to your level and make unsubstantiated claims about you to prove me point, but think about how you are appearing to other people.

I don't give a damn what other people think of me, just like you don't give a damn what I think of you.

The thread stands. Readers can interpret as they will (just like the Bible).

Goodbye.

[Mojo]

Just like James Brown at the end of a gig, isn't it.

[HeyLeroy]

What happens if hundreds of witnesses come forward and testify that they saw a man crawling on vertical walls in a blue and red suit like a spider? (snip)


Proof that god exists. (http://www.alainrobert.com/en/photo2.htm)


(ETA: sarcasm tags.)

[Cleon]

No, I won't be bothered to substantiate my claims, because I'm Huntster, and better than all of you. So now I will turn up my nose and leave in a puff of arrogance.


I fixed your post for you.

[thaiboxerken]

even though there is a tunnel, and radiocarbon dating strongly indicates that it was constructed about 2700 years ago, there was no Hezekiah, no Sennacherib, no siege, and no Pool of Siloam at that time?

Is there evidence of those other things? Finding a tunnel doesn't show that the rest of the story is true.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm serious. Can Ken explain how "100% fiction" fits in with "real events." Is it "100%,", or not?



Yes, I can. I can understand "50% fiction, and 50% truth", or "25% fiction, and 75% truth", etc.

I'm trying to pin "thai the right" down:



The tunnel and it's citation in Kings and Chronicles is what this thread is about, is it not?



The Kennedy assassination, truth. Sam Beckett, fiction.

Do I win a button now?



So are "thaiboxerken," "Cleon", and "Huntster", right?

Can you give examples of anything that's 100% fiction?

[thaiboxerken]

Thaiboxerken's love life is going great, too, as long as he still has a mirror.

WTF does my love life have to do with the topic?

[sackett]

WTF does my love life have to do with the topic?

Hey, don't you know Christian charity when you see it?

[whim]

So this whole thread was an elaborate troll by Huntster. He creates a post about a mildly interesting discovery, but carefully words it so that most people on this board would assume he is trying to imply something more (especially considering the nature of this board). When they respond to the apparent implication, he uses that as 'proof' of zealotry on their part.

Very droll.

[Pauliesonne]

So this whole thread was an elaborate troll by Huntster. He creates a post about a mildly interesting discovery, but carefully words it so that most people on this board would assume he is trying to imply something more (especially considering the nature of this board). When they respond to the apparent implication, he uses that as 'proof' of zealotry on their part.

Very droll.

You'll get used to it.

[Dragonrock]

So this whole thread was an elaborate troll by Huntster. He creates a post about a mildly interesting discovery, but carefully words it so that most people on this board would assume he is trying to imply something more (especially considering the nature of this board). When they respond to the apparent implication, he uses that as 'proof' of zealotry on their part.

Very droll.

I wouldn't say "elaborate". It's more like desperate. Most of the posts are people trying to figure out what Hunster is saying by trying to paraphrase Hunster's comments. To which Hunster replies (again paraphrasing) "I never said that." It really could have been an interesting discussion but it just ended up as piles of trollbait.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
No, I won't be bothered to substantiate my claims, because I'm Huntster, and better than all of you. So now I will turn up my nose and leave in a puff of arrogance.
I fixed your post for you.

You are a fraud and a liar.

You attached my name in a quote box with words that aren't my own.

[Meffy]

ISTR a story -- possibly by Asimov, part of the Foundation series maybe? -- in which scientists filtered political speeches through semantic analyzers to screen out the evasion and circumlocution, to extract what was really being said. The process condensed pages of doubletalk into a few words, or even into "no meaningful content."

IMO Cleon was doing something of the sort to what you wrote. And look -- Cleon is a Foundational name! Is it a sign from the galactic "above?"

[edit] You can avoid all this disputation. Merely state your claim and give evidence to support it. That way we won't have to guess around all your clever little word traps.

[CapelDodger]

You are a fraud and a liar.

You attached my name in a quote box with words that aren't my own.
Hissy-fits only lose you ground. And it's not as if you're in friendly territory here, you have to keep all the ground you've got.

[Meffy]

Correction to above post: Cleon was an Imperial name, not necessarily a name used among members of the Foundation. An Emperor in fact. What I meant was that it came from the Foundation books.

[CapelDodger]

ISTR a story -- possibly by Asimov, part of the Foundation series maybe? -- in which scientists filtered political speeches through semantic analyzers to screen out the evasion and circumlocution, to extract what was really being said. The process condensed pages of doubletalk into a few words, or even into "no meaningful content."
Not the Foundation series, I think, I recall it as being a short-short story. I do remember an English teacher winnowing a political speech (one of Macmillan's, I think) and finding no grain. It was a great routine, I'm sure he'd been working up the act for years, and I found it very educational.

Peter Sellers recorded a very funny content-free political speech back in the 60's.

[Meffy]

Is there anything funny Sellers didn't manage to do? *marvels*

[Huntster]

even though there is a tunnel, and radiocarbon dating strongly indicates that it was constructed about 2700 years ago, there was no Hezekiah, no Sennacherib, no siege, and no Pool of Siloam at that time?Is there evidence of those other things? Finding a tunnel doesn't show that the rest of the story is true.

The Pool of Siloam exists today. There is also the Siloam Inscription.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :

Thaiboxerken's love life is going great, too, as long as he still has a mirror.
WTF does my love life have to do with the topic?

The same as mine and Cleon's.