We also know that many prophesies in the bible were written after the fact to "prove" that prophesies came true. A trick of psychics and other frauds the world over. Jean Dixon was a champion of this. She would say at the beginning if the year that some unnamed disaster would strike. Then at the end of the year she would point to a disaster that inevitably did occur and say, "I predicted that," and would name the disaster. Dupes believed her. Lois[continued] Example #2: Consistent with the first prophecy example above, King Cyrus of Persia released the Jews to return to their homeland after 70 years of captivity, exactly as both Isaiah and Jeremiah prophesied and Daniel recognized (Isa. 39:5-7, Jer. 25:11, Dan. 9:2). Despite royal permission, however, only a small remnant of the Jews left Babylon for Israel. The vast majority never returned, choosing rather to reside in the nation of their captivity. The Bible contains numerous prophecies of a final return of Jewish exiles to the Promised Land in the “last days", and the prophet Ezekiel was given a specific vision concerning the final return of his people: “This shall be a sign to the house of Israel. Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: [according] to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, 390 days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah 40 days: I have appointed thee each day for a year" (Ezekiel 4:3b-6). Ezekiel declared that each day represents one year. Therefore, Israel and Judah were to be punished for a total of 430 Biblical (360 day) years (390 + 40 years). Since the Jews were already punished 70 years in Babylonian captivity, 360 years of punishment remained after their captivity until the final return of the Jews to Israel, and therefore the prophecy would have been fulfilled in the second century B.C. However, fulfillment of the prophecy was delayed, according to disobedience of the vast majority of Jews who chose to remain in the Persian Empire as colonists, along with a previous condition God stated in Leviticus that extended the prophecy if Israel continued to disobey. God told Israel repeatedly that if, after being punished for her sins, they still would not repent, the punishments previously specified would be multiplied by seven: “And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins" (Leviticus 26:18, 21, 23-24, 27-28). “And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste" (Lev. 26:33). Since the Israelites did not repent, the punishment previously promised by Ezekiel (360 years remaining for fulfillment) was multiplied seven times (360 years x 7 = 2,520 Biblical years). During this long duration, God would preserve Israel as a nation for most of this period even without a homeland: “And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I [am] the LORD their God. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I [am] the LORD" (Lev. 26:44-45). The starting date for this prophecy is the release of the Hebrew captives to return to Judea to rebuild their temple, which is known from history to have occurred in the summer of 537 B.C. (although the exact date is not yet historically known). If the Jews were released on July 23, 537 B.C., we need to add 2,520 Biblical years to see the end date of the prophecy: 2,520 years x 360 days/year = 907,200 days 907,200 days = 2,483 ‘modern’ exact (365.24225) years + 304 days ‘left over’ so we take: July 15, 537 B.C. +1 year (because there is no year 0) + 2,483 years + 304 days = May 14, 1948 May 14, 1948 is the exact day the modern state of Israel was proclaimed by the Jewish leader, David Ben Gurion! The Jewish people proclaimed the independence of Israel and the end of their worldwide captivity on the precise date prophesied by Ezekiel. On this day a united Israel again took its place as a sovereign, independent state among the nations, after being without a homeland for an unprecedented ~2,000 years. The existence of the Jews as a separate group at all outside a homeland for thousands of years is another unprecedented ‘miracle’, since all nations throughout history without a homeland ceased to exist as a nation within a few centuries, intermarrying and losing their national identity. Could these seemingly impossible prophecies have been faked, written after they were fulfilled, or intentionally fulfilled? There’s no way to fake them, since archeological evidence indicates the prophecies are very ancient. The events mentioned are well known in secular history. The book of Daniel is one of the most authenticated books of the Old Testament, translated into other languages several hundred years before the birth of Christ, including the Greek Septuagint, so there is absolutely no possibility this prediction was written after the fact. Archaeologists discovered almost complete Ezekiel texts on stone tablets dated from 500-600 B.C., so there is no possibility his prophecy was written later or that the text was changed. Also, the events prophesied were out of the control of any individuals who might imagine fulfilling them, so they were not “self-fulfilling prophecy" as skeptics might claim. For example, how does one predict in the distant future when someone will be born or murdered, or when an entire nation could be free to return to their homeland? Does this kind of prophecy exist anywhere else but the Bible? There is nothing like this in any other kind of ‘scriptures’ in any other ‘religion’, or anywhere else. Ask yourself what the odds are of predicting Jesus’ offer of Himself of Messiah to Israel over 600 years in advance to the exact day, or the rebirth of end times Israel over 2,500 years in advance. This is just a small sampling, and there are many other fulfilled Biblical prophecies as well!As our Creator and Lord Jesus Christ said: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18). The God-inspired psalmist also confirmed the Creator’s eternal omniscience in the Scriptures when he said: “For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness [is] unto all generations: (Psa. 119:89-90a)! Except for those whose hearts are irrevocably hardened against Him, fulfilled Bible prophecy is a miracle of God and dramatic evidence of precise word for word accuracy of the Holy Scriptures, God-breathed from our eternally loving and omniscient Creator. http://www.miraclesormagic.com/fulfilled-bible-prophecy-end-times.html
Hey, Pahu, here's that Bible verse you asked for a couple of days ago. I can't believe you aren't familiar with this. “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, []i]there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28) Italics added for emphasis. This is pretty clear. Jesus said he would return while some of the people hearing his words were still living. That did not happen, obviously. I've heard a lot of twisted logic trying to explain this away, but so far nothing cogent.Thank you. Perhaps Jesus was referring to Mt. 17:1 "Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." 5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" 6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces and were greatly afraid. 7 But Jesus came and touched them and said, "Arise, and do not be afraid." 8 When they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only. 9 Now as they came down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man is risen from the dead." Notice Jesus refers to the experience as a vision.
First of all “perhaps”? You provide us with websites and encyclopedic entries explaining everything, then when we ask for something, you say “perhaps”?!
Second, yeah, a vision, if you read Paul, it’s all visions. The gospels were written later, despite their order in the Bible, we know these “visions” were circulating around Palestine before the gospels were written. So, you’re agreeing with the mythologists now?
First of all "perhaps"? You provide us with websites and encyclopedic entries explaining everything, then when we ask for something, you say "perhaps"?! Second, yeah, a vision, if you read Paul, it's all visions. The gospels were written later, despite their order in the Bible, we know these "visions" were circulating around Palestine before the gospels were written. So, you're agreeing with the mythologists now?Vision = Hallucination Has it occurred to anyone else that the Old Testament prophets and Paul were schizophrenic?
First of all "perhaps"? You provide us with websites and encyclopedic entries explaining everything, then when we ask for something, you say "perhaps"?! Second, yeah, a vision, if you read Paul, it's all visions. The gospels were written later, despite their order in the Bible, we know these "visions" were circulating around Palestine before the gospels were written. So, you're agreeing with the mythologists now?Vision = Hallucination Has it occurred to anyone else that the Old Testament prophets and Paul were schizophrenic? Here is the dictionary definition: vision |ˈviZHən| noun 1 the faculty or state of being able to see: she had defective vision. • the ability to think about or plan the future with imagination or wisdom: the organization had lost its vision and direction. • a mental image of what the future will or could be like: a vision of retirement. • the images seen on a television screen. 2 an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition: the idea came to him in a vision. • (often visions) a vivid mental image, especially a fanciful one of the future: he had visions of becoming the Elton John of his time. • a person or sight of unusual beauty.
Here is the dictionary definition: vision |ˈviZHən| noun 1 the faculty or state of being able to see: she had defective vision. • the ability to think about or plan the future with imagination or wisdom: the organization had lost its vision and direction. • a mental image of what the future will or could be like: a vision of retirement. • the images seen on a television screen. 2 an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition: the idea came to him in a vision. • (often visions) a vivid mental image, especially a fanciful one of the future: he had visions of becoming the Elton John of his time. • a person or sight of unusual beauty.So, I'm not clear what point you are making. Are you saying that Jesus said he would come back, but he would come back only as a vision? So anyone who says they saw Jesus, in a vision, that confirms the prophecy? Is that it?
Here is the dictionary definition: vision |ˈviZHən| noun 1 the faculty or state of being able to see: she had defective vision. • the ability to think about or plan the future with imagination or wisdom: the organization had lost its vision and direction. • a mental image of what the future will or could be like: a vision of retirement. • the images seen on a television screen. 2 an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition: the idea came to him in a vision. • (often visions) a vivid mental image, especially a fanciful one of the future: he had visions of becoming the Elton John of his time. • a person or sight of unusual beauty.So, I'm not clear what point you are making. Are you saying that Jesus said he would come back, but he would come back only as a vision? So anyone who says they saw Jesus, in a vision, that confirms the prophecy? Is that it? Not quite. He promised His disciples they would see Him in His glory. They did see Him in His glory as a vision in the sense of the faculty or state of being able to see. It really happened, but it was a vision of the future.
Not quite. He promised His disciples they would see Him in His glory. They did see Him in His glory as a vision in the sense of the faculty or state of being able to see. It really happened, but it was a vision of the future.This is known as "spiritualizing" the resurrection or second coming. When your prediction of an embodied Jesus fails, change your prediction to mean "vision". Nice try Houdini.
Pahu - 02 May 2016 10:55 AM Not quite. He promised His disciples they would see Him in His glory. They did see Him in His glory as a vision in the sense of the faculty or state of being able to see. It really happened, but it was a vision of the future.That makes no sense whatever. The faculty of seeing is *receiving and processing visual information of the past*. We do have a faculty of *imagining* (envisioning) anything, including the future, but you cannot actually *see* that which has not even happened yet. You can twist this any way you want, but the Scientific fact that we cannot *observe* (see) anything which has not yet happened remains.
Simple Definition of envision 1 : to think of (something that you believe might exist or happen in the future) : to picture (something) in your mind
As Stephen Weinberg said, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Loishttp://tinyurl.com/hb5urnc
First of all "perhaps"? You provide us with websites and encyclopedic entries explaining everything, then when we ask for something, you say "perhaps"?! Second, yeah, a vision, if you read Paul, it's all visions. The gospels were written later, despite their order in the Bible, we know these "visions" were circulating around Palestine before the gospels were written. So, you're agreeing with the mythologists now?Vision = Hallucination Has it occurred to anyone else that the Old Testament prophets and Paul were schizophrenic? Or just plain wrong. They had an excuse. They didn't know any better. What's any minimally educated person's excuse today? Deliberate ignorance.
You can see future events when God gives you that ability. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies: http://www.100prophecies.com/ http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProphecy/101lastdays.cfm http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htmPahu - 02 May 2016 10:55 AM Not quite. He promised His disciples they would see Him in His glory. They did see Him in His glory as a vision in the sense of the faculty or state of being able to see. It really happened, but it was a vision of the future.That makes no sense whatever. The faculty of seeing is *receiving and processing visual information of the past*. We do have a faculty of *imagining* (envisioning) anything, including the future, but you cannot actually *see* that which has not even happened yet. You can twist this any way you want, but the Scientific fact that we cannot *observe* (see) anything which has not yet happened remains.Simple Definition of envision 1 : to think of (something that you believe might exist or happen in the future) : to picture (something) in your mind
You can see future events when God gives you that ability. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies: spare me the books, show me the evidence. So did Nostradamus, oh and Marconi invented long range communication, which actually allows us to literally speak to and hear each other over vast distances. It's a true demonstrable man-made miracle.Pahu - 02 May 2016 10:55 AM Not quite. He promised His disciples they would see Him in His glory. They did see Him in His glory as a vision in the sense of the faculty or state of being able to see. It really happened, but it was a vision of the future.That makes no sense whatever. The faculty of seeing is *receiving and processing visual information of the past*. We do have a faculty of *imagining* (envisioning) anything, including the future, but you cannot actually *see* that which has not even happened yet. You can twist this any way you want, but the Scientific fact that we cannot *observe* (see) anything which has not yet happened remains.Simple Definition of envision 1 : to think of (something that you believe might exist or happen in the future) : to picture (something) in your mind
First of all "perhaps"? You provide us with websites and encyclopedic entries explaining everything, then when we ask for something, you say "perhaps"?! Second, yeah, a vision, if you read Paul, it's all visions. The gospels were written later, despite their order in the Bible, we know these "visions" were circulating around Palestine before the gospels were written. So, you're agreeing with the mythologists now?This dives into the most basic assumptions. The traditional dating of the Biblical books is simply wrong in many areas. What we do know now is that the Pauline epistles came first. So yes these visions were around at least one generation before the first gospel (Mark) was even written. The time after Jesus' supposed death up until Constantine the Great is a very sketchy period. We simply do not know how reliable the first copy of copies of copies of manuscripts were or even who the original authors were. What we do know is that they do have an obvious agenda to spread their gospel. They simply cannot be taken as accurate historical accounts. They are obvious theological pieces. We also know that Christians of the time did some pretty shady things when it came to manuscripts, such as interpolations. But lets just say the bible does have fulfilled prophecies. Remember the bible is not one book. The mainstream Protestant bible is a collection of 66 books written by different authors (some of whom we don't know who they really are or if they existed). So despite all the issues at hand, why should we take Genesis 1-2 as the basis for explaining how species came to be? Sure, if we can trust the 66 book bible at face value along with assuming the dating, timing, people, etc are all correct then yes the prophecies may be interesting. But at the very core of Pahu's argument, there are so many unstated presuppositions that are not addressed adequately by him or any neat little website he throws at us.
This dives into the most basic assumptions. The traditional dating of the Biblical books is simply wrong in many areas. What we do know now is that the Pauline epistles came first. So yes these visions were around at least one generation before the first gospel (Mark) was even written. The time after Jesus' supposed death up until Constantine the Great is a very sketchy period. We simply do not know how reliable the first copy of copies of copies of manuscripts were or even who the original authors were. What we do know is that they do have an obvious agenda to spread their gospel. They simply cannot be taken as accurate historical accounts. They are obvious theological pieces. We also know that Christians of the time did some pretty shady things when it came to manuscripts, such as interpolations.You have been misinformed.
But lets just say the bible does have fulfilled prophecies. Remember the bible is not one book. The mainstream Protestant bible is a collection of 66 books written by different authors (some of whom we don't know who they really are or if they existed). So despite all the issues at hand, why should we take Genesis 1-2 as the basis for explaining how species came to be? Sure, if we can trust the 66 book bible at face value along with assuming the dating, timing, people, etc are all correct then yes the prophecies may be interesting. But at the very core of Pahu's argument, there are so many unstated presuppositions that are not addressed adequately by him or any neat little website he throws at us.Here are the facts: There are three lines of evidence that support the claim that the biblical documents are reliable: these are the bibliographic test, the internal test, and the external test. The first test examines the biblical manuscripts, the second test deals with the claims made by the biblical authors, and the third test looks to outside confirmation of the biblical content. I. The Bibliographic Test A. The Quantity of Manuscripts In the case of the Old Testament, there are a small number of Hebrew manuscripts, because the Jewish scribes ceremonially buried imperfect and worn manuscripts. Many ancient manuscripts were also lost or destroyed during Israel's turbulent history. Also, the Old Testament text was standardized by the Masoretic Jews by the sixth century A.D., and all manuscripts that deviated from the Masoretic Text were evidently eliminated. But the existing Hebrew manuscripts are supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Old Testament), as well as the Talmud (teachings and commentaries related to the Hebrew Scriptures). The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20. B. The Quality of Manuscripts Because of the great reverence the Jewish scribes held toward the Scriptures, they exercised extreme care in making new copies of the Hebrew Bible. The entire scribal process was specified in meticulous detail to minimize the possibility of even the slightest error. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted, and the middle letters of the Pentateuch and the Old Testament were determined. If a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript would be destroyed. As a result of this extreme care, the quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a significant check on this, because these Hebrew scrolls antedate the earliest Masoretic Old Testament manuscripts by about 1,000 years. But in spite of this time span, the number of variant readings between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is quite small, and most of these are variations in spelling and style. While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good--considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism. C. The Time Span of Manuscripts Apart from some fragments, the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the Old Testament is dated at A.D. 895. This is due to the systematic destruction of worn manuscripts by the Masoretic scribes. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68 drastically reduced the time span from the writing of the Old Testament books to our earliest copies of them. The time span of the New Testament manuscripts is exceptional. The manuscripts written on papyrus came from the second and third centuries A.D. The John Rylands Fragment (P52) of the Gospel of John is dated at A.D. 117-38, only a few decades after the Gospel was written. The Bodmer Papyri are dated from A.D. 175-225, and the Chester Beatty Papyri date from about A.D. 250. The time span for most of the New Testament is less than 200 years (and some books are within 100 years) from the date of authorship to the date of our earliest manuscripts. This can be sharply contrasted with the average gap of over 1,000 years between the composition and the earliest copy of the writings of other ancient authors. To summarize the bibliographic test, the Old and New Testaments enjoy far greater manuscript attestation in terms of quantity, quality, and time span than any other ancient documents. II. The Internal Test The second test of the reliability of the biblical documents asks, What claims does the Bible make about itself? This may appear to be circular reasoning. It sounds like we are using the testimony of the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. But we are really examining the truth claims of the various authors of the Bible and allowing them to speak for themselves. (Remember that the Bible is not one book but many books woven together.) This provides significant evidence that must not be ignored. A number of biblical authors claim that their accounts are primary, not secondary. That is, the bulk of the Bible was written by people who were eyewitnesses of the events they recorded. John wrote in his Gospel, “And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe" (John 19:35; see 21:24). In his first epistle, John wrote, “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of life . . . what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also" (1 John 1:1, 3). Peter makes the same point abundantly clear: “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16; also see Acts 2:22; 1 Peter 5:1). The independent eyewitness accounts in the New Testament of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ were written by people who were intimately acquainted with Jesus Christ. Their gospels and epistles reveal their integrity and complete commitment to the truth, and they maintained their testimony even through persecution and martyrdom. All the evidence inside and outside the New Testament runs contrary to the claim made by form criticism that the early church distorted the life and teachings of Christ. Most of the New Testament was written between A.D. 47 and 70, and all of it was complete before the end of the first century. There simply was not enough time for myths about Christ to be created and propagated. And the multitudes of eyewitnesses who were alive when the New Testament books began to be circulated would have challenged blatant historical fabrications about the life of Christ. The Bible places great stress on accurate historical details, and this is especially obvious in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, Luke's two-part masterpiece (see his prologue in Luke 1:1-4). III. The External Test Because the Scriptures continually refer to historical events, they are verifiable; their accuracy can be checked by external evidence. The chronological details in the prologue to Jeremiah (1:1-3) and in Luke 3:1-2 illustrate this. Ezekiel 1:2 allows us to date Ezekiel's first vision of God to the day (July 31, 592 B.C.). The historicity of Jesus Christ is well-established by early Roman, Greek, and Jewish sources, and these extra biblical writings affirm the major details of the New Testament portrait of the Lord. The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus made specific references to John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James in his Antiquities of the Jews. In this work, Josephus gives us many background details about the Herods, the Sadducees and Pharisees, the high priests like Annas and Caiaphas, and the Roman emperors mentioned in the gospels and Acts. We find another early secular reference to Jesus in a letter written a little after A.D. 73 by an imprisoned Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. This letter to his son compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Christ. Other first- and second-century writers who mention Christ include the Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus (Annals) and Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars), the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (Epistles), and the Greek satirist Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine). Jesus is also mentioned a number of times in the Jewish Talmud. [continue]
But lets just say the bible does have fulfilled prophecies. Remember the bible is not one book. The mainstream Protestant bible is a collection of 66 books written by different authors (some of whom we don't know who they really are or if they existed). So despite all the issues at hand, why should we take Genesis 1-2 as the basis for explaining how species came to be? [continued] The Old and New Testaments make abundant references to nations, kings, battles, cities, mountains, rivers, buildings, treaties, customs, economics, politics, dates, etc. Because the historical narratives of the Bible are so specific, many of its details are open to archaeological investigation. While we cannot say that archaeology proves the authority of the Bible, it is fair to say that archaeological evidence has provided external confirmation of hundreds of biblical statements. Higher criticism in the 19th century made many damaging claims that would completely overthrow the integrity of the Bible, but the explosion of archaeological knowledge in the 20th century reversed almost all of these claims. Noted archaeologists such as William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and G. Ernest Wright developed a great respect for the historical accuracy of the Scriptures as a result of their work. Out of the multitude of archaeological discoveries related to the Bible, consider a few examples to illustrate the remarkable external substantiation of biblical claims. Excavations at Nuzi (1925-41), Mari (discovered in 1933), and Alalakh (1937-39; 1946-49) provide helpful background information that fits well with the Genesis stories of the patriarchal period. The Nuzi tablets and Mari letters illustrate the patriarchal customs in great detail, and the Ras Shamra tablets discovered in ancient Ugarit in Syria shed much light on Hebrew prose and poetry and Canaanite culture. The Ebla tablets discovered recently in northern Syria also affirm the antiquity and accuracy of the Book of Genesis. Some scholars once claimed that the Mosaic Law could not have been written by Moses, because writing was largely unknown at that time and because the law code of the Pentateuch was too sophisticated for that period. But the codified Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860 B.C.), the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.), and the even earlier Ur-Nammu code have refuted these claims. http://bible.org/article/how-accurate-bible
Pahu, have a chat with PedroWA. He has a perpetual motion machine. I think you were meant for each other.
Has anyone noticed that the OP question Science disproves Evolution has been totally corrupted.
In the last 6 pages the discussion has become about the accuracy of Biblical scripture as an Historical document, which has nothing to do with Science, but is being used as the basis for The Bible disproving Evolution, in spite that the highest authority of Biblical scholars have declared “Evolution to be True”
The fact is that not a single argument from scientific sources has been made to disprove evolution. How on earth did that happen?
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
I am most assuredly in the Darwin / Dawkins evolution camp.