The tower of Babel

[Hierophant]

3 hours ago, aik said:

This is the right place to put an interim question here. And your answer to that question will be a half answer of mine to this post. And another half I will give by myself. 

 

The question is the following: 

Do the athiests have disputes inspite of their relying on the objectiveness of the science? For example, not every athiest agree with darwinism. I heard athiests who deny this teaching. 

 

Not every athiests agree in their attitude to the issue of God's existence. Even here som people believe there can be some supernatural God thought not the biblical one, some deny existance of God at all. In the world there are agnostic athiests and there are strict athiests. 

 

Or I will give you another example. Isreael Finkelstein is an archeologist, and he excavates Levant the Holy Land and Megiddo. So he is quire nutral in his findings which confirm biblical stories. And as it happens often he has criticizers, such as William Dever, another well know archeologist, who says that Finkelstein's stories are fiction, and accuses him in some sort of idiosyncratism. On the other hand we have William Dever been criticed and accused for his neglects of actual facts and found artefacts which confirm biblical stories, and that Dever accuses biblical archeologists without giving any valuable evidence. So the same criticizers of Finkelstein at the same time criticize Dever. 

 

And it shows that if the science is like maths, so there should not be any disagreement. But if it is on its development stage, and it is not so perfect, so the results can be disputable. 

 

In addition to this take into account that scientists are people of various views of idiology and life. Everyone tries to defend his views. It means that the science is unable to clarify such disputes. 

 

Actually if i dig deeper, I am sure that there many disagreements among athiests and among scientists in general. 

 

But we do not deny science, we continue its studying, we also take into account that we do not know everything. I think everyone understands it. 

 

Or shall we stop studying the science just because it has so many ways of understanding things and even facts sometimes are powerless to correct the situation? 

 

No, I understand the situation. 

 

A human, believer or not, has such a character, that he strives to prove his beliefs by all means. And often he has to stop developing just to confirm that his views are the most correct. We have such a character. It can be defeated only by denying self-glory I think.

 

Here is another archeologist reviewing Finkelstein's work:

 

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/

[Hierophant]

26 minutes ago, aik said:

Look what we have, and compare to what you have shown to me.

 

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

 

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the 𝔓52 papyrus, oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century.[citation needed]

 

25,000 manuscripts in hand.

 

 

 

I hate this argument. Just because we have a wealth of copies, does not inherently mean the original documents record actual facts. The church was making various copies throughout the years, and which documents do you think they are more likely to keep making copies of, Christian literature, or what they perceived to be anti-Christian or pagan?

 

If we had 25,000 copies of the Iliad and Odyssey, would you think Greek mythology was true?

[aik]

16 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

 

Here is another archeologist reviewing Finkelstein's work:

 

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/divided-kingdom-united-critics/

Who Tells the Truth—the Bible or Archaeology? - Biblical Archaeology Society

 

One possibility is to deal with the Biblical texts and archaeological data independently and then look for “convergences,” suggests William G. Dever, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Arizona, who is arguably the most influential voice among the maximalists. But it did not escape Dever’s critics that in checking the Bible against material evidence (or vice-versa), archaeology is not speaking for itself. For his approach, Dever has been castigated with others for actually falling into the trap of “proving/disproving the Bible”—an honorable pursuit for some, a methodological trespass for others.

To be sure, Dever understands that both archaeology and the Bible as historical sources have their limits. An experienced archaeologist, Dever rightly points to the chronic cause of disappointment and frustration among Biblical scholars: people have been asking the wrong questions of archaeology!

At the same time—as his critics object—Dever acknowledges the privileged position of archaeological data as being closer to the “real” life and, hence, more reliable for the Bible history than are the Biblical texts, which were written or edited centuries after the supposed events that they relate. And while recognizing that most of the Pentateuch, or Torah, is contaminated by legendary and even fantastic materials, which might disqualify the first four books from historical consideration, Dever with other maximalists also believes that these Bible books are a result of long oral traditions with a real historical core and that history can be distilled from the books immediately following them: Deuteronomy through 2 Kings. Dever’s critics, therefore, point out that his positivist method based on verifiable data is incoherent and circular and that his scholarship actually demonstrates the pitfalls of any attempt to use Biblical archaeology in the quest of uncovering the “true” Bible history. Some critical voices would also question whether Dever’s cautious judgments about the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers still qualify as maximalist.

 

For William G. Dever’s latest thoughts on this multi-layered and slippery subject, read his article “Whom Do You Believe—The Bible or Archaeology?” in the May/June 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, where Dever attempts to demonstrate how we can marry archaeology and the Bible in the study of ancient Israel.

 

Whom Do You Believe—The Bible or Archaeology? · The BAS Library

 

Dever is not sure in the way of interpretation of artefacts.

[Hierophant]

Biblical Archeology is assuming, without reason, the Bible is true, and then trying to find evidence for it. I have read up enough on it to know that it is nonsense. Ron Wyatt was the leader in Biblical archeology and misrepresented facts to suit his needs. Any time someone goes out with a conclusion to find, is not being honest. The conclusion should always be where the facts lead. Period.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

8 minutes ago, aik said:

Dever acknowledges the privileged position of archaeological data as being closer to the “real” life and, hence, more reliable for the Bible history than are the Biblical texts, which were written or edited centuries after the supposed events that they relate. And while recognizing that most of the Pentateuch, or Torah, is contaminated by legendary and even fantastic materials, which might disqualify the first four books from historical consideration,

Do you also agree that the first five books of the Bible probably aren't historically accurate?

[Hierophant]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Do you also agree that the first five books of the Bible probably aren't historically accurate?

 

I do!

[aik]

25 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

 

I hate this argument. Just because we have a wealth of copies, does not inherently mean the original documents record actual facts. The church was making various copies throughout the years, and which documents do you think they are more likely to keep making copies of, Christian literature, or what they perceived to be anti-Christian or pagan?

 

If we had 25,000 copies of the Iliad and Odyssey, would you think Greek mythology was true?

Here the point is! Pay attention

 

Iliad has a thousand of copies. The oldest copy is written in 10th AD. but Homer wrote it in 800 BC. Distance between the oldest copy and the authors time is 1800 years. And nobody doubts in its authenticity. Think about it.

 

The oldest new testament manuscript is 125 AD. The last apostle died about 90 AD. 

 

Is there a difference?

 

That is why we bear this evidence.

[aik]

7 minutes ago, Hierophant said:

Biblical Archeology is assuming, without reason, the Bible is true, and then trying to find evidence for it. I have read up enough on it to know that it is nonsense. Ron Wyatt was the leader in Biblical archeology and misrepresented facts to suit his needs. Any time someone goes out with a conclusion to find, is not being honest. The conclusion should always be where the facts lead. Period.

So I am saying that also anti-biblists, also do everything to reject the Bible. They do the same. It comes out of interpretation of the found artefact. So if there is an interpretation then there is a human factor. And prejudice.

[Hierophant]

First, let us clarify, when we say manuscripts in our context, it is manuscripts we have today.

 

When you say no one doubts the authenticity of the Iliad, that is not entirely true. We don't really know what the original said, because we do not have it. That is simply how it works. It might have been edited, we do not really know. I have never really looked into it, so I am not completely aware of all of the data. Also, nobody thinks that Greek gods exist because of the Iliad, so yeah, people do question the authenticity of it, or better stated, the authority of it. Historians are not even sure the Trojan war actually happened.

 

For the "manuscript" we have, its called Papyrus 95, and it is the size of a credit card. Let's not get it twisted. It is not an entire document.

 

Neither of this really matters. Even if we had the original, doesn't mean it is an accurate account of actual events. I wish you could see that.

 

 

[Hierophant]

8 minutes ago, aik said:

So I am saying that also anti-biblists, also do everything to reject the Bible. They do the same. It comes out of interpretation of the found artefact. So if there is an interpretation then there is a human factor. And prejudice.

 

No doubt there are scientists out there who literally hate the Bible and Christianity. That is also why science has the peer-review process. Other scientists can weigh in and tell the author of a publication or study that they made mistakes and it needs to be rectified. As I stated before, the scientific process is designed to minimize biases and subjectivity as much as possible.

[Rev R]

3 minutes ago, aik said:

Is there a difference?

The difference is that Homer is not the basis of several obscenely powerful institutions, treated as the actual history of the world despite evidence to the contrary, and constantly leveraged as a tool of oppression .

[aik]

Just now, Hierophant said:

 

No doubt there are scientists out there who literally hate the Bible and Christianity. That is also why science has the peer-review process. Other scientists can weigh in and tell the author of a publication or study that they made mistakes and it needs to be rectified. As I stated before, the scientific process is designed to minimize biases and subjectivity as much as possible.

As I stated before every archeologist has its critics. It is a normal thing. Because the artefact is not a "panacea". If we have an artefact finally we must have put it together with other information. And it comes out into interoretation of what we have all together. 

 

If it was truth what an archeologist find somewhere, so nobody could argue that.

 

Dever has his critics from not christian and not jewish archeologists. It means that he also is not saying truth 100%. So why do you give preferance to him instead of others? for instance. Because of your internal situation, I think. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

15 minutes ago, aik said:

Here the point is! Pay attention

 

Iliad has a thousand of copies. The oldest copy is written in 10th AD. but Homer wrote it in 800 BC. Distance between the oldest copy and the authors time is 1800 years. And nobody doubts in its authenticity. Think about it.

 

The oldest new testament manuscript is 125 AD. The last apostle died about 90 AD. 

 

Is there a difference?

 

That is why we bear this evidence.

So you are comparing your mythological writings with someone else's mythological writings to show that your mythological writings are true?

 

How is this evidence. No one says that the Iliad written by Homer is historically accurate or true. 

 

Again, thank you for helping our argument and offering us evidence. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

You still haven't answered my question AIK. I have answered yours now I believe. 

 

You mentioned before that the fore fathers of the church were possibly ignorant in their knowledge of the earths creation.

 

and now you have quoted information from a biblical archeologist that admits the first 4 books of the Bible aren't historically accurate.

 

do you believe:

 

that the forefathers were ignorant and this may be why they portrayed a flat earth creation?

 

And do you believe Dever is right. That the first 4 books aren't historical but that they may contain some traces of the truth?

 

DB

[aik]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

So you are comparing your mythological writings with someone else's mythological writings to show that your mythological writings are true?

 

How is this evidence. No one says that the Iliad written by Homer is historically accurate or true. 

 

Again, thank you for helping our argument and offering us evidence. 

 

DB

I am saying that among the scientist there is prejudice which flows into conflict with others. Christians have no need to prove historical authenticity of manuscripts to anyone, because we have history, we have witnesses, we are sure. But The need of finding of evidences has come out because of those who tried at every time to reject the Bible. Especially it started in som 18th cetury or about. From that time atheism started to push out faith from science. But why? because a bunch of so called scientists do not want to believe in God. And it happens today.

 

Among the scietists we have believers and non-believers. If the science was a problem for a believer, then either a believer leaves science or he leaves faith. But we do not see it. Believers are happy with science. 

 

But somebody suggested that there were ancient homo erectus somewhere gathering something because we have a stone on the basis of which we know how they moved. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 minute ago, aik said:

I am saying that among the scientist there is prejudice which flows into conflict with others. Christians have no need to prove historical authenticity of manuscripts to anyone, because we have history, we have witnesses, we are sure. But The need of finding of evidences has come out because of those who tried at every time to reject the Bible. Especially it started in som 18th cetury or about. From that time atheism started to push out faith from science. But why? because a bunch of so called scientists do not want to believe in God. And it happens today.

 

Among the scietists we have believers and non-believers. If the science was a problem for a believer, then either a believer leaves science or he leaves faith. But we do not see it. Believers are happy with science. 

 

But somebody suggested that there were ancient homo erectus somewhere gathering something because we have a stone on the basis of which we know how they moved. 

Please answer the questions I proposed to you. Do you agree with dever and your own assessment of the forefather of the church that some scripture is not historically accurate in the bible?

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 minutes ago, aik said:

But why? because a bunch of so called scientists do not want to believe in God

No it was because the evidence they found didn't line up with the Bible. So they accepted that the Bible could not be true. 

[aik]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

You mentioned before that the fore fathers of the church were possibly ignorant in their knowledge of the earths creation.

Where did I say that? could you show to us please?

 

3 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

and now you have quoted information from a biblical archeologist that admits the first 4 books of the Bible aren't historically accurate.

If I was afraid of this sentence I wouldn't show it to you my friend. The artice I showed has an aim to represent that Dever and his collegues are not sure 100% in their conclusions. They admit something then it becomes an objects of dispute. So the level of reliability of both biblical and non-biblical archelogists are almost the same. So why do you gove preferance to one against other? 

[aik]

6 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Please answer the questions I proposed to you. Do you agree with dever and your own assessment of the forefather of the church that some scripture is not historically accurate in the bible?

 

DB

No . I did not say that the forefathers of the church were ignorant about it. 

 

And I cannot agree or disagree with Dever or any other archeologist just because i am not an expert in the field. I can only analyze what the give. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 minutes ago, aik said:

I was afraid of this sentence I wouldn't show it to you my friend. The artice I showed has an aim to represent that Dever and his collegues are not sure 100% in their conclusions. They admit something then it becomes an objects of dispute. So the level of reliability of both biblical and non-biblical archelogists are almost the same. So why do you gove preferance to one against other? 

Because there is more objective evidence that doesn't align with the biblical account. Much, much more evidence. That is why I prefer non-biblical archeologists. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 12/5/2022 at 9:40 PM, aik said:

What refers to your flat earth fairy tale, I think I answered that. But anyway, it was a picture in your head, I guess, which hase come out with a share of prejudice, and some ignorance of what the fathers of the church said about it. 

This is where you said it. 

 

DB

[aik]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Because there is more objective evidence that doesn't align with the biblical account. Much, much more evidence. That is why I prefer non-biblical archeologists. 

They make up fake stories and call it evidence. Look to your wikipedia link about hunter gatherers.  it's awsome.

[aik]

1 minute ago, DarkBishop said:

This is where you said it. 

 

DB

Your ingnorance about what the fathers said. My broken English. I am sorry.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

9 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

This is where you said it. 

 

DB

Oh... never mind. You were saying I was ignorant. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

10 minutes ago, aik said:

Your ingnorance about what the fathers said. My broken English. I am sorry.

Aik.

 

I showed your verse for verse the description the "forefathers of the church" put into it. I'm sorry that YOU are to ignorant and blind to realize it. It isn't my fault your Bible is a book of lies.

 

DB