Why I believe the Bible is a valid historical document

[tsaritsa]

There is no stela. This is not a stela. The counterfeiters just sought a stone big enough to make their inscription on. And this stone was already cut in two at that moment. They did not find anything better on the island. The real priests of Khnum would never have used such a poor stone for such an important message.

Look at real Egyptian hieroglyphs. They are terribly artful. And they always belong to the broader context of temple walls and obelisks. The counterfeiters could not afford this. So they just looked for a stone and realized a sloppy inscription, suggesting that it was from a late period, the time of the Ptolemies, when the ancient Egyptian civilization was already over.

And now the real joke. Even when the conterfeiters could not do better than about 200 BC, the inscription had to talk about very ancient times, for their target was the biblical Joseph and the famine of seven years. So the pretended claim of the priests of the temple of Khum in Elephantine in 200 BC on the lands in the region, was based on pretended events in the time of Djoser, 2500 years earlier. This is not only ridiculous in se. This also perfectly reflects the typical western approach of history since the 19th century, in which, thanks to boundless pretensions, you are able to make claims about situations thousands years earlier, as if you were there, and as if there exists a simple historical continuity over thousands of years.

The so called Famine Stela is the typical product of limited West-European minds of the 19th century, trying to create archeological support for biblical stories. All this kind of stones are fake. I hope that stolenhistory.net remains the place where this can be said.

I havent read about these things before. I just want to say that this applies to all things they found. Nothing in the bible nor Palestine or other books, have been found by archeology. Only fakes, i assume they are made to fit the story since it is useless and cannot be sold. Compared to real sites which often is at least partly looted. Or non existing dreamt up stuff like toombs that no one ever seen any burial stuff in.

 

[Truthseeker2468]

This thread has now gone from proof of the bible as a historical document and devolved into the op author prouncing and defendinghis faith. Quite a leap

Your right, thank you for the re-direct. Sometimes there’s a fine line between defending my faith and answering a question or responding to a remark. I will take that into consideration.

There is no stela. This is not a stela. The counterfeiters just sought a stone big enough to make their inscription on. And this stone was already cut in two at that moment. They did not find anything better on the island. The real priests of Khnum would never have used such a poor stone for such an important message.

Look at real Egyptian hieroglyphs. They are terribly artful. And they always belong to the broader context of temple walls and obelisks. The counterfeiters could not afford this. So they just looked for a stone and realized a sloppy inscription, suggesting that it was from a late period, the time of the Ptolemies, when the ancient Egyptian civilization was already over.

And now the real joke. Even when the conterfeiters could not do better than about 200 BC, the inscription had to talk about very ancient times, for their target was the biblical Joseph and the famine of seven years. So the pretended claim of the priests of the temple of Khum in Elephantine in 200 BC on the lands in the region, was based on pretended events in the time of Djoser, 2500 years earlier. This is not only ridiculous in se. This also perfectly reflects the typical western approach of history since the 19th century, in which, thanks to boundless pretensions, you are able to make claims about situations thousands years earlier, as if you were there, and as if there exists a simple historical continuity over thousands of years.

The so called Famine Stela is the typical product of limited West-European minds of the 19th century, trying to create archeological support for biblical stories. All this kind of stones are fake. I hope that stolenhistory.net remains the place where this can be said.

So you know this to be fact? Where is your proof of this?

Clearly you understand nothing, so now you want to ban me from your thread. Is this what's called Christian persecution?

I did not ban you, just stated my position.

 

[Jd755]

Sometimes there’s a fine line between defending my faith

Please. You claimed PROOF of a book being a valid historical document.
Faith doesn't come into it.
You have not provided any evidence let alone proof that justifies your claim.
Faith doesn't come into it.
Faith might be proof enough to you as evidence of your claim which is fine but you didn't make that clear.
Hence you end up feeling as though it is you and specifically the faith part of you that is under attack when it simply isnt, its the claim that is being investigated, thus you feel you have to defend it.
And the thread ends up as the dogs breakfast it is.

If you have nothing but your faith as the proof that the bible is a valid historical document then have the common decency to say so.
If you have anything other than a very dodgy rock bruising and equally dodgy, if not more so, translation of said bruising, neither of which have a shred of documentary or pictorial evidence of existence prior to 1887when Flinders Petrie is claimed to have seen and recorded them please post it.

 

[Truthseeker2468]

Please. You claimed PROOF of a book being a valid historical document.
Faith doesn't come into it.
You have not provided any evidence let alone proof that justifies your claim.
Faith doesn't come into it.
Faith might be proof enough to you as evidence of your claim which is fine but you didn't make that clear.
Hence you end up feeling as though it is you and specifically the faith part of you that is under attack when it simply isnt, its the claim that is being investigated, thus you feel you have to defend it.
And the thread ends up as the dogs breakfast it is.

If you have nothing but your faith as the proof that the bible is a valid historical document then have the common decency to say so.
If you have anything other than a very dodgy rock bruising and equally dodgy, if not more so, translation of said bruising, neither of which have a shred of documentary or pictorial evidence of existence prior to 1887when Flinders Petrie is claimed to have seen and recorded them please post it.

With all do respect I did present evidence, you just choose not to accept it as such. If the Joseph story is not enough for you that is fine, if you think it’s dodgy evidence that’s fine. The post presented other evidence of one of the most well known accounts in the Bible, the Exodus. I mean, if you can’t except the artifacts discovered as evidence then it seems as though nothing will prove to you the Bible’s validity other then God Himself coming in your presence and saying “here now do you believe in me” The evidence presented of the Red Sea crossing is pretty straight forward and undeniable as far as I’m concerned. Solomon’s pillars, the fused together sand, the topography of the sea bed at the crossing point, the chariots, the split rock on the Arabian side, etc... as I also stated, there is other evidence besides these two accounts the seem to present themselves as proof of the validity of the account. I just chose to end it where I did because I thought it was getting a bit lengthy, also couldn’t present more photos. I suppose I could post more on this thread and perhaps I will....question is, will it even matter for someone as skeptical as you seem to be? Again, I mean no disrespect in my statement, it’s just Without a desire to know God perhaps your just unwilling to see it...perhaps.

 

[reverendALC]

From up here atop the fence, I must say that you have presented some information that strongly supports your beliefs. It strengthens your case and lends credibility to the story (I do not mean that derisively). I must also agree that it doesn’t amount to proof though. To be fair, I can’t even say what would amount to proof positive, short of being there and witnessing it.

there is no chain of custody for our artifacts, and even if there were I would be compelled to disbelieve it. There are countless counterfeits/forgeries/etc and I don’t see how we can be afforded the luxury to select which artifacts and histories we deem true and which we deem false in support of our assertions.

we all may watch the same sun cross the sky, and that itself may prove to me that the sun circles the earth while it simultaneously satisfies the notion that the sun is stationary and the earth is spinning.

 

[trismegistus]

It was inevitable. Shame the admin that approved this thread didn't see it coming.

Quite right. Clearly I put too much faith in Truthseeker deciding to come with some researched arguments to back their claim, but here we are again.

If there is proof the bible is a valid historical document, discuss that here. If this thread continues in a way that seems to devolve into defending and offending faith, then it will be locked.

I hope that stolenhistory.net remains the place where this can be said.

And replies like yours are why I want threads like these in the first place. I find that most of this biblical stuff, especially the stuff intertwined with Egyptian "history", to be a product of a more recent attempt at establishing an ancient narrative that makes no real sense. It is clear a lot of the content in the Bible comes from somewhere - everyone and their mother has a say in exactly what that could be.

 

[Jd755]

With all do respect I did present evidence, you just choose not to accept it as such. If the Joseph story is not enough for you that is fine, if you think it’s dodgy evidence that’s fine. The post presented other evidence of one of the most well known accounts in the Bible, the Exodus. I mean, if you can’t except the artifacts discovered as evidence then it seems as though nothing will prove to you the Bible’s validity other then God Himself coming in your presence and saying “here now do you believe in me” The evidence presented of the Red Sea crossing is pretty straight forward and undeniable as far as I’m concerned. Solomon’s pillars, the fused together sand, the topography of the sea bed at the crossing point, the chariots, the split rock on the Arabian side, etc... as I also stated, there is other evidence besides these two accounts the seem to present themselves as proof of the validity of the account. I just chose to end it where I did because I thought it was getting a bit lengthy, also couldn’t present more photos. I suppose I could post more on this thread and perhaps I will....question is, will it even matter for someone as skeptical as you seem to be? Again, I mean no disrespect in my statement, it’s just Without a desire to know God perhaps your just unwilling to see it...perhaps.

If you had put the word My before proof in your thread titles then it would have been accurate.
As it is you are still hell bent on defending your faith so its beyond doubt your "proof the bible is a valid historical document"is indeed your faith in god.

May your god go with you.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

I did not ban you, just stated my position.

What position would that be? That you don't want me disagreeing with you anymore?

From your position then, which came first - the Imhotep story or the Joseph story? Is the older story the original or is it itself a copy of another even older story? Are any of these stories corroborated, authentic accounts of actual events or are they fictional? These are not disagreements, these are questions regarding the proof you have presented to support your claim that the Bible is an authentic and factual historical account. These questions could equally be applied to hundreds of other Biblical stories.

 

[Truthseeker2468]

From up here atop the fence, I must say that you have presented some information that strongly supports your beliefs. It strengthens your case and lends credibility to the story (I do not mean that derisively). I must also agree that it doesn’t amount to proof though. To be fair, I can’t even say what would amount to proof positive, short of being there and witnessing it.

there is no chain of custody for our artifacts, and even if there were I would be compelled to disbelieve it. There are countless counterfeits/forgeries/etc and I don’t see how we can be afforded the luxury to select which artifacts and histories we deem true and which we deem false in support of our assertions.

we all may watch the same sun cross the sky, and that itself may prove to me that the sun circles the earth while it simultaneously satisfies the notion that the sun is stationary and the earth is spinning.

I suppose I could have put in my title “Why I believe the Bible is a valid historical document” Maybe that would have been a less controversial title. However, I knew I was likely in for a shitstorm of rebuttals and negativity. Goes with the territory.

 

[feralimal]

I suppose I could have put in my title “Why I believe the Bible is a valid historical document” Maybe that would have been a less controversial title. However, I knew I was likely in for a shitstorm of rebuttals and negativity. Goes with the territory.

That is a far less controversial title and I think you would have got away with it.

Saying you have proof is saying we are able to gain knowledge about this or that, so that we are each able to confirm whatever-it-is as fact. That's a very hard line to cross. (Just looking at the title I knew you wouldn't be able to.)

Saying you believe this or that is fine - have as much or as little evidence as you like.

Anyway, belief and knowledge are not the same thing.

 

[trismegistus]

I suppose I could have put in my title “Why I believe the Bible is a valid historical document” Maybe that would have been a less controversial title. However, I knew I was likely in for a shitstorm of rebuttals and negativity. Goes with the territory.

Thread title has been updated.

 

[reverendALC]

@Truthseeker2468

I enjoyed the OP. I learned and grew from it with regard to my own suppositions about the Bible; I found a great deal of value in it.

 

[Truthseeker2468]

@Truthseeker2468

I enjoyed the OP. I learned and grew from it with regard to my own suppositions about the Bible; I found a great deal of value in it.

Thank you for your complement and encouragement. I’m glad you enjoyed the read.

 

[Quiahuitl]

There seems to be some logical fails going on here.

As per Aristotle - it is illogical to say something does not exist. That's because one would need to have knowledge of all things in order to be able to logically state 'X does not exist.' Lacking knowledge of all things, one can only say 'X is outside of my experience,' or 'I have never seen X.'

Ironically, this means only God can say God does not exist.

To believe in God is an act of faith.

To choose to believe God does not exist is also an act of faith.

Furthermore, no proof of any kind is possible without an initial act of faith. For example it is impossible to prove that Atoms exist. However, once one has made the leap of faith to choose to believe that matter is made of atoms, one can then proceed to collect data and evidence and create models of how atoms work. Science, done properly, is the business of testing these models against observable reality. In fact no measurements ever exactly match the models. Not for any model, in any branch of Science.

 

[Truthseeker2468]

Furthermore, no proof of any kind is possible without an initial act of faith.

Well put.

Anyway, belief and knowledge are not the same thing.

True, but I do know what I believe and believe what I know. So there’s that. And since I believe the evidence I presented validates Scripture, I therefore know that the Bible can be trusted as a valid historical document.

 

[feralimal]

since I believe the evidence I presented validates Scripture, I therefore know that the Bible can be trusted as a valid historical document.

But I suspect if the evidence didn't validate scripture, you would still trust the bible.

Additionally, what you believe about the 'evidence' cannot be transmuted into knowing something. But you can certainly mislead people by overstating your case, as you did initially in the title of this thread.

Of course, you can use language how you like - you can say "I know", "I believe", "I feel" or whatever - this is pretty common. But if you want to say something with a bit more precision, or try to make or prove a statement as fact, I think you ought to acknowledge the difference between knowing and believing.

One can know that one is sitting on a chair.
One can believe that there is a chair in the kitchen even though one cannot see the chair at present. One can say "I know there is a chair in the kitchen" and that may well be right... but in fact one cannot know this - it is possible that someone moved the chair to another room.

Anyway, to say "I know" when one believes, is to overstate what one knows. To overstate things and indicate knowledge when you only have belief, is a form of a lie. What does it say about loose tongues and gossips in the bible again?!

Anyway, if you accept that hard distinction b/w belief and knowledge, do you see that your belief in the evidence, that it validates scripture, etc has nothing to do with your statement that the bible is a valid historical document? All you can say you believe the evidence that supports the historical authenticity of the bible.

 

[reverendALC]

there seems to be a great deal of knowledge which we assume to be true. For instance, my undershirt says 100% cotton and made in USA. May I say I know that? If I do, I’m placing trust in the tag and I’m placing trust in whichever authorities regulate commerce. I haven’t witnessed the cotton picking or ginning, I haven’t analyzed samples in a lab.

but who really cares about the material or origin of my undershirt? I don’t really care aside from made in USA makes me feel better… but that probably means “stitched in the USA from foreign bulk” anyway. That would make what I “know” to be a half/partial truth.

what about the moon? How many people “know” that the moon is a rock caught in the earth’s orbit? How many people “know” that mankind has set foot on said moon? By this logic, the only people who could truly know that are the people who’ve truly been to the moon. Anybody else has to take them at their word for it. And then take the media, the teachers, and the textbooks at their word for it too.

sure prevailing science says that’s all true, but what is prevailing science other than general consensus? Essentially, it means “most people think this so we assume it’s true and roll with it”. That’s how we got the Big Bang, evolution, and gravity. None of which are truly known or could be proven, but the greatest scientific minds and schools of thought concur

so if the general consensus equates to the accepted science or theory, why doesn’t that apply to religion? According to Wikipedia:

The general consensus is Christianity, over double the unaffiliated. Similarly the unaffiliated comprise less than 1/5 of the world according to these figures. I’ll add, Wikipedia is the epitome of consensus.

edit to add: both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic, Abrahamic religions including Jesus. If these are two side of the same coin, then their sum gives us 56.7% which is a true majority.

personally, I find contentment in admitting I don’t know. It’s liberating and exciting to have so much to learn (and know it).

 

[trismegistus]

True, but I do know what I believe and believe what I know. So there’s that. And since I believe the evidence I presented validates Scripture, I therefore know that the Bible can be trusted as a valid historical document.

It doesn't seem like my experiment to see if you would engage in a discussion with others on the forum regarding your presentation of evidence has worked out. There is no point in creating a thread with your proof if others respond with criticism and your response is simply to say "well this is what I believe". That is not really an argument, and it is not really in the spirit of the forum.

This thread will be locked, as this has become too tricky to moderate.