|
Post by Vegas on Apr 2, 2018 17:29:54 GMT
Yes you were. Your first reply in this thread: You know that the Bible has several authors, right?Yes, Mr. Toostupidtotalkto..... Any other random thoughts that have nothing to do with anything that you want to mention before we continue pointlessly talking to you? One would assume that is why we are discussing the "person who wrote the Bible book" and not the "person who wrote the entire Bible". Edit:Unless you are now seriously trying to move the goalposts and claim that you were only referring to the rest of The Bible in your original post and not having any reference to the specific book of Isiah... even tho everyone acknowledges it as a part of "The Bible"... and it would be a safe assumption that you were talking about it as well... if not specifically But.. You wouldn't be doing that, would you?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 2, 2018 17:49:42 GMT
True. But... If were are in a discussion 2,000 years from now and we are debating whether or not the town of Amityville ever existed... and somebody finds a 2,000 year old movie poster that says "Based on a true story"... One might consider that as a piece of evidence. And one would be wrong. As we know. Therefore, finding an artefact about the author of a Bible book (assuming it's really from him) should not be considered conclusive. Fact: Nobody denies that the Bible mentions events that really took place, or people that really existed. Especially not if the people in question wrote Bible books. What is being denied (or questioned), is that the Bible is the word of a deity. That is the only real debate between Jews/Christians, and non-believers in the God of Abraham. So if someone says "score for the Bible", or "win for Credibility of the Bible", it is reasonable to assume that they mean a score for the Bible as the "Word of God". And that is not the case. In fact, I'm pretty sure we could plug the events "A found artefact really is from the author of a Bible book" and "The Bible is the Word of God" into some Bayesian formula, and it wouldn't change the probability of "The Bible is the Word of God".
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 2, 2018 17:52:49 GMT
Edit:Unless you are now seriously trying to move the goalposts and claim that you were only referring to the rest of The Bible in your original post and not having any reference to the specific book of Isiah... even tho everyone acknowledges it as a part of "The Bible"... and it would be a safe assumption that you were talking about it as well... if not specifically Actually I was talking only about the Book of Isaiah. I admit that I expressed myself poorly in my first post. I thought it was clear what I meant when I mentioned the "Bible book", not "the Bible". The Bible book in question is the book Isaiah. Finding artefacts referring Isaiah wouldn't change the relevance or veracity of Bible books that have nothing to do with Isaiah.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 2, 2018 18:00:21 GMT
True. But... If were are in a discussion 2,000 years from now and we are debating whether or not the town of Amityville ever existed... and somebody finds a 2,000 year old movie poster that says "Based on a true story"... One might consider that as a piece of evidence. And one would be wrong. As we know.No they wouldn't..... You seriously are just being stupid. We find a 4,000 year old diary of some ancient kid describing his first visit to Atlantis and later talking about how he wish that it never sank.... It becomes a piece of evidence... regardless of what you personally think about the historicity of Atlantis. Nobody said that it was conclusive... You're just exaggerating the meaning of Cody's "win".
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 2, 2018 18:06:23 GMT
Edit:Unless you are now seriously trying to move the goalposts and claim that you were only referring to the rest of The Bible in your original post and not having any reference to the specific book of Isiah... even tho everyone acknowledges it as a part of "The Bible"... and it would be a safe assumption that you were talking about it as well... if not specifically Actually I was talking only about the Book of Isaiah. I admit that I expressed myself poorly in my first post. I thought it was clear what I meant when I mentioned the "Bible book", not "the Bible". The Bible book in question is the book Isaiah. Finding artefacts referring Isaiah wouldn't change the relevance or veracity of Bible books that have nothing to do with Isaiah. So.. what you meant to say was: Okay.... I'll accept that. I know... Real gracious of me, right?
Glad we got that settled.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 2, 2018 18:12:59 GMT
So.. what you meant to say was: No. What I meant to say was: Even if this signature is from the same person who wrote the Bible book, this doesn't mean that this Bible book is true. But your version is true as well.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 2, 2018 18:30:46 GMT
So.. what you meant to say was: No. What I meant to say was: Even if this signature is from the same person who wrote the Bible book, this doesn't mean that this Bible book is true. But your version is true as well. Okay... But, then we're back to square one.... as that not what Cody was ever claiming to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 2, 2018 18:38:08 GMT
What I meant to say was: Even if this signature is from the same person who wrote the Bible book, this doesn't mean that this Bible book is true. But your version is true as well. Okay... But, then we're back to square one.... as that not what Cody was ever claiming to begin with. Then I'll just repost what I wrote in a previous post, and add some more thoughts. Fact: Nobody denies that the Bible mentions events that really took place, or people that really existed. Especially not if the people in question wrote Bible books. What is being denied (or questioned), is that the Bible is the word of a deity. That is the only real debate between Jews/Christians, and non-believers in the God of Abraham. So if someone says "score for the Bible", or "win for Credibility of the Bible", it is reasonable to assume that they mean a score for the Bible as the "Word of God". And that is not the case. In fact, I'm pretty sure we could plug the events "A found artefact really is from the author of a Bible book" and "The Bible is the Word of God" into some Bayesian formula, and it wouldn't change the probability of "The Bible is the Word of God". In this case, the book of Isaiah is a book of prophecies. Especially one prophecy gets rehashed often at Christmas, the one about Immanuel in 7,14. Christians claim that Jesus of Nazareth is that "Immanuel" mentioned in that book. So it is not surprising that some Christians try to increase the veracity of Isaiah, by claiming that an artefact increases it, which it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 2, 2018 19:23:26 GMT
Okay... But, then we're back to square one.... as that not what Cody was ever claiming to begin with. So if someone says "score for the Bible", or "win for Credibility of the Bible", it is reasonable to assume that they mean a score for the Bible as the "Word of God". Well.... You know what they say as far assuming goes... It's especially true when the target in question point blank says that your assumption is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 3, 2018 1:34:52 GMT
True. But... If were are in a discussion 2,000 years from now and we are debating whether or not the town of Amityville ever existed... and somebody finds a 2,000 year old movie poster that says "Based on a true story"... One might consider that as a piece of evidence. In fact, I'm pretty sure we could plug the events "A found artefact really is from the author of a Bible book" and "The Bible is the Word of God" into some Bayesian formula, and it wouldn't change the probability of "The Bible is the Word of God". Excellent, my padawan!
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 3, 2018 3:20:55 GMT
In fact, I'm pretty sure we could plug the events "A found artefact really is from the author of a Bible book" and "The Bible is the Word of God" into some Bayesian formula, and it wouldn't change the probability of "The Bible is the Word of God". Excellent, my padawan! BOOOOOOOOO!!!! What?... Because he mentions a theorem.... that has little to do with the actual conversation? Nobody is arguing what the general population generally thinks or says about such Bible-based discoveries... Just what Cody said/thinks. And.. No shit.. The general population that gives credence to such discoveries about The Bible.. are people who generally believe The Bible as the word of God. This is not some amazing revelation that gives the argument any more weight. Did you imagine that the people that are concerned about "Possible Bigfoot DNA being found" wouldn't be the same people that believe "Bigfoot is real".... and that somehow changes the fact that Cody isn't arguing that Bigfoot is real.. just that the guy that found the DNA is real? I know... The comparison isn't perfect.... But, you should seriously have a higher standard for giving out praise.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 3, 2018 7:33:47 GMT
Excellent, my padawan! BOOOOOOOOO!!!! What?... Because he mentions a theorem.... that has little to do with the actual conversation? Yeah, it was just a joke... I believe you're familiar with them. It also gave me an excuse to use that cloak smiley. He could be a Jedi.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 3, 2018 9:21:04 GMT
BOOOOOOOOO!!!! What?... Because he mentions a theorem.... that has little to do with the actual conversation? Yeah, it was just a joke... I believe you're familiar with them. It also gave me an excuse to use that cloak smiley. He could be a Jedi. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 4, 2018 11:48:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 4, 2018 22:00:14 GMT
...the usual suspects clutching at straws, though in this case it is a ' clay shard'(or more correctly a bulla) to any kind of 'evidence' to their case for a true Bible.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Apr 7, 2018 16:27:29 GMT
I would've been more intrigued if it alluded to Isaiah ben Amoz. Isaiah the Prophet is too on-the-nose and I think it would have been unbecoming, probably taboo even, to proudly announce oneself a prophet of Yahweh.
The interesting thing about such bullas and other clay fragments is the distribution of finds that gives us correlations to past population densities and these past population densities correlations do not indicate mass exiles or a Persian return. From Assyrian to Persian times, the population seems to be small but steady and it isn't until the late Persian age to Roman Imperialism that you get a slow rise in population.
|
|