Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,693,635 members, 6,347,977 topics. Date: Sunday, 20 June 2021 at 01:01 PM

Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction (5945 Views)

Hell Fire Is NOT Real! Don't Be Deceived By Any Pastors: BIBLE PROOFS INSIDE. / Jesus' Marriage To Mary The Magdalene Is Fact, Not Fiction / Part Of The Bible Is Straight From Egyptian Mythology(plagiarism) (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (Reply) (Go Down)

Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by trinigirl1(f): 5:29am On Feb 19, 2007
Fellow Believers in Christ,

I came across this wonderful site that shows compelling archaelogical discoveries continuously being unearthed that confirm the content of the Bible and the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

http://www.bible-history.com/biblehistoryonline_fallenempires.php

Lots of information on this site to peruse.

Affirm your faith and enjoy! wink
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by trinigirl1(f): 6:17am On Feb 19, 2007
Source: www.bible-history.com


In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman theater near Caesarea Maritima and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is aninscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."
It reads like this:

Line One: TIBERIEUM,
Line Two: (PON) TIUS
Line Three: (PRAEF) ECTUS IUDA (EAE)

The Pilate Inscription is the only known occurrence of the name Pontius Pilate in any ancient inscription. Visitors to the Caesarea theater today see a replica, the original is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. There have been a few bronze coins found that were struck form 29-32 AD by Pontius Pilate.

The Pontius Pilate Inscription is important in the study of Biblical Archaeology and confirms the Scriptures found in the Bible as historical.

Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by trinigirl1(f): 6:39am On Feb 19, 2007
This sandstone statue of King Ashurnasirpal II is from the ninth century BC. The eight lines of cuneiform text on his chest reveal his name, titles, and exploits.

The statue was placed in the Temple of Ishtar to remind the goddess Ishtar of the king's piety.

Kings often boasted of the exotic things they acquired from abroad, not only raw materials and finished goods but also plants and animals.

The king's hair and beard are shown worn long in the fashion of the Assyrian court at this time.

It has been suggested that the Assyrians used false hair and beards, as the Egyptians sometimes did, but there is no evidence for this.

Ashurnasirpal with his long hair and beard holds a sickle in his right hand. The mace in his left hand shows his authority as vice-regent of the supreme god Ashur.

The carved cuneiform inscription across his chest proclaims the king's titles and genealogy, and mentions his expedition westward to the Mediterranean Sea.

In 612 BC the Babylonians and Medes came and destroyed proud Assyria and the Assyrian Empire passed into history.  

"Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations. For he says, "Are not my princes altogether kings? Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus?

As my hand has found the kingdoms of the idols, Whose carved images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria, As I have done to Samaria and her idols, Shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols?"' Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Lord has performed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, that He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks." For he says: "By the strength of my hand I have done it, And by my wisdom, for I am prudent;

Also I have removed the boundaries of the people, And have robbed their treasuries; So I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man."


Isaiah 10:5-13

Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by naijacutee(f): 8:10am On Feb 19, 2007
Thanks for that, trinigirl but recently,I have decided to let people be, as they all answerable to othemselves. I don't get infuriated by all these Anti-Christian posts on NL anymore. . . They put so much time and effort into bashing Christianity and I don't think I have the time or effort to "dance to their tune" and "prove" that there is a God. Hey, thanks for that discovery again. But even without it, the very core of most of us know that the Bible is true, whether or not we want to admit to it is the issue.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by 4getme1(m): 8:58am On Feb 19, 2007
@trini_girl,

Thanks for the weblinks, and many more blessings to you.

@naijacutie,

naijacutee:

Thanks for that, trinigirl but recently,I have decided to let people be, as they all answerable to othemselves. I don't get infuriated by all these Anti-Christian posts on Nairaland anymore. . . They put so much time and effort into bashing Christianity and I don't think I have the time or effort to "dance to their tune" and "prove" that there is a God. Hey, thanks for that discovery again. But even without it, the very core of most of us know that the Bible is true, whether or not we want to admit to it is the issue.

I feel you.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by babs787(m): 9:50am On Feb 19, 2007
Thumbs up for the discovery. I am very sure all of you must be Protestants but you have to show Jehovah witnesses, catholics, mormons etc your findings.

Take care.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by 4getme1(m): 9:56am On Feb 19, 2007
I wonder why Muslims who believe that Jesus Christ was one of their prophets have been so silent when issues of the denial of His existence are presented.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by KAG: 11:17pm On Feb 19, 2007
Odysseus's tomb may have been found:

http://maderatribune.1871dev.com/news/newsview.asp?c=167178

Troy has also been found:
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/troia/eng/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy

Archeological proofs the Greek Legends are facts, not fiction?
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by Bobbyaf(m): 6:48am On Feb 20, 2007
Thanks Trini_girl.

Jesus once said that the stones would cry out, and they are certainly testifying to bible truth, aren't they?

Nature has a strange way of shutting up bible bashers.

Bless.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by babs787(m): 8:21am On Feb 20, 2007
@4get-me,

Jehovah witness are not in agreement with protestant. They are claiming that their bible is in line with the original manuscript.

The catholics are not in line with Protestant and they are claiming that their bible is in line with the original manuscript.

The protestant too, are claiming same.


Likewise the Mormons, seventh day adventist etc,

The question now is,

Which do we agree to since they are all claiming to have written their bibles in line with the original manuscript.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by 4getme1(m): 11:02am On Feb 20, 2007
@babs787,

Let me quickly run through this one in my busy schedule.

babs787:

Jehovah witness are not in agreement with protestant. They are claiming that their bible is in line with the original manuscript.

Did you not claim that you were a Christian for some years? How come you're pretending knowledge that you did not have previously?

Christians who have taken the time to check out JW claims have found them to be dishonest. The "translators" of the NWT that the JW use have no bearing on the original manuscripts - and you of all former "Christians" should have known that. No JW member of any scholarship has been able to refute the challenges levelled against the NWT of the Bible that the JW use.

babs787:

The catholics are not in line with Protestant and they are claiming that their bible is in line with the original manuscript.

Depends on what you call "their bible". What Protestants and Catholics have debated between themselves is a matter of interpretation, and not of differences in "their bible." The same John 1:1 that declares Jesus Christ as God has not been debated between them.

babs787:

The protestant too, are claiming same.

No difference between them. What did John 1:1 and Isaiah 9:6 say?

babs787:

Likewise the Mormons, seventh day adventist etc,

As for the Mormons, we know that the so-called translation by Joseph Smith is no translation at all. At best, he pretended a 'translation' of the KJV of the Bible where he sought to edit out verses that did not rhyme with his heresies.

Even the Mormons today make excuses as to why they themselves never use Joseph Smith's translation in teaching their own members. They say that Joseph Smith did not have the time to "finish" his 'translation' - the very same excuse that Muslims (including you) have given for the abrogated verses of the Qur'an. Further, the doctrines of Mormonism are always evolving and changing - not so long ago the Mormon president was interviewed about the Brigham Young doctrine of Adam being "the only God" with which Mormons have to do. His comments? "I don't know that we teach that doctrine!"

If you take the time to further investigate M[/b]ormonism, then you will make a very interesting discovery that it is a cousin to [b]M[/b]ohammedanism - they have the same traits in twisting the Bible into their own dishonest tales without revelation from God.

And how do the seventh day adventists make the same claim as you accused?

babs787:

The question now is,

[b]Which do we agree to since they are all claiming to have written their bibles in line with the original manuscript.

Having studied the texts for yourself, you know which translation of the Bible preserves the sense of God's Word as given to the inspired men who penned the holy writ.

The same questions should be advanced as regarding the Qur'an:

#1. Since the Qur'an ceases to be the word of "Allah" whenever it is "translated", what then is left of the words you cannot understand or interprete from Arabic to another language?

#2. Since the Qur'an bears witness of itself that certain verses are abrogated (which has been your own claim on this Forum), then how can the remaining verses be the perfect word of God?

#3. Knowing that every English translation of the Qur'an says differerent things in addition to "abrogated verses", then it makes sense that Muslims have only the word of men dressed up as the Word of God - if we are to follow your own reasoning.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by babs787(m): 1:01pm On Feb 20, 2007
@4 GET me,

I can see that the below have proven the same set of questions you have been asking me. I also told you to create a fresh thread for your questions but you declined. Dont worry, its time to answer your questions.

Before I go on, kindly answer these simple questions.

Now if they say, say "4 get me was beside gbade".

1.Do we say they are one being?

2. What does beside mean to you?

Something beside another cannot be that same thing.

Ponder on my questions till I come with detailed response

Cheers
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by babs787(m): 1:12pm On Feb 20, 2007
Another question,

Why was trinity not preached among early prophets?

Take care till I come your way.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by trinigirl1(f): 1:18pm On Feb 20, 2007
babs787:

Thumbs up for the discovery. I am very sure all of you must be Protestants but you have to show Jehovah witnesses, catholics, mormons etc your findings.

Take care.

babs,

I am not affiliated with any religion and do not subscribe to the tenets of any organised religon's philosophy.

But I'm glad you're coming around and admitting to the truth of the Bible's content.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by babs787(m): 1:26pm On Feb 20, 2007
@ trini girl,

Thanks for the post.

I never go against the contents or whatever but all am saying is that if all the bibles have been written according to the original manuscripts, we wouldnt be seeing what we are having today.

Once again, thanks for the post and may God bless.

@ 4 get me

I just finished chatting with a witness friend of mine and he told me that I shouldnt believe you that they (witnesses), are the one having their bible written according to the original manuscript.

But never mind, I will not base my response on jehovah witnesses but will be direct.

Am cooking your response and when I am through, I will serve you real hot

Mind you, dont salivate, wait till it comes.

Attend to my questions till I come your way.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by trinigirl1(f): 1:38pm On Feb 20, 2007
Noah's Ark

There is only one verse in the Bible which gives us a hint of where we the ark came to rest, "the ark rested, upon the mountains of Ararat." Genesis 8:4.

Where is Ararat?  The name Ararat is a large area or ancient country covering eastern Turkey, western Iran and western Russia

The Ark has been found and confirmed since 1960.

"The American Academians confirmed the soil pile nearby the village of Uzengili in the township of Dogubeyazit is Noah's Ark.  The surrounding area is declared to be a national park and it is opened to tourism."  

They even found more conclusive evidence of animal dung, cat hair, the base of an antler, human hair, and man-made fiber.

Tle last photo shows the ark deeply embedded in the surrounding terrain.  In 1978, when Mr. Wyatt, one of the excavators, was returning to Nashville, he prayed that God would send an earthquake to "excavate" the site.

When arriving in Nashville the headlines read "Earthquake in Eastern Turkey."

The earth dropped from around the sides of the ark, defining the formation more clearly and making it more accessible for research.

Please enjoy, and let God be true and every man a liar.

God Bless!


Source: http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm

Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by 4getme1(m): 2:12pm On Feb 20, 2007
@babs787,

babs787:

I can see that the below have proven the same set of questions you have been asking me. I also told you to create a fresh thread for your questions but you declined. Dont worry, its time to answer your questions.

I didn't see the sense of creating another thread just for babs787 as you had earlier hinted that it's never your turn to answer questions.

babs787:

Before I go on, kindly answer these simple questions.

Now if they say, say "4 get me was beside gbade".

1.Do we say they are one being?

2. What does beside mean to you?

Something beside another cannot be that same thing.

Ponder on my questions till I come with detailed response

Blank statements that have no bases do not require answers. If you are referring to John 1:1, I advise you go back and read, study, and assimilate the meaning of that verse before you post something tending to ignorance.

babs787:

Another question,

Why was trinity not preached among early prophets?

Depends on who you include as" early prophets".

The Bible clearly teaches the Trinity in both the Old and New Testaments, even though the word does not in itself appear in the Bible. There are several other words we use today to express Biblical teachings well established in both the Old and New Testaments. Not only so, there various concepts that Muslims now teach as Islamic tenets which do not appear in the Qur'an.

The doctrine of the Trinity is well established on the pronouncements of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19) and "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

I just finished chatting with a witness friend of mine and he told me that I shouldnt believe you that they (witnesses), are the one having their bible written according to the original manuscript.

In just the same way, I could simply claim to engage in a chat with a Muslim who could confirm every allegation levelled against Muhammad and the Qur'an. Who are you and your witness friend trying to play pranks with? I've told you before: take the time to make a careful study of the Greek manuscripts of just two references - John 1:1 and Isaiah 9:6 - and you will not find your witness friend able to stand up to scrutiny.


But never mind, I will not base my response on jehovah witnesses but will be direct.

Am cooking your response and when I am through, I will serve you real hot

I don't see your point in having made reference to your witness friend's chat in the first place.


Mind you, don't salivate, wait till it comes.

Attend to my questions till I come your way.

What questions have you really been asking? Just making hole-and-corner claims is not the same thing as asking questions.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by babs787(m): 2:29pm On Feb 20, 2007
@ 4 get me

Once again, I saw your new post.

Please try giving me the verses in full from your bible and tell me the version you are using. Also, tell me the reason for quoting Psalm 2v12 and Isaiah 9v6 and who they both refer to.

I will respond to your questions but let me get where you are going. John 1v1 is well known but let me know the reason for the other two.

Answer my questions below

Now if they say, say "4 get me was beside gbade".

1.Do we say they are one being?

2. What does beside mean to you?

3. Why was trinity not preached among early prophets like Moses, Abraham, Noah, etc and if preached, let me have the verses from your bible (Old Testament)?

Ponder on my questions and let me have your response.If you do say my questions above do not need response so also yours will be treated despite the fact that I have answers for you.

Till I come your way

Cheers
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by KAG: 7:34pm On Feb 20, 2007
trini_girl:

Noah's Ark

There is only one verse in the Bible which gives us a hint of where we the ark came to rest, "the ark rested, upon the mountains of Ararat." Genesis 8:4.

Where is Ararat? The name Ararat is a large area or ancient country covering eastern Turkey, western Iran and western Russia

The Ark has been found and confirmed since 1960.

That's not true.

"The American Academians confirmed the soil pile nearby the village of Uzengili in the township of Dogubeyazit is Noah's Ark. The surrounding area is declared to be a national park and it is opened to tourism."

They even found more conclusive evidence of animal dung, cat hair, the base of an antler, human hair, and man-made fiber.

Tle last photo shows the ark deeply embedded in the surrounding terrain. In 1978, when Mr. Wyatt, one of the excavators, was returning to Nashville, he prayed that God would send an earthquake to "excavate" the site.

When arriving in Nashville the headlines read "Earthquake in Eastern Turkey."

The earth dropped from around the sides of the ark, defining the formation more clearly and making it more accessible for research.

Please enjoy, and let God be true and every man a liar.

God Bless!


Source: http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm

You've been lied to (I don't know what that does for the "let God be true and every man a liar" statement) and badly too. I posted this a while back, and it deals with Ron "pious fraud" Wyatt and the Ark:

"If Ron "I found the blood of Jesus, honest" Wyatt doesn't convince the skeptics out there, then…something more tangible than a hack will have to be presented. I can't believe people still take Ron "I don't trust scientists, so I won't let them see and test my discoveries" Wyatt seriously. I mean even AiG have pretty much agreed with the E.A.C. and shown the guy for the fraud he was. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp, http://www.isitso.org/guide/wyatt.html, and finally tentmaker's: http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/

"To date, none of those who invested this money has seen a shred of scientific evidence substantiating Ron Wyatt's claims. Where is the report from the blood sample analysis of what Ron claims is the blood of Jesus Christ? Where is the Ark of the Covenant? Which museum is housing the ancient chariot wheels he claimed to have been from the Red Sea Crossing? There is no evidence because the video is a fraud. On the Noah's Ark video, all the so-called scientific data cannot be duplicated, a clear sign that what was given the labs was false data"

Incidentally, I used the same Troy example in the thread (must get new material!): https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-21231.0.html
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by 4getme1(m): 7:49pm On Feb 20, 2007
@babs787,

It is no wonder that you drum up claims of having been once a Christian, and yet sound so distant from Biblical teachings. I was going to ignore your request. However, I'll just humble myself and pay heed to my friend sitting beside me.

babs787:

@ 4 get me

Once again, I saw your new post.

Please try giving me the verses in full from your bible and tell me the version you are using. Also, tell me the reason for quoting Psalm 2v12 and Isaiah 9v6 and who they both refer to.

Isaiah 9:6 - KJV
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Isaiah 9:6 - LITV
"For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

----------           -------------            -----------             ------------

Psalm 2:12 - KJV
"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

LITV
"Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Oh the blessings of all those who flee to Him for refuge!"


These are not the only versions of the English translations I use in my study; but they have been very helpful in as far as the original sense of the manuscripts are concerned. As you can see, both Psa. 2:12 and Isa. 9:6 are pointing to the Messiah.

babs787:

I will respond to your questions but let me get where you are going. John 1v1 is well known but let me know the reason for the other two.

John 1:1 - KJV, EMTV & LITV
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The reason for the other two quoted above is simply to establish the fact for you that the Old Testement prophets knew that the Messiah is God Himself - and that the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is not a New Testament heresy as many Muslims are led to believe.

A second reason was to point out to you that Muhammad had no justification for denying what the Old Testements clearly referenced. These verses in both Psa. 2:12 and Isa. 9:6 have never been altered - not even one time - before and after Muhammad was born. That is why I have asked once and again that Muslims who believe the dishonest denials of Muhammad should please tell us what the "original Psalms and Isaiah" say - word for word in their direct texts.

A third reason is to show you that there was a basis for Muhammad not having made reference to the prophet Isaiah or Zachariah - those prophets (besides others) clearly wrote about the deity of the Messiah who comes to redeem man.

babs787:

Answer my questions below

Now if they say, say "4 get me was beside gbade".

1.Do we say they are one being?

2. What does beside mean to you?

What verses are you referencing the word "beside" from? That's why I won't be gullible to just take your blank statements and address them willy-nilly.

babs787:

3. Why was trinity not preached among early prophets like Moses, Abraham, Noah, etc and if preached, let me have the verses from your bible (Old Testament)?

Depends on what you mean by "preached."

Moses recognized the Trinity right from Genesis when by inspiration he wrote: "And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" (Gen. 1:26).

Noah is not presented in the Bible as a writing prophet; but the God he knew was no different from the One Moses wrote about in the Law. Noah was simply asked to warn his generation of God's judgement that was to fall upon the ungodly world of his day - and he did precisely that. "And Noah did so, according to all that God commanded him, so he did" (Gen. 6:22).

Abraham recognized the one who spoke to Him as the very same One that Moses spoke about. The patriarch may not have known the LORD by His covenant name revealed to Moses (Exo. 6:3); but even so, the same God was often known as "LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel" (cf. I Kings 18:36 and Matt. 22:32). Abraham was not a preaching or writing prophet, as you may suppose.

Nevertheless, among the preaching and writing prophets of the Old Testament, the Trinity is clearly taught - as in the references earlier offered. This in no way mean that three "Gods" were being preached, and there are verses in the OT that clearly demonstrate this.

babs787:

Ponder on my questions and let me have your response.If you do say my questions above do not need response so also yours will be treated despite the fact that I have answers for you.

I hope you would be happy to see my response above.

By the way, if on the other hand, Muhammad is said to have taught mono[/b]theism, how many deities were speaking with plural pronouns ([b]WE, US, and OUR) in the Qur'an in precisely the same position as Allah? When we read "We created man" in the Qur'an, to whom does the ""WE" refer - and is that not disguised [b]poly[/b]theism? How do you defend a "monotheism" of the "Allah" in the Qur'an when clearly there are several of them?
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by 4getme1(m): 7:55pm On Feb 20, 2007
@KAG,

KAG:

". . . Where is the Ark of the Covenant?. . . There is no evidence because the video is a fraud. On the Noah's Ark video, all the so-called scientific data cannot be duplicated, a clear sign that what was given the labs was false data"

That is simply not true. The same people challenging the videos have been asked to go to the site to identify the object in question with only one goal - to declare that there is no such object on the location. But rather than do that, they came out with that terse claim that the video was false data. How they managed to conclude that is an on-going debate.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by KAG: 8:21pm On Feb 20, 2007
4get_me:

@KAG,

That is simply not true. The same people challenging the videos have been asked to go to the site to identify the object in question with only one goal - to declare that there is no such object on the location. But rather than do that, they came out with that terse claim that the video was false data. How they managed to conclude that is an on-going debate.

There is an object on the location - in fact there are many objects on the location; however, the objects are all natural. To ask them to show there's no object on the site, is dishonest at best. Furthermore, if you read the Answers in Genesis link, for example, you'll see how they managed to conclude Wyatt's claims were lies.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by trinigirl1(f): 8:35pm On Feb 20, 2007
An archaeologist was digging in the Negev Desert in Israel and came upon a casket containing a mummy.

After examining it, he called the curator of a prestigious natural-history museum.

"I've just discovered a 3,000 year-old mummy of a man who died of heart failure!" the excited scientist exclaimed.

To which the curator replied, "Bring him in. We'll check it out."

A week later, the amazed curator called the archaeologist.

"You were right about the mummy's age and cause of death. How in the world did you know?"

"Easy. There was a piece of paper in his hand that said, '10,000 Shekels on Goliath'."
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by trinigirl1(f): 8:36pm On Feb 20, 2007
Why was Cleopatra so negative?

Because she was queen of denial. grin
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by 4getme1(m): 8:40pm On Feb 20, 2007
@KAG,

KAG:

There is an object on the location - in fact there are many objects on the location; however, the objects are all natural. To ask them to show there's no object on the site, is dishonest at best. Furthermore, if you read the Answers in Genesis link, for example, you'll see how they managed to conclude Wyatt's claims were lies.

I actually thought so myself - that to ask them to show there's no object on the site was a bit quizzical. But having tried to follow the argument, I came to understand that the challenge was put forward based on the claims earlier made by those skeptics that (a) there were no objects on the site; and (b) they have failed to identify what object was on that site.

Anyone can make allegations and accusations across the fence. Not that I'm in for Wyatt's claims. However, I am still wondering why the particular object actually located in question is yet to be identified if it was all a fraud. Or did I miss it out in following the article you recommended on Answers in Genesis?
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by trinigirl1(f): 8:45pm On Feb 20, 2007
*sigh*

again i tire.

no matter how much proof people get they will always believe what the want to believe, and not the truth, even if it's staring at them from a mountain peak in Turkey. smiley

I think I'm sticking to the Games and Cartoons forum from today. grin
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by KAG: 9:09pm On Feb 20, 2007
4get_me:

@KAG,

I actually thought so myself - that to ask them to show there's no object on the site was a bit quizzical. But having tried to follow the argument, I came to understand that the challenge was put forward based on the claims earlier made by those skeptics that (a) there were no objects on the site;

I'm not aware of any sceptics that have made that claim

and (b) they have failed to identify what object was on that site.

General consensus seems to be that it is a natural formation

Anyone can make allegations and accusations across the fence. Not that I'm in for Wyatt's claims. However, I am still wondering why the particular object actually located in question is yet to be identified if it was all a fraud. Or did I miss it out in following the article you recommended on Answers in Genesis?

Yes.

By the way, here's more from the tentmaker link:

Briefly, the rock formation has a rather streamlined shape, is of a size consistent with the Biblical dimensions given in cubits, and is within the region called "the mountains of Ararat" in Genesis. However, that is where its similarity with the Genesis Ark ends. The formation is situated in a sloping valley and is surrounded by a deposit of loose soil and crushed rock which is slowly sliding down hill, flowing much as a glacier flows. The formation (properly called the Durupinar Site after its discoverer, Ilhan Durupinar) consists of a stable area around which the material flows, and just as does water when it flows around a rock in a stream bed, the site has acquired a streamlined shape, due to the dynamics of the slowly flowing material. It's sides, which are in places nearly vertical, are abraded by the flow, and are in their character exactly equivalent to the scoured vertical walls on the hillsides adjacent to the valley. The material with the formation is also equivalent to that in the surrounding hillsides.
Samples taken of every rock type in the formation have been chemically analyzed and studied in thin section under a microscope. While it is acknowledged that the rock types are rather exotic, there is nothing present which must be attributed to human construction.


The geologic scenario which is evidently responsible is rather remarkable. The suite of rocks present represent a ophiolite belt, extremely rare on the earth's surface. These (ultra-basic) dark crystalline rocks are the type normally found on the ocean floor, and were squeezed to the surface at this location, in one other locale in Turkey, and in only a few places worldwide. The several rock types give evidence of hydrothermal activity on the ocean floor, and are highly altered. Manganese nodules, frequently found on the ocean floor are also present, and are misinterpreted by some as ""metal fittings" on the Ark, as are occasional rocks high in iron.

Advocates of the site claim to have found linear bands of metallic material representing "beams" in the Ark. These were discovered using a technique commonly known as "dowsing," complete with brass rods held in one's hand, which dip downward or cross in the presence of the desired metal, or so it is claimed. (This is similar to "witching" for water using a forked stick, a practice almost universally condemned by evangelicals. There are no known principles of physics by which it operates.) According to Dr. John Baumgardner, creationist geophysicist and formerly an advocate of the site, the anomalies discerned by this technique were not confirmed by use of a metal detector, which operates on known principles of physics. The presence of manganese modules throughout the area, as well as iron and copper ore nearby render any sober metal detection effort futile.

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BoatShaped.html

Incidentally, AiG and ICR's John Morris are YEC's who actually believe in (the implausible) literal Naoh flood. While they've been lambasted in the past for perceived disingenuity, I feel they can't be faulted in this matter.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by KAG: 9:13pm On Feb 20, 2007
trini_girl:

*sigh*

again i tire.

no matter how much proof people get they will always believe what the want to believe, and not the truth, even if it's staring at them from a mountain peak in Turkey. smiley

Indeed.

I think I'm sticking to the Games and Cartoons forum from today. grin

If that's how you feel.

trini_girl:

An archaeologist was digging in the Negev Desert in Israel and came upon a casket containing a mummy.

After examining it, he called the curator of a prestigious natural-history museum.

"I've just discovered a 3,000 year-old mummy of a man who died of heart failure!" the excited scientist exclaimed.

To which the curator replied, "Bring him in. We'll check it out."

A week later, the amazed curator called the archaeologist.

"You were right about the mummy's age and cause of death. How in the world did you know?"

"Easy. There was a piece of paper in his hand that said, '10,000 Shekels on Goliath'."

I know it's a joke, but why is Goliath placed at 3,000 years ago?
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by 4getme1(m): 9:20pm On Feb 20, 2007
@KAG,

Thanks for that article from tentmakers.

KAG:

Incidentally, AiG and ICR's John Morris are YEC's who actually believe in (the implausible) literal Naoh flood. While they've been lambasted in the past for perceived disingenuity, I feel they can't be faulted in this matter.

I don't know, but it's amazing that we share the same inference here about John Morris and crew on this one.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by babs787(m): 10:40am On Feb 21, 2007
@ 4 get me,

Posted by 4 get me
It is no wonder that you drum up claims of having been once a Christian, and yet sound so distant from Biblical teachings. I was going to ignore your request. However, I'll just humble myself and pay heed to my friend sitting beside me.


You dont have to ignore unless you have no answers. If you likewise resorts to ignoring question, I wont hesitate to do same. W are all learning here, so no issue of ignoring questions.

ISAIAH 9 V6

Isaiah 9:6 - KJV
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Isaiah 9:6 - LITV
"For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."


Let me add from 7: of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of host will perform this.

Having done the above, let me break the verse for you

Government shall be on his shoulder

Did jesus ever rule his people? He was never allowed.
Was he king?

John 18v33-37: , then pilate entered into the judgment hall again and called jesus and said unto him, 'art thou the king of the jews'? Jesus answered, "my KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD. if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the jews BUT NOW IS MY KINGDOM NOT FROM THENCE.Pilate therefore said unto him, 'art thou A KING THEN?' Jesus answered, 'thou sayest that I am a king,

He was never king and he never ruled, as a result, the above prophesy is not for him.

Wonderful

He was not the only one to be accorded the word 'wonderful' .All prophets are wonderful. They all came with miracles and we learnt that Jesus said he couldnt do anything by himself

John 5v30: , i can of mine do nothing.

So he is not the wonderful referred to here.

Counsellor.

The prophesy is not for him as we read jesus telling his disciples that he needed to go so as allow room for the COMFORTER TO COME. (john 16v5-7).

He was never allowed to talk, as a result of this, he told them that it was necessary for him to go so that the comforter would come (the last prophet) and 'when he come, he would tell you all things and guide you into all truth'.
Jesus was never a counsellor.

The Mighty God

He was not the only one being referred to as God. Mind you, small 'g' is supposed to be used in John 1v1 but never mind I will still talk on that. Moses too was made god for Pharaoh. If you dont know, one of the thieves name crucificted together with jesus is called JESUS BARABAS. meaning that he was another god. Jesus was never a God and will never be.

[The Prince of Peace."

Is jesus really prince of peace? lets read the below verses

Mathew 10v34: 'do not think that I HAVE COME TO MAKE PEACE ON EARTH? I HAVE NOT COME TO BRING PEACE BUT A SWORD!!!!!!. For I have come to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER.

Luke 12v49: ' I CAME TO CAST FIRE UPON THE EARTH AND WOULD THAT IT WERE ALREADY KINDLED, DO YOU THINK THAT I HAVE COME TO GIVE PEACE ON EARTH? NO. I TELL YOU, BUT RATHER DIVISION FOR FROM HENCEFORTH in one house there will be five divided, three against two, and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother.

hmmmmmmmmmm. Did you read all that. So the above prophesy couldnt have been for Jesus.
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by babs787(m): 11:08am On Feb 21, 2007
@ 4 get me,

PSALM 2 V 12

Sorry for stressing you to quote the versions for me. I will not be requiring you to do same again.

Posted by 4 get me
Psalm 2:12 - KJV
"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

LITV
"Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Oh the blessings of all those who flee to Him for refuge!"


Dear brother, this is what I have in NEW LIVING TRANSLATION

V12: submit to God's royal son or he will become angry and you will be destroyed in the midst of your pursuit -  for his anger can flare up in an instant.But what joy for all who find protection in him.

Read from the beginning. It was David speaking about those that do not believed in him.It has no relationship with Jesus. It is because you see the God's royal son, David was not the only being referred to as God's son. we have lots of of examples in your bible. Read the above verse very well, do the verse in any have anything to do with Jesus? Did jesus ever destroy the jews that didnt do his wish, he couldnt do anything when he was accused of proclaiming himself as king and also not allowing Jews to pay tribute to Caesar.

Did he get annoy to the extent of destroying the jews and were the jews destroyed? Nothing like that

Brother, the above speaks of nobody else than David. And the verse is in accordance with the war fought then.

Posted by 4 get me
These are not the only versions of the English translations I use in my study; but they have been very helpful in as far as the original sense of the manuscripts are concerned. As you can see, both Psa. 2:12 and Isa. 9:6 are pointing to the Messiah.


The verses have no relationship with Jesus.
The book of Psalm was refering to David while Isaiah made reference to Prophet Muhammed (saw).

Hold on for the last post on john 1v1
Re: Archaelogical Proofs That The Bible Is Fact Not Fiction by babs787(m): 12:55pm On Feb 21, 2007
@ 4 get me,


JOHN 1v1


John 1:1 - KJV, EMTV & LITV
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Posted by 4 get me
The reason for the other two quoted above is simply to establish the fact for you that the Old Testement prophets knew that the Messiah is God Himself - and that the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is not a New Testament heresy as many Muslims are led to believe.


Nowhere do we have such claim in the old testament

Posted by 4 get me
A second reason was to point out to you that Muhammad had no justification for denying what the Old Testements clearly referenced. These verses in both Psa. 2:12 and Isa. 9:6 have never been altered - not even one time - before and after Muhammad was born. That is why I have asked once and again that Muslims who believe the dishonest denials of Muhammad should please tell us what the "original Psalms and Isaiah" say - word for word in their direct texts.


I have answered the above and they dont in any way have relationship with Jesus

Posted by 4 get me
A third reason is to show you that there was a basis for Muhammad not having made reference to the prophet Isaiah or Zachariah - those prophets (besides others) clearly wrote about the deity of the Messiah who comes to redeem man.


None of the early prophets before Jesus wrote about the deity of Jesus.Now it seems I have answered part of your questions. My response here will also be for your number 5 question:

#5. Why did Muhammad not mention Isaiah in the Qur'an as one of the prophets of God, even though the Jews recognized him as such, and Jesus quoted from the same Isaiah?

Read the below verse to show that some prophets were mentioned while some were not

Quran 40 v 78: , we did aforetime send apostles before thee: of them THERE ARE SOME WHOSE STORY, WE HAVE RELATED TO THEE and SOME WHOSE STORY WE HAVE NOT RELATED TO THEE.

Read the below to know that Isaiah prophesised the Last Prophet (saw). The prophet (saw) started the revelation with the verse below

Quran96 v 1-5: Read in the name of thy Lord and Chrisher who created man from a mere clot of congealed blood. Read! and thy Lord is most bountiful, He who taught (the use of) the pen. Taught man that which he knew not.

Here, Angel Gabriel came to the prophet with the revelation and told him to read but he couldnt read (because he was unlettered) but the angel pressed him further to read in the name of the Lord and he did.

The below verse will clarify it that he couldnt read nor write

Quran 7 v 158: , the prophet (Muhammed saw) who can neither read nor write.

Now compare the above verses with the below verse

Isaiah 29 v 12: and the book is delivered to him that is not learned saying 'read this I pray thee and he saith, 'I am not learned'

Hope you have seen that he was prophesised in the book of Isaiah

I asked the meaning of the word 'beside' but you waived it aside.

Posted by 4 get me
Moses recognized the Trinity right from Genesis when by inspiration he wrote: "And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" (Gen. 1:26).


Who are the 'we' God referred to?

Posted by 4 get me
Nevertheless, among the preaching and writing prophets of the Old Testament, the Trinity is clearly taught - as in the references earlier offered. This in no way mean that three "Gods" were being preached, and there are verses in the OT that clearly demonstrate this.


No where trinity was taught

John 1 v1

The statement that John reproduced in his gospel however was uttered not by John but by A Philo of Alexandria, years before Jesus or John were born. It is therefore completely unlikely that Philo was even remotely referring to Jesus.

There is also another reason for not capitalizing the "G" in John 1:1, considering the Greek of the above verse which disproves the assertion that Jesus is referred to as God in the verse. In the verse above, the first time the word God is used, the Greek is "TON THEOS", which means "a god". However, the stronger Greek word "HO THEOS" which means "Divine God" was used for satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4. The NIV Bible Author wrote "god" for Satan instead of "God", which the word itself literally means The God. The second time the word God is used,", and the word was God," the word for God is TONTHEOS, which also means "a god".

Europeans have evolved a system of capital and small letters non-existent in Greek. The God, HOTHEOS is translated as God with a capital G, whereas Tontheos, which means A or ANY God is translated with a small g, god. In this case however, we see the unlawful translators trying to prove Jesus being God by putting capital G for both whereas it doesn't belong in the case of the "word".

Even the above verse does not speak of trinity but of duality. i.e the word was with God.

Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is honestly presented as "In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."

The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

And again in the dictionary of the Bible, under the heading of "God" we read , "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"
The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317

In yet another Bible we read:
"The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine"
The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, by Dr. James Moffatt

Dear Brother,
If we look at a different verse, 2 Corinthians 4:4, we find the exact same word (ho theos) that was used in John 1:1 to describe God Almighty is now used to describe the devil, however, now the system of translation has been changed:
"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."

According to the system of the previous verse and the English language, the translation of the description of the Devil should also have been written as "The God" with a capital "G." If Paul was inspired to use the exact same words to describe the Devil, then why should we change it? Why is "The God" translated as simply "the god" when referring to the devil, while "divine" is translated as the almighty "God" when referring to "The Word"? Are we now starting to get a glimpse of how the "translation" of the Bible took place?

Below are examples where 'god' is used

"I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" Psalms 82:6:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh"
Exodus 7:1

"the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."
2 Corinthians 4:4

Now if I say that "4get me is a prince' and that '4get me' is the prince surely will give different meaning. So also the above verse

Lets check some verses to see if really Jesus is God.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." John 13:16.

The author here wanted us to understand that God is greater than Jesus.

also

"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." John 14:28.
Can someone "go" to himself? Can someone be "greater" than himself?

"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:" John 17:1.
If John meant to tell us that "Jesus and God are one and the same" then shall we understand from this verse that God is saying to Himself "Self, glorify me so that I may glorify myself"? Does this sound like this is the message of John?

"While I (Jesus) was with them in the world, I kept them in thy (God's) name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." John 17:12.
If the author of John wanted us to believe that Jesus and God are one person then are we to understand from this verse that God is saying to Himself "Self, while I was in the world I kept them in your name, self. Those who I gave to myself I have kept , "? Is this what the author intended us to understand from his writings?

"Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." John 17:24.

Similarly, did the author intend us to interpret this as "Self, I will that they also whom I have given myself be with me where I am; that they my behold my glory which I have given myself, for I loved myself before the foundation of the world"?

So, we begin to see that in order to understand the writings of a given author, it is necessary to not take a single quotation from him in a vacuum and then interpret his whole message based upon that one sentence (and a badly mistranslated version of that sentence at that).

Who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

The "Gospel of John" is popularly believed by the majority of regular church-goers to be the work of the apostle John the son of Zebedee. There is a serious doubt as to who wrote the book.

In the dictionary of the Bible by John Mckenzie we read
"A. Feuillet notes that authorship here may be taken loosely."
Such claims are based on such verses as 21:24:
"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true."?

Did the apostle John write this about himself? Also see 21:20, 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20-23. The "disciple who Jesus loved" according to the Church is John himself, but the author of this gospel speaks of him as a different person.

Further, The Gospel of John was written at or near Ephesus between the years 110 and 115 (some say 95-100) of the Christian era. John of Zebedee was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE, long before the fourth Gospel was written. Did the Holy Ghost "inspire" the apostle John's ghost to write this gospel sixty years after he was killed? .

In other words, what we have here is a gospel which is popularly believed to have been written by the apostle John, but which in fact was not written by him. In fact no one really knows for certain who wrote this gospel.

My next post will be on "we" in the Quran

(1) (2) (3) (Reply)

Kindly Advise, Is Sports-betting A Sin? / Satan Ministry: Special Recognition For Obadiah777. / Notable Converts To Christianity From Islam

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2021 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 463
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.