Is The Bible Evidence Of Anything?

[Viktor]

The bible contains much witness testimony. Witness testimony is acceptable as evidence in every court of law.
In many cases, biblical events have more than one witness to say they happened.

If you claim the bible is full of lies, I ask you this: People don't lie without a reason. Why would they lie?

 

[surada]

The bible contains much witness testimony. Witness testimony is acceptable as evidence in every court of law.
In many cases, biblical events have more than one witness to say they happened.

There are many scenes in the Bible when no one else is present to record the dialogue so I wonder how that was done. Dramatic license?

 

[Votto]

It's evidence for some historical events that happened. Not for the magical nonsense that the ancient primitives believed was behind it all.

Bernie Sanders wrote the Bible?

 

[Blues Man]

Historians accept oral testimony and so do courts. You are wrong about Jesus.

What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?

Today some claim that Jesus is just an idea, rather than a real historical figure, but there is a good deal of written evidence for his existence 2,000 years ago

www.theguardian.com

There was probably a man named Jesus who lived but he was just a man and a charismatic religious leader.

That's all he was.

 

[Colin norris]

The bible contains much witness testimony. Witness testimony is acceptable as evidence in every court of law.
In many cases, biblical events have more than one witness to say they happened.

I'm very doubtful there were witnesses with literacy to record it.
All these wonderful events and miracles etc happened in a small area in the middle East. Doesn't that raise suspicion in your head? Not a miracle outside the place. How convenient.

The events themselves were fanciful to begin with. Turning a woman into salt, immaculate conception and virgin births, walking on water etc. Real people witnessed that??? I don't think so.

We now know all that shit cannot possibly have happened. It's is totally false and the witnesses are liars.

 

[surada]

I'm very doubtful there were witnesses with literacy to record it.
All these wonderful events and miracles etc happened in a small area in the middle East. Doesn't that raise suspicion in your head? Not a miracle outside the place. How convenient.

The events themselves were fanciful to begin with. Turning a woman into salt, immaculate conception and virgin births, walking on water etc. Real people witnessed that??? I don't think so.

We now know all that shit cannot possibly have happened. It's is totally false and the witnesses are liars.

The stories are memorable.. Perhaps the message is more important than the supernatural aspects of the tale.

 

[JoeBlow]

Historians accept oral testimony and so do courts. You are wrong about Jesus.

What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?

Today some claim that Jesus is just an idea, rather than a real historical figure, but there is a good deal of written evidence for his existence 2,000 years ago

www.theguardian.com

Courts call that hearsay. So no, don't accept it. And only fake historians accept it.
Jesus probably lived and died, but there were several guys named Jesus preaching in that area at that time.

 

[JoeBlow]

Rubbish. It was 'written' in the times it portrays, as textual analysis conclusively proves; there are no anachronisms at all, and the places and social situations and politics are all 100% contemporary with the times. This would not be possible if it was all fabricated several generations later, or by Constantine hundreds of years later, as some particularly stupid loons keep trying to peddle. The ortodox version is indeed the original and correct version; there are too many crosschecks and copies around to compare to, and anyone trying to rewrite anyting in it wou;d have been laughed at and marginalized, no matter who they were. They were not cowards and easily cowed or bullied, not even by Roman Emperors or anybody else, even under torture.

There's no real proof that anything major in the bible happened.

 

[surada]

Rubbish. It was 'written' in the times it portrays, as textual analysis conclusively proves; there are no anachronisms at all, and the places and social situations and politics are all 100% contemporary with the times.

This would not be possible if it was all fabricated several generations later, or by Constantine hundreds of years later, as some particularly stupid loons keep trying to peddle. The ortodox version is indeed the original and correct version; there are too many crosschecks and copies around to compare to, and anyone trying to rewrite anyting in it wou;d have been laughed at and marginalized, no matter who they were. They were not cowards and easily cowed or bullied, not even by Roman Emperors or anybody else, even under torture.

There are many anachronisms and errors of geography.

Luke especiallly doesn't know his locations.. and Ur of the Chaldeans didn't exist in the time of Abraham.

Egypt controlled Sinai and Canaan in the time of the Exodus.

 

[DudleySmith]

There are many anachronisms and errors of geography.

Luke especiallly doesn't know his locations.. and Ur of the Chaldeans didn't exist in the time of Abraham.

Egypt controlled Sinai and Canaan in the time of the Exodus.

More rubbish. Nothing is 'written' later re the New Testament; Revelation was the only book written after the destruction of the Temple. As for the OT, it's accurate according to what the writers believed at the time, which is all that is needed.

 

[DudleySmith]

There's no real proof that anything major in the bible happened.

Lame handwave. Nothing in the New Testament can be proven to have been written at any other time.

 

[surada]

More rubbish.

You have never read the Bible,have you. These errors are obvious to everyone.. Is your faith so fragile?

The stories are exaggerated to the maximum degree. Start with something simple like demographcs.

Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia

Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Iron AgePersian PeriodHellenic and Hasmonean PeriodRoman and Byzantine PeriodMiddle AgesEarly Ottoman PeriodLate Ottoman PeriodBritish Mandate EraLate Arab and Muslim Immigration to PalestineModern Era

A study by Yigal Shiloh of The Hebrew University suggests that the population of Palestine in the Iron Agecould have never exceeded one million. He writes: "... the population of the country in the Roman-Byzantine period greatly exceeded that in the Iron Age..."

Shiloh accepted Israeli archaeologist Magen Broshi's estimates of Palestine's population during the Second Temple Era, 1,000,000-1,250,000 and noted that Iron Age Israel's population must have been less considering population growth. "...If we acce…

 

[DudleySmith]

You have never read the Bible,have you. These errors are obvious to everyone.. Is your faith so fragile?

The stories are exaggerated to the maximum degree. Start with something simple like demographcs.

Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia

Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Iron AgePersian PeriodHellenic and Hasmonean PeriodRoman and Byzantine PeriodMiddle AgesEarly Ottoman PeriodLate Ottoman PeriodBritish Mandate EraLate Arab and Muslim Immigration to PalestineModern Era

A study by Yigal Shiloh of The Hebrew University suggests that the population of Palestine in the Iron Agecould have never exceeded one million. He writes: "... the population of the country in the Roman-Byzantine period greatly exceeded that in the Iron Age..."

Shiloh accepted Israeli archaeologist Magen Broshi's estimates of Palestine's population during the Second Temple Era, 1,000,000-1,250,000 and noted that Iron Age Israel's population must have been less considering population growth. "...If we acce…

More bullshit. Your Idiot Boy was referring to the New Testament and the Jesus era. And, the OT is literature and allegory, with some history, not a history text, another point you will no doubt ignore. Nobody on your troll farm is qualified in literary criticism anyway. We know for a fact you have never read it, just some web pages here and there, and Wiki articles.

 

[JoeBlow]

Lame handwave. Nothing in the New Testament can be proven to have been written at any other time.

It's been carbon tested to several generations after the facts.

 

[surada]

More bullshit. Your Idiot Boy was referring to the New Testament and the Jesus era. And, the OT is literature and allegory, with some history, not a history text, another point you will no doubt ignore. Nobody on your troll farm is qualified in literary criticism anyway. We know for a fact you have never read it, just some web pages here and there, and Wiki articles.

The Gospels were written 60 -80 years after the crucifixion.

 

[surada]

It's been carbon tested to several generations after the facts.

This gives proximate dates and language.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

earlychristianwritings.com

 

[DudleySmith]

It's been carbon tested to several generations after the facts.

lol you wouldn't know what was 'carbon tested'.

 

[DudleySmith]

The Gospels were written 60 -80 years after the crucifixion.

they were extant from the beginning; they were first recorded from the Q documents into text form before the Revolt, Revelation being the only book recorded later than that. Like I said, you never have anything but amateurish inneundo. All you have are opinions form assorted sources, mostly hostile ones to boot, not facts.

 

[surada]

they were extant from the beginning; they were first recorded from the Q documents into text form before the Revolt, Revelation being the only book recorded later than that. Like I said, you never have anything but amateurish inneundo. All you have are opinions form assorted sources, mostly hostile ones to boot, not facts.

We don't know much about the Q documents. Does it matter if this source was written before the destruction of the Temple?

The gospel of “Q” gets its title from the German word quelle which means “source.” The whole idea of a Q gospel is based on the concept that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are so similar that they must have copied from each other and/or another source. This other source has been given the name "Q."

Gospel of Q — Gospels.net

Gospel of Q — Gospels.net

www.gospels.net

Q is the designation given to a hypothetical sayings source that many scholars believe was incorporated into the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. Though some notable scholars have questioned the theory, others have proposed reconstructions of Q based on a careful comparison of New Testament Gospels.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not for those who do not want it to be.

Not for anyone. The standards of evidence are what they are. The people who say it is evidence defy those standards and baselessly declare it to be "evidence" by fiat. Declaring something to be evidence does not make it so.