[Ghost of V]

I'm not using ad hominems at all. I am simply stating facts.

1. If you have degrees in Biology or Zoology, you clearly do not realise that scientists disagree often.

2. You are obviously not familiar with the Bible, and cannot argue its contents logically.

3. You can only insult it because you are NOT familiar with it. Since it has been praised by believer and non-believer alike, your inability   to do anything more than be rude reflects a lack of intelligence on your part.

Shall I go on?

Please show me one reputable scientist that uses the Bible as scientific evidence of anything.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

The fall of man happens in the first 20 chapters of genesis no?  Like 99% of the Torak follows. If the Torah was given to man well after the fall of man, it would make sense that it might cover information relevant to that. It makes sense that there would at least be a section on pasteurization or that spit will not cleanse an open wound. But no, you get dumb kosher laws instead. God gives terrible advice.

How would G-d give ideas on pasteurisation to a Bronze Age people that didn't have a way to heat things to a temperature for long enough that would succeed in pasteurising something? Again, the Bible is NOT a health code. I don't know how many times I have to say that to get it through an atheist's thick skull.

It is not an ad hominem to say something about somebody when that something happens to be a fact. Saying a person lacks intelligence, when in fact they do lack intelligence, is not an ad hominem. Furthermore, I never claimed it was true because it was praised, in fact, I even said unbelievers praised it. I merely said that insulting it reflects a lack of intelligence since non-believers even recognise the merits of it.

Well, the Palace of David was found just recently using the Scripture as source material, even though the liberal fucked up press and what-not are calling this "controversial". Then again, Heinrich Schliemann was controversial in his day for using the Iliad, until he found Troy. So, the question itself is stupid. I don't really care that the non-believing world has its head up its ass.

[garygreen]

Why do you believe that the things written in the Bible are true?

[Ghost of V]

Then again, Heinrich Schliemann was controversial in his day for using the Iliad, until he found Troy.

Please explain how this is relevant in any way.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

You are dumber than I thought. It's entirely relevant. An archaeologist uses an ancient text, that most people regard as myth, and with it finds the most important part of said "myth". He went looking for Troy and found it. This lady used the Bible to find David's Palace and found it. You are a bit slow.

[Ghost of V]

You are dumber than I thought. It's entirely relevant. An archaeologist uses an ancient text, that most people regard as myth, and with it finds the most important part of said "myth". He went looking for Troy and found it. This lady used the Bible to find David's Palace and found it. You are a bit slow.

Still not relevant to your claims. Unless you're claiming that Troy validates David's Palace? If so, please elaborate.


This woman also claims to have found David's Palace.

How can both of these peoples be correct? 

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

You are dumber than I thought. It's entirely relevant. An archaeologist uses an ancient text, that most people regard as myth, and with it finds the most important part of said "myth". He went looking for Troy and found it. This lady used the Bible to find David's Palace and found it. You are a bit slow.

Still not relevant to your claims. Unless you're claiming that Troy validates David's Palace? If so, please elaborate.

Please pretend to have sense. All I am saying is that the comparison is apt. My wife's preschoolers could understand comparing and contrasting better than you.

This woman also claims to have found David's Palace.

How can both of these peoples be correct? 

They can't. One will eventually prove correct, and one will not. In either case, the Bible was used to find the site. Its just a question of narrowing in on WHERE the site is. The Bible isn't a map. It gives only general information. So they have to determine from that general information where the specific site is.

[Ghost of V]

You are dumber than I thought. It's entirely relevant. An archaeologist uses an ancient text, that most people regard as myth, and with it finds the most important part of said "myth". He went looking for Troy and found it. This lady used the Bible to find David's Palace and found it. You are a bit slow.

Still not relevant to your claims. Unless you're claiming that Troy validates David's Palace? If so, please elaborate.

Please pretend to have sense. All I am saying is that the comparison is apt. My wife's preschoolers could understand comparing and contrasting better than you.

This woman also claims to have found David's Palace.

How can both of these peoples be correct? 

They can't. One will eventually prove correct, and one will not. In either case, the Bible was used to find the site. Its just a question of narrowing in on WHERE the site is. The Bible isn't a map. It gives only general information. So they have to determine from that general information where the specific site is.

I understand your comparison, but I don't see how it's relevant to your argument that David's Palace was a real place. Those two things are completely separate events. What you're doing is basically saying "well they found Troy so this must be the real David's Palace". If that's the case than Troy also proves that Atlantis was a real place as well, and will be found in time.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I understand your comparison, but I don't see how it's relevant to your argument that David's Palace was a real place. Those two things are completely separate events. What you're doing is basically saying "well they found Troy so this must be the real David's Palace". If that't the case than Troy also proves that Atlantis was a real place as well, and will be found in time,.

Ah, no. All I am saying is that Troy was deemed by many to be a fiction. It was eventually found based on the Iliad. David's Palace is deemed by some to be a fiction. It may be found based on the Bible. Its already been proven scientifically that Atlantis has never existed, could never have existed, and for obvious reasons can never be found. You are taking one hell of a leap there that I never took, and are putting thoughts in my head, that I shall thank you to keep in your own illogical little brain.

[Ghost of V]

I understand your comparison, but I don't see how it's relevant to your argument that David's Palace was a real place. Those two things are completely separate events. What you're doing is basically saying "well they found Troy so this must be the real David's Palace". If that't the case than Troy also proves that Atlantis was a real place as well, and will be found in time,.

Ah, no. All I am saying is that Troy was deemed by many to be a fiction. It was eventually found based on the Iliad. David's Palace is deemed by some to be a fiction. It may be found based on the Bible. Its already been proven scientifically that Atlantis has never existed, could never have existed, and for obvious reasons can never be found. You are taking one hell of a leap there that I never took, and are putting thoughts in my head, that I shall thank you to keep in your own illogical little brain.

Plato spoke of Atlantis in Timaeus and Critias, therefore it must exist. We will find it in time if we study these dialogues closely.

It may be found based on the Bible.

Was it found or not, Yaakov? Please get your trolling straight.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I've read the dialogues. Have you? And again, when he spoke of it, it was even then questioned whether it had ever existed.

I believe it was. I was leaving the option open because they still have to sort through which site IS the Palace, if either of them are. It could be either one or neither. It is possible that it is located elsewhere for all I know. I have never been to Israel.

[garygreen]

Do you believe that finding David's Palace necessarily means that the Biblical narrative of King David is historically accurate?

Why you do believe that the Bible is historically accurate?  This seems like a reasonable question.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Do you believe that finding David's Palace necessarily means that the Biblical narrative of King David is historically accurate?

Actually, that is a fair question. I think if they do confirm that they HAVE found David's Palace, then it does lend weight to the narrative of King David being historically accurate. However, I would not say that they should stop there. Because simply finding the Palace does not logically make it NECESSARY that the narrative is accurate, it simply suggests that it may be.

I think that they need to continue to do as much work on Biblical archeology as can possibly be done. Its kind of like a jigsaw puzzle to me. The more pieces that you fit in, the more you find out, but the more you want to get the thing finished to have the complete picture. Just finding David's Palace will be great, of course. It will tell us a great deal. But it won't ultimately tell us if the entire narrative is correct. It will tell us that some of it is.

Why you do believe that the Bible is historically accurate?  This seems like a reasonable question.

This is also a good question, and a fair one. First, let me say that I am sticking with the Hebrew Bible for this question, ie, the "Old Testament". The so-called "New Testament", the Christian Scriptures, are outside my purview.

Why do I believe it to be historically accurate? Well, a lot of it is. I mean, they have done a lot of research and proven that the post-Exilic stuff IS accurate. As far as the pre-Exilic stuff, I don't deny that more research is still needed. And its being done. And just as at one time, there was NO proof of King David, and yet now there is some, more and more, different things in the Bible are popping up on the ground. Now, does that mean that the whole thing has been proved from Genesis to Chronicles (using the Jewish order of Books)? No.

But more and more, we are beginning to see evidence of the Hebrews sojourn in Egypt (I speak of that earlier in this thread, where they have archaeological evidence of bricks being made with cut straw, torn straw, and pure mud), and other evidences.

Now, ultimately, do I believe the Bible will be vindicated? Yes, I do. At present, I rely on Faith. But I think that one day, all this will be borne out in the historic record. It will take some time though, because archeology is NOT at all an exact science.

[Vindictus]

And why do many archaeologists and historians regard David's supposed existence with skepticism? Are they all anti-semitic douchebags as well?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

And why do many archaeologists and historians regard David's supposed existence with skepticism? Are they all anti-semitic douchebags as well?

A rather stupid question, but ok. One can be a non-believer without being anti-Semitic. I would suggest that people have a lot of personal problems. They want to substitute all kinds of things for G-d, whether it be money, power, their own ego, or what-have-you. Since David's existence, while not absolutely certain, is reasonably accepted by most scholars, I would suggest that the non-believers pick another topic.

[Ghost of V]

Since David's existence, while not absolutely certain, is reasonably accepted by most scholars,

No it's not.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Since the finding of the Tel Dan stele and the Mesha Stele, few scholars are prepared to say outright that David did not exist. Some may question, but few would say outright that he didn't. Many would say outright that he did, and some would say he likely did. Having read an interesting biography of the man, which portrayed him as a bit of an asshole, but did not question his existence, and having read up on current scholarship regarding him, I think I am in pretty good company when I say that.

[Ghost of V]

I think I am in pretty good company when I say that.

No you're not.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, you can repeat yourself like a parrot, but that serves you no purpose. Feel free if you wish, however.

EDIT: And perhaps someone could explain to me how my alt is on here at the same time I am?

[Rama Set]

The fall of man happens in the first 20 chapters of genesis no?  Like 99% of the Torak follows. If the Torah was given to man well after the fall of man, it would make sense that it might cover information relevant to that. It makes sense that there would at least be a section on pasteurization or that spit will not cleanse an open wound. But no, you get dumb kosher laws instead. God gives terrible advice.

How would G-d give ideas on pasteurisation to a Bronze Age people that didn't have a way to heat things to a temperature for long enough that would succeed in pasteurising something? Again, the Bible is NOT a health code. I don't know how many times I have to say that to get it through an atheist's thick skull.

Pasteurization requires raising a temperature to 65C for a prolonged period of time. Last I heard, fire does the trick. "Thou shalt boil they unclean harvest for 3 parts of the whole day and thus make they harvests clean as mountain snow"

It is not an ad hominem to say something about somebody when that something happens to be a fact. Saying a person lacks intelligence, when in fact they do lack intelligence, is not an ad hominem.

Again, whether or not an ad hominem is true has nothing to do with the argumentation. This is why it is a fallacy.

Furthermore, I never claimed it was true because it was praised, in fact, I even said unbelievers praised it. I merely said that insulting it reflects a lack of intelligence since non-believers even recognise the merits of it.

So people who have a different opinion are unintelligent. Sounds legit.

Well, the Palace of David was found just recently using the Scripture as source material, even though the liberal fucked up press and what-not are calling this "controversial". Then again, Heinrich Schliemann was controversial in his day for using the Iliad, until he found Troy. So, the question itself is stupid. I don't really care that the non-believing world has its head up its ass.

Good for you.