NationStates Jolt Archive

My apologies for the length - I've just gotten tired of explaining these things to people over and over. I don't actually expect this to do any good, but it might make me feel better. These cover a range of topics, although the first few are all focused on the same thing. Feel free to add your own! :)

1. You cannot prove a scientific theory true. No theory – not evolution, not gravity, not relativity. The nature of the scientific method is such that theories can only be proven false, not true. Please do not say "scientists have proven X theory to be true." They haven't. I promise. Scientists may have demonstrated a correlation between X and Y, or found strong evidence suggesting X, or found so much evidence that we can all be essentially certain that X is true, but they haven't proven X true. Likewise, please do not use "it can’t be proven" as an attack against any theory, since no theory can be "proven." That’s what a theory is.

2. A scientific theory is not just some sort of guess. "Theory" in science means something different than "theory" in everyday parlance. A reasonable definition might be "a testable, falsifiable framework of ideas that fits the available evidence." Please do not attack a scientific theory by saying it is "just a theory." That makes about as much sense as saying someone is "just a king." There isn't a higher stratum than "theory" within the realm of science. Similarly, it should be noted that the fact that a theory has been altered over time to fit new evidence is no some sort of sneakiness on the part of scientists. This is how theories are designed to work – they are elastic; they grow.

3. Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing, and evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with how life came into being. Abiogenesis is the theory of how life came from non-life. Evolution is the theory of how life came from other life. Whether the first living organism was created by chance, God, or pink elephants, it has no impact whatsoever on the theory of evolution, because evolution doesn't even begin to apply until after that organism came into existence.

4. Unbiased sources do not have agendas. Any website with an agenda is not an unbiased source. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you link to such a website. Similarly, editorials are not evidence of anything other than the writer's opinion.

5. There is not a vast conspiracy to disagree with you. There is no scientific conspiracy against God. There is no feminist conspiracy against men. There is no liberal conspiracy against morality. I'm a member of all three of those communities to at least some extent, and I assure you they've never indoctrinated me. Further, I extrapolate from this that there is no Christian conspiracy against knowledge, no male conspiracy to oppress women, and no conservative conspiracy to force us all to get married to members of the opposite sex next week whether we like it or not. The larger the number of people involved, the more impossible it is to have any sort of decent conspiracy. Trust me – or don't. I might be part of a vast common-sense conspiracy.

6. Your religious text is not admissible as fact. It is admissible as something which you personally believe, and that's great, and I, for one, respect you for it. Belief is wonderful and may in many cases be superior to fact, but it is not fact. If it helps, imagine that you’re talking to a forum full of doubting Thomases (or whomever the equivalent skeptic may be within your religion).

7. You cannot extrapolate a truth about a whole group of people/things from your personal experience with a few of those people/things. So, for example, if you know this one purple person who's a total jerk, it does not mean that, in general, purple people are total jerks.

8. Last, and seemingly simplest, not everyone shares your opinion, and you do not know everything. As soon as you claim that "everyone thinks X is icky/great/stupid" or "all liberals/conservatives/scientists/Christians/atheists/purple people think X," you sound like a moron. It's as simple as that.


/rant :p

Excellent post! I agree, except here

and you do not know everything.

Clearly wrong, at least in my case. :p

I'm very happy to see that someone produced an unbiased, intelligent explaination of scientific theory, and exactly what that means.
Your levelheaded approach is refreshing, even if it falls on stubborn, hearing-impaired ears.

Yay. I enjoy, and would read it all if my attention span wasn't less than that of a guinea pig...

Hooraw! Well said.

I'm very happy to see that someone produced an unbiased, intelligent explaination of scientific theory, and exactly what that means.
Your levelheaded approach is refreshing, even if it falls on stubborn, hearing-impaired ears.

*blushes* Thankee thankee. I can only hope there will be a few ears that manage to hear. Or, um, eyes that manage to see, given the medium. Whatever. :)

*blushes* Thankee thankee. I can only hope there will be a few ears that manage to hear. Or, um, eyes that manage to see, given the medium. Whatever. :)

Will you marry me?

I kid.

But seriously, will you marry me?

*sigh* if only this was a pre-dominantly conservative forum, then I could have an army of yes-men too :( *jealous*

*sigh* if only this was a pre-dominantly conservative forum, then I could have an army of yes-men too :( *jealous*

Hey! I just flirted with you too!

my glands know of no politics.

*sigh* if only this was a pre-dominantly conservative forum, then I could have an army of yes-men too :( *jealous*
Hey! From the mouth of a conservative, good advice is liberal! I knew it!

Hey! From the mouth of a conservative, good advice is liberal! I knew it!



Read it in-depth and you'll notice a liberal bias ;)

Good job! Let the truth be known!

And I'm also glad you explained scientific theory. I get so sick of people saying stuff like "it's just a theory" and "because you don't have a bajillion squared tonnes of direct proof, it's false". That's for spreading light to this area.

Maybe this should be stickied? :p

Will you marry me?

I kid.

But seriously, will you marry me?

That depends. Will you buy me lots of chocolate? I could never marry someone who wouldn't buy me lots of chocolate.

My apologies for the length - I've just gotten tired of explaining these things to people over and over. I don't actually expect this to do any good, but it might make me feel better. These cover a range of topics, although the first few are all focused on the same thing. Feel free to add your own! :)

1. You cannot prove a scientific theory true. No theory – not evolution, not gravity, not relativity. The nature of the scientific method is such that theories can only be proven false, not true. Please do not say "scientists have proven X theory to be true." They haven't. I promise. Scientists may have demonstrated a correlation between X and Y, or found strong evidence suggesting X, or found so much evidence that we can all be essentially certain that X is true, but they haven't proven X true. Likewise, please do not use "it can’t be proven" as an attack against any theory, since no theory can be "proven." That’s what a theory is.

2. A scientific theory is not just some sort of guess. "Theory" in science means something different than "theory" in everyday parlance. A reasonable definition might be "a testable, falsifiable framework of ideas that fits the available evidence." Please do not attack a scientific theory by saying it is "just a theory." That makes about as much sense as saying someone is "just a king." There isn't a higher stratum than "theory" within the realm of science. Similarly, it should be noted that the fact that a theory has been altered over time to fit new evidence is no some sort of sneakiness on the part of scientists. This is how theories are designed to work – they are elastic; they grow.

3. Evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing, and evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with how life came into being. Abiogenesis is the theory of how life came from non-life. Evolution is the theory of how life came from other life. Whether the first living organism was created by chance, God, or pink elephants, it has no impact whatsoever on the theory of evolution, because evolution doesn't even begin to apply until after that organism came into existence.

4. Unbiased sources do not have agendas. Any website with an agenda is not an unbiased source. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you link to such a website. Similarly, editorials are not evidence of anything other than the writer's opinion.

5. There is not a vast conspiracy to disagree with you. There is no scientific conspiracy against God. There is no feminist conspiracy against men. There is no liberal conspiracy against morality. I'm a member of all three of those communities to at least some extent, and I assure you they've never indoctrinated me. Further, I extrapolate from this that there is no Christian conspiracy against knowledge, no male conspiracy to oppress women, and no conservative conspiracy to force us all to get married to members of the opposite sex next week whether we like it or not. The larger the number of people involved, the more impossible it is to have any sort of decent conspiracy. Trust me – or don't. I might be part of a vast common-sense conspiracy.

6. Your religious text is not admissible as fact. It is admissible as something which you personally believe, and that's great, and I, for one, respect you for it. Belief is wonderful and may in many cases be superior to fact, but it is not fact. If it helps, imagine that you’re talking to a forum full of doubting Thomases (or whomever the equivalent skeptic may be within your religion).

7. You cannot extrapolate a truth about a whole group of people/things from your personal experience with a few of those people/things. So, for example, if you know this one purple person who's a total jerk, it does not mean that, in general, purple people are total jerks.

8. Last, and seemingly simplest, not everyone shares your opinion, and you do not know everything. As soon as you claim that "everyone thinks X is icky/great/stupid" or "all liberals/conservatives/scientists/Christians/atheists/purple people think X," you sound like a moron. It's as simple as that.


/rant :p

I disagree with all 8 of your points and have the links to back me up.

Read it in-depth and you'll notice a liberal bias ;)

That would presumably be the bit where I said that I'm at least somewhat of a liberal? Other than that, I'm not sure which liberal bias you're referring to...

That depends. Will you buy me lots of chocolate? I could never marry someone who wouldn't buy me lots of chocolate.
I can buy lots of chocolate too...

*And now we observe the male NS nerd competition for female attention. Notice the wielding of the mouse in one hand, and the waving of it in a menacing fassion. By god, this is fascinating!* ^.^

Read it in-depth and you'll notice a liberal bias ;)

Same with The New Testament.

I disagree with all 8 of your points and have the links to back me up.
Well?

Same with The New Testament.



Clever retort, yet false. :p

Well?

Well.... They're all biased, so it wouldn't look good.

Clever retort, yet false. :p
"Love thy neighbor"

Pretty damn liberal if you ask me.

I can buy lots of chocolate too...

*And now we observe the male NS nerd competition for female attention. Notice the wielding of the mouse in one hand, and the waving of it in a menacing fassion. By god, this is fascinating!* ^.^

*laughs*

Tell you what - you can both buy me lots of chocolate. Somehow I doubt I'll mind. :D

Clever retort, yet false. :p

Yes and no.

Well.... They're all biased, so it wouldn't good.
Hehe. It's ok, all my sources are biased too!

I think they cancel each other out! ^.^

"Love thy neighbor"

Pretty damn liberal if you ask me.



Picking out specific verses while ignoring the rest of the books doesn't hold much water.


Edit: I think I've reached my weekly quota of thread-jackings and I don't want to awaken the ravenous mods from their deep slumber, so /hijack off.

Clever retort, yet false. :p

I dunno...my recollection of the Book of Acts is that it had a bit of a liberal bias. It reads a little like a socialist treatise, as I recall. And all that stuff about giving to the poor and sick Jesus liked to go on about sounds a little like welfare... ;)

<-- is almost entirely teasing

That depends. Will you buy me lots of chocolate? I could never marry someone who wouldn't buy me lots of chocolate.

Better yet, I have the skill and know-how to make varied chocolate desserts

Picking out specific verses while ignoring the rest of the books doesn't hold much water.


Edit: I think I've reached my weekly quota of thread-jackings and I don't want to awaken the ravenous mods from their deep slumber, so /hijack off.

Okay, you have to promise not to cherry-pick verses in the future as well. (i.e. "talents")

Poliwanacraca and Neo Rogolia, would you like to get bi-partisan with me? :D

Poliwanacraca and Neo Rogolia, would you like to get bi-partisan with me? :D

Boo! Hiss! After that bad pun, I'll have to say n-

...well, just how tasty are these chocolate desserts, anyway?

Boo! Hiss! After that bad pun, I'll have to say n-

...well, just how tasty are these chocolate desserts, anyway?

It would be unseemly of me to brag...

It would be unseemly of me to brag...

Darn it, now I'm hungry. I may have to say yes just to get my hands on some dessert.

And I'm also glad you explained scientific theory. I get so sick of people saying stuff like "it's just a theory"

Ditto x10.

I was talking to this one conservative Christian girl once, and she's really pretty smart, and I wasn't arguing about science so I didn't really want to call her on it, but she was explaining one reason she liked being homeschooled was that she didn't have to learn stuff she didn't believe in, like evolution "because it's still only a theory." Now it's all fine and well to not want to learn in depth about a theory you just don't believe, but it took all my willpower not to post back at her about how gravity's a freaking theory, with a couple of roll-eyes smileys to boot. If it had been in person, even my willpower would not have been enough to keep myself respectful.

Ditto x10.

I was talking to this one conservative Christian girl once, and she's really pretty smart, and I wasn't arguing about science so I didn't really want to call her on it, but she was explaining one reason she liked being homeschooled was that she didn't have to learn stuff she didn't believe in, like evolution "because it's still only a theory." Now it's all fine and well to not want to learn in depth about a theory you just don't believe, but it took all my willpower not to post back at her about how gravity's a freaking theory, with a couple of roll-eyes smileys to boot. If it had been in person, even my willpower would not have been enough to keep myself respectful.

I'm not at all surprised that this seems to be the most popular part of my post. I absolutely hate it when people use terms they don't understand, and "scientific theory" seems to rank at #1 on the list of terms thus abused. It's very frustrating to hear how many people simply don't realize that theories are not some sort of intermediate step on the way to something better. I almost wish the scientific community could start calling theories something - anything - else ("Everyone, let's learn about Einstein's Steve of Relativity." "The Universal Steve of Gravity was discovered by Sir Isaac Newton.") just to keep people from getting so confused.

hmm- there's a difference between a hypothesis, and a theeory.

Clever retort, yet false. :pEven if the New Testament were correct (I'm not saying it is and I'm not saying it isn't), it would still be biased, since its basis is the assumption that it is right and everything else is wrong.

Even if the New Testament were correct (I'm not saying it is and I'm not saying it isn't), it would still be biased, since its basis is the assumption that it is right and everything else is wrong.

Oh... it's not the "biased" part she objects to... It's the "liberal" part.


Some people would rather be a Republican in hell than a Democrat in heaven. :D

Oh... it's not the "biased" part she objects to... It's the "liberal" part.


Some people would rather be a Republican in hell than a Democrat in heaven. :DYelling "He who is without sin throw the first stone" to a crowd of blood-thirsty conservatives is VERY liberal (for the time). I can't see how she could deny that.

Yelling "He who is without sin throw the first stone" to a crowd of blood-thirsty conservatives is VERY liberal (for the time). I can't see how she could deny that.

Oh.. She will.

Good post. It would be nice if more people understood these things.
Sadly, far too many people can't even understand this (http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif) so we're probably doomed.

Do I get any chocolate??? :p

You get me! :eek:

You get me! :eek:

:D But do you come with chocolate?

:D But do you come with chocolate?
Nah im more of a second place trophy. :p

"7. You cannot extrapolate a truth about a whole group of people/things from your personal experience with a few of those people/things. So, for example, if you know this one purple person who's a total jerk, it does not mean that, in general, purple people are total jerks."

Actually in reality that should read:

7. So, for example, if you know this one purple person who's a total jerk, it usually means that, in general, 95% of purple people are total jerks.

"7. You cannot extrapolate a truth about a whole group of people/things from your personal experience with a few of those people/things. So, for example, if you know this one purple person who's a total jerk, it does not mean that, in general, purple people are total jerks."

Actually in reality that should read:

7. So, for example, if you know this one purple person who's a total jerk, it usually means that, in general, 95% of purple people are total jerks.

[crickets chirping]

Do I get any chocolate??? :p

Depends...how cute and/or witty are you?

6. Your religious text is not admissible as fact. It is admissible as something which you personally believe, and that's great, and I, for one, respect you for it. Belief is wonderful and may in many cases be superior to fact, but it is not fact. If it helps, imagine that you’re talking to a forum full of doubting Thomases (or whomever the equivalent skeptic may be within your religion).


It can be admissable however as a historical document, which is what many people on this forum refuse to accept. The Bible gets much more historical criticisim than does any other number of sources simmilarly based.

[crickets chirping]

The truth is a funny thing!

The truth is a funny thing!

Exactly. That's why no one's laughing.

Ditto x10.

I was talking to this one conservative Christian girl once, and she's really pretty smart, and I wasn't arguing about science so I didn't really want to call her on it, but she was explaining one reason she liked being homeschooled was that she didn't have to learn stuff she didn't believe in, like evolution "because it's still only a theory." Now it's all fine and well to not want to learn in depth about a theory you just don't believe, but it took all my willpower not to post back at her about how gravity's a freaking theory, with a couple of roll-eyes smileys to boot. If it had been in person, even my willpower would not have been enough to keep myself respectful.

Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't gravity a natural law?
The difference is this:
A law is something that is observed to be true. The laws of conservation of mass is an example - in recorded scientific memory, conservation of mass has been observed, regardless of the situation.
We can't say for certain that a law will ALWAYS be followed, but we are pretty sure. In the case of gravity, we assume that two massive objects attract each other, or in layman's terms, stuff falls down, never up.

A theory is an explanation of why something happens - modern electronic theory is used to explain a great deal of the behaviour observed in chemical reactions, for instance.

I don't think there is a universally accepted theory behind gravity yet - partly because it appears to be the only force that has no symmetry, that is there is no "repulsive gravitational force" (that we have observed).

It can be admissable however as a historical document, which is what many people on this forum refuse to accept. The Bible gets much more historical criticisim than does any other number of sources simmilarly based.
The Bible can be considered a cultural document, but not a historically reliable or accurate document, especially not the part from the Torah to about the middle of 2 Chronicles, and most of the "historical" parts of the Gospels. It's a terrific cultural document, but it's a disaster if you consider it to be literal history.

Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't gravity a natural law?
The difference is this:
A law is something that is observed to be true. The laws of conservation of mass is an example - in recorded scientific memory, conservation of mass has been observed, regardless of the situation.
We can't say for certain that a law will ALWAYS be followed, but we are pretty sure. In the case of gravity, we assume that two massive objects attract each other, or in layman's terms, stuff falls down, never up.

'Law' is really a deprecated term in science. Since nothing can be absolutely proven true (outside of mathematics), it's considered to be a rather misleading term. We've used the word so long, though, that it kinda tends to linger. :)

We have a theory of gravitation, and we observe the effects of gravity as evidence for the theory... but at no point can you ever prove that the next time you let go of a rock, it'll fall to the ground (assuming you're standing on the surface of the Earth).

Even the 'Law' of conservation of energy, or even the 'Laws' of thermodynamics, aren't proven to be true. They're not really laws. :)

Exactly. That's why no one's laughing.

I didn't say it was amusing ... Just true :rolleyes:

I didn't say it was amusing ... Just true :rolleyes:

No you didn't! :p

Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't gravity a natural law?
The difference is this:
A law is something that is observed to be true. The laws of conservation of mass is an example - in recorded scientific memory, conservation of mass has been observed, regardless of the situation.
We can't say for certain that a law will ALWAYS be followed, but we are pretty sure. In the case of gravity, we assume that two massive objects attract each other, or in layman's terms, stuff falls down, never up.

A theory is an explanation of why something happens - modern electronic theory is used to explain a great deal of the behaviour observed in chemical reactions, for instance.


Well, the real term for what we think of as the "law of gravity" is the Universal Theory of Gravity. Laws are not superior to theories - they're just simpler. In general, if you can describe it in one equation, it's a law; if it takes a whole book, it's a theory. (And yes, this is a rather silly way to explain the difference, but I can't offhand think of an exception to this rule.)Other than that, laws and theories are essentially identical - both are explanations of how something works that fit the available evidence and which can for all intents and purposes be considered basically true.

As was already said, too, most scientists look on "law" as rather an outdated and deceptive term. We can't actually prove that every action will always have an equal and opposite reaction, or that force equals mass times acceleration in all cases, but until any evidence appears contradicting those statements, we assume that they hold true...just as we do with any theory. :)

The Bible can be considered a cultural document, but not a historically reliable or accurate document, especially not the part from the Torah to about the middle of 2 Chronicles, and most of the "historical" parts of the Gospels. It's a terrific cultural document, but it's a disaster if you consider it to be literal history.



Then let us deal with some of the "issues" the critics have brought up:

The collapse of Jericho for instance:

Critics of the Bible have claimed for decades that the Bible's statements in Joshua about the conquest of the Promised Land in the centuries before the monarchy of King David were pure fiction. In light of this new archeological evidence critics will be forced to relinquish their rejection of the Bible's record of Israel's conquest as stated by Joshua. In the book of Joshua (6:5), God told Joshua, “When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have all the people give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the people will go up, every man straight in." Even this miracle is confirmed by archaeology. Professor John Garstang found and recorded his amazing finding, “there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins into the city.” The evidence from all other archaeological digs around ancient cities in the Middle East reveal that the walls of cities always fall inwards as invading armies push their way into the city.




The record of kings:

Only fifty years ago many disbelieving scholars totally rejected the historical accuracy of the Bible because they claimed that the Scriptures talked about numerous kings and individuals that could not be confirmed from any other historical or archeological records. Recent discoveries have proven these critics wrong. Discoveries have been found referring to King David, Solomon, Uzziah, Hezekiah and many others.

Recent archeological investigations have demolished the position of those who rejected the biblical account of Israel's kings such as King David. In 1993, archeologists digging at Tel Dan in the Galilee in northern Israel found a fragment of a stone inscription that clearly refers to the "house of David" and identifies David as the "king of Israel." This is the first inscription outside the Bible that confirms the Bible's statement that David was the king of Israel in the ninth century before Christ.

A stone inscription from Egypt confirms that Israel was established as a nation in Canaan centuries before the reign of King David, just as the Bible claims. The Merneptah Stela is a seven-and-a-half-foot-high stone inscription discovered in the temple of Pharaoh Merneptah at Thebes in Egypt. Scholars determined that Pharaoh Merneptah ruled Egypt from 1213 to 1203 B.C. and confirmed that he launched an invasion into the area of the modern-day West Bank in Canaan, defeating the Jewish inhabitants of the land. The second line from the bottom of this inscriptions boasts, "Israel is laid waste; his seed is not."

In addition to the archeological evidence for King David, we now have confirmation of other kings of Israel. The name of Omri, king of Israel, is recorded on an inscription known as the Stela of King Mesha of Moab. In addition, Omri's name appears on the rock inscriptions of three kings of Assyria, the annals of both Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II, and the Black Obelisk of King Shalmaneser III, who wrote, "I conquered . . . all of the Land of Omri (Israel)." Other Assyrian inscriptions found in Nineveh confirm the Bible's records about these kings of Israel: Ahab, Jehu, Joash, Menehem, Pekah, and Hoshea. In addition, the names of many of the kings of the southern kingdom of Judah are also recorded on inscriptions of the nations that fought against the Jews. The inscriptions found by archeologists also confirm the names of these kings of Judah: Ahaziah, Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Jehoiachin. Scholars found ration records of the army of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (606 to 562 B.C.) that state, "ten sila of oil to Jehoiachin, king of Judah. . . ." Obviously, the fact that these foreign nations listed the kings of Israel and Judah provides the strongest evidence confirming the accuracy of the Word of God.




Individuals mentioned in the Bible:

One of the most interesting discoveries in recent years was the finding of two bull', or clay seals, that bear the impression of the actual seal used by Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah the prophet who transcribed the Book of Jeremiah. Both bull' bear the inscription, "Belonging to Berekhyahu, son of Neriyahu, the Scribe." One of these clay seals is on view in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. However, the second bull' was found in Jerusalem earlier in this century and purchased by collector Shlomo Moussaieff of London who owns the greatest private collection of ancient Jewish inscriptions in the world. This second clay seal, bearing the same inscription, also reveals a fingerprint that probably belonged to Baruch.

At the beginning of this century a fascinating seal was discovered in Israel that bore an inscription of a beautiful lion and the words, "Belonging to Shema servant of Jeroboam." This amazing find indicates that it belonged to an official of King Jeroboam of Israel. Other seals have been discovered confirming the biblical records about King Uzziah (777 to 736 B.C.) and King Hezekiah (726 to 697 B.C.).

Another important seal found in Jerusalem dates from the seventh century before Christ and is inscribed as follows: "Belonging to Abdi Servant of Hoshea." This seal made of orange chalcedony, used to authenticate royal documents for security, belonged to Abdi, a high official of King Hosea, the last king of the northern kingdom of Israel before it was conquered by the Assyrian Empire in 721 B.C. Another large seal on red limestone was found bearing the inscription "Belonging to Asayahu, servant of the king"ÿtogether with a galloping horse. The name "Asaiah" is a short form of the name "Asayahu."ÿThis name occurs twice in the Old Testament in connection with the title "servant of the king." In 2 Chronicles 34:20 we find the name, "Asaiah a servant of the king's" and again in 2 Kings 22:12, "Asahiah a servant of the king's." It is possible that this seal was owned by "Asaiah, the servant of the king" a high court official who was sent by King Josiah to carefully examine the scroll of the lost Book of Deuteronomy that was found in the Temple by the High Priest Hilkiah in approximately 622 B.C.

Explorers in Iraq in the last century found the ancient inscribed clay cylinder bearing the actual decree of King Cyrus of Persia allowing the various captured natives of many different nations to return freely to their ancient homelands. It was the government policy of the preceding Babylonian Empire of King Nebuchadnezzar to displace whole peoples such as the Jews and resettle them in the far reaches of their empire. However, King Cyrus of Persia, a moderate and God-fearing monarch, reversed the cruel Babylonian policy. Immediately after conquering the Babylonian Empire, King Cyrus issued a decree allowing the Jews to freely return to their homeland in Israel ending the seventy-year-long captivity. The decree of King Cyrus began with these words, "I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king." After describing his conquests and deeds, the cylinder inscription reads, "I gathered all their former inhabitants and returned to them their habitations." In this incredible discovery we find the confirmation of one of the most astonishing events in the pages of Scripture. "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel, he is the God, which is in Jerusalem" (Ezra 1:1-3).



And some archaelogical evidence for the New Testament:

The English scholar, William Ramsay, traveled as a young man to Asia Minor over a century ago for the sole purpose of disproving the Bible's history as described by Luke in his Gospel and in the Book of Acts. Ramsay and his professors were convinced that the New Testament record must be terribly inaccurate. He believed that Luke could not be correct in his history of Christ or in his account about the growth of the Church during the first decades following Christ. Dr. Ramsay began to dig in the ancient ruins of sites throughout Greece and Asia Minor, searching for ancient names, boundary markers, and other archeological finds that would conclusively prove that Luke had invented his history of Christ and His Church. To his amazement and dismay, William Ramsay discovered that the statements of the New Testament Scriptures were accurate in the smallest detail. Finally, Dr. Ramsay was convinced by the overwhelming evidence proving the Bible's accuracy. As a result, he accepted Jesus Christ as His personal Savior. He became both a Christian and a great biblical scholar. As a result of his conversion to belief in Jesus Christ, Sir William Ramsay's books became classics in the study of the history of the New Testament. Another great scholar, A. N. Sherwin-White, was a great classical historical scholar at Oxford University who studied the extensive evidence for and against the historical accuracy of the Book of Acts. Sherwin-White wrote his conclusion after studying the evidence, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming . . . any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd" (Quoted by Rubel Shelley, Prepare To Answer [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990]).

Dr. William F. Albright was unquestionably one of the world's most brilliant biblical archeologists. In 1955 he wrote: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after circa A.D. 80." However, additional discoveries over the next decade convinced him that all the books in the New Testament were written "probably sometime between circa A.D. 50 and 75." Significantly, Albright concluded that the writing of the New Testament within a few years of the events it described made it almost impossible that errors or exaggeration could have entered the text. He wrote that the duration between the events of Christ's life and the writing was "too slight to permit any appreciable corruption of the essential center and even of the specific wording of the sayings of Jesus." In other words, Professor Albright, one of the greatest minds in the field of archeology and ancient texts, concluded that the New Testament records the truth about Jesus Christ and his statements.

Dr. John A. T. Robinson was a distinguished lecturer at Trinity College, Cambridge and developed a reputation as a great scholar. Naturally, he accepted the academic consensus universally held since 1900, that denied the disciples and Paul wrote the New Testament and concluded that it was written up to a hundred years after Christ. However, an article in Time magazine, March 21, 1977, reported that Robinson decided to personally investigate for himself the arguments behind this scholarly consensus against the New Testament's reliability because he realized that very little original research had been completed in this field in this century. He was shocked to discover that much of past scholarship against the New Testament was untenable because it was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and what he felt must have been an "almost willful blindness." To the amazement of his university colleagues, Robinson concluded that the apostles must have been the genuine writers of the New Testament books in the years prior to A.D. 64. He challenged other scholars to complete original research necessary to truly examine the question fairly. As a result of such a new analysis Robinson believed that it would necessitate "the rewriting of many introductions to-and ultimately, theologies of-the New Testament." Robinson's book, Redating the New Testament, published in 1976, suggests that Matthew's Gospel was written as early as A.D. 40, within eight years of Christ.

Archeology has been continually proving the New Testament to be a reliable source of history. Many people, places and customs spoken of in the New Testament has now been confirmed to be true.

For example, the pool of Bethesda described in John 5:2 has been located in the north*east quarter of the old city of Jerusalem called Betheza.

The fact that Gallio was proconsul of Archaia as stated in Acts 18:12 has been proven correct through inscriptions found.

In 1968 the first physical evidence of crucifixion as a form of punishment was found when archeologist discovered heel bones still tranfixed by an iron nail.

Nice chunk of text there, Neo Rogolia, but only one citation, and it's from a religious press. Sorry, that doesn't impress me, especially when the books I've read on the subject, most notably Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed, and The Bible Unearthed by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein, tell a decidedly different story, a story, not coincidentally, that was peer-reviewed by actual anthropologists and archaeologists working in the field, instead of church publishers.

Nice try, though.

*snippage of a wonderful post*
Beautiful. Mind if I copy/and save that so I don't need to try to say it myself later on?

*sigh* if only this was a pre-dominantly conservative forum, then I could have an army of yes-men too :( *jealous*
Or you could try to prove anything the OP said wrong...I'm sure that feat would win you yes-men. And women.

Science can't prove things true? What about something like "Stuff burns when you put a fire under it?" Technically, that's a scientific observation. The idea that science can't prove things about reality is a misnomer. Rather, the catch [such as it is] is that the facts depend on the context to which they are applied. Cave men probably grasped the "stuff burns" principle, but likely discovered rather quickly that a liberal application of water ended this phemomenon. So, stuff burns, but not when you throw water onto it.

The idea that science 'can't prove anything' is close, but not entirely accurate. Rather, the real variable is yet-to-be-discovered contexts and applications. Skeptics like to say that science is on their side, and while it usually is; I wouldn't go so far as to say that science as a concept has skeptical philosophical inclinations.

Knowledge is possible.

EDIT: Incidentally one of the most important things to remember when making new scientific or personal discoveries is that when you arrive at a new definition of a concept through the application of a previously unknown object or context, the new definition does not contradict the old one. Bascially the point here is that knowledge is hierarchial, and science is trying to get to the top. Problem is, we have no idea how far it goes.

Beautiful. Mind if I copy/and save that so I don't need to try to say it myself later on?

Go for it. :)

Good post. It would be nice if more people understood these things.
Sadly, far too many people can't even understand this (http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif) so we're probably doomed.
You've outed yourself as an Edmontonian...or as someone who reads Bob the Angry Flower. Both are Canadian, and therefore bad! :p

Well, the real term for what we think of as the "law of gravity" is the Universal Theory of Gravity. Laws are not superior to theories - they're just simpler. In general, if you can describe it in one equation, it's a law; if it takes a whole book, it's a theory. (And yes, this is a rather silly way to explain the difference, but I can't offhand think of an exception to this rule.)Other than that, laws and theories are essentially identical - both are explanations of how something works that fit the available evidence and which can for all intents and purposes be considered basically true.

As was already said, too, most scientists look on "law" as rather an outdated and deceptive term. We can't actually prove that every action will always have an equal and opposite reaction, or that force equals mass times acceleration in all cases, but until any evidence appears contradicting those statements, we assume that they hold true...just as we do with any theory. :)

Someone was recently trying to explain to me the newer theory of gravity, which is, I believe, based on quantum mechanics. My background in math and physics isn't strong enough to comprehend it, but it had to do with the fact that large objects warp space. It sounded interesting.

Someone was recently trying to explain to me the newer theory of gravity, which is, I believe, based on quantum mechanics. My background in math and physics isn't strong enough to comprehend it, but it had to do with the fact that large objects warp space. It sounded interesting.

I'm interested as to whether gravitons are actually particals or not.

Science can't prove things true? What about something like "Stuff burns when you put a fire under it?" Technically, that's a scientific observation. The idea that science can't prove things about reality is a misnomer. Rather, the catch [such as it is] is that the facts depend on the context to which they are applied. Cave men probably grasped the "stuff burns" principle, but likely discovered rather quickly that a liberal application of water ended this phemomenon. So, stuff burns, but not when you throw water onto it.

The idea that science 'can't prove anything' is close, but not entirely accurate. Rather, the real variable is yet-to-be-discovered contexts and applications. Skeptics like to say that science is on their side, and while it usually is; I wouldn't go so far as to say that science as a concept has skeptical philosophical inclinations.

Knowledge is possible.


The problem is mixing of terms. "Truth" is traditionally the realm of 'philosophy' (and law), while 'proof' can mean anything from philosophical meanderings to mathematics to science. For those what prefer philosophizing to science, perhaps nothing is "true" since all scientific observations are based on eyes and senses that may be deceived by evil genies or God and whatnot. For the scientist there is no such thing as a proof of God. I'm glad for this distinction between, er, 'fields,' but it does make for some confusion in general discussion like this.

Science can't prove things true? What about something like "Stuff burns when you put a fire under it?" Technically, that's a scientific observation. The idea that science can't prove things about reality is a misnomer. Rather, the catch [such as it is] is that the facts depend on the context to which they are applied. Cave men probably grasped the "stuff burns" principle, but likely discovered rather quickly that a liberal application of water ended this phemomenon. So, stuff burns, but not when you throw water onto it.

The idea that science 'can't prove anything' is close, but not entirely accurate. Rather, the real variable is yet-to-be-discovered contexts and applications. Skeptics like to say that science is on their side, and while it usually is; I wouldn't go so far as to say that science as a concept has skeptical philosophical inclinations.

Knowledge is possible.

EDIT: Incidentally one of the most important things to remember when making new scientific or personal discoveries is that when you arrive at a new definition of a concept through the application of a previously unknown object or context, the new definition does not contradict the old one. Bascially the point here is that knowledge is hierarchial, and science is trying to get to the top. Problem is, we have no idea how far it goes.

You're quite right - note, however, that my point #1 addresses whether theories can be proven true, rather than whether individual observations can be proven true. :)

Further, it should be noted that the use of the term "prove" is a little deceptive in its own right. To all practical intents and purposes, both evolution and gravity have been demonstrated to be true. There is no reason to doubt that the basics of both of them are spot-on, but they are not proven, and they never will be proven.

I'm interested as to whether gravitons are actually particals or not.
Well, I think the advantage of this hypothesis is that it doesn't require "gravitons" or anything fairly specious like that. Like I said, I don't have the background to get it. In fact, that is probably why there is so much hostility to science these days. It's near impossible to understand any of it unless you specialize in it.

2. A scientific theory is not just some sort of guess. "Theory" in science means something different than "theory" in everyday parlance. A reasonable definition might be "a testable, falsifiable framework of ideas that fits the available evidence." Please do not attack a scientific theory by saying it is "just a theory." That makes about as much sense as saying someone is "just a king." There isn't a higher stratum than "theory" within the realm of science. Similarly, it should be noted that the fact that a theory has been altered over time to fit new evidence is no some sort of sneakiness on the part of scientists. This is how theories are designed to work – they are elastic; they grow. I think scientific "laws" occupy a higher stratum, (as accepted fundamental axioms) than theories, which still retain elasticity, as you point out. For example, F = ma is a physical law that cannot be proven mathematically, yet is considered fundamental enough that a large portion of physical theories are based on it. Similarly, basic mathematical axioms, (for example, that the shortest disctance between to points is a straight line, or that two parallel lines won't meet) must be accepted in order to proceed, though they cannot be mathematically proven. And I use the word proven on purpose here: in math, (and theoretical physics) unlike experimental science, official 'proofs' are possible. Otherwise, as Poli says, there is only evidence to support, or no evidence to support a particular hypothesis. if there is sufficient evidence, your hypothesis gains the status of a theory.

Basically, I think most physicists would agree that some fundamentals we have uncovered trough mathematics are right. That if aliens came to earth, they would have the same math as we do, clothed in different numerical systems and symbols, no doubt. However, there are perfectly happy mathematical systems that somply don't exist in the real world (as far as we know) so clearly, a balance between theory and experimental evidence has to be found to show, in as authoritative a manner as possible, the truth of a particular proposal/observation/hypothesis about the world around us. Which is exactly what science is.

EDIT: whoops, looks like I should have read a bit further in the thread. looks like the 'law' issue has been adressed.

The problem is mixing of terms. "Truth" is traditionally the realm of 'philosophy' (and law), while 'proof' can mean anything from philosophical meanderings to mathematics to science. For those what prefer philosophizing to science, perhaps nothing is "true" since all scientific observations are based on eyes and senses that may be deceived by evil genies or God and whatnot. For the scientist there is no such thing as a proof of God. I'm glad for this distinction between, er, 'fields,' but it does make for some confusion in general discussion like this.
I'm glad that you noted that distinction, because the word "truth" gets bandied about pretty carelessly in these kinds of discussions. In discussions of science, for instance, accurate and provable are far better terms for discussion.

Reminds me of that bit from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where Harrison Ford is lecturing to his students and he says something like, "Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If you're looking for truth, the philosophy class is right down the hall."

I'm glad that you noted that distinction, because the word "truth" gets bandied about pretty carelessly in these kinds of discussions. In discussions of science, for instance, accurate and provable are far better terms for discussion.

Reminds me of that bit from "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where Harrison Ford is lecturing to his students and he says something like, "Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If you're looking for truth, the philosophy class is right down the hall."

After seeing how his female students were looking at him, I wanted to be Indiana Jones so bad. Ah childhood.

After seeing how his female students were looking at him, I wanted to be Indiana Jones so bad. Ah childhood.
Yeah, I've had similar fantasies--the student who will do anything to pass. Lucky for me I've never had one, as I like my job and my girlfriend. :D

Yeah, I've had similar fantasies--the student who will do anything to pass. Lucky for me I've never had one, as I like my job and my girlfriend. :D

I have too much respect to ask if you two ever play "Indiana and student." :D

I have too much respect to ask if you two ever play "Indiana and student." :D
Nah--she's an instructor too, so no role-playing of that sort.

Then let us deal with some of the "issues" the critics have brought up: [snip]

First of all, most of the people cited lived in the first half of the last century, not exactly current members of the scientific community. Secondly, some of the names I find highly dubious - why would Sir William Ramsay, the winner of the 1904 Nobel prize for chemistry comment on the accuracy of the bible?

Also, no-one really doubts that people and cities named in the bible did in fact exist. That still doesn't make the bible a historical document. The proven existence of Troy doesn't mean that the Illiad is a historical document and that with it the greek gods are true, either.

First of all, most of the people cited lived in the first half of the last century, not exactly current members of the scientific community. Secondly, some of the names I find highly dubious - why would Sir William Ramsay, the winner of the 1904 Nobel prize for chemistry comment on Jericho?

Also, no-one really doubts that people and cities named in the bible did in fact exist. That still doesn't make the bible a historical document. The proven existence of Troy doesn't mean that the Illiad is a historical document and that with it the greek gods are true, either.


The Bible is the history of mankind's creation, fall, and redemption. It is supposed to be a historical document, with bits of poetry and what-not permeating it.

The Bible is the history of mankind's creation, fall, and redemption. It is supposed to be a historical document, with bits of poetry and what-not permeating it.
But the bible is not an accurate narration of historical events from creation up to the time of Jesus. It is therefore not in that sense a historical document.

The bible is a historic document,unfortunately for historians everywhere a biased one.it wasn't written to give an accurate historic account of the life and times of jesus,or any of the other figures in it.it was written as the Holy text of christianity.and as such it is biased.in fact i defy anyone to find a accurate historic account of those times,from those times.

The bible is a historic document,unfortunately for historians everywhere a biased one.it wasn't written to give an accurate historic account of the life and times of jesus,or any of the other figures in it.it was written as the Holy text of christianity.and as such it is biased.in fact i defy anyone to find a accurate historic account of those times,from those times.
Accurate historical accounts from around the time of Jesus? There are lots! Obviously the further back you go the less accurate these accounts will be.

The point is, though, even the catholic church accepts that the old testament is not a historical document in the sense that all of what is written in it is literally true!

Again, I do not say that people and places in the bible are all fictitious, but that the bible can not be used in a scientific discussion as proof.

You've outed yourself as an Edmontonian...or as someone who reads Bob the Angry Flower. Both are Canadian, and therefore bad! :p
Just someone who reads Bob the Angry Flower ;)
I'm actually British, although from your Anti-Canadianism thread it sounds like you lot do being British (especially English!) better than we do...
(But what's wrong with thanking the cashpoint?)

The Bible is the history of mankind's creation, fall, and redemption. It is supposed to be a historical document, with bits of poetry and what-not permeating it.

the Bible's historical value is dependent upon personal religious beliefs--i.e., you need to be Christian to think that the Bible's version of creation is what really happened (btw, who was taking notes during the 7 days?).

NR, do you think that the Koran is a historical document as well? It's my understanding that it also tells the "history" of mankind's creation, fall, and redemption, with poetry and whatnot permeating it.

9. Spelling
10. Grammar
11. Geography

<Snip very well put-together OP purely to save space>

Very good. Eloquently put, rational and sensible. You show much wisdom.

Unfortunately, there was one bit you missed:

Fanatics don't care about wisdom, or rationality, or sense. They have all the rationality they need right here in this holy book/conspiracy site/fortune cookie.

These arguments you make are watertight - and I'd imagine the vast majority of people will agree entirely, as I do. Unfortunately, the people to whom your comments were implicitly directed will simply write them off as the indoctrinated, brainwashed rambling of a fundamentalist lefty/evolutionist/conspirator/whatever.

In other words, your attempt was a valiant one - but ultimately futile. But kudos to you for making the attempt, all the same.

<Snip very well put-together OP purely to save space>

Very good. Eloquently put, rational and sensible. You show much wisdom.

Unfortunately, there was one bit you missed:

Fanatics don't care about wisdom, or rationality, or sense. They have all the rationality they need right here in this holy book/conspiracy site/fortune cookie.

These arguments you make are watertight - and I'd imagine the vast majority of people will agree entirely, as I do. Unfortunately, the people to whom your comments were implicitly directed will simply write them off as the indoctrinated, brainwashed rambling of a fundamentalist lefty/evolutionist/conspirator/whatever.

In other words, your attempt was a valiant one - but ultimately futile. But kudos to you for making the attempt, all the same.

Heh. Note this sentence from the first post:

I don't actually expect this to do any good, but it might make me feel better.

And it did. It reassured me that at least a few people out there still possess common sense. I'm glad to hear you're one of them. :)

<Snip very well put-together OP purely to save space>

Very good. Eloquently put, rational and sensible. You show much wisdom.

Unfortunately, there was one bit you missed:

Fanatics don't care about wisdom, or rationality, or sense. They have all the rationality they need right here in this holy book/conspiracy site/fortune cookie.

These arguments you make are watertight - and I'd imagine the vast majority of people will agree entirely, as I do. Unfortunately, the people to whom your comments were implicitly directed will simply write them off as the indoctrinated, brainwashed rambling of a fundamentalist lefty/evolutionist/conspirator/whatever.

In other words, your attempt was a valiant one - but ultimately futile. But kudos to you for making the attempt, all the same.

Well, at least it seperates those who choose to use the gift of intellect that nature or god gave them from those who prefer to close their eyes and follow a book that was, after all, written and translated by imperfect humans using imperfect language.

Heh. Note this sentence from the first post:



And it did. It reassured me that at least a few people out there still possess common sense. I'm glad to hear you're one of them. :)

Well, your post garnered my respect. That's no small thing.

Well, your post garnered my respect. That's no small thing.

Well, thanks. I like being respected. :)


Edit: Ooh! Look at me! I'm "sometimes deadly"! I feel so special now. :p

Then let us deal with some of the "issues" the critics have brought up:

The collapse of Jericho for instance:

Critics of the Bible have claimed for decades that the Bible's statements in Joshua about the conquest of the Promised Land in the centuries before the monarchy of King David were pure fiction. In light of this new archeological evidence critics will be forced to relinquish their rejection of the Bible's record of Israel's conquest as stated by Joshua. In the book of Joshua (6:5), God told Joshua, “When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have all the people give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the people will go up, every man straight in." Even this miracle is confirmed by archaeology. Professor John Garstang found and recorded his amazing finding, “there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins into the city.” The evidence from all other archaeological digs around ancient cities in the Middle East reveal that the walls of cities always fall inwards as invading armies push their way into the city.




The record of kings:

Only fifty years ago many disbelieving scholars totally rejected the historical accuracy of the Bible because they claimed that the Scriptures talked about numerous kings and individuals that could not be confirmed from any other historical or archeological records. Recent discoveries have proven these critics wrong. Discoveries have been found referring to King David, Solomon, Uzziah, Hezekiah and many others.

Recent archeological investigations have demolished the position of those who rejected the biblical account of Israel's kings such as King David. In 1993, archeologists digging at Tel Dan in the Galilee in northern Israel found a fragment of a stone inscription that clearly refers to the "house of David" and identifies David as the "king of Israel." This is the first inscription outside the Bible that confirms the Bible's statement that David was the king of Israel in the ninth century before Christ.

A stone inscription from Egypt confirms that Israel was established as a nation in Canaan centuries before the reign of King David, just as the Bible claims. The Merneptah Stela is a seven-and-a-half-foot-high stone inscription discovered in the temple of Pharaoh Merneptah at Thebes in Egypt. Scholars determined that Pharaoh Merneptah ruled Egypt from 1213 to 1203 B.C. and confirmed that he launched an invasion into the area of the modern-day West Bank in Canaan, defeating the Jewish inhabitants of the land. The second line from the bottom of this inscriptions boasts, "Israel is laid waste; his seed is not."

In addition to the archeological evidence for King David, we now have confirmation of other kings of Israel. The name of Omri, king of Israel, is recorded on an inscription known as the Stela of King Mesha of Moab. In addition, Omri's name appears on the rock inscriptions of three kings of Assyria, the annals of both Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II, and the Black Obelisk of King Shalmaneser III, who wrote, "I conquered . . . all of the Land of Omri (Israel)." Other Assyrian inscriptions found in Nineveh confirm the Bible's records about these kings of Israel: Ahab, Jehu, Joash, Menehem, Pekah, and Hoshea. In addition, the names of many of the kings of the southern kingdom of Judah are also recorded on inscriptions of the nations that fought against the Jews. The inscriptions found by archeologists also confirm the names of these kings of Judah: Ahaziah, Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Jehoiachin. Scholars found ration records of the army of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (606 to 562 B.C.) that state, "ten sila of oil to Jehoiachin, king of Judah. . . ." Obviously, the fact that these foreign nations listed the kings of Israel and Judah provides the strongest evidence confirming the accuracy of the Word of God.




Individuals mentioned in the Bible:

One of the most interesting discoveries in recent years was the finding of two bull', or clay seals, that bear the impression of the actual seal used by Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah the prophet who transcribed the Book of Jeremiah. Both bull' bear the inscription, "Belonging to Berekhyahu, son of Neriyahu, the Scribe." One of these clay seals is on view in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. However, the second bull' was found in Jerusalem earlier in this century and purchased by collector Shlomo Moussaieff of London who owns the greatest private collection of ancient Jewish inscriptions in the world. This second clay seal, bearing the same inscription, also reveals a fingerprint that probably belonged to Baruch.

At the beginning of this century a fascinating seal was discovered in Israel that bore an inscription of a beautiful lion and the words, "Belonging to Shema servant of Jeroboam." This amazing find indicates that it belonged to an official of King Jeroboam of Israel. Other seals have been discovered confirming the biblical records about King Uzziah (777 to 736 B.C.) and King Hezekiah (726 to 697 B.C.).

Another important seal found in Jerusalem dates from the seventh century before Christ and is inscribed as follows: "Belonging to Abdi Servant of Hoshea." This seal made of orange chalcedony, used to authenticate royal documents for security, belonged to Abdi, a high official of King Hosea, the last king of the northern kingdom of Israel before it was conquered by the Assyrian Empire in 721 B.C. Another large seal on red limestone was found bearing the inscription "Belonging to Asayahu, servant of the king"ÿtogether with a galloping horse. The name "Asaiah" is a short form of the name "Asayahu."ÿThis name occurs twice in the Old Testament in connection with the title "servant of the king." In 2 Chronicles 34:20 we find the name, "Asaiah a servant of the king's" and again in 2 Kings 22:12, "Asahiah a servant of the king's." It is possible that this seal was owned by "Asaiah, the servant of the king" a high court official who was sent by King Josiah to carefully examine the scroll of the lost Book of Deuteronomy that was found in the Temple by the High Priest Hilkiah in approximately 622 B.C.

Explorers in Iraq in the last century found the ancient inscribed clay cylinder bearing the actual decree of King Cyrus of Persia allowing the various captured natives of many different nations to return freely to their ancient homelands. It was the government policy of the preceding Babylonian Empire of King Nebuchadnezzar to displace whole peoples such as the Jews and resettle them in the far reaches of their empire. However, King Cyrus of Persia, a moderate and God-fearing monarch, reversed the cruel Babylonian policy. Immediately after conquering the Babylonian Empire, King Cyrus issued a decree allowing the Jews to freely return to their homeland in Israel ending the seventy-year-long captivity. The decree of King Cyrus began with these words, "I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king." After describing his conquests and deeds, the cylinder inscription reads, "I gathered all their former inhabitants and returned to them their habitations." In this incredible discovery we find the confirmation of one of the most astonishing events in the pages of Scripture. "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel, he is the God, which is in Jerusalem" (Ezra 1:1-3).



And some archaelogical evidence for the New Testament:

The English scholar, William Ramsay, traveled as a young man to Asia Minor over a century ago for the sole purpose of disproving the Bible's history as described by Luke in his Gospel and in the Book of Acts. Ramsay and his professors were convinced that the New Testament record must be terribly inaccurate. He believed that Luke could not be correct in his history of Christ or in his account about the growth of the Church during the first decades following Christ. Dr. Ramsay began to dig in the ancient ruins of sites throughout Greece and Asia Minor, searching for ancient names, boundary markers, and other archeological finds that would conclusively prove that Luke had invented his history of Christ and His Church. To his amazement and dismay, William Ramsay discovered that the statements of the New Testament Scriptures were accurate in the smallest detail. Finally, Dr. Ramsay was convinced by the overwhelming evidence proving the Bible's accuracy. As a result, he accepted Jesus Christ as His personal Savior. He became both a Christian and a great biblical scholar. As a result of his conversion to belief in Jesus Christ, Sir William Ramsay's books became classics in the study of the history of the New Testament. Another great scholar, A. N. Sherwin-White, was a great classical historical scholar at Oxford University who studied the extensive evidence for and against the historical accuracy of the Book of Acts. Sherwin-White wrote his conclusion after studying the evidence, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming . . . any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd" (Quoted by Rubel Shelley, Prepare To Answer [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990]).

Dr. William F. Albright was unquestionably one of the world's most brilliant biblical archeologists. In 1955 he wrote: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after circa A.D. 80." However, additional discoveries over the next decade convinced him that all the books in the New Testament were written "probably sometime between circa A.D. 50 and 75." Significantly, Albright concluded that the writing of the New Testament within a few years of the events it described made it almost impossible that errors or exaggeration could have entered the text. He wrote that the duration between the events of Christ's life and the writing was "too slight to permit any appreciable corruption of the essential center and even of the specific wording of the sayings of Jesus." In other words, Professor Albright, one of the greatest minds in the field of archeology and ancient texts, concluded that the New Testament records the truth about Jesus Christ and his statements.

Dr. John A. T. Robinson was a distinguished lecturer at Trinity College, Cambridge and developed a reputation as a great scholar. Naturally, he accepted the academic consensus universally held since 1900, that denied the disciples and Paul wrote the New Testament and concluded that it was written up to a hundred years after Christ. However, an article in Time magazine, March 21, 1977, reported that Robinson decided to personally investigate for himself the arguments behind this scholarly consensus against the New Testament's reliability because he realized that very little original research had been completed in this field in this century. He was shocked to discover that much of past scholarship against the New Testament was untenable because it was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and what he felt must have been an "almost willful blindness." To the amazement of his university colleagues, Robinson concluded that the apostles must have been the genuine writers of the New Testament books in the years prior to A.D. 64. He challenged other scholars to complete original research necessary to truly examine the question fairly. As a result of such a new analysis Robinson believed that it would necessitate "the rewriting of many introductions to-and ultimately, theologies of-the New Testament." Robinson's book, Redating the New Testament, published in 1976, suggests that Matthew's Gospel was written as early as A.D. 40, within eight years of Christ.

Archeology has been continually proving the New Testament to be a reliable source of history. Many people, places and customs spoken of in the New Testament has now been confirmed to be true.

For example, the pool of Bethesda described in John 5:2 has been located in the north*east quarter of the old city of Jerusalem called Betheza.

The fact that Gallio was proconsul of Archaia as stated in Acts 18:12 has been proven correct through inscriptions found.

In 1968 the first physical evidence of crucifixion as a form of punishment was found when archeologist discovered heel bones still tranfixed by an iron nail.

Including historical figures does not make it historical. Bill and Ted's excellent adventure may be found two thousand years from now and people may find it contains some actual historical figures and includes some history. This does not make it a historical document.

Heh. Note this sentence from the first post:

And it did. It reassured me that at least a few people out there still possess common sense. I'm glad to hear you're one of them. :)

Don't worry the people that would rail against what you said provide a little color in an otherwise colorless place. Without the inaccurate ramblings of some of these people what would drive us to show up? We are driven to make sure they are unable to spread their inaccuracies. I'm thankful for them.

- how's that for seeing the silver lining? And I was impressed by the opening post, Poli

Don't worry the people that would rail against what you said provide a little color in an otherwise colorless place. Without the inaccurate ramblings of some of these people what would drive us to show up? We are driven to make sure they are unable to spread their inaccuracies. I'm thankful for them.

- how's that for seeing the silver lining? And I was impressed by the opening post, Poli

I'm glad you liked it. And I do see the silver lining, too - my favorite moment on these forums so far was when someone thanked me for "forcing them to think." :D

Including historical figures does not make it historical. Bill and Ted's excellent adventure may be found two thousand years from now and people may find it contains some actual historical figures and includes some history. This does not make it a historical document.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Including historical figures does not make it historical. Bill and Ted's excellent adventure may be found two thousand years from now and people may find it contains some actual historical figures and includes some history. This does not make it a historical document.
You know, I never would have imagined that one could make a successful analogy between the Bible and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, but you have succeeded. And the funny thing is, it made me think of one too--the first half of Bill & Ted's motto is very Jesus: "Be excellent to each other" sounds a lot like "love your neighbor as yourself" in my book. Could Bill & Ted have been channeling Jesus the whole time? :eek:

You know, I never would have imagined that one could make a successful analogy between the Bible and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, but you have succeeded. And the funny thing is, it made me think of one too--the first half of Bill & Ted's motto is very Jesus: "Be excellent to each other" sounds a lot like "love your neighbor as yourself" in my book. Could Bill & Ted have been channeling Jesus the whole time? :eek:

It's really not that unlikely that it was on purpose, actually. I nearly choked laughing when I wrote that one though.

*sigh* if only this was a pre-dominantly conservative forum, then I could have an army of yes-men too :( *jealous*
WOLF (http://www.emu.edu/news/images/mace.jpg)!!!! Honestly swear to god there is an honest to goodness wolf this time I swear!

NR, do you think that the Koran is a historical document as well? It's my understanding that it also tells the "history" of mankind's creation, fall, and redemption, with poetry and whatnot permeating it.

The Quran was all writen by one man, in a cave, on his own where he claimed to have visions from God and Heaven itself. Many of these visions of hevean were of "wine and women" so I take its claim to be a historical document with a pinch of salt. On the other hand the Bible was writen over a period of several milliena with many differnt writiers writing about things that were happening to them or had happened in the times they were writing the books. Yet it all fits togther and all makes sense and all the prophieces line up well togther.

The Quran was all writen by one man, in a cave, on his own where he claimed to have visions from God and Heaven itself. Many of these visions of hevean were of "wine and women" so I take its claim to be a historical document with a pinch of salt. On the other hand the Bible was writen over a period of several milliena with many differnt writiers writing about things that were happening to them or had happened in the times they were writing the books. Yet it all fits togther and all makes sense and all the prophieces line up well togther.
The Bible especially "lines up well" considering that virtually the entire Jesus myth was plagerized from the myth of Horus. As long as you don't consider "being several thousand years off about the timeline" a significant flaw, you can just go right ahead and embrace those Biblical "facts."

Including historical figures does not make it historical. Bill and Ted's excellent adventure may be found two thousand years from now and people may find it contains some actual historical figures and includes some history. This does not make it a historical document.

It does if its contempary. Bill and Ted is not contempary evidence. It is a historical document if there are not other, more reliable documents that discount it.

It does if its contempary. Bill and Ted is not contempary evidence. It is a historical document if there are not other, more reliable documents that discount it.
So if we found an ancient text describing how the world was assembled from the bones of dead aliens by a master race of 2000 ton flourescent orange centaurs, that would be a convincing bit of evidence for that Creation myth as long as we didn't find any "contempary" documents to discount it?

No you didn't! :p

*Yawn*

My apologies for the length - I've just gotten tired of explaining these things to people over and over. I don't actually expect this to do any good, but it might make me feel better. These cover a range of topics, although the first few are all focused on the same thing. Feel free to add your own! :)

1. You cannot prove a scientific theory true. No theory – not evolution, not gravity, not relativity. The nature of the scientific method is such that theories can only be proven false, not true. Please do not say "scientists have proven X theory to be true." They haven't. I promise. Scientists may have demonstrated a correlation between X and Y, or found strong evidence suggesting X, or found so much evidence that we can all be essentially certain that X is true, but they haven't proven X true. Likewise, please do not use "it can’t be proven" as an attack against any theory, since no theory can be "proven." That’s what a theory is.


I have to argue with this one. Scientific theory can be proven true in a given regime. To argue that it works outside the regime, or to be the entire truth of the physical reality, now that is where theories fall short.

It does if its contempary. Bill and Ted is not contempary evidence. It is a historical document if there are not other, more reliable documents that discount it.

That is completely and utterly false. It is a historical document if it is a true representation of history (rather than an editorial). If it is an editorial, it is a cultural document that describes some history. It obviously has historical significance, but it's obvious editorial nature makes it not a historical document.

The Quran was all writen by one man, in a cave, on his own where he claimed to have visions from God and Heaven itself. Many of these visions of hevean were of "wine and women" so I take its claim to be a historical document with a pinch of salt. On the other hand the Bible was writen over a period of several milliena with many differnt writiers writing about things that were happening to them or had happened in the times they were writing the books. Yet it all fits togther and all makes sense and all the prophieces line up well togther.

Wait, I thought the measurement was just whether or not we have something contemporary that discounts it. Now it's if it mentions "wine and women". Who else mentions "wine and women"? *thinks* Oh, wait, I know. Jesus Christ! Perhaps not in heaven, but I'm not sure that's the measurement of whether it's an accurate history.

Your problem is that you started with a premise and you only accept evidence that supports your claim. I am a Christian and I have found few accurate translations of the Bible that contradict science or history unless you try to take every story in them literally. A reasonable person adjusts their claims to the evidence. You are doing exactly the opposite.

SNIP /rant :p

A friggin men! :D

Don't you have to take it literally to be a Christian? If the world in 7days is part of the Bible and, stoning your children is part of the Bible, and Jesus being the only begotten son and nobody getting to the father save through him in in the Bible how do you get to pick and choose?


Wait, I thought the measurement was just whether or not we have something contemporary that discounts it. Now it's if it mentions "wine and women". Who else mentions "wine and women"? *thinks* Oh, wait, I know. Jesus Christ! Perhaps not in heaven, but I'm not sure that's the measurement of whether it's an accurate history.

Your problem is that you started with a premise and you only accept evidence that supports your claim. I am a Christian and I have found few accurate translations of the Bible that contradict science or history unless you try to take every story in them literally. A reasonable person adjusts their claims to the evidence. You are doing exactly the opposite.

Don't you have to take it literally to be a Christian? If the world in 7days is part of the Bible and, stoning your children is part of the Bible, and Jesus being the only begotten son and nobody getting to the father save through him in in the Bible how do you get to pick and choose?

No, it's not picking and choosing. Much of the Bible is clearly allegorical. It was also written in a language that people no longer speak. We have to use context and historical, cultural and scientific evidence to decide what the text likely meant with as much educated guessing as we can muster. For example, the world was only created in seven days if you're completely unaware of the rest of the Bible where it is explained that time is not significant in those stories. If I am shown a vision for a day that shows the creation of the earth, I would describe it as the earth being created in a day. However, until the earth was created and began to spin there was no such thing as a day.

It's important to understand that there is only one core tenet that people must adhere to be a Christian and that is the acceptance of Christ as your personal savior. Everything else is an interpretation by the individual and whoever translated the Bible for them.

WOW you said that with a straight face ...every time I try I bust a gut laughing. How do you do that.


The Bible is the history of mankind's creation, fall, and redemption. It is supposed to be a historical document, with bits of poetry and what-not permeating it.

So you have no problems with gay marrige and gay clergy or abortion right?

No, it's not picking and choosing. Much of the Bible is clearly allegorical. It was also written in a language that people no longer speak. We have to use context and historical, cultural and scientific evidence to decide what the text likely meant with as much educated guessing as we can muster. For example, the world was only created in seven days if you're completely unaware of the rest of the Bible where it is explained that time is not significant in those stories. If I am shown a vision for a day that shows the creation of the earth, I would describe it as the earth being created in a day. However, until the earth was created and began to spin there was no such thing as a day.

It's important to understand that there is only one core tenet that people must adhere to be a Christian and that is the acceptance of Christ as your personal savior. Everything else is an interpretation by the individual and whoever translated the Bible for them.

So you have no problems with gay marrige and gay clergy or abortion right?

I don't think you can extrapolate that from what I said. At all.

But I think gay marriage should be permitted in the US as to do otherwise is a violation of the fourteenth amendment. I don't really believe in clergy at all and I have mixed feelings on abortion, but I would not suggest my feelings become legislation.

The Bible is the history of mankind's creation, fall, and redemption. It is supposed to be a historical document, with bits of poetry and what-not permeating it.The Bible - the Old Testament at least - is not a historical document and was never intended to be. It is myth - and myth is something to which attitudes have changed enormously in the intervening years.

In the times when the OT was put together, myth was accepted as myth, but was considered valuable in that it provided useful illustrations of concepts. Think of it like Aesop's Fables or, more appropriately, perhaps, as a parable. If we accept the truth of his ministry at least, without debating whether or he was himself God, the stories Jesus told to his disciples were not 'true' - yet they served a purpose in teaching a certain morality. But his disciples did not expect or need those stories to be true in order to see the value in them, and the point Jesus was trying to make. They did not demand that Jesus 'prove' each story, because they knew them for what they were: myth. That didn't mean they were useless in terms of providing guidance on how to live - parables and other morality tales are simply a expression of moral reasoning.

Similarly, in times long gone, when the stories that now comprise Genesis were first told, they would have been recognised for what they are: stories. I can only imagine how perplexed the original storytellers would be if, in an age of science when we can see further and clearer than ever before, they saw people rejecting facts in order to embrace tales that were never intended to be considered 'literal' truth in any case.

Too many people have forgotten what a 'myth' is, and assume the word to describe something that is untrue and therefore useless. The first part is correct - the second is not.

Adaru
(Who is not Christian but pagan, and who believes that Jesus probably existed, and probably acted as a Rabbi, but that he was not any more divine than anyone else.)

The Bible - the Old Testament at least - is not a historical document and was never intended to be. It is myth - and myth is something to which attitudes have changed enormously in the intervening years.

In the times when the OT was put together, myth was accepted as myth, but was considered valuable in that it provided useful illustrations of concepts. Think of it like Aesop's Fables or, more appropriately, perhaps, as a parable. If we accept the truth of his ministry at least, without debating whether or he was himself God, the stories Jesus told to his disciples were not 'true' - yet they served a purpose in teaching a certain morality. But his disciples did not expect or need those stories to be true in order to see the value in them, and the point Jesus was trying to make. They did not demand that Jesus 'prove' each story, because they knew them for what they were: myth. That didn't mean they were useless in terms of providing guidance on how to live - parables and other morality tales are simply a expression of moral reasoning.

Similarly, in times long gone, when the stories that now comprise Genesis were first told, they would have been recognised for what they are: stories. I can only imagine how perplexed the original storytellers would be if, in an age of science when we can see further and clearer than ever before, they saw people rejecting facts in order to embrace tales that were never intended to be considered 'literal' truth in any case.

Too many people have forgotten what a 'myth' is, and assume the word to describe something that is untrue and therefore useless. The first part is correct - the second is not.

Adaru
(Who is not Christian but pagan, and who believes that Jesus probably existed, and probably acted as a Rabbi, but that he was not any more divine than anyone else.)

Correction. Myth were useful illustrations of concepts and they were also held to be true. Parables are useful illustrations of concepts that were intended to be known to be false. The stories in the Bible started as parables and became myths. They were not intended to be myths. Just wanted to point that out.

I think science has begun to realize that theory is a term that the public confuses. I have heard the word model used in place of theory and in some cases even law. For instance Newton's model of gravity, Darwin's model for evolution. The quantam mechanical model of the universe. This is a more accurate term since what all these "laws" and theories do is model the universe as we understand it. As our knowledge of the universe increases our models must be modified and sometimes replaced. This doesn't mean that all models are bad, just that they only work in a limited field. In fact Aristotle's elemental model works in a very limitted field. Galilean gravity works in a bigger field, Newton's field is bigger, but we still can't get a model for the whole universe that is accurate. Also, models can't be proven true, only false.

When about fifty secular history books state the same thing (usually quoting large portions, or the entirety of historical documents), it's generally true, or at least widely accepted!!

I seriously wish people would learn this...