The Bible (History Channel Mini-series) (myths, Muslims, Israel, Biblical)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So show me your evidence that Sodom was a real place, and keep the snark to yourself....What, you don't have any? Well that is because there is none...How anyone can believe things "because it's in the bible" is beyond me....It is bad enough that the bible lies about events, but also includes fictional cities.
I honestly have no clue. I've never cared to research it. My guess is that since it was wiped off the face of the earth, we probably wouldn't find much. I do know that the Bible is reliable as an historical document though...as we have validated many geographical sites and ancient civilizations that are listed in the Bible.
I honestly have no clue. I've never cared to research it. My guess is that since it was wiped off the face of the earth, we probably wouldn't find much. I do know that the Bible is reliable as an historical document though...as we have validated many geographical sites and ancient civilizations that are listed in the Bible.
I got to give Vizio credit. At least he's honest. At least he engages people on CD without doing nothing but quoting scriptures in every post and telling people they're going to eternal damnation for thinking differently than him like many of the other fundies on CD. They know who they are. They think they're better than everyone else. I don't get that vibe from Vizio.
I've learned a lot about religion and humanity from my time on CD. Maybe you can benefit the same way as well Vizio.
I got to give Vizio credit. At least he's honest. At least he engages people on CD without doing nothing but quoting scriptures in every post and telling people they're going to eternal damnation for thinking differently than him like many of the other fundies on CD. They know who they are. They think they're better than everyone else. I don't get that vibe from Vizio.
I've learned a lot about religion and humanity from my time on CD. Maybe you can benefit the same way as well Vizio.
This thread has been sidetracked, IMHO with and argument about Sodom and the story described within the Bible. My intent is to provide a higher view of things.
As to whether or not there were real cities called Sodom and Gomorrah, qien sabe? But keep in mind that 200 years ago the intelligentsia believed that the biblical stories about a place called Babylon were thought to be fiction. Yet archaeology has proven there was such a place, and the multitude of cuneiform tables substantiate the chronology of the kings of that city.
Were there two cities named Sodom and Gomorrah? Who knows? Is the biblical story literally true? That is impossible to determine. But could it be that there were two great (proto) cities 3500 years ago, places of trade and commerce, places that nomads such as the ancient Hebrews wondered about, and maybe disapproved of?
After all, what to fundamentalist Christians say about, oh, San Francisco? What do fundamentalist Islamacists say about, oh, America in general. 3500 years in the future I wonder if there will be tales about the nation of Greatsatan?
Consider that 200 years ago the elites and the intelligentsia though that Babylon was a fiction. Knowing what we know now, can anyone deny the existence of the place? And given the existence, does the thinking person suppose that maybe there is no reason to disbelieve the stories told about the Hebrews in captivity there?
To add a more secular note to the discussion, 200 years ago the elites and intelligentsia determined that Homer's Iliad was pure fiction. But there can be no doubt that Schliemann's (and Durkfeld's) Troy VI is the city that Homer describes. Schliemann's work also confirms the social and political context for the story. Doesnt mean there was a Trojan war, precisely as described. Just means there is a kernel of truth.
I am amazed that people who consider themselves educated and I daresay more enlightened than Christians in general, cannot accept even the most fundamental aspects of biblical "history". Was there an Ur of the Chaldees? Was there an Assyria? Was there a Babylon? Was there an Egypt, in which people who may have been "Hebrews" existed?
Really, skepticism is one thing. Knee jerk denial is something else entirely.
I've never cared to research it. My guess is that since it was wiped off the face of the earth, we probably wouldn't find much. I do know that the Bible is reliable as an historical document though...as we have validated many geographical sites and ancient civilizations that are listed in the Bible.
We have ancient literature and epic poems that mention geographical sites and ancient civilizations' while referring to the doings of their local gods and goddesses etc. Doesn't mean all the places actually existed or the events actually happened or the characters were real people.
This thread has been sidetracked, IMHO with and argument about Sodom and the story described within the Bible. My intent is to provide a higher view of things.
As to whether or not there were real cities called Sodom and Gomorrah, qien sabe? But keep in mind that 200 years ago the intelligentsia believed that the biblical stories about a place called Babylon were thought to be fiction. Yet archaeology has proven there was such a place, and the multitude of cuneiform tables substantiate the chronology of the kings of that city.
Were there two cities named Sodom and Gomorrah? Who knows? Is the biblical story literally true? That is impossible to determine. But could it be that there were two great (proto) cities 3500 years ago, places of trade and commerce, places that nomads such as the ancient Hebrews wondered about, and maybe disapproved of?
After all, what to fundamentalist Christians say about, oh, San Francisco? What do fundamentalist Islamacists say about, oh, America in general. 3500 years in the future I wonder if there will be tales about the nation of Greatsatan?
Consider that 200 years ago the elites and the intelligentsia though that Babylon was a fiction. Knowing what we know now, can anyone deny the existence of the place? And given the existence, does the thinking person suppose that maybe there is no reason to disbelieve the stories told about the Hebrews in captivity there?
To add a more secular note to the discussion, 200 years ago the elites and intelligentsia determined that Homer's Iliad was pure fiction. But there can be no doubt that Schliemann's (and Durkfeld's) Troy VI is the city that Homer describes. Schliemann's work also confirms the social and political context for the story. Doesnt mean there was a Trojan war, precisely as described. Just means there is a kernel of truth.
I am amazed that people who consider themselves educated and I daresay more enlightened than Christians in general, cannot accept even the most fundamental aspects of biblical "history". Was there an Ur of the Chaldees? Was there an Assyria? Was there a Babylon? Was there an Egypt, in which people who may have been "Hebrews" existed?
Really, skepticism is one thing. Knee jerk denial is something else entirely.
And creating dishonest strawman arguments like those in your post is something else again. (Or rather, blindly swallowing and repeating dishonest strawman claims from Apologist sources)
Just because an ancient myth or story or epic poem refers to an actual place that existed, or even some real people who existed, doesn't mean that all the stories and characters were real or that all the places mentioned were real.
To illustrate: In the Harry Potter books, the characters go to London on their way to Hogwarts. London is a real place. Is Hogwarts real? Are Harry Potter and Ron and Hermione real people. Are their adventures real? All because the story mentioned London?
In Homers epic poems, some of the people and places actually existed. Does that mean all the stories, events, characters and places in the Odyssey and the Iliad were real?
We have ancient literature and epic poems that mention geographical sites and ancient civilizations' while referring to the doings of their local gods and goddesses etc. Doesn't mean all the places actually existed or the events actually happened or the characters were real people.
apples and oranges. Completely different thing. Those epic poems are written as literature...the Bible presents itself as history. Again...if we hadn't actually verified so many of the Biblical places as fact....you might have a point. There's just so much reason to believe that it is factual.
I honestly have no clue. I've never cared to research it. My guess is that since it was wiped off the face of the earth, we probably wouldn't find much. I do know that the Bible is reliable as an historical document though...as we have validated many geographical sites and ancient civilizations that are listed in the Bible.
Cool! That means super hero comic books, The Walking Dead graphic novels etc. are reliable historical documents as well.
apples and oranges. Completely different thing. Those epic poems are written as literature...the Bible presents itself as history. Again...if we hadn't actually verified so many of the Biblical places as fact....you might have a point. There's just so much reason to believe that it is factual.
Ehh no. The Bible presents itself as a collection of myths and fables cobbled together and plagiarized from earlier myths and fables.
If the bible presents itself as history, then it has a huge credibility problem, since many of the events described it the bible are not possible according to what we know 2000 years later about the laws of physics....As for places....
The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Criticism of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
