Evidence to support the Christian Bible.

[Confused]

This is simple:

What evidence exists to support the truth of the OT and NT. By evidence, I mean something outside of scripture. What evidence supports the stories of the OT and the NT?
I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se. But what about it gives it authenticity? Such as archeological evidence to support the existence of a place and the person who lived there. Perhaps some of the events that are physical in nature as well.

[OnceConvinced]

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be offensive. BUT while you hold up the ideal, "Especially those who prize observable evidence so highly." In practice I have seen this ideal bashed even on this site. There often seems to be more effort spent at ignoring or discrediting, "observable evidence" on technicalities and other whimsical protests than there has been a willigness to consider very valuable "observable evidence".
.

Myself, I see people rightfully challenging this so-called evidence. For some people it may seem like amazing evidence, but for others they may very well see an ignorant person who is not educated enough to realise what they have experienced is not supernatural, but natural. They may see a person who refuses to look at other reasons for their experiences. They may see a person who is deluded who just so much wants to believe in God, they'll take anything as evidence.

Once again this often comes down to personality types. Just because someone's "observable evidence" may seem amazing to one person will seem silly to another.

These sort of things must be challenged and must be questioned for the hardest sceptic to be able to believe. It's a natural process for that particular type of person. To put them down because they don't believe as you do is unfair. It's all very well for those who are willing to trust and believe what other people claim, but not everyone is naturally that trusting or willing to believe.

[bernee51]

Bernee my brother, it's OK. No need to be SAD.

And by dishonest Joer I don't mean to me or the rest of the universe but dishonest to YOURSELF.

I don't think I’m am being dishonest to myself because I believe in the Evidence presented.

I don't see your belief as dishonesty. In fact I fully accept that what you DO believe to be true what you say you beleive and that this belief has profound influence on your life.

"To those who don't [believe], No Evidence will Suffice" is what I consider to be dishonest. At best it is a defensive justification on your part to support your own belief. At worst it is self deception.

If YOU don't believe it, It doesn't mean I'm WRONG. It only means we have a different POV.

Indeed.

And your belief does not invalidate my clear understanding that what I have seen presented as evidence for an extant god is anything but. It does not mean "No Evidence will Suffice".

You touch my heart brother with your compassion and sincerity.

We are all one Joer.

I can no more lack compassion and sincerity with you than I can with myself.

[Goat]

Mac wrote:

joer wrote:
To those who believe No Evidence is Necessary!
To those who don't, No Evidence will Suffice.

Why then debate?

My point exactly. and this:

joer wrote:
Quite Literally to see what's out there. And if you do a little Google on Historical Proof of Bible, you'll find quite a bit. And as you can see from the sample I've shared here some sources more objective than others.

I did and found none that I would consider objective. Perhaps you can post one or two links to the more objective sources.

Here's one I've already posted Mac. What do you find about it that is Not Objective?
The 1971 Excavation of King Solomon's Gate
http://www.kingsolomonsgate.com/

I see some claims in a personal web page that is quoted by some very religious sites.

However, I do so something missing. That is a peer reviewed article on it. It would be some that would be HAILED very loudly by a large number of groups in Israel. When I look at the personal publications and sites of the archeologists that are mentioned, they do not mention King Solomon's gate. Why is that? It is all either this guy's sites, or people quoting this guy. The people who would be qualified to make a determination of the validity of the claims who are mentioned in the web site you gave do not give the same information. Shocking , I say, Shocking.

[joer]

What would you call it Once if you told an atheist who asking about God, that God wouldn’t perform any supernatural feats to convince the atheist of His existence and the atheist told you:

Ah, ok, I see where you are coming from. So you are assuming that atheists are so darn stubborn (and dare I say stupid) that if God met with them face to face and performed a whole heap of amazing feits, they still wouldn't beleive he was God.

This happens over and over again, post after post, thread after thread, year after year. Believers tell atheists God will not do supernatural acts to convince them of Hid existence and Atheists insist over and over again even after being told that's not the way it works, that he should do that.

So I’m not calling that stubborn but your suggesting that I am. And I’m asking you what do YOU CALL IT?

You also say:

This is another common fallacy I see brought up by Christians. It's not a choice to "see" God. You either see him or your don't. I can not choose to see God

You say you can not choose to see God. BUT your not saying, "I choose Not to see God." Which is what you have done.

I know you don’t see it that way But that’s the way Christian’s see it.

I’ve often used the examples of “seeing� abalone when you dive on the coast. If you practice and listen to those who can “see� them eventually you’ll be able to see them also. And for some it’s easier than for others to develop the skill to “see� them. But to those who get frustrated in trying to “see� them and give up, They WILL NEVER SEE THEM. PERIOD. That’s just the way it is.

That’s how it is with God. There are those who for what ever reason don’t want to try to see God anymore. They want God to prove himself to them. To a believer that’s about as logical as believing an Abalone should make you “SEE HIM�. Ain’t never going to happen.

You also wrote:

Myself, I see people rightfully challenging this so-called evidence.

Here's one I've posted. What do you find about it that is Not Objective?
The 1971 Excavation of King Solomon's Gate
http://www.kingsolomonsgate.com/

[Goat]

What would you call it Once if you told an atheist who asking about God, that God wouldn’t perform any supernatural feats to convince the atheist of His existence and the atheist told you:

Ah, ok, I see where you are coming from. So you are assuming that atheists are so darn stubborn (and dare I say stupid) that if God met with them face to face and performed a whole heap of amazing feits, they still wouldn't beleive he was God.

This happens over and over again, post after post, thread after thread, year after year. Believers tell atheists God will not do supernatural acts to convince them of Hid existence and Atheists insist over and over again even after being told that's not the way it works, that he should do that.

So I’m not calling that stubborn but your suggesting that I am. And I’m asking you what do YOU CALL IT?

You also say:

This is another common fallacy I see brought up by Christians. It's not a choice to "see" God. You either see him or your don't. I can not choose to see God

You say you can not choose to see God. BUT your not saying, "I choose Not to see God." Which is what you have done.

I know you don’t see it that way But that’s the way Christian’s see it.

I’ve often used the examples of “seeing� abalone when you dive on the coast. If you practice and listen to those who can “see� them eventually you’ll be able to see them also. And for some it’s easier than for others to develop the skill to “see� them. But to those who get frustrated in trying to “see� them and give up, They WILL NEVER SEE THEM. PERIOD. That’s just the way it is.

That’s how it is with God. There are those who for what ever reason don’t want to try to see God anymore. They want God to prove himself to them. To a believer that’s about as logical as believing an Abalone should make you “SEE HIM�. Ain’t never going to happen.

You also wrote:

Myself, I see people rightfully challenging this so-called evidence.

Here's one I've posted. What do you find about it that is Not Objective?
The 1971 Excavation of King Solomon's Gate
http://www.kingsolomonsgate.com/

I went there all ready.. why didn't you answer my response?

There is no peer reviewed article on this. There is the claim of ONE person that these excavations are King Solomon's gates. The archeologists he mentions were involved with it did not have anything on their publications or web sites about it.
Why is that? Daniel Prides claims would be much more credible if the archaeologists he cites actually wrote about it.

[joer]

Bernee wrote:

And your belief does not invalidate my clear understanding that what I have seen presented as evidence for an extant god is anything but. It does not mean "No Evidence will Suffice".

If you look at the OP Bernee it's not asking for evidence for an "extant God", it ONLY asks for evidence that supports "truth" in the OT and NT. It seems to me evidence supporting the existence of archeological structures, historical places or the occurrence of historical characters or events in the Bible would qualify as "evidence exists to support the truth of the OT and NT."

What evidence exists to support the truth of the OT and NT. By evidence, I mean something outside of scripture. What evidence supports the stories of the OT and the NT?
I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se. But what about it gives it authenticity? Such as archeological evidence to support the existence of a place and the person who lived there. Perhaps some of the events that are physical in nature as well.

I've presented evidence that supports the existence of archeological structures, historical places or the existence of historical characters or the occurrence of events in the Bible.

I haven't proven nor do I expect to prove the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the existence of God, or a myriad of other phenomenon that can only be known by FAITH.

[joer]

I wrote to fallible one:

There often seems to be more effort spent at ignoring or discrediting, "observable evidence" on technicalities and other whimsical protests than there has been a willingness to consider very valuable "observable evidence".

Goat wrote:

I see some claims in a personal web page that is quoted by some very religious sites.

However, I do so something missing. That is a peer reviewed article on it.

That’s what I’m talking about, Fallibleone and Once and others. It doesn’t matter to goat weather the evidence is TRUE or NOT. He will obfuscate it on the basis of technicality, there is no “peer reviewed article on it.� He doesn’t care if it’s true or not, his only interest is to discredit it. Weather he admits it or not. It’s a debate tactic not an honoring of truth as you expressed fallibleone.

[bernee51]

Bernee wrote:

And your belief does not invalidate my clear understanding that what I have seen presented as evidence for an extant god is anything but. It does not mean "No Evidence will Suffice".

If you look at the OP Bernee it's not asking for evidence for an "extant God", it ONLY asks for evidence that supports "truth" in the OT and NT. It seems to me evidence supporting the existence of archeological structures, historical places or the occurrence of historical characters or events in the Bible would qualify as "evidence exists to support the truth of the OT and NT."

What evidence exists to support the truth of the OT and NT. By evidence, I mean something outside of scripture. What evidence supports the stories of the OT and the NT?

That (re. extant god) is a fair point.

Re the OP. The fact that historical characters and places 'occur' in the bible is as supporting of its veracity as the occurance of historial people and places is supporting of the veracity of "Tale of Two Cities"

I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se. But what about it gives it authenticity? Such as archeological evidence to support the existence of a place and the person who lived there. Perhaps some of the events that are physical in nature as well.

It only gives it authenticity because you WANT it to provide authenticity? Do you likewise believe that Tale of Two Cities is valid because of the existence of concurrence of palces/events?

IF not, why not? Could it be because no one is claiming it to be true? Or because you have no vested interest in it being true?

I've presented evidence that supports the existence of archeological structures, historical places or the existence of historical characters or the occurrence of events in the Bible.

And why does this prove the 'truth' of the bible in its totality?

[joer]

Bernee wrote:

And why does this prove the 'truth' of the bible in its totality?

It doesn't, nor does it seem was it meant to. It appears to be a question that wishes to discern at least WHAT IS verifiably true at least by some other historical and contemporary sources.

I think it does (each new biblical fact verification) increase the Bible's recognition as an historical document.

In spite of the fact of those who incessantly try to discredit it on whatever level possible.

And as I said:

I haven't proven nor do I expect to prove the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the existence of God, or a myriad of other phenomenon that can only be known by FAITH.

[Goat]

I wrote to fallible one:

There often seems to be more effort spent at ignoring or discrediting, "observable evidence" on technicalities and other whimsical protests than there has been a willingness to consider very valuable "observable evidence".

Goat wrote:

I see some claims in a personal web page that is quoted by some very religious sites.

However, I do so something missing. That is a peer reviewed article on it.

That’s what I’m talking about, Fallibleone and Once and others. It doesn’t matter to goat weather the evidence is TRUE or NOT. He will obfuscate it on the basis of technicality, there is no “peer reviewed article on it.� He doesn’t care if it’s true or not, his only interest is to discredit it. Weather he admits it or not. It’s a debate tactic not an honoring of truth as you expressed fallibleone.

Well, it does matter if a claim is credible when it comes to archeology. When someone makes a claim, and mentions a specific archeologist, yet, the person he cites does NOT make the claim.. well.. that is certainly a cause for concern. The archeologist he mentioned would have been a WONDERFUL and credible source if that person wrote about it, and the evidence for it and it's implications.

It's not a debate tactic at all.. it is skeptics view point.. not to take every claim at face value, but wanting this little thing known as evidence.

It sort of like Ron Wyatt. Any little bit of rock found was evidence of amazing things in the bible, even though the context was not there.

I don't know about you, but if the people who actually discovered an archeological feature do not publish that it is a specific find that would be absolutely amazing and a confirmation of their faith and history, yet a random guy makes a claim on the internet about it, I tend to be rather skeptical.

So, why should I believe Daniel Pride? What are his qualifications? This sounds like the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority"