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.

[Zzyzx]

.

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".

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.

Joer,

I commend you for a valiant effort to try to make the biblical stories sound sensible or believable. However, Goat's observation that the source you cite is no more than a personal opinion is valid in my opinion. Perhaps you are not aware that in any of the scientific fields every person's work is subjected to verification by others before it is deemed credible.

That is done to promote accuracy by double (and multiple) checking of methods of investigation, data, and conclusions. Many errors are detected by "peer review". That makes legitimate "reviewed" articles somewhat more credible than magazine or newspaper articles for example. Web pages seem particularly prone to error unless they are based upon more substantial "reviewed" work. It may be difficult for non-scientific people to understand the emphasis that is placed on verification and authentication of research that is considered valid and credible.

This is not to say that errors never occur – but every effort is made to eliminate errors. Personal opinions, even of respected people, are NOT deemed as "proof" of anything.

It DOES matter if the evidence is "true or not". That is why statements are checked over and over – particularly by people who disagree and try to find mistakes.

How do you determine whether a claim is true or not?

[McCulloch]

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

Why then debate?

My point exactly.

Maybe I missed the point. Why are you here on a debating site if you feel that debate is pointless?

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/

Objective sources do not overstate their conclusions. The excavations cited do not prove historical basis of the Bible. The excavations show that King Solomon probably existed. This is a long way off being the long sought after historical nexus where scientific theory finally validated Biblical History. That you cite this as an objective leads me to conclude that you are not very skeptical and do not understand how to assess objectivity.

Very few skeptics will deny that some history is recorded in the Bible. The problem is that it is difficult to disentangle the history from the myth.

[Goat]

Objective sources do not overstate their conclusions. The excavations cited do not prove historical basis of the Bible. The excavations show that King Solomon probably existed. This is a long way off being the long sought after historical nexus where scientific theory finally validated Biblical History. That you cite this as an objective leads me to conclude that you are not very skeptical and do not understand how to assess objectivity.

Very few skeptics will deny that some history is recorded in the Bible. The problem is that it is difficult to disentangle the history from the myth.

Actually , in the case of Solomon's Gate , it states the opinion of one person, who is not an archeologist, and the scientists involved in the excavation don't mention it.

[joer]

So Fallibleone or others interested in integrity of "observed evidence" look at this next tactic.

You find the lest credible character in a reference in this case the one I've challenged others to look at as objective non-biblical source of verivication of a biblical passage in this case King Solomon's Gate.

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/

So goat says he's read it and again out of hand discredit's it. You see using this tactic if he can get other's to not even look at the evidence. If he can get them "to believe" it's not credible. They can repeat his claim since he supposedly reviewed it and maintain thier non-belief that there's anything credible in the bible.

So goat says:

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.

Now if someone would bother to scroll down a bit and click on this link
scientific theory finally validated Biblical History

They find out famous Archeologist Robert Alexander Stewart McAllister did the dig at Gezer

Archeologist Yigael_Yadin did the dig atHazor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yigael_Yadin

Archeologist Israel Finkelstein made professional comments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... _and_Judah

Archeologists from the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago. did the 14 year dig at Megiddo
http://oi.uchicago.edu/

And the Biblical passage these decades of digs by reputable Archeologists supported was:
]"Now this is the way King Solomon conscripted the Labor Corps to build the house of the Lord, his house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer"

The Holy Bible 1 Kings 9:15

So now you know what I mean when I say as in goat's case:

For those who don't believe No Evidence will Suffice.

Perhaps McCulloch would like to take a closer look at the evidence also. He's another one often more dissposed to discredit rather than reveiw evidence.

[OnceConvinced]

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.

Hold on, I am addressing your claim that an atheist will never believe no matter what the evidence. This wasn't about God's unwillingness to provide such evidence. I think I have made some very good points, which I don't see you refuting.

You say that it's god's policy not to give evidence. That there is an unsupported claim by the way, not endorsed by the bible. In fact God went to a lot of trouble to convince people of his existance in the bible, so it quite clearly is his policy.

The problem you are facing is that the refusal of God to prove himself makes it look as though he is non-existant. It is very VERY strong evidence to show that he is non-existant. The reason why these arguments come up time and time again is that Christians can give no good reasons for his inaction.

There are people who is in their inherent personality to require evidence before they can believe. This is an inherent personality trait that God supposedly endowed them with at birth. So God would make people like that, but then refuse to give them the evidence they need to believe? What sort of God is that?

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

How about persistantly seeking evidence of God. Wanting to be sure? Not willing just to accept the word of the minority.

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.

Then the Christians are wrong. I want to see God. I wanted to see him for nearly 40 years of my life. But I didn't. So I have now come to the only conclusion I can reach, that he is probably not there at all. I have not chosen to disbelieve. My disbelief comes from inevitable conclusions.

Anyway, I have to go. I'll address the rest of your post later.

[joer]

McCulloch wrote:

Maybe I missed the point. Why are you here on a debating site if you feel that debate is pointless?

Because I'm not the one ignoring the evidence.

Nobody's immune to the truth. They may suppress it now, they may suppress it for hundreds of years. But sooner or later it will become self-evident. And at that point they can no longer hide it or hide from it.

Plain and Simple.

[Goat]

So Fallibleone or others interested in integrity of "observed evidence" look at this next tactic.

You find the lest credible character in a reference in this case the one I've challenged others to look at as objective non-biblical source of verivication of a biblical passage in this case King Solomon's Gate.

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/

So goat says he's read it and again out of hand discredit's it. You see using this tactic if he can get other's to not even look at the evidence. If he can get them "to believe" it's not credible. They can repeat his claim since he supposedly reviewed it and maintain thier non-belief that there's anything credible in the bible.

So goat says:

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.

Now if someone would bother to scroll down a bit and click on this link
scientific theory finally validated Biblical History

They find out famous Archeologist Robert Alexander Stewart McAllister did the dig at Gezer

Archeologist Yigael_Yadin did the dig atHazor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yigael_Yadin

Archeologist Israel Finkelstein made professional comments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... _and_Judah

Archeologists from the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago. did the 14 year dig at Megiddo
http://oi.uchicago.edu/

And the Biblical passage these decades of digs by reputable Archeologists supported was:
]"Now this is the way King Solomon conscripted the Labor Corps to build the house of the Lord, his house, the Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer"

The Holy Bible 1 Kings 9:15

So now you know what I mean when I say as in goat's case:

For those who don't believe No Evidence will Suffice.

Perhaps McCulloch would like to take a closer look at the evidence also. He's another one often more dissposed to discredit rather than reveiw evidence.

Joe, you are not getting it.

None of the archeologists you mention wrote a paper on it. Name dropping from an excavator is not evidence.

Out of context video clips from the history channel is not valid scholarship.

The article you linked to about ancient Hebrew history does not mention King Solomon's gates.

And pointing to a university and saying that they did a dig gives me no information about what they found, or the conclusions they drew. It might have done perfectly valid confirmation some of the history of the bible had a basis in fact, but.. the information you provide is sadly lacking.

Again... let's go for the evidence of King Solomon's gate. Where are the peer reviewed archeological papers on it? If what you say has any validity, those will be available.

[joer]

Once wrote:

Hold on, I am addressing your claim that an atheist will never believe no matter what the evidence.

OK My brother Goat told me why my edidence won't suffice for him.

MCCulloch's probably about to do the same.

Why don't you tell me why it's not good enough for you.

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/

Thanks Mate.

[bernee51]

McCulloch wrote:

Maybe I missed the point. Why are you here on a debating site if you feel that debate is pointless?

Because I'm not the one ignoring the evidence.

A is no one else - remeber what you said...differing opinions.

Nobody's immune to the truth.

Except Joer?

They may suppress it now, they may suppress it for hundreds of years. But sooner or later it will become self-evident. And at that point they can no longer hide it or hide from it.

Plain and Simple.

And you believe you have found the 'truth'. It is us for whom 'no evidence is enough' are in the business of suppression, not you.

Why would we do that? What's in it for us? What's in it for you?

[joer]

McCulloch wrote:

Maybe I missed the point. Why are you here on a debating site if you feel that debate is pointless?

Because I'm not the one ignoring the evidence.

A is no one else - remeber what you said...differing opinions.

Nobody's immune to the truth.

Except Joer?

They may suppress it now, they may suppress it for hundreds of years. But sooner or later it will become self-evident. And at that point they can no longer hide it or hide from it.

Plain and Simple.

And you believe you have found the 'truth'. It is us for whom 'no evidence is enough' are in the business of suppression, not you.

Why would we do that? What's in it for us? What's in it for you?

Bernee my friend, I haven't seen anybody prove the evidence false.