Posted on 12/13/2009 2:41:34 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
For the past 150 years archaeologists have been verifying the exact truthfulness of the Bible's detailed records of various events, customs, persons, cities, nations, and geographical locations. Dr. Nelson Glueck probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said, “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.”
In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas. In fact, even though less than 1% of the material available to excavate in the tells in Israel has been excavated, there have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible. Entire books have been written on this topic. Allow me to give you three examples.
A. Pontius Pilate
The Bible says that he was the Roman governor of Judea and the man who issued the official order for Jesus to be sentenced to death by crucifixion (Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 18-19). In June of 1961 a team of Italian archaeologists, led by Dr. Antonio Frova, were excavating the Mediterranean port city of Caesarea that had at one time served as the Roman capital of Palestine. It was there in the jumbled ruins of an ancient Roman theater that they uncovered a large 2’ x 3’, 5” or so thick, limestone rock. The inscription on the rock amazed the archaeologists. It read in: “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans.” (Scholars believe that the Tiberium refers to a temple or some other kind of public structure named after the Roman emperor Tiberius, who reigned from 14–37 A.D.) This stone is on display today in the Israel Museum as a testimony to the reliability of the Bible.
B. Caiaphas
Caiaphas, the Bible tells us, was the Jewish high priest at the time of Jesus crucifixion. Was he a make believe character? Some thought so, that is until 1990, when the Caiaphas family tomb was accidentally discovered by workers constructing a water park just south of Jerusalem. Archaeologists were hastily called to the scene. When they examined the tomb they found 12 ossuaries (limestone bone boxes) containing the remains of 63 individuals. On the outside of the most beautifully decorated of the ossuaries was inscribed the words: “Joseph son of Caiaphas.” What’s incredible is that Josephus (that Jewish historian of the first century A.D.) in his writings (Antiquities 18: 2, 2; 4, 3) documents that that was actually the full name of the high priest who arrested Jesus, “Joseph son of Caiaphas.” (Saying “son of” was a way of referring to the family name). Inside the ossuary archaeologists found the remains of a someone approximately 60-years-old at the time of his death...the actual bones of Caiaphas, the high priest mentioned in the Bible. Today Caiaphas’ ossuary is also on display in the Israel Museum as a testimony of the Bible’s trustworthiness!
C. David
David of course was the most loved of all of Israel’s kings. Some liberal scholars though had denied that King David was a historical figure because there was no mention of him outside of the Bible. Their skepticism changed in 1993. It was then, at an excavation at Tel-Dan in N. Israel they found a now famous stone with an inscription (in Aramaic) referring to the House of David. In 1994 two more fragments of the same stone inscription were discovered, again mentioning the House of David. In 1995 Time Magazine did a story on this discovery and stated, This writing—dated to the 9th century B.C., only a century after David’s reign—described a victory by a neighboring king over the Israelites…The skeptics’ claim that King David never existed is now hard to defend" (Time, December 18, 1995). It’s because of discoveries like this that men like Millar Burrows, (former Professor at Yale University) stated, “…archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine" (Burrows, Millar. What Mean These Stones? New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1941, p. 1.). Like I said, there are literally thousands of these archaeological discoveries that point to the Bible being an accurate and trustworthy historical document.
***
Archaeology has not proven so helpful for other religious writings. Consider the Book of Mormon. “Not one piece of evidence has ever been found to support the Book of Mormon -- not a trace of the large cities it names, no ruins, no coins, no letters or documents or monuments, nothing in writing. Not even one of the rivers or mountains or any of the topography it mentions has ever been identified.” (Dave Hunt, p.156, In Defense of the Faith; also see p. 107 in The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel). Nothing which demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is anything other than an early nineteeth century piece of American fiction, invented by Joseph Smith has ever been found.
The National Geographic Society stated on August 12, 1998, “Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past, and the Society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.” The Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. has also verified this utter lack of evidence saying in 1996 when they said, “The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian Archaeologists see no connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book.”
I think you misunderstood the poster. CondoleezzaProtege is quite correct in his/her assessment of the Book of Mormon. The Book fabricated in the mind of Joseph Smith and his cohorts hasn’t a single grain of truth in it except the parts that were plagiarized from the King James version of the Bible. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is as truthful.
Any trip to Israel should include a tour of various digs and archaeology sites.
Almost without exception, they contain validation of some point in the Scriptures, even if it is a graffiti in a water tunnel, or a piece of Hezekiah’s Wall 45 feet under the sidewalks of Jerusalem.
It’s wonderful. Check it out if you ever can.
Does the Bible Contain a Mathematically Incorrect Value for "Pi"?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Does the Bible contain errors in math? If it does, this calls into question its moral and spiritual authority. Much is at stake. Let's carefully examine one of the most frequent charges of error.
When describing Solomon's Temple and its fixtures, Scripture tells of a great basin cast of molten brass "ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, . . . and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" (I Kings 7:23).
The circumference, c, of a circle is related to its diameter, d, by the ratio "pi" or "P" according to the equation c = Pd. Mathematical derivatives have calculated the precise value of P to many decimal places, but for most applications the approximation 3.14 is sufficient.
Inserting the value of circumference and diameter given by Scripture into the equation yields a value of P to be 3, and it is this apparent error which gives Bible detractors such glee.
Construction techniques in those days were surprisingly advanced. We can assume that their mathematics was precise and measurements handled with care. Notice that the basin "was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies" (v.26). A "hand breadth" is an inexact distance of about four inches, but sufficient for this general description. The whole basin flared out at the top, much like a lily. So, exactly what do the dimensions given really represent?
The diameter of the basin would be the inside diameter, measured from side to side. But the circumference would be measured by placing a cord around the outside, then measuring the length of the cord. Furthermore, at what elevation along the tapered basin was the measurement taken? Obviously, these are not intended to be precise, but to give the overall impression of great size and beauty.
Engineers have adopted a technique to insure that reported measurements are properly understood. To do this they use the convention called "significant figures." The number 10 is quite different from the number 10.0 or 10.00 in the precision it implies. To an engineer the number 10 can actually mean anything between 9.5 and 10.5. Likewise, the number 30 can actually mean anything between 29.5 and 30.5.
While the number P is accurate to many decimal places, the other two numbers do not have this precision. When one precise number is multiplied by an imprecise number, the product should be reported with no more precision than the least precise factor. Multiplying the diameter, 10 (i.e., 9.5 to 10.5) by P, is properly understood as implying a circumference somewhere between 29.8 and 33.0.
When constructing an object for which extremely high precision is needed (e.g., the space shuttle), numbers are designed, reported, and fabricated to several decimal places, but to expect such precision in a lay description of this huge basin cast from molten brass is not only improper, it shows lack of understanding of basic engineering concepts. Properly understood, the Bible is not only correct, it foreshadows modern engineering truth.
of course archaeology confirms the bible...that’s why non believers rarely bring it up, if at all...it starts to hit too close to home.
bump
My mistake. Sometimes my type A comes out a little too fast.
Post on.
Personally, I appreciate CP’s posts even not being a Christian. Who says you have to read them anyway? Move on to another thread if you don’t like it.
I misunderstood “NotThere”. He meant his post as a joke and it was my bad to fly off the handle so quick.
CondoleezzaProtege is quite correct in her assessment. I have many Mormon friends and have asked them questions, genuinely, about their beliefs and practices.
Sometimes I get a straight answer and we just disagree but are still friends. Others don’t like questions from outsiders and get agitated.
The response that pertubes me the most however, is when they give a patently false answer, that was contrived and contorted from verses and they are completely out of context. When you explain it them, they get holier than thou(the believe their religion is more perfect) and will hang everything on a single verse.
When you explain that there are no verses in the Bible that are not corroborated by other verses, the subject changes.
To each his own. I don’t try to convince them but, boy do they think I should be a Mormon.
I ain’t joining any other clubs or converting for anyone.
lol
Cool.
I wasn’t talking to CP and I too appreciate her posts. I was talking to NotThere and I misunderstood his post. It was a joke.
I apologize then, v. My fault. I should analyze these whole threads more closely as I will try to do in the future.
Please forgive me.
Apologies all around. I’m buyin’. LOL
No Problemo.
Here is another thread that may be of interest to you. :)
The National Geographic Society stated on August 12, 1998, “Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past, and the Society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.” The Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. has also verified this utter lack of evidence saying in 1996 when they said, “The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian Archaeologists see no connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book.”
Oh,oh, watch out for the cries of mormon-bashing
Reminds me of Schliemann...
The term “dark age” as it is used wrt European history means an age for which no physical evidence exists. The simplest possible explanation for such an age is that it simply did not happen. A number of very good scholars now believe that we are basically living more like 1700 years after Christ than like 2000 years.
The term “Dark Ages” was coined by European Protestants who were referring to the repressive, feudalistic reign of the Roman Catholic Church and the corrupt, truth-suppressing Papacy. During those Dark Ages—people neither could nor were allowed to read the Bible and hear God’s revelation directly. The Catholic hierarchy were worried about their authority being threatened.
It wasn’t until after the invention of the printing press and the Protestant Reformation that the “Light” was able to shine forth in Europe again. And don’t forget, it was the Protestant Reformation—not the “Enlightenment” that was the prime mover of scientific research and innovation as well.
***And it looks like the Flying Spaghetti Monster is more believable than the Book of Mormon.***
I had a religious experience with the flying Spagetti Monster last week. I ate the god as communion with garlic toast and parmesian cheese, then picked up the book of mormon and had a sudden burning of the belly. I almost began to moan in tongues but a good dose of bicarbonate of soda fixed me up.
No more Spagetti monster for me before bed!;-D
I, too, hate it when I get JRD (Joseph reflux disease)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.