Most of you know I am a christian and that I believe the veracity of the Bible. I found this very interesting website. It's full of interesting information, but one page, which for me proves the veracity of the bible, is on the Jews. I believe the Jews and the reformation of Israel is core proof that the bible speaks the truth. Have a look and tell me what you think.

ps not a thread for venting your personal prejudices please!

http://www.theevidence.org.uk/accurate4.htm

I was brought up a Roman Catholic, but I never really believed that it was much more than a fairy tale and rejected it all as soon as I had a choice. However, I consider the reformation of Israel after thousands of years to be nothing short of a miracle, so I have to seriously wonder about the rest of the story.

Perhaps someone can help here ( seriously ).

The problem I have the Bible we have today, is that it has been re-invented so many times ( James etc ) to suit the morals of a particular time, that it must bare little or no resemblance to the bunch of stories that started it all.

Second bit I have problems with, that the original writings in the main, appear to be attributed to a group of folk who would be histiricaly illiterate. How did they do it ?

As with all predictions, some may prove to be correct, many others don't.

Like Cecil B. DeMille said, you have to look at the big picture.

I was raised a christian too and can't deny that this has had a profound effect on me, but I later turned away from it because off many reasons I don't want to get into.

That doesn't mean however that I don't respect people that do keep the faith, as long as they're not blinded by it.

onzestan

Sorry team, just read " histiricaly illiterate "...........I'll get my coat.

I haven't had time to dissect this and make one of my great huge mini-novel replies (yet).

But just off the top of my shiny head, I think it should be pointed out that what is now known as Israel has been conquered and it's people scattered (or supposedly wiped out totally in one case) numerous times over the ages.

The area was ruled/conquered by the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Christians, Mongols, Ottomans, and possibly others (remember, that whole area was known as Palestine before being divvied up and becoming Israel).

In fact, the only reference to Israel in all of the ancient Egyptian histories, is on a stele in the Cairo musem (the Merneptah Stele). The stele was carved to record the victories of Pharaoh Merneptah who had campaigned in Libya and Caanan around 1208/1209 BC. On it is carved one line regarding Israel.

Translated it says "Israel lies waste, its seed no longer exists" (or "Israel is wasted, bare of seed" or "Israel is laid waste, His seed is no more")

In the language of the day, this would mean that there were no men left alive (and possibly no women either. No one who could "seed" another generation.). At this time, based on the hieroglyphs, Israel is referred to as a "people", not a country or even a city-state.

That page in the link also shows a table of how the Jewish people are scattered around the world. However, were you to do a comparative graph showing say, the Hindu, Chinese, Christian, American or British dispersion around the world, I think you'd find that there is nothing remarkable about how spread out the Jews are.

Prophecies ? The world is full of them. Many civilizations have their own prophesies (remember the one where supposedly according to the Mayans, the world will end in 2012 ?).

What if it does ? I'll bet some Christians/Jews will scramble about in their remaining few moments on earth, trying to prove that their book was the one that correctly foretold the event.

But that's just me. The same guy who seriously doubts that a divine being chose a tiny, tiny fraction of the people populating the world at the time, made those few his favourite "chosen" ones, and has ever since sat back and watched them get slaughtered and scattered about like leaves in a hurricane.

(oops, there's that "moves in mysterious ways" thing again. Go away. Shoo ! And take "you have to have faith" with you on the way out.)

If the world evolves (devolves) into a "Big Brother" type scenario, will people hundreds of years from now be holding up copies of "1984" and proclaiming that Orwell was a prophet ?

What if almighty Lord Zenu drops in for a visit in the next couple of centuries. Will people (other than Scientologists) proclaim Hubbard to be a prophet ? Will Dianetics become the "new" bible ?

More research to do. I do love how some people keep trying to reshape history to force it to conform to the bible. It would almost be worth a PhD dissertation to study that by itself.

I was just going to say what Kerry said but he beat me to it.

Nice post KD

I was brought up a Roman Catholic, but I never really believed that it was much more than a fairy tale and rejected it all as soon as I had a choice. However, I consider the reformation of Israel after thousands of years to be nothing short of a miracle, so I have to seriously wonder about the rest of the story.

I too believe it to be a miricle!

Perhaps someone can help here ( seriously ).

The problem I have the Bible we have today, is that it has been re-invented so many times ( James etc ) to suit the morals of a particular time, that it must bare little or no resemblance to the bunch of stories that started it all.

Second bit I have problems with, that the original writings in the main, appear to be attributed to a group of folk who would be histiricaly illiterate. How did they do it ?

Well suiging, I don't know where you get this from! Certainly from the septuagint (the bible in Jesus day) we know to be identical, apart from a few, and I mean very few, transcriptional errors. Also, the bible has never been re-invented to suit the morals of a particular time - that's the point. it doesn't suit the morals of any particular time.

How can you say a group of folks who would be illiterate? Hebrew is proven to be one of the oldest written languages. Your view is not based on fact.

finally, my dear friend kerry, we go back a long way on similar topics. Re-read your post, what you say only proves my point about the Jews. As prophesied throughout the bible, they would be scattered and dispised, brought to the edge of extinction. They did not assimilate into the communities they were dispersed to, maintained their identity even though they were without a homeland and then, as predicted returned and formed the modern nation of Israel against all the odds. Who else could you say that about?

I hope you are aware that the Jews do not recognise Jesus.

I am not a religous person person and I do not need to be in order to know how to be good to myself and others.

Well put.

I hope you are aware that the Jews do not recognise Jesus.

No, I wasn't aware of that!!!

Well put.

What exactly was well put? The link was regarding the reformation of Israel proving the veracity of scripture - that's nothing to do with how we lead our lives, it's an abservable fact. If we believe it or not is another thing.

I hope you are aware that the Jews do not recognise Jesus.

They admit that he existed, but they do not recognize him as their savior.

I was brought up a Roman Catholic, but I never really believed that it was much more than a fairy tale and rejected it all as soon as I had a choice. However, I consider the reformation of Israel after thousands of years to be nothing short of a miracle, so I have to seriously wonder about the rest of the story.

I too believe it to be a miricle!

Perhaps someone can help here ( seriously ).

The problem I have the Bible we have today, is that it has been re-invented so many times ( James etc ) to suit the morals of a particular time, that it must bare little or no resemblance to the bunch of stories that started it all.

Second bit I have problems with, that the original writings in the main, appear to be attributed to a group of folk who would be histiricaly illiterate. How did they do it ?

Well suiging, I don't know where you get this from! Certainly from the septuagint (the bible in Jesus day) we know to be identical, apart from a few, and I mean very few, transcriptional errors. Also, the bible has never been re-invented to suit the morals of a particular time - that's the point. it doesn't suit the morals of any particular time.

How can you say a group of folks who would be illiterate? Hebrew is proven to be one of the oldest written languages. Your view is not based on fact.

finally, my dear friend kerry, we go back a long way on similar topics. Re-read your post, what you say only proves my point about the Jews. As prophesied throughout the bible, they would be scattered and dispised, brought to the edge of extinction. They did not assimilate into the communities they were dispersed to, maintained their identity even though they were without a homeland and then, as predicted returned and formed the modern nation of Israel against all the odds. Who else could you say that about?

The ability of say a common fisherman to be able to read and write in that part of history. is in your opinion a given fact ?

Well put.

What exactly was well put? The link was regarding the reformation of Israel proving the veracity of scripture - that's nothing to do with how we lead our lives, it's an abservable fact. If we believe it or not is another thing.

The statement from Alex was 'well put'. You don't need a guide book to live a proper and moral life, in fact that guide book, and the other one, has caused more pain and suffering to mankind than any other reason, as a race of people, all people, we would have been far better off without it.

Well suiging, I don't know where you get this from! Certainly from the septuagint (the bible in Jesus day) we know to be identical, apart from a few, and I mean very few, transcriptional errors.

Yeah, those small inconsequential little errors, like getting the word 'virgin' wrong.

Taddy, I'm disappointed!

Mods, please close this topic, as by post 9 it was gone off topic. Please save it from irrelevant hi-jacking.

You should know by now that any religious topic is going to go off the rails Tigger.

Why do you think that the wise old sceadugenga kept out of it?

I am a Christian. And I have had great reverance for the Scriptures. Still, I reject the contention of many ministers that the Bible was "divinely inspired." There are too many translations for the "Divine Inspiration" theory to hold much water with me.

Predictions of the rise and fall and rise of the people of Israel permeate much of the New and Old Testiments. Suffice to say, it is a miracle that the Jews continue to exist today when they have suffered countless efforts to kill them out. In one sense, the dispersal of the Jews through the centuries has helped saved them as a people. There will always be Jews until the end of time.

If it's off-topic, you've helped to put it there, Suegha- from what I can see, it has remained a discussion of the veracity of the Bible, which is what you were asking for.

You should know by now that any religious topic is going to go off the rails Tigger.

Why do you think that the wise old sceadugenga kept out of it?

Well, if its gone off-topic, I can't say that it has strayed that badly to close it so quickly.

I think if we are going to start topics that may be controversial we have to live with the comfortable as well as the uncomfortable. And until there is actual flaming or nastiness going on, I don't see that it needs to be closed.

And no, that is NOT giving permission for flaming and nastiness

If it's off-topic, you've helped to put it there, Suegha- from what I can see, it has remained a discussion of the veracity of the Bible, which is what you were asking for.

It has not turned out as Suegha wanted, the veracity of the Bible after #9 has been pretty much off topic and started going down the path of the 'Ones Moral Code', rather than the veracity of the Bible.

Well, if its gone off-topic, I can't say that it has strayed that badly to close it so quickly.

I think if we are going to start topics that may be controversial we have to live with the comfortable as well as the uncomfortable. And until there is actual flaming or nastiness going on, I don't see that it needs to be closed.

Although I do not see it as a closure, I also do not see why it has to be seen as controversial, but a sounding board of what is likely to be two diametrically opposed opinions, it doesn't have to be controversial, just a frank exchange of on-topic views.

Moss

Moss. as ever the voice of reason.

finally, my dear friend kerry, we go back a long way on similar topics.

And I suspect we will continue to agree-to-disagree with each other for a long way into the future !

When I first saw this image, I immediately thought about our previous discussions

Re-read your post, what you say only proves my point about the Jews. As prophesied throughout the bible, they would be scattered and dispised, brought to the edge of extinction. They did not assimilate into the communities they were dispersed to, maintained their identity even though they were without a homeland and then, as predicted returned and formed the modern nation of Israel against all the odds. Who else could you say that about?

My point was, the article in the link claims (in part) that the "prophecy" is true because of the Roman invasion in 70 AD. I wanted to point out that what is now Israel was invaded/conquered/wiped out at least a couple times before and after this particular Roman invasion. If this were a prophecy, it could apply to a totally separate time.

(Argh, now I have to go research to see what (if any) Alexander's standard bearers carried during his conquests. Incidentally, if this is accurate:

"It is known that the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament into Greek was in existence at least 250 years before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70."

that would mean the Greek translation was done (approx) 180 BC. Not too long after Alexander romped through the region. (150 years afterwards).

And:

"The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies, a nation whose language you will not understand, a nation of fierce countenance, which does not respect the elderly nor show favour to the young."

The article then tries to tie this to the Romans:

"Here we see the character of the Romans described:

1. They came from much further away than previous attackers

2. Their language was totally different from Hebrew

3. Their conquests were rapid, and their banner was an eagle

4. They were aggressive and merciless "

Well, well, well. Wouldn't you know it. The Eagle (double headed) was a symbol of the Illyrians who formed a part of Alexander's armies and the Eagle (single headed) was one of the Macedonian's symbols (as it was a symbol for Zeus). (They even built a double-headed eagle shrine in what is now Pakistan). Alexander came from a long way away, had a totally different language, rapid conquests and wasn't exactly a passive, merciful man (in battle at least). Many of Alexander's troops wore feathered plumes on their helmets. Some had bird designs on their shields.

But let us not dwell on the ancient past. Let us skip forward 1,400ish years to the time of Saladin. At his height in power, he had conquered Egypt, Syria, parts of what is now Saudi Arabia, and took Palestine from the Crusaders.

Not sure how much further away Saladin may have been compared to previous attackers. Different language. Not sure if all his victories were rapid. However, Saladin was reknown (for the most part) as a merciful person.

Oh yeah. His symbol ? An Eagle (which in fact, graces the Coat of Arms of no less than 4 different countries).

Ah but those were medieval times ! Let us skip even further forward to more modern times. What was one of the symbols of (Nazi) Germany ? An Eagle ? Using the 4 criteria from the article, I'd dare say Germany fits the prophecy as well.

What I'm trying to point out here, is that this "prophecy" could relate to a number of different times, while the article tries to pin it to the Roman era.

But, now that I've done this tiny bit of research, I dare say I have the inkling of a theory.

This may not be a prophecy at all, but rather a historical account of Alexander's conquest through that part of the world. Keep in mind that historians of the time often wrote in poetical fashion, and keep in mind that literal translation is difficult even in these modern times. Plus we all know how stories tend to change over time.

Looking back at the selection of biblical quotes mentioned in the article, and thinking about the history of those times, and the way things were back then, I think they could just as easily be historical references as opposed to future prophecies.

It may be a long shot, and I've got enough on my plate right now that I don't have time to do an extensive cross check of the Old Testament to history 2,300 years ago. With time though, one could probably do the reverse, and show how the bible relates to actual history, instead of trying to make history fit the bible.

(well, this was one way to waste an evening, thank you very much suegha !!)

As an ancient text, both Testaments that make up the Bible consist of some of the best-documented texts of all time. But certain things that we Christians clam about our holy book, cannot be "proven" like a scientific hypothesis. Neither can evolution or creation.

Suegha, I agree with most of what you believe. However, on modern Israel, I might disagree with you and with some nonbelievers.

Taddy, I'm disappointed!

Why? .... I have stated in the past that I hope you are right (possibly more than once) about the existence or non-existence of God.

My feelings come from within me and I have no compulsion to impose that on anyone else.

Compare.

To kerry, very interesting post, read Daniel 2 for a very detailed description of what would happen after the Babylonial empire.

To Taddy, you may disagree with my view and that's fine. I always respect your view, even when disagreeing with it! For example on the transcriptional errors, the young woman/virgin debate is as old as the hills and proves nothing. The word can also mean 'maiden' or even 'unmarried daughter'. The point is she found favour with God and later NT verses describe her as a virgin, she could have been as young as 12 so a good chance that she was a virgin.

To FP re the inspired and infallible word of God, yes it is, because it's referring to the 'word of God' not the later translations. You can even get a 'scouse' version of the bible. However, I don't know if this proves anything!

Now you've gone too far. Even I know there is no mention of " Hub Caps" in the bible and shell suits were not even availble to be lifted in the days of Herod.

Back to the debate. I think the Bible has given solace to many in times of crisis and as such I totally respect those we belive in it's text. I am one of those who do not, and see it as a tool over the years ( and still to this day ) for facists, racists and all other forms of " ists" who mis-quote it for their own ends. I can never get out of my mind images evoked of WW1, with both sides claiming " God is with us " as they threw themselves at each other in mass slaughter............Sometimes like Thaddy, I wish I could.

If you can see the things you have given your life to, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, welcome to Christendom, the domination system which still conquers the world by the sword. Jesus was a pacifist Jew in the midst of 2,500 years of Jewish pacifism, the longest period of history in which a faith was defended without a sword, ending in the 1940's. My point is, that the actions of criminals do not invalidate a criminal code, and violent Christians cannot invalidate the historical record that the Christian faith started out pacifist. Wrong argument.

We cannot prove the Bible is true, but it is!

If you can see the things you have given your life to, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, welcome to Christendom, the domination system which still conquers the world by the sword. Jesus was a pacifist Jew in the midst of 2,500 years of Jewish pacifism, the longest period of history in which a faith was defended without a sword, ending in the 1940's. My point is, that the actions of criminals do not invalidate a criminal code, and violent Christians cannot invalidate the historical record that the Christian faith started out pacifist. Wrong argument.

We cannot prove the Bible is true, but it is!

I'm right about the hub-caps though............