Longloadr wrote:

Sorosis wrote: Also that quote doesn't prove anything. Longo always pastes quotes which itself are not any proof, but an Ignorantio Elenchi. Of course a quote is not proof. Its simply a case of a qualified person stating their opinion. If you disagree with the statement you can give opposing evidence. I assume you argue against his statement? I had a bit of a laugh at you agreeing with Pags about the archaeologist being a young earth creationist. Is that a logical argument? Does that counter the merits of the archaeologists statement? No! That would be like dismissing statements from somebody because they are vegetarian or an evolutionist. _______________

Did I ever state I agree anything apart from what I wrote there? I did not directly state that.
That's just exactly what you're usually doing when "proving" something. You're just stating quotes instead of actual studies and evidence about something.
I really doubt his statement, but I haven't taken much time to focus on such things anyway and in this case you'd need to prove every thing mentioned in Bible so you could claim it's completely accurate. That you can't do or at least I'd bet my money on that.

If I might digress all the way back to the topic for a moment!, I think biblical archeology especially as regards judaism and christianity here in israel and surrounds is to a LARGE degree,well , not corrupt,but untrustworthy,this being based on my 65 year private watching brief..Most of israels archeologists are decidedly secular which gives them an "interest" in pushing a cause sometimes antithecal to the state of DISpassion especially when it involves a site mentioned in the bible...In sinai,among the other mountains are two in particular,mount sinai identified by jews as the place of the ten commandments and not so far away another mountain called by islam jebel mussa (the mount of moses.)Go figure!!
Archeology does not prove the bible,the bible needs no proving but in spite of that the matter has degenerated to where archeologists who have no money are being told by the sponsors.....Disprove the bible....or, conversely ,,prove the bible,so archeology in israel,whether by foreigners or israelis is very much a PARTISAN issue..

Goell wrote:

Archeology does not prove the bible,the bible needs no proving but in spite of that the matter has degenerated to where archeologists who have no money are being told by the sponsors.....Disprove the bible....or, conversely ,,prove the bible,so archeology in israel,whether by foreigners or israelis is very much a PARTISAN issue..

I sure agree with that! There are archaeologists on both sides of Biblical issues. And, I also agree with what you say about "not prove... needs no proving". Perhaps a better word to use is confirm. Many archaelogical finds confirm the accuracy of the Bible.

Longloadr wrote:

There is nothing ever found that can refute Biblical accuracy...Old or New Testaments.

There is a talking snake in the bible.
There is a talking donkey in the bible.
A man lived inside a whale in the bible.
The world is 6,000 years old in the bible.
A man lived for 900 years in the bible.

Should I go on?

Shandy90 wrote:

There is a talking donkey in the bible.

Well, to be fair one does encounter talking asses all over the place, outside of the bible. I should know, being one.

Shandy90 wrote:

Longloadr wrote: There is nothing ever found that can refute Biblical accuracy...Old or New Testaments. There is a talking snake in the bible. There is a talking donkey in the bible. A man lived inside a whale in the bible. The world is 6,000 years old in the bible. A man lived for 900 years in the bible. Should I go on?

Let me guess: God did it!

Sorsis wrote:

Did I ever state I agree anything apart from what I wrote there? I did not directly state that. That's just exactly what you're usually doing when "proving" something. You're just stating quotes instead of actual studies and evidence about something. I really doubt his statement, but I haven't taken much time to focus on such things anyway and in this case you'd need to prove every thing mentioned in Bible so you could claim it's completely accurate. That you can't do or at least I'd bet my money on that.

His statement is quite simple, and I'm sure you would love to prove him wrong. Perhaps Talk Origins might help you?
Here was the statement:

Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology wrote:

I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.

Here is another similar statement:

Dr. Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History wrote:

Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts......Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges.....are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy.....We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong.

There are many other similar statements such as:

Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University wrote:

On the whole, however, 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....Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown, in a number of instances, that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution and not to be minimized.

Archaeology confirms the accuracy of the Bible!

message_sent wrote:

This means you give up?
You found nothing in archaeology that disprove even one tiny part of the Bible?