Part of the Old Testament Proven True...

Josh

Lifer
Mar 20, 2000
10,917
0
0
Read 2 Kings 20:20 and 2 Chronicles 32:30 in the Old Testament and you'll find a reference to a tunnel that was built in 700 B.C. by order of King Hezekiah to protect Jerusalem's water supply against an Assyrian siege. Long considered an engineering feat for that day and age, the serpentine tunnel ran 1,750 feet long and moved water from the Gihon spring across the entire city of ancient Jerusalem to the pool of Siloam.

Fast forward to modern-day Jerusalem. The Siloam Tunnel in that city matches the biblical description of King Hezekiah's tunnel. But is it really the same one? That question has stumped scholars for years, many of whom insisted the Siloam Tunnel was built centuries later than the Bible suggested in Kings and Chronicles. The only clue that survived for more than 2,700 years is an inscription discovered in 1880 on a tunnel wall that supported the link to King Hezekiah, although it did not name him specifically, reports The Associated Press.

Now geologists from the Cave Research Center at Hebrew University in Jerusalem think they have solved the mystery. By using radiocarbon testing to analyze the age of stalactite samples from the ceiling of the Siloam Tunnel and plant material recovered from its plaster floor, the biblical record and the tunnel's age have been confirmed, the researchers wrote in the journal Nature. The Siloam Tunnel is the one built by King Hezekiah.

This is also significant because it is the first time that a well-identified biblical structure has been subjected to extensive radiocarbon dating.

Even with all our modern-day technology and scientific knowledge, very little testing of biblical structures has been done to prove or disprove their age or authenticity. Why? The experts told AP such testing is difficult because it's often hard to identify such structures, they may be poorly preserved, or they may be restricted for various political or religious reasons.

The Siloam Tunnel is different. It's long been a tourist attraction. Anyone can wander in it and see the pick marks the original builders made in the walls to adjust their course so the tunnel would meet with a second team of workers who were heading toward them from the opposite end of the city. AP notes that those pick marks tell us how difficult it was to connect the two ends of the tunnel. "The tunnel is extraordinary, but these guys didn't know where they were going a lot of the time," Hershel Shanks, an expert on the history of Jerusalem who writes for the Biblical Archaeology Review, told AP. Still, he added, "It's nice to have scientific confirmation for what the vast majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists believe."

--- CNN
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
So carbon dating is suddenly accepted as accurate by religious scholars? They have been claiming that it's inaccurate for years now because it "proved" things that they didn't want proven, like the age of the earth.

ZV
 

UlricT

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2002
1,966
0
0
Guess the bible is pretty accurate historically. But just like with any "historical" text, the writers wouldn't have been totally objective with ALL their entries....
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So carbon dating is suddenly accepted as accurate by religious scholars? They have been claiming that it's inaccurate for years now because it "proved" things that they didn't want proven, like the age of the earth.

ZV

I am quite amused by this as well.
 

PowerMacG5

Diamond Member
Apr 14, 2002
7,701
0
0
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt So carbon dating is suddenly accepted as accurate by religious scholars? They have been claiming that it's inaccurate for years now because it "proved" things that they didn't want proven, like the age of the earth. ZV
I am quite amused by this as well.

Me too. They were bitching when scientists wanted to radiocarbon date the shroud, but now that it proves something they want true, they deem it acceptable.
 

Caveman

Platinum Member
Nov 18, 1999
2,539
34
91
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So carbon dating is suddenly accepted as accurate by religious scholars? They have been claiming that it's inaccurate for years now because it "proved" things that they didn't want proven, like the age of the earth.

ZV

I am quite amused by this as well.

There are some "religious" folks who believe science and the bible perfectly corroborate one another... If you research into the original Genesis text and do a study on the verbage there, you will find that the English translation of the word "created" is actually the word "recreated" in the Hebrew. This bit of truth changes the arguments of both "sides" dramatically... The earth was without form and void prior to its "recreation" by God and consequently could have been around for billions of years prior to what you see in Genesis... This is what the bible says.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: Caveman
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So carbon dating is suddenly accepted as accurate by religious scholars? They have been claiming that it's inaccurate for years now because it "proved" things that they didn't want proven, like the age of the earth.

ZV
I am quite amused by this as well.
There are some "religious" folks who believe science and the bible perfectly corroborate one another... If you research into the original Genesis text and do a study on the verbage there, you will find that the English translation of the word "created" is actually the word "recreated" in the Hebrew. This bit of truth changes the arguments of both "sides" dramatically... The earth was without form and void prior to its "recreation" by God and consequently could have been around for billions of years prior to what you see in Genesis... This is what the bible says.
I agree that the Bible has a lot of translation issues. And I agree that it's accurate historically by and large. I was just pointing out inconsistancy on the part of some (not all) religious authorities.

ZV
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So carbon dating is suddenly accepted as accurate by religious scholars? They have been claiming that it's inaccurate for years now because it "proved" things that they didn't want proven, like the age of the earth.

ZV

I am quite amused by this as well.

Me too. Religious scholars and "Creation scientists" do not accept the scientific method; they will gladly quote/use facts that support their cherished dogma while ignoring those that don't.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Josh
Part of the Old Testament Proven True...
Read PART.

You've shown evidence to support a fraction of a percent of the OT record may be historical fact.

I'm impressed.

rolleye.gif


EDIT: Was there any real dispute between secular history and the OT record before the tunnel was excavated? A few scholars simply seemed to nitpick dates.
(if not, who cares?) :p

 

Linux23

Lifer
Apr 9, 2000
11,374
741
126
Originally posted by: UlricT
Guess the bible is pretty accurate historically. But just like with any "historical" text, the writers wouldn't have been totally objective with ALL their entries....

the bible was written by god, through man.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So carbon dating is suddenly accepted as accurate by religious scholars? They have been claiming that it's inaccurate for years now because it "proved" things that they didn't want proven, like the age of the earth.

ZV

I am quite amused by this as well.

Me too. Religious scholars and "Creation scientists" do not accept the scientific method; they will gladly quote/use facts that support their cherished dogma while ignoring those that don't.

Ignoring what facts? You think evolution is a fact? You think the big bang is a fact? You need to get a clue...
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Linux23
Originally posted by: UlricT
Guess the bible is pretty accurate historically. But just like with any "historical" text, the writers wouldn't have been totally objective with ALL their entries....

the bible was written by god, through man.
And that extreme "conclusion" comes from the above "proof" about the tunnel?


Sure . . .

rolleye.gif

 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Ignoring what facts? You think evolution is a fact? You think the big bang is a fact? You need to get a clue...
I'll agree that they are not facts. However, they are by far the most probable explanations.

ZV

EDIT: I should mention that I do not believe that current scientific theory is inconsistant with Christianity.
 

Yossarian

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
18,010
1
81
Originally posted by: Linux23
Originally posted by: UlricT
Guess the bible is pretty accurate historically. But just like with any "historical" text, the writers wouldn't have been totally objective with ALL their entries....

the bible was written by god, through man.

It was written by a man who thought he was god.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: Linux23
Originally posted by: UlricT
Guess the bible is pretty accurate historically. But just like with any "historical" text, the writers wouldn't have been totally objective with ALL their entries....

the bible was written by god, through man.

It was written by a man who thought he was god.
Actually it was written by about 40 men over 1,500 or so years.

Then someone took crayons to it. :p

rolleye.gif

 

AvesPKS

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
4,729
0
0
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: Linux23
Originally posted by: UlricT
Guess the bible is pretty accurate historically. But just like with any "historical" text, the writers wouldn't have been totally objective with ALL their entries....

the bible was written by god, through man.

It was written by a man who thought he was god.

What part of the Bible did Jesus write?
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: AvesPKS
Originally posted by: PipBoy
Originally posted by: Linux23
Originally posted by: UlricT
Guess the bible is pretty accurate historically. But just like with any "historical" text, the writers wouldn't have been totally objective with ALL their entries....

the bible was written by god, through man.

It was written by a man who thought he was god.

What part of the Bible did Jesus write?
No part. Supposedly 4 separate accounts written after he died from 1st century eyewitnesses told his story.


 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
To say that all Christians do not believe in science or carbon dating is like saying all blacks are thieves. You can make either statement, but neither is true.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
44
91
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
To say that all Christians do not believe in science or carbon dating is like saying all blacks are thieves. You can make either statement, but neither is true.
I'll give you a million dollars if you can show me where I said that. Because I didn't.

ZV
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
To say that all Christians do not believe in science or carbon dating is like saying all blacks are thieves. You can make either statement, but neither is true.
I'll give you a million dollars if you can show me where I said that. Because I didn't.

ZV

I'll give you a million if you find where I accused you of this. I made a general statement, because I have seen other members with this attitude. I do not count you among them.