[_ Old Earth _] Proof of the Book of John...............

[prayerpower]

This is a VERY interesting article…..



http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/pac ... oam/siloam

 

[ThinkerMan]

That article had some logical disconnects...

1. It states that scholars have dismissed the idea that the Pool of Siloam existed.

Then it states that it was also holy for Jews. I'm not sure which scholars dismissed it, but it seems fairly apparent that Jewish tradition, outside of any Christian influence, believe it existed.

2. Again, dismissing the idea that the pool exists

"Less than 200 yards away from this newly-discovered pool that was built in the 8th century BC by the Judean King Hezekiah is another pool of water that is also called the Pool of Siloam. This one was built sometime between 400 and 460 AD by the Empress Eudocia of Byzantium, who reconstructed several biblical sites. And just to confuse matters thoroughly, there is yet a third Pool of Siloam that predates the one visited by Jesus; its whereabouts are still unknown."

So there is a first pool everyone excepts, and a third pool, yet some people thought there was not second pool between the two?

I don't find this so much as proof for biblical claims as I do dismissing skeptical scholars with an axe to grid, which I don't mind at all....of course it didn't name or quote those who doubted anyway.

Also, proof of historical pieces of a story has little to now bearing on the supernatural claims of the same story. Given that John was written within 50-60 years of the events it claims to catalouge, it is not unreasonable to believe he got much of the historical context for his story correct.

We know where Joseph Smith was born and can find records, that doesn't mean that his claims are true.

 

[y not peace?]

prayerpower...i loved the article..thank you for sharing it

 

[reznwerks]

This is a VERY interesting article…..



http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/pac ... oam/siloam

I don't see where the title of the post represents any proof of John whatsoever. First of all the article says that the "pool" was right where John said it was. If so why couldn't it be found? Secondly how could it be "right where John said it would be since no maps of the city were in existance at the time or at least survived until the present? Lastly the article talks about three pools of siloam and one has not yet been found.

 

[PHIL121]

This is a VERY interesting article…..



http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/pac ... oam/siloam

I don't see where the title of the post represents any proof of John whatsoever. First of all the article says that the "pool" was right where John said it was. If so why couldn't it be found? Secondly how could it be "right where John said it would be since no maps of the city were in existance at the time or at least survived until the present? Lastly the article talks about three pools of siloam and one has not yet been found.

Is it really necessary to put your ENTIRE post in bold???

The article is interesting, but as Thinkerman pointed out, it seems to be written with a secularist bent.

 

[reznwerks]

This is a VERY interesting b]

Is it really necessary to put your ENTIRE post in bold???
Yes I have started using BOLD because I used to use different colors only to be told(via messages) that he/she was interested in my posts but was unable to read them because they could not see all the colors as he /she was colorblind.