Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/9/2005 3:55:12 AM EDT
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002428583_siloam09.html

Biblical Pool of Siloam found

By Thomas H. Maugh II

Los Angeles Times

Workers repairing a sewage pipe in the old city of Jerusalem have discovered the biblical Pool of Siloam, a freshwater reservoir that was a major gathering place for ancient Jews making religious pilgrimages to the city and the reputed site where Jesus cured a man blind from birth, according to the gospel of John.

The pool was fed by the now-famous Hezekiah's Tunnel and is "a much grander affair" than archaeologists previously believed, with three tiers of stone stairs allowing easy access to the water, according to Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archeology Review, which reported the find yesterday.

The newly discovered pool is less than 200 yards from another Pool of Siloam, this one a reconstruction built between A.D. 400 and 460 by the empress Eudocia of Byzantium, who oversaw the rebuilding of several Biblical sites.

The site of yet another Pool of Siloam, which pre-dated the version visited by Jesus, is still unknown.

That first pool was constructed in the 8th century B.C. by the Judean King Hezekiah, who foresaw the likelihood that the Assyrians would lay siege to Jerusalem and knew that a safe water supply would be required to survive it.

He ordered workers to build a 1,750-foot-long tunnel under the ridge where the City of David was located. The tunnel connected Gihon Spring in the adjacent Kidron Valley to the side of Jerusalem less vulnerable to an attack.

The first Pool of Siloam was the reservoir holding the water brought into the city. It presumably was destroyed in 586 B.C. when the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar razed the city.

The pool of Jesus' time was built early in the first century B.C. and was destroyed by the future Roman emperor Titus about A.D. 70.

The pool was discovered last fall by a sewage-repair team.

---------------

A wonderful discovery! Especially since so many have claimed over the years that the pool never existed and was proof that the gospels were written many years after Christ....


Link Posted: 8/9/2005 4:00:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
The pool was discovered last fall by a sewage-repair team.

---------------

A wonderful discovery! Especially since so many have claimed over the years that the pool never existed and was proof that the gospels were written many years after Christ....





With no intended disrespect to sewer repairmen everywhere...


... its amazing how God uses some of the lowest of mankind to prove Himself to man, and His word to be truth.

All these PhD's and Nobel prize winners and self-proclaimed geniuses denying God, and some sewer repairmen prove God's Word true.



Link Posted: 8/9/2005 5:33:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
The pool was discovered last fall by a sewage-repair team.

---------------

A wonderful discovery! Especially since so many have claimed over the years that the pool never existed and was proof that the gospels were written many years after Christ....





With no intended disrespect to sewer repairmen everywhere...


... its amazing how God uses some of the lowest of mankind to prove Himself to man, and His word to be truth.

All these PhD's and Nobel prize winners and self-proclaimed geniuses denying God, and some sewer repairmen prove God's Word true.






Yall are weird, most people (PhD's, Nobel prize winners, and self-proclaimed geniuses included) have no clue what the Pool of Siloam is.

Given that, most people realize the Bible has a lot of useful historical information in it. I haven't heard anyone claim that our inability to find a pool in a city that has been continuously growing and changing for the last 2000 years was a key point (or even one of many points) in deciding the Bible is not meant to be taken literally in all things.

The Illiad has useful historical information in it also. I'll leave it to you to decide how much of the rest of the Illiad is to be believed.



Link Posted: 8/9/2005 5:36:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
The pool was discovered last fall by a sewage-repair team.

---------------

A wonderful discovery! Especially since so many have claimed over the years that the pool never existed and was proof that the gospels were written many years after Christ....





With no intended disrespect to sewer repairmen everywhere...


... its amazing how God uses some of the lowest of mankind to prove Himself to man, and His word to be truth.

All these PhD's and Nobel prize winners and self-proclaimed geniuses denying God, and some sewer repairmen prove God's Word true.






.... most people (PhD's, Nobel prize winners, and self-proclaimed geniuses included) have no clue what the Pool of Siloam is.




Thanx for proving my point.



Link Posted: 8/9/2005 5:41:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 5:41:54 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
The pool was discovered last fall by a sewage-repair team.

---------------

A wonderful discovery! Especially since so many have claimed over the years that the pool never existed and was proof that the gospels were written many years after Christ....





With no intended disrespect to sewer repairmen everywhere...


... its amazing how God uses some of the lowest of mankind to prove Himself to man, and His word to be truth.

All these PhD's and Nobel prize winners and self-proclaimed geniuses denying God, and some sewer repairmen prove God's Word true.






.... most people (PhD's, Nobel prize winners, and self-proclaimed geniuses included) have no clue what the Pool of Siloam is.




Thanx for proving my point.






you had a point? is this something new your trying?

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 5:44:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

you had a point? is this something new your trying?






Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:49:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:


With no intended disrespect to sewer repairmen everywhere...


... its amazing how God uses some of the lowest of mankind to prove Himself to man, and His word to be truth.

All these PhD's and Nobel prize winners and self-proclaimed geniuses denying God, and some sewer repairmen prove God's Word true.




I think it's a stretch to say one pool discovery proves the entire Bible is true.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:04:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 8:05:47 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:

Originally Posted By garandman:


With no intended disrespect to sewer repairmen everywhere...


... its amazing how God uses some of the lowest of mankind to prove Himself to man, and His word to be truth.

All these PhD's and Nobel prize winners and self-proclaimed geniuses denying God, and some sewer repairmen prove God's Word true.




I think it's a stretch to say one pool discovery proves the entire Bible is true.



That is true, but I didn't say it did.


But the larger question is this - "How many archaelogical digs (and other tangible proofs) of individual Biblical facts, like the Pool of Siloam, will it take before people come to trust in the truth of the Bible, as a whole?"


Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:17:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:

Originally Posted By garandman:


With no intended disrespect to sewer repairmen everywhere...


... its amazing how God uses some of the lowest of mankind to prove Himself to man, and His word to be truth.

All these PhD's and Nobel prize winners and self-proclaimed geniuses denying God, and some sewer repairmen prove God's Word true.




I think it's a stretch to say one pool discovery proves the entire Bible is true.



That is true, but I didn't say it did.


But the larger question is this - "How many archaelogical digs (and other tangible proofs) of individual Biblical facts, like the Pool of Siloam, will it take before people come to trust in the truth of the Bible, as a whole?"




I interpretted "God's Word true" to be all inclusive, no big deal.

As a side note, archaeology is a science. And this comment isn't directed to you personally, but I find ironic some Christians will jump on the science bandwagon when it's used to prove something in the Bible, but then have nothing to do with science when science challenges their beliefs such as evolution vs creationism or determining the age of the earth.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:22:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
As a side note, archaeology is a science. And this comment isn't directed to you personally, but I find ironic some Christians will jump on the science bandwagon when it's used to prove something in the Bible, but then have nothing to do with science when science challenges their beliefs such as evolution vs creationism or determining the age of the earth.




There's alot of that going around.

But its MUCH more definitive and concrete when you discover a Pool of Siloam just as the Bible said, versus here's some old bones that are estimated to be 4,000,000 years old based on half-lives or helium dissipation or uP-D whateveritis.

The pool of Siloam thing is "concrete." The age of the bones thing is abstract, subject to scientific interpretation, and requires one be an expert in the various scientific disciplines necessary to really understand and validate the estimations and assumptions used.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:24:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:

Originally Posted By garandman:


With no intended disrespect to sewer repairmen everywhere...


... its amazing how God uses some of the lowest of mankind to prove Himself to man, and His word to be truth.

All these PhD's and Nobel prize winners and self-proclaimed geniuses denying God, and some sewer repairmen prove God's Word true.




I think it's a stretch to say one pool discovery proves the entire Bible is true.



That is true, but I didn't say it did.


But the larger question is this - "How many archaelogical digs (and other tangible proofs) of individual Biblical facts, like the Pool of Siloam, will it take before people come to trust in the truth of the Bible, as a whole?"





Depends on what you mean by "trust in the truth of the Bible as a whole"

I'm an atheist and I would say I trust in the truth of the Bible as a whole. I doubt my interpretation of that phrase is the same as yours.


Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:30:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 8:34:23 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
As a side note, archaeology is a science. And this comment isn't directed to you personally, but I find ironic some Christians will jump on the science bandwagon when it's used to prove something in the Bible, but then have nothing to do with science when science challenges their beliefs such as evolution vs creationism or determining the age of the earth.




There's alot of that going around.

But its MUCH more definitive and concrete when you discover a Pool of Siloam just as the Bible said, versus here's some old bones that are estimated to be 4,000,000 years old based on half-lives or helium dissipation or uP-D whateveritis.

The pool of Siloam thing is "concrete." The age of the bones thing is abstract, subject to scientific interpretation, and requires one be an expert in the various scientific disciplines necessary to really understand and validate the estimations and assumptions used.




Interesting.

How do we know it was from the correct timeframe to be the Biblical pool? I'm not doubting it is, but how do we know? Its a best guess based on the science of archeology. In the same way that the best guess for the location of Troy is the hill city Scheimann discovered.

The pool is concrete, the linking of the pool to the Pool of Siloam is not as concrete.

Its only as valid as any other scientific discovery (like the dating of old rocks (not bones) to 4,000,000 years based on radiactive decay).

The old rocks are just as concrete as the pool...

Deciding that science is right when it agrees with the Bible and wrong when it does not is unscientific. Truth is truth right? You realy should pay attention to my quote Gman, it is as if it was written specifically for you.



Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:35:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

There's alot of that going around.

But its MUCH more definitive and concrete when you discover a Pool of Siloam just as the Bible said, versus here's some old bones that are estimated to be 4,000,000 years old based on half-lives or helium dissipation or uP-D whateveritis.

The pool of Siloam thing is "concrete." The age of the bones thing is abstract, subject to scientific interpretation, and requires one be an expert in the various scientific disciplines necessary to really understand and validate the estimations and assumptions used.




I do see how the Siloam pool discovery would prove the existance of the Siloam pool but not much else. I don't see for example, how the Siloam pool discovery has any relevance on proving the book of Genesis for example
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:56:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:

Originally Posted By garandman:

There's alot of that going around.

But its MUCH more definitive and concrete when you discover a Pool of Siloam just as the Bible said, versus here's some old bones that are estimated to be 4,000,000 years old based on half-lives or helium dissipation or uP-D whateveritis.

The pool of Siloam thing is "concrete." The age of the bones thing is abstract, subject to scientific interpretation, and requires one be an expert in the various scientific disciplines necessary to really understand and validate the estimations and assumptions used.




I do see how the Siloam pool discovery would prove the existance of the Siloam pool but not much else. I don't see for example, how the Siloam pool discovery has any relevance on proving the book of Genesis for example



More to the point they discovered a pool which they believe to be the Siloam pool.

There is still a 3rd pool that has not been found, if it turns up you have 2 old pools and 2 sets of dates. How will we determine which is which?

Or the latest pool could have been build on the ruins of an older pool. How will we ever determine which pool was the ancient pool and which was the pool of Jesus' time? *Gasp* it may have to come down to science and those pesky unreliable methods of dating

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:10:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

More to the point they discovered a pool which they believe to be the Siloam pool.

There is still a 3rd pool that has not been found, if it turns up you have 2 old pools and 2 sets of dates. How will we determine which is which?

Or the latest pool could have been build on the ruins of an older pool. How will we ever determine which pool was the ancient pool and which was the pool of Jesus' time? *Gasp* it may have to come down to science and those pesky unreliable methods of dating




Carbon dating is a very important tool of the science of Archeology, (and therefore Biblical Archeology)

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/carbondating_1.shtml

"Radio carbon dating determines the age of ancient objects by means of measuring the amount of carbon-14 there is left in an object. A man called Willard F Libby pioneered it at the University of Chicago in the 50's. In 1960, he won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. This is now the most widely used method of age estimation in the field of archaeology./ "

It was used to prove or disprove the Shroud of Tourin , the Dead Sea Scrolls. I dont think you can just dismiss carbon dating as a tool so sophisticated that you sholdn't trust of results of it.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:18:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:

Originally Posted By Dino:

More to the point they discovered a pool which they believe to be the Siloam pool.

There is still a 3rd pool that has not been found, if it turns up you have 2 old pools and 2 sets of dates. How will we determine which is which?

Or the latest pool could have been build on the ruins of an older pool. How will we ever determine which pool was the ancient pool and which was the pool of Jesus' time? *Gasp* it may have to come down to science and those pesky unreliable methods of dating




Carbon dating is a very important tool of the science of Archeology, (and therefore Biblical Archeology)

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/carbondating_1.shtml

"Radio carbon dating determines the age of ancient objects by means of measuring the amount of carbon-14 there is left in an object. A man called Willard F Libby pioneered it at the University of Chicago in the 50's. In 1960, he won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. This is now the most widely used method of age estimation in the field of archaeology./ "

It was used to prove or disprove the Shroud of Tourin , the Dead Sea Scrolls. I dont think you can just dismiss carbon dating as a tool so sophisticated that you sholdn't trust of results of it.




It was sarcasm, I do not distrust carbon dating at all. It has its limitations, but if used properly its a very good tool.

I just like how science is useful when it supports the Biblical record, but not trustworthy when it conflicts with the Biblical record.

They found a pool, that is the only fact. There are 3 possible historical pools it could be, but we can rule out the reconstructed pool which is still in existence.

Of the 2 other pools something has led them to identify it with the pool of Jesus' time as opposed to the pre-Babylonian exile pool. Perhaps Roman coins of the period or maybe even carbon dating.

The same types of evidence used to date the human presence on earth well past the 6000 year barrier, but are ignored because they conflict with "Biblical Truth"

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:39:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
The old rocks are just as concrete as the pool...






No, the pool of Siloam is about existence, which is a very concrete concept.

The age of rocks is a VERY subjective / qualitative concept, requiring numerous assumptions and very technical evaluation.

its the differnce between the existence of the space shuttle, and understanding the operational intricacies of the space shuttle.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:12:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
I do see how the Siloam pool discovery would prove the existance of the Siloam pool but not much else. I don't see for example, how the Siloam pool discovery has any relevance on proving
the book of Genesis for example



You would have to understand the history of Bible criticism.

For YEARS (like, hundreds of them...) certain folks have taken it upon themselves to assault the truth of the Bible, claiming it to be a fiction written hundreds of years after Christ that is completely unreliable. A book of fables and fairy tales, if you will.

Voltaire, for instance, made no end of fun of the Bible because of this "hittite" empire it told about, which nobody could find! Surely no fool would believe such lies!

Until, that is, archaeologists actually DID find the remains of the great Hittite empire, and found it to be exactly as the Bible had described.

Similarly, the pool of Siloam has been criticized as something "added" to the Bible post-Constantine that has no basis in reality.

But they just found it.

The simple fact is that archaeology is constantly affirming what the Bible describes about history. This is important because it establishes that the writings were NOT written hundreds of years after the events, but were actually written around the times they describe, as places like the pool of Siloam were lost in later years.

It goes back to establishing the times in which the scriptures were written, which is one of the main avenues of attack that Bible critics use, namely that it was all an invention later on.

Does this "prove" the Bible true? In and of itself, no. But it DOES demonstrate that the more we learn, the more we discover that the Bible is as it presents itself to be.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:17:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 10:22:02 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Dino:
The old rocks are just as concrete as the pool...






No, the pool of Siloam is about existence, which is a very concrete concept.

The age of rocks is a VERY subjective / qualitative concept, requiring numerous assumptions and very technical evaluation.

its the differnce between the existence of the space shuttle, and understanding the operational intricacies of the space shuttle.




The pool is a concrete concept. The rocks are a concrete concept. The space shuttle is a concrete concept.

concrete less concrete
a pool a specific pool
a rock the age of the rock
a space shuttle a specific space shuttle (if found in 2000 years after being lost for 1900 of them)

The identification of that pool with the Biblical pool is what is less concrete. It could be the original pool, the pool of Jesus' time, or (much less likely) the pool rebuilt by Christians. It could also be a less famous pool that was never mentioned in the Bible.

I don't doubt they found a pool, but the identification of the pool is just as up for debate as the age of the bones.

As far as subjectivity, if multiple tests of a rock reveal an age of 3.9 million years it is far less subjective than a bunch of historians telling me a rediscovered fountain is the Biblical fountain without some evidence to corroborate it. Especially when we know from the Bible that there were at least 2 fountains and we know from the historical record that there was at least one fountain rebuilt after the Biblical era.

I'm digging up more info to find out how they matched it to the time of Jesus'. If I get anything "concrete" I'll come back

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:19:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
I do see how the Siloam pool discovery would prove the existance of the Siloam pool but not much else. I don't see for example, how the Siloam pool discovery has any relevance on proving
the book of Genesis for example



You would have to understand the history of Bible criticism.

For YEARS (like, hundreds of them...) certain folks have taken it upon themselves to assault the truth of the Bible, claiming it to be a fiction written hundreds of years after Christ that is completely unreliable. A book of fables and fairy tales, if you will.

Voltaire, for instance, made no end of fun of the Bible because of this "hittite" empire it told about, which nobody could find! Surely no fool would believe such lies!

Until, that is, archaeologists actually DID find the remains of the great Hittite empire, and found it to be exactly as the Bible had described.

Similarly, the pool of Siloam has been criticized as something "added" to the Bible post-Constantine that has no basis in reality.

But they just found it.

The simple fact is that archaeology is constantly affirming what the Bible describes about history. This is important because it establishes that the writings were NOT written hundreds of years after the events, but were actually written around the times they describe, as places like the pool of Siloam were lost in later years.

It goes back to establishing the times in which the scriptures were written, which is one of the main avenues of attack that Bible critics use, namely that it was all an invention later on.

Does this "prove" the Bible true? In and of itself, no. But it DOES demonstrate that the more we learn, the more we discover that the Bible is as it presents itself to be.



Could you link me an example of someone who used the lack of a pool as evidence that scripture was wrong? I'm pretty well read on the subject and I have never seen it used.

thanks in advance if you know of a source

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:20:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
It was sarcasm, I do not distrust carbon dating at all. It has its limitations, but if used properly its a very good tool.

I just like how science is useful when it supports the Biblical record, but not trustworthy when it conflicts with the Biblical record.



There is a snag with that, you see....As carbon dating has a limit to its ability to accurately predict age beyond a certain point. Carbon dating in archaeology is usually well within the accuracy range of Carbon dating, whereas evolutionary discoveries are without exception outside that range of accuracy. That is why carbon dating results on fossils and the like are often normed.



They found a pool, that is the only fact. There are 3 possible historical pools it could be, but we can rule out the reconstructed pool which is still in existence.



Indeed. So it was one of the two older pools. It just so hapens that the Gospels give several details about exactly what the pool in Jesus' time looked like.



Of the 2 other pools something has led them to identify it with the pool of Jesus' time as opposed to the pre-Babylonian exile pool. Perhaps Roman coins of the period or maybe even carbon dating.



I would imagine that it isn't carbon dating, as the discovery itself is very recent. It is probably a result of comparing the physical features of the pool recorded in the NT with the evidence of the one found, which is most likely a bit different than the first pool.



The same types of evidence used to date the human presence on earth well past the 6000 year barrier, but are ignored because they conflict with "Biblical Truth"



We have something concrete (a Biblical account) to compare the pool discovery to. We also have a well documented history of the region in which it was found, having an excellent timeline of the events that transpired there thanks to folks like Jocephus.

We have no such coherent accounts of pre-history.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:24:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
Could you link me an example of someone who used the lack of a pool as evidence that scripture was wrong? I'm pretty well read on the subject and I have never seen it used.

thanks in advance if you know of a source




There is mention of it in one of my many volumes at home. I will see if I can remember which one. (Though it will most likely be out of print anyway....)
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:30:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
The pool is a concrete concept. The rocks are a concrete concept. The space shuttle is a concrete concept.




Again, were talking about the EXISTENCE of the pool (VERY easy to verify) versus the AGE of rocks (VERY subjective and technical in nature)


The identification of that pool with the Biblical pool is what is less concrete. It could be the original pool, the pool of Jesus' time, or (much less likely) the pool rebuilt by Christians. It could also be a less famous pool that was never mentioned in the Bible.


Read the article. The experts involved indicate it IS the pool referred to in the Bible.

Your debate is with them, not me.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:32:53 AM EDT
tagged we need some pictures!
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:39:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:

Originally Posted By garandman:


With no intended disrespect to sewer repairmen everywhere...


... its amazing how God uses some of the lowest of mankind to prove Himself to man, and His word to be truth.

All these PhD's and Nobel prize winners and self-proclaimed geniuses denying God, and some sewer repairmen prove God's Word true.




I think it's a stretch to say one pool discovery proves the entire Bible is true.



That is true, but I didn't say it did.


But the larger question is this - "How many archaelogical digs (and other tangible proofs) of individual Biblical facts, like the Pool of Siloam, will it take before people come to trust in the truth of the Bible, as a whole?"





How do you know the age of these artifacts? Since you don't believe in the science of demonstrating age, how do you know this pool is what it's claimed to be. What if it's only 300 years old?

See how it sounds when you want to use one piece of science to further your argument, but then
use your lack of faith in science to further another argument?

So you're telling us that some science is valid and some is worthless, and you are the one deciding
which is which?

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:45:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
How do you know the age of these artifacts? Since you don't believe in the science of demonstrating age, how do you know this pool is what it's claimed to be. What if it's only 300 years old?



Read the article. Its about LOCATION, LOCATON, LOCATON not age.


See how it sounds when you want to use one piece of science to further your argument, but then
use your lack of faith in science to further another argument?

So you're telling us that some science is valid and some is worthless, and you are the one deciding
which is which?




Irrlevant, as you didn't understand the above.

And don't get mad at me cuz I use the Bible to disprove your mistatements about the Bible.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:53:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Dino:
The pool is a concrete concept. The rocks are a concrete concept. The space shuttle is a concrete concept.




Again, were talking about the EXISTENCE of the pool (VERY easy to verify) versus the AGE of rocks (VERY subjective and technical in nature)





No I'm talking about the IDENTIFICATION of the pool versuse the AGE of the rocks, both of which required the use of scientific methods to arrive at a conclusion.



Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:56:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
No I'm talking about the IDENTIFICATION of the pool versuse the AGE of the rocks, both of which required the use of scientific methods to arrive at a conclusion.






Actually, all it requires is looking at a map.

The archaelogical dig places the pool at the very location and as described in Scripture.

But again, take it up with the archaelogists.

Honestly, this is the one of the LEAST significant proofs of Scriptural validity, to me.

But maybe for those who accept only concrete tangible evidences it might help.



Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:57:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Read the article. Its about LOCATION, LOCATON, LOCATON not age.




So if I find some sticks on Mt Ararat that means it's Noahs Ark?
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 10:59:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 11:00:42 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Read the article. Its about LOCATION, LOCATON, LOCATON not age.




So if I find some sticks on Mt Ararat that means it's Noahs Ark?



Maybe. Maybe not.

I'm not an archaeologist. Never even played one on TV.

If you wish to be argumentative, please do so with the LA Times, and / or the archaeologists at the Pool of Siloam dig.



Link Posted: 8/9/2005 11:02:26 AM EDT
ok here is what I could find

the identification as the pool of Jesus' time is due to this inscription found on a tomb



The inscription says:
"The tunneling was completed... While the hewers wielded the ax, each man toward his fellow... there was heard a man's voice calling to his fellow... the hewers hacked each toward the other, ax against ax, and the water flowed from the spring to the pool, a distance of 1,200 cubits..."

I found this interesting


The pool was fed by the now famous Hezekiah's Tunnel and is a much grander affair than archeologists previously believed, with three tiers of stone stairs allowing easy access to the water, according to Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archeology Review [...] The newly discovered pool is less than 200 yards from another Pool of Siloam, this one a reconstruction built between A.D. 400 and 460 by the empress Eudocia of Byzantium, who oversaw the rebuilding of several Biblical sites.


apparently the description in the Bible didn't do it justice


Link Posted: 8/9/2005 11:06:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
apparently the description in the Bible didn't do it justice






Interesting point, which the Bible addresses:


John 20: 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


God REQUIRES a measure of faith (which not coincidentally He also provides people the ability to have)

But God HAS given enuf evidences (and continues to do so) to make those who refuse to believe accountable to Him at the last day.



Link Posted: 8/9/2005 11:16:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Dino:
apparently the description in the Bible didn't do it justice






Interesting point, which the Bible addresses:


John 20: 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


God REQUIRES a measure of faith (which not coincidentally He also provides people the ability to have)

But God HAS given enuf evidences (and continues to do so) to make those who refuse to believe accountable to Him at the last day.






lol, so God gives enough evidence to reinforce the faith of those who believe, but not enough to convince non-believers like me, just to give himself an out when he casts us into hell?

I congratulate you on your mental gymnastics sir, even the East German judge gave you a 10



Link Posted: 8/9/2005 11:24:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
lol, so God gives enough evidence to reinforce the faith of those who believe, but not enough to convince non-believers like me, just to give himself an out when he casts us into hell?





EVERY beleiver was ONCE a non-beleiver. Thus we see God has given enuf evidence (AND the corresponding faith) for hundreds of millions to beleive.

Your opportunity to believe does not expire until you expire.

Plan accordingly. Ask God for the faith to believe.

(You can do it privately. I won't tell anyone.)

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 11:25:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
... even the East German judge gave you a 10






I was always under the impression the E German judges didn't even have "10" cards when Americans were competing.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 11:27:59 AM EDT



The pool was discovered last fall by a sewage-repair team.




so...why wasnt it news last year? Why now?


The newly discovered pool is less than 200 yards from another Pool of Siloam, this one a reconstruction built between A.D. 400 and 460 by the empress Eudocia of Byzantium, who oversaw the rebuilding of several Biblical sites.


so...how many other "pools of Siloam" are there. And what exactly makes this one the one from the bible?

sounds like alot of wishful thinking or propaganda. Believe on.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 11:47:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gaspain:



The pool was discovered last fall by a sewage-repair team.




so...why wasnt it news last year? Why now?



The LA Times had "important" things to cover, like how Bush lied about the Iraq war, and how we Americans are to blame for terrorists wanting to kill us.



Believe on.


Thank you. I will.

Not BECAUSE of this, but I will.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 12:56:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
lol, so God gives enough evidence to reinforce the faith of those who believe, but not enough to convince non-believers like me, just to give himself an out when he casts us into hell?

I congratulate you on your mental gymnastics sir, even the East German judge gave you a 10






Faith is a choice.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 1:06:08 PM EDT
So it's been established that there have been several (or more) of these pools. Let's say that this is the one that was in use 2000 years ago. What in its discovery proves that a blind man was cured there?
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 1:22:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wombat_SCSO:
So it's been established that there have been several (or more) of these pools. Let's say that this is the one that was in use 2000 years ago. What in its discovery proves that a blind man was cured there?



No one made that assertion.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 1:29:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Wombat_SCSO:
So it's been established that there have been several (or more) of these pools. Let's say that this is the one that was in use 2000 years ago. What in its discovery proves that a blind man was cured there?



No one made that assertion.




eh? weren't we discussing the concept that the pool being found makes is evidence that the rest of the Bible is true as well?

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 1:34:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Wombat_SCSO:
So it's been established that there have been several (or more) of these pools. Let's say that this is the one that was in use 2000 years ago. What in its discovery proves that a blind man was cured there?



No one made that assertion.




eh? weren't we discussing the concept that the pool being found makes is evidence that the rest of the Bible is true as well?




No, specifically that was ruled out as an assumption of the finding of the pool of Siloam.

The ONLY thing finding the pool of Siloam proves is the Biblical accuracy as to the EXISTENCE of the pool of Siloam.

Then the question becomes "How many times does this type of accuracy have to be proven for someone to beleive the rest of the Bible, taken as a whole?"



Link Posted: 8/9/2005 1:36:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 1:39:42 PM EDT by NoVaGator]
i don't get it.

how does the Bible's mention of landmarks, buildings, etc validate anything else in the Bible?

I have a Tom Clancy novel right here...he mentions the Kremlin, the White House, the CIA, Scotland Yard, etc. Does that make everything else in the book true?

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 3:23:54 PM EDT


No, specifically that was ruled out as an assumption of the finding of the pool of Siloam.

The ONLY thing finding the pool of Siloam proves is the Biblical accuracy as to the AN EXISTENCE of the A pool of Siloam.

Then the question becomes "How many times does this type of accuracy have to be proven for someone to beleive the rest of the Bible, taken as a whole?"



fixed it for ya
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 3:41:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
i don't get it.

how does the Bible's mention of landmarks, buildings, etc validate anything else in the Bible?

I have a Tom Clancy novel right here...he mentions the Kremlin, the White House, the CIA, Scotland Yard, etc. Does that make everything else in the book true?



Shhhh.....you've read enough here to know that the normal rules of logic don't apply in here.

The conclusion I'm seeing demonstrated here is "science in support of the bible = good" and "science contridcting the bible = bad"
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:18:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
i don't get it.

how does the Bible's mention of landmarks, buildings, etc validate anything else in the Bible?

I have a Tom Clancy novel right here...he mentions the Kremlin, the White House, the CIA, Scotland Yard, etc. Does that make everything else in the book true?




Credibility.

There have been numerous Biblical statements as to places, cultures, landmarks that skeptics have cited as evidence the Bible is little different than a CLancy novel.

But unlike the Clancy novel, archaeological digs have validated the Biblical statements.

If you can't see how this establishes a certain validity to the Biblical text, then I'm at a loss to explain it to you.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:20:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FanoftheBlackRifle:
The conclusion I'm seeing demonstrated here is "science in support of the bible = good" and "science contridcting the bible = bad"



Again, science is NOT at issue here.

Factual statements of places and landmarks is.

The finding of the pool of Siloam validates Biblical statements made.

We don't even broach into any scientific discovery in this case.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:46:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By FanoftheBlackRifle:
The conclusion I'm seeing demonstrated here is "science in support of the bible = good" and "science contridcting the bible = bad"



Again, science is NOT at issue here.

Factual statements of places and landmarks is.

The finding of the pool of Siloam validates Biblical statements made.

We don't even broach into any scientific discovery in this case.




If you say so.

The way I see things, they found a pool. Great. It doesn't prove anything other than that particular pool existed. It says nothing about the rest of the bible, wether its valid or not.

As stated above, I too have all sorts of fictional books with items and locations that do exist named and described in them. It does not mean the books are true.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:55:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FanoftheBlackRifle:

The way I see things, they found a pool. Great. It doesn't prove anything other than that particular pool existed. It says nothing about the rest of the bible, wether its valid or not.



I said as much. The finding of the pool of Siloam ONLY proves the existence of the pool of Siloam.

Think of it as a treasure map someone handed you. The initial response might be "Yeah, right, buried treasure - gave up on THAT idea back in 4th grade."

Then let's say someone sent you info that validated one particular element of the treasure map.

Yer interest might be peaked, but not much else.

Then another element was validated, and another.

The only question then is "How many elements would you need to be validated before you went searching for yourself?"

The Bible is that treasure map. And the validation of the pool of Siloam is but one piece of evidence you SHOULD consider as part of a larger puzzle that might one day cause you to investigate the "treasure map" for yourself.



Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:05:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
i don't get it.

how does the Bible's mention of landmarks, buildings, etc validate anything else in the Bible?

I have a Tom Clancy novel right here...he mentions the Kremlin, the White House, the CIA, Scotland Yard, etc. Does that make everything else in the book true?




Credibility.

There have been numerous Biblical statements as to places, cultures, landmarks that skeptics have cited as evidence the Bible is little different than a CLancy novel.

But unlike the Clancy novel, archaeological digs have validated the Biblical statements.

If you can't see how this establishes a certain validity to the Biblical text, then I'm at a loss to explain it to you.




I simply don't see how it establishes validity for anything other than the existence of said pool.

Archaeological digs could "validate" Clancy novels 2000 years from, no?
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:41:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By FanoftheBlackRifle:

The way I see things, they found a pool. Great. It doesn't prove anything other than that particular pool existed. It says nothing about the rest of the bible, wether its valid or not.



I said as much. The finding of the pool of Siloam ONLY proves the existence of the pool of Siloam.

Think of it as a treasure map someone handed you. The initial response might be "Yeah, right, buried treasure - gave up on THAT idea back in 4th grade."

Then let's say someone sent you info that validated one particular element of the treasure map.

Yer interest might be peaked, but not much else.

Then another element was validated, and another.

The only question then is "How many elements would you need to be validated before you went searching for yourself?"

The Bible is that treasure map. And the validation of the pool of Siloam is but one piece of evidence you SHOULD consider as part of a larger puzzle that might one day cause you to investigate the "treasure map" for yourself.






OK, let me be clear on one thing. I'm in here for discussion and to learn. I'm not here to be converted. So you can lay off on the preachy stuff, ok? Thanks.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top