Discovered: biblical site where Jesus healed blind man

1,962 Views | 14 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Jabin
fredfredunderscorefred
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:21p, 9/9/23
AG
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1810968/Jesus-healed-blind-man-site-found-Pool-Siloam-archaeology

"There is no half mile that means more to more people that affirms Jerusalem's biblical heritage not simply as a matter of faith, but as a matter of fact," Orenstein further said in a statement."
Reply Quote
1
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:17p, 9/9/23
I don't like statements like this which are intended to commercialize or politicize this kind of find (the organization quoted here is controversial, to say the least, regarding claims on Palestinian homes and land). I love archeology, but it's a water source. It doesn't verify or repudiate anything written in the Bible. Did anyone think Jerusalem didn't have a water source?
Reply Quote
6
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 4:50p, 9/9/23
Sapper Redux said:
I don't like statements like this which are intended to commercialize or politicize this kind of find (the organization quoted here is controversial, to say the least, regarding claims on Palestinian homes and land). I love archeology, but it's a water source. It doesn't verify or repudiate anything written in the Bible. Did anyone think Jerusalem didn't have a water source?


For context, the pool of Siloam was often cited as yet another proof of the Bible's INACCURACY because a site matching its description had never been found. So when it was discovered in 04, it was a big deal. Not because it's a "water source" or because it proves Jesus actually healed anyone. Atheists have spent the better part of a century saying the Bible is unreliable, so this was a nice win for the Bible believers, similar to other discoveries like it.
Reply Quote
10
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 7:35p, 9/9/23
The Bible is unreliable as a historical document, but I've never seen this specific pool held up as an argument against the biblical narrative. The existence of places described in the Bible doesn't mean that what was said to happen there actually happened there.
Reply Quote
3
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 8:41p, 9/9/23
Sapper Redux said:
The Bible is unreliable as a historical document, but I've never seen this specific pool held up as an argument against the biblical narrative. The existence of places described in the Bible doesn't mean that what was said to happen there actually happened there.


I did not claim it was solid evidence for Jesus's deity. However, atheists were using the facts that these places didn't exist as solid evidence the Bible was inaccurate. These types of discoveries show those particular attempts to discredit the Bible are not reliable
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
craigernaught
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 3:50a, 9/10/23
AG
Quote:
For context, the pool of Siloam was often cited as yet another proof of the Bible's INACCURACY because a site matching its description had never been found.
Was it? By whom?

It was discovered 20 years ago and there's been strong archaeological evidence of the existence of the pool for quite a long time.

Rereading some of my old biblical archaeology books from the early 2000s, before the pool was discovered in '04, gives no indication that the authors believed that the pool didn't exist or that the biblical text was inaccurate because the site didn't match the biblical description. One book, published in 2001, even correctly locates the pool's location in the City of David on a map using the previously available archaeological evidence and the literary evidence from the biblical text.

While some biblical critics may have incorrectly argued that the Pool of Siloam was evidence against the historical reliability of the text, as far as I can tell, this wasn't the standard opinion.
Reply Quote
4
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 7:58a, 9/10/23
The Banned said:
Sapper Redux said:
The Bible is unreliable as a historical document, but I've never seen this specific pool held up as an argument against the biblical narrative. The existence of places described in the Bible doesn't mean that what was said to happen there actually happened there.


I did not claim it was solid evidence for Jesus's deity. However, atheists were using the facts that these places didn't exist as solid evidence the Bible was inaccurate. These types of discoveries show those particular attempts to discredit the Bible are not reliable


Which atheists?
Reply Quote
4
Frok
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:41a, 9/10/23
AG
Politics aside, it's a cool discovery that does affirm the historical accuracy of the biblical writings.

Note: Not saying completely confirms on it's own but contributes as additional evidence to the reliability of the historical details.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
fredfredunderscorefred
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:59a, 9/10/23
AG
IMO, Anytime something from the Bible can be supported, it is a good thing. I am interested in the historicity of Bible/Jesus. And anything that lends support to Jesus actually being a human that walked this earth (which most historians actually agree with) is a good thing. I tend to agree with Bono that it's hard to believe this actual person that has impacted the world in such a Great manner (the world calendar is literally based on his existence) was a "nutter"

Reply Quote
1
1 edit
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 1:07p, 9/10/23
Sapper Redux said:
The Banned said:
Sapper Redux said:
The Bible is unreliable as a historical document, but I've never seen this specific pool held up as an argument against the biblical narrative. The existence of places described in the Bible doesn't mean that what was said to happen there actually happened there.


I did not claim it was solid evidence for Jesus's deity. However, atheists were using the facts that these places didn't exist as solid evidence the Bible was inaccurate. These types of discoveries show those particular attempts to discredit the Bible are not reliable


Which atheists?


All references to the atheistic biblical scholars and historians are going to be vague, like this one. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-aug-09-sci-siloam9-story.html

There are plenty of other things like sodom and gamorah, evidence of an exodus, etc that skeptics point to to show that the Bible is historically inaccurate. This pool was just one of many and it's one more thing that has been proven true.

Again, this small find doesn't mean you should accept Jesus is actually God, and I would never try to convert someone based on this. But it is a small win for those who are constantly trying to defend the Bible ma historicity, divinity claims aside.
Reply Quote
3
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 1:19p, 9/10/23
AG
Nothing in that article supports your assertion that this was used as evidence that the Bible wasn't historical like the census in Luke or the exodus ect
Reply Quote
4
craigernaught
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:58a, 9/11/23
AG
When the Bible recounts history, specifically events from long before the writer's time, it's often not historically reliable but is almost always historically useful. Writers from this time period just do not share our same assumptions and beliefs about history and accuracy. They do not have the same types of literary or archaeological sources.

But when biblical writers, especially in the second temple period, identify people and places in the story, those are typically very reliable. When something like "The Pool of Siloam" is mentioned in both the Hebrew Bible and in John, there's little reason to think that such a place doesn't exist. The specifics of the story about who said and did what are always murky, but if it said they spoke at the arch of whatever, that arch is probably real, regardless of whether or not we found hard evidence. Otherwise, the story would sound ridiculous to their contemporaries.

Sometimes I feel like we play this strawman game with the "other side" and when something is found or discovered, it's used to "prove" the other side wrong or about an entire approach as if the "other side" has uniform views or something. I'm not sure how confirming the existence of the Pool of Siloam tells us much of anything about the historical reality of the Exodus. There's lots of different views. There's lots of different writers and books over a long period of time. And people, especially the religious and scholars don't fit neatly anywhere.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
craigernaught
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:21a, 9/11/23
AG
And regardless of how this fits into any of these debates, the quotes from the article have absolutely nothing to do with traditional vs liberal academic vs atheist views on the historical reliability of the bible.

The quotes from the article are about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They're about who has rights to the land in Jerusalem, and specifically in Silwan.
Reply Quote
2
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 8:03a, 9/11/23
Aggrad08 said:
Nothing in that article supports your assertion that this was used as evidence that the Bible wasn't historical like the census in Luke or the exodus ect


It's incredibly difficult to find all the old debates where this stuff was brought up. You aren't going to find articles that focus on the pool of Siloam proving or disproving the gospel of John's accuracy. It's just one of the many things that would get tossed out in debates. That's why it was such a big deal when it was located in 04. I don't have time to go back through the thousands of debate hours between Christians and atheists in the 90s to go pick out a clip to satisfy you. You'll see in the article where he says many scholars were saying John was historically inaccurate. That's a wide ranging topic, not just this pool. The location of the pool helps provide some historicity.

I'm just trying to add some context here. This is not an attempt at apologetics. These little things were constantly thrown in the faces of Bible believers, so when they get a win, it's a big deal for them. It's not a big deal to atheists because it's just a pool that proves nothing of Jesus's miracles. Overall it should just be an interesting archeological discovery lending some nominal credence to the Gospel of John that had previously dismissed and nothing more.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18a, 9/11/23
In regard to the Bible's lack of historicity, if people are willing to take off their shaded glasses, there is a surprising amount of evidence to support the Biblical accounts of the Exodus and the Conquest.
Reply Quote
1
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.