Let's stick to the topic.First, yes, of course there is evidence that the flood, the conquest of Canaan, the Exodus (as described in the Bible) and the six day creation never happened. If you wish there are many threads supporting each of those assertion. The whole body of the Armana letters covers the period when the Biblical Conquest of Canaan would have been happening and no one even noticed.Now to the Pool. There were several pools built at many times around that location. Finding them is of great interest however they do little to show the historical accuracy of the Bible other than a general knowledge of the area.The point is, that if you are going to use something as support, you must also consider all of the evoidence that does not support the conclusion. Just as with prophecy, you cannot just accept those things that support your belief while ignoring those that do not.You have to look at both sides of the evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is a narrowly defined topic. Each of thise has been discussed in other threads. Refer to those - do not continue here.

You can't prove a negative.Can you prove that they did?No evidence points to them happening. Why should we belive it?This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-12-2005 02:16 PM

This thread was started to prove that the pool of Siloam as written in Zachariah and John actually existed because archeologists unearthed it/found it (again), however you want to say it.Are you guys bringing up the flood and a 6 day creation as a strawman to disprove the archeological find?

---

WWXD?
What would Xenu do?"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"
--Ann Coulter

Thanks, you're right it is not the topic.It is also not a strawman, it is a red herring as far as this topic is concerned.

Actually, the OP says: It sounds as if the intention was a bit stronger than one particular place mentioned in the Gospel of John is confirmed to have existed. The wording makes it appear as if the poster thinks this particular find should give credence to all the events in the Gospel.

I don't think anyone disputes the find although the jury is still out on exactly what has been found.The issue is with using the find as justification to say that other things in the Bible must also be true. That is unwarranted. The examples shown, for example the conquest of Canaan, are brought up to show that while some archeology might support Biblical accounts, other equally valid archeological finds refute Biblical accounts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The accuracy is exactly what is being debated here. Has this find supported the accuracy of John/Zachariah, or diminished? This was in no way intended, at least by me, to prove that Jesus fed the 5,000. So the OP is correct, it indicates the historical accuracy of the gospel of John.

---

WWXD?
What would Xenu do?"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"
--Ann Coulter

Jar, I am 100% with you. Using this to justify feeding the 5,000 or the conquest of Cana is not the issue in this thread.You still have yet to tell me what archeologicaal finds there are that refute the biblical accounts.

---

WWXD?
What would Xenu do?"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"
--Ann Coulter

No!It indicates the historical accuracy of pool.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

*sigh*

---

WWXD?
What would Xenu do?"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"
--Ann Coulter

I did mention the Armana Letters and there are many threads here that deal with Jericho and Ai. Going into all of the evidence is certainly OT here in any case.Here is one link to a thread on the issue of the Message 1. Start a thread and we can discuss some of the others.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Tal, how on God's green earth did you get into the army?

quote:

---

The accuracy is exactly what is being debated here.
  —Tal

---

That is false, and your inability to recognize that fact is almost embarrassing.What is at issue is whether or not the historicity of the pool of Siloam is at all significant. All fiction, folklore, and legend are repleat with references to the real world. There are, indeed, farms in Kansas, and the state has seen far more than its fair share of tornados. None of this should be seen as exidence for the Munchkins or the Wizard of Oz. This point has been made over and over in this thread, and your inability to get it can only suggest diminished mental capacity or willful ignorance.This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 08-13-2005 04:45 PM

Very interesting...It sounds like it was a fairly impressive discovery. I'll have to wait until I hear more about this before I jump to any quick conclusions, but as of now, it sounds like it correlates with the scriptures very well.Of course, any little bit of historical validation of anything in the New Testament will be praised far out of context. None the less, it is interesting in an archaeological standpoint as well.

Was Job a real man? How about Jacob's wife Rachel? (yeah, I'm talkin about Gensis).Yes, they were both real. How do I know? Job is buried in the modern day country of Oman. I've been to Job's tomb. He's burried in Salalah. I've also been to Rachel's tomb. It is just inside the palestinian authority. It doesn't get much more real than that.Interestingly enough, I've been to Jesus' tomb also.

---

'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that (solar system model) and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'. -Sir Isaac Newton