# "Holy Places"-What If They Are Not Correct? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 29, 2015, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806 "2015-04-29T13:23:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806/21 "2015-04-29T20:05:33Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Proof like the OP described would actually strengthen a religion. Religions are generally based on legends. The only way to prove a legend is false is by supplanting it with a fact. Suppose, for example, that somebody finds Noah’s Ark - it clearly and indisputably is the same ark that was described in Genesis - but it’s not found on Mount Ararat; it’s a different mountain twenty miles away. > > Which do you think will be the result? People saying _“The Bible got the location wrong. This proves the Bible can’t be trusted.”_ Or people saying _“They found Noah’s Ark. It really existed. The proves the Bible isn’t just a myth.”_ Yes, this is why I found some of the first few replies in this thread to be non-sequiturs. If someplace that claimed “George Washington slept here” were proved never to have housed George Washington, that wouldn’t do anything to my belief in George Washington’s existence, and it would, if anything, strengthen it if the proof were actually that the place GW slept was down the road a ways. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806/22 "2015-04-29T21:10:59Z")
> [@GreasyJack](#): > > I suspect it would be similar to how the Catholic Church treats early relics. Even though they’re almost certainly all fakes (albeit really old fakes) the church tends to think that doesn’t detract from their symbolic value as objects of veneration. Also, the Catholic church had the integrity to de-canonize\* saints who were obviously mythical. This hurt! Millions of Catholics carried Saint Christopher medals. (Many still do!) \*(I just checked; St. Christopher wasn’t formally de-canonized, but his feast day was taken away, and it was observed that his historical existence was questionable.) The Catholic Church also came to an accommodation with evolution. So, at least some organized religions (and their leadership) are willing to re-examine doctrine in light of new discoveries and facts. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806/23 "2015-04-29T21:12:32Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Yes, this is why I found some of the first few replies in this thread to be non-sequiturs. If someplace that claimed “George Washington slept here” were proved never to have housed George Washington, that wouldn’t do anything to my belief in George Washington’s existence, and it would, if anything, strengthen it if the proof were actually that the place GW slept was down the road a ways. Good point. Remember that place names can change over thousands of years. Perhaps there was a Mt. Ararat that was inhabited by ancient Biblical peoples who later moved to another mountain and named the new mountain Ararat too (this happens all the time with cities - I’m looking at you, London, Ontario and Norfolk, Virginia!) and then the old Ararat was taken by another civilization that named the mountain something else. Even if there wasn’t a name change, evidence of a documentation or surveying error could actually be supporting evidence that the Bible _is_ actually a historical document, because historical documents do have mistakes sometimes! ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806/24 "2015-04-29T21:27:27Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > The definition of Omnipotence is ‘unlimited or very great power’. Even the phrase ‘all powerful’ does not mean unlimited power, just all power that exists. So you admit there are things God can’t do? > [@kanicbird](#): > > Or a 3rd, God has accounted for it for a better overall outcome, which arguably solves both of your objection here. So god does have the power, but is creating something better then ever was before. We do hear that God’s creations do take time and all So your definition of “good” includes genocide and children dying of cancer? And this is a “better overall outcome”? No. Hitler was kinder and gentler than that God. If that’s who you want to worship, go ahead, but I guarantee you that most people on earth believe the God they worship is both all good and all powerful, and therefore the God most people worship is provably false. > [@kanicbird](#): > > Actually it does no such thing, it disproves your limited view of what a onmimax god is. Sort of a strawgod argument if you will. If you worship a God of limited power who prefers a world where babies drown in front of their mothers and innocent people are imprisoned and raped for decades in dungeons, that is not the God I disproved. But if you believe your God is all powerful and all good, I have conclusively disproven it. As I said, you can’t disprove all gods, simply because there isn’t a definition that includes every god. Most people have a very specific definition in mind when they use the word “God”. But when you start trying to analyze the concept critically, “God” becomes a word with no definition, just a grammatical role, like “the”. As soon as you start talking specifics, those specific gods can be disproven. And that’s just logically, using reason. You want to start bringing science and evidence into it, we can go even further. The god most people believe in is impossible according to our understanding of basic physics, astronomy, and biology, for example. ---
**Author:** ![SandyHook](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dec6dc/32.png) [@SandyHook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SandyHook)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806/25 "2015-04-29T21:48:37Z")
Ms Hook and I went to Israel and Jordon in February. While in Jerusalem we visited **BOTH** crucifixion and burial sites. Also, while walking the stations of the cross, we found that III and IV were within a few feet of each other. According to our guide III used to be a few buildings down but recently the building it was on was bought by a some jewish guy who didn’t want it there. So they moved it. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806/26 "2015-04-29T21:53:06Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > So you admit there are things God can’t do? Not exactly, your post was basically a take on ‘can God make a rock so big/heavy that even God could not lift it.’ Or in other words can God create a paradox. God has answered this question IMHO to all humanity, we know it as schrodinger’s cat. Yes He/She can to both. > [@](#): > > So your definition of “good” includes genocide and children dying of cancer? And this is a “better overall outcome”? No, Not without the mercy of God, which you ignore. > [@](#): > > No. Hitler was kinder and gentler than that God. If that’s who you want to worship, go ahead, but I guarantee you that most people on earth believe the God they worship is both all good and all powerful, and therefore the God most people worship is provably false. Um OK but we are talking about God, not who you say God is. > [@](#): > > If you worship a God of limited power who prefers a world where babies drown in front of their mothers and innocent people are imprisoned and raped for decades in dungeons, that is not the God I disproved. But if you believe your God is all powerful and all good, I have conclusively disproven it. You jsut proved you have no idea of what you are talking about. > [@](#): > > As I said, you can’t disprove all gods, simply because there isn’t a definition that includes every god. Most people have a very specific definition in mind when they use the word “God”. But when you start trying to analyze the concept critically, “God” becomes a word with no definition, just a grammatical role, like “the”. As soon as you start talking specifics, **those specific gods can be disproven.** Again no, only if you make a straw god, can you disprove it. > [@](#): > > And that’s just logically, using reason. You want to start bringing science and evidence into it, we can go even further. The god most people believe in is impossible according to our understanding of basic physics, astronomy, and biology, for example. 1 - Saying there is no God is illogical as it is something, given the power of God, we can not know unless God lets us know. So such belief of no God is not logically based but based on a feeling or a desire, a faith. 2 - Belief in a God can be the same, based on a feeling or desire, but logically can also be justified as such a God can logically prove it self to the person. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806/27 "2015-04-29T22:31:45Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > So you admit there are things God can’t do? . . . I recently learned that some theologians have redefined “omniscience.” Instead of meaning “Knowing Everything,” it apparently has been watered down to mean “Knowing whatever needs to be known at that time.” So, God doesn’t “know” the umpteen trillionth trillionth digit of pi. But if it ever came up somehow as an issue, he would frown slightly, and suddenly know it. They may have done the same thing to “omnipotence.” It’s a lovely little dodge, as it leaves the word essentially undefined. But it does allow them to avoid contradictions that are inescapable when appealing to “infinite” quantities and qualities. In essence, we’ve won that fight. They’re admitted that the “infinite” God doesn’t exist. It’s a triumph of some sort or other. (Like finding the trillionth trillionth digit of pi…) ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2015, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806/28 "2015-04-29T23:25:50Z")
> [@GreasyJack](#): > > I suspect it would be similar to how the Catholic Church treats early relics. Even though they’re almost certainly all fakes (albeit really old fakes) the church tends to think that doesn’t detract from their symbolic value as objects of veneration. This. Most religious people are not fundamentalists, and (pretty much) everyone is well aware that religions tend to build up a heavy layer of folklore. ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2015, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806/29 "2015-04-30T04:37:45Z")
God is good. It’s the people who have F’d it all up. ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2015, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806/30 "2015-04-30T04:56:46Z")
Getting back to Ralph’s (OP) question of what if a Holy Place’s location turns out to be incorrect, I believe people would look at the new evidence and accept the new location. They would accept the new fact. I think that’s what I would do. If I were to go to the Holy Land now, some Holy Places are more legitimate than others. Some opportunists claim that, Hey, this is the real place where such and such happened. It’s just like any tourist trap kind of place, you have to filter out the junk advertising (so to speak) to determine the genuine Holy Places. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2015, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806/31 "2015-04-30T05:54:27Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Proof like the OP described would actually strengthen a religion. Religions are generally based on legends. The only way to prove a legend is false is by supplanting it with a fact. Suppose, for example, that somebody finds Noah’s Ark - it clearly and indisputably is the same ark that was described in Genesis - but it’s not found on Mount Ararat; it’s a different mountain twenty miles away. > > Which do you think will be the result? People saying _“The Bible got the location wrong. This proves the Bible can’t be trusted.”_ Or people saying _“They found Noah’s Ark. It really existed. The proves the Bible isn’t just a myth.”_ Actually, your example would be an excellent proof of the trustworthiness of the Bible. Contrary to popular myth, the Bible does NOT say that the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat–it says that the Ark landed on the **mountains of** Ararat. ---
**Author:** ![Bullitt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bullitt/32/5725_2.png) [@Bullitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bullitt)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2015, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806/32 "2015-04-30T10:37:13Z")
The ark “…coming to rest on the mountains of Ararat.” - that is in Genesis 8:4. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-places-what-if-they-are-not-correct/718806.md?page=1)