betsy Posted June 28, 2011 Author Report Posted June 28, 2011 And yet you choose to ignore 150 years of biological studies... 150 years....and counting. Studies. Not evidences. Quote
betsy Posted June 28, 2011 Author Report Posted June 28, 2011 There's nothing wrong in that. What's wrong is the claim you made about archaeology having contradicted nothing said in the Bible. That was what a reputable archeologist said! “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” - Nelson Glueck Nelson Glueck was the same archeologist whose dating was dismissed by scholars, only to be proven correct now with the discovery of Khirbat En-Nahas. It also happened to be where the American rabbi and archaeologist Nelson Glueck unabashedly proclaimed in 1940 that he had discovered the Edomite mines controlled by King Solomon. Subsequent British excavators believed they had found evidence that Glueck was off by some three centuries and that Edom actually dated to the seventh century B.C. But when Levy started probing the site known as Khirbat en Nahas (Arabic for "ruins of copper"), the samples he sent off to Oxford for radiocarbon dating confirmed that Glueck had been on the right track: This was a tenth-century copper-production site—and, Levy adds pointedly, "the closest copper source to Jerusalem." http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text/9 Quote
cybercoma Posted June 28, 2011 Report Posted June 28, 2011 I can quote people saying Elvis is still alive too. Quote
betsy Posted June 28, 2011 Author Report Posted June 28, 2011 And yet you choose to ignore 150 years of biological studies... Several Biblical declarations that are posted here - 37 (?) so far - have been scientifically proven. And yet you choose to ignore that. The least you could do is study the Bible - with an open mind. As you would science. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Several Biblical declarations that are posted here - 37 (?) so far - have been scientifically proven. And yet you choose to ignore that. The least you could do is study the Bible - with an open mind. As you would science. I have read the Bible, Betsy. It isn't a science textbook, some of its claims are gibberish (even the order of the Creation events is out of order to science). Yes, if you twist your interpretation sufficiently I'm sure you can line it up to some scientific discovery, but what a ludicrous exercise. Quote
ToadBrother Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 That was what a reputable archeologist said! “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” - Nelson Glueck Nelson Glueck was the same archeologist whose dating was dismissed by scholars, only to be proven correct now with the discovery of Khirbat En-Nahas. So where is the evidence of the Egyptian captivity, Betsy? Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Several Biblical declarations that are posted here - 37 (?) so far - have been scientifically proven. And yet you choose to ignore that. The least you could do is study the Bible - with an open mind. As you would science. and you have yet to cite chapter and verse... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 To say that some biblical references have been validated therefore the bible is correct is a logical error. There are far more references which remain either unproven or proved innacurate. Take the massacre of the innocnets which appears in the Gospel of Matthew. There is zero evidence outside the gospels...not roman acccounts, not even other collaberating accounts in the New Testament. Did it happen? probably not. Then there is jericho. As we know, Joshua fit the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down. Or at least that is the biblical story. On the other hand, archaeologists question whether there were even any walls during the period when Joshua conducted his God sanctioned campaign of genocide. The book of Joshua, chapter 6, records the destruction of the walls of Jericho, allowing the Israelites under the leadership of Joshua to conquer the city. Time tells us that after extensive excavations at the site of ancient Jericho, archaeologists have determined that the location was abandoned between about 1500-1100 BC. According to them no walled cities existed during this time in this area of Canaan. Conservative biblical scholars and archaeologists disagree on the date of the Israelite entrance into Canaan, but they both agree that it falls well within the time-range mentioned above. Given this chronology, modern archaeology concludes that the Hebrews moved onto vacant or sparsely populated land. This thinking allows no walls to come tumbling down, and no city to be conquered. The skeptics also doubt that Joshua even existed. Without a battle, who needs a general? http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/archaeology.html There is no question that time and time again, the bible falls fall short as a history primer and contains numerous innaccuracies, some intentionally inserted as national propaganda, and some unintentionally inserted because in the end, the writers were superstitious quacks. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
betsy Posted June 29, 2011 Author Report Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) To say that some biblical references have been validated therefore the bible is correct is a logical error. There are far more references which remain either unproven or proved innacurate. Take the massacre of the innocnets which appears in the Gospel of Matthew. There is zero evidence outside the gospels...not roman acccounts, not even other collaberating accounts in the New Testament. Did it happen? probably not. Then there is jericho. As we know, Joshua fit the battle of Jericho and the walls came tumbling down. Or at least that is the biblical story. On the other hand, archaeologists question whether there were even any walls during the period when Joshua conducted his God sanctioned campaign of genocide. http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/archaeology.html Although it is my personal belief that the Bible is correct, my posted facts never made any claims that since some Biblical references have been validated that therefore it is correct. You are arguing about nothing. Non-issue. There is no question that time and time again, the bible falls fall short as a history primer and contains numerous innaccuracies, some intentionally inserted as national propaganda, and some unintentionally inserted because in the end, the writers were superstitious quacks. One inaccurate quack I know is Richard Dawkins - accused by a colleague evolutionist, Lewontin! And judging by another article, Talk Origin seems to be a nest for quacks! And those who try to cover up the confusion of Gould(?)....also go quack-quack-quack. Edited June 29, 2011 by betsy Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Although it is my personal belief that the Bible is correct, my posted facts never made any claims that since some Biblical references have been validated that therefore it is correct. You are arguing about nothing. Non-issue. One quack I know is Richard Dawkins - with empirical evidence provided by another evolutionist, Lewontin! Haven't you erroneously claimed that archaeology has never contradicted the bible? If that was indeed the case, what is the point of the exercise? Since it indeed not the case, is the bible's errors also a non issue? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
cybercoma Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Again, assuming evolution is completely wrong, you still haven't proven your case, betsy. Quote
jbg Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Seems to me that science is talking about the real possibility of global flooding, right now. Global warming is as much a religious belief as the world according to Betsy is. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
betsy Posted June 29, 2011 Author Report Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) Haven't you erroneously claimed that archaeology has never contradicted the bible? If that was indeed the case, what is the point of the exercise? You think archeology contradicted the Bible. Wishful thinking. Then put your mouth where your money is. Cite me an irrefutable fact that shows archeology contradicting the Bible. Since it indeed not the case, is the bible's errors also a non issue? What "error" is that? It is over zealous scientists who makes errors! Grave errors! As this latest discovery did, it corrected the errors of scientists who were too quick to dismiss Glueck's dating! May I remind you that I've stated way back: the Bible does not support science. It is science that happens to support the Bible. Edited June 29, 2011 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted June 29, 2011 Author Report Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) ANY club that would have me as a member..is not one I want to belong too...so I must decline your invitation and suggesting that I join Apes International... I simply don't want too....you sure are bent on turning me into a monkey...If you could see out of my eyes --- I do realize something...that 90% of humanity functions a level slightly above an Ape....With your attitude the ape humans would form a collective of ape communists and hunt down the more evolved and aware apes....,why is it that intelligence and independece are feared --- I am your friend -------now sit down and let me scratch the back of your ear while we order some take out bannanas. And rightly so! Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument by Brian Thomas, M.S. * Many scientists still believe that these repeated segments contain nearly random, functionless, non-coding sequences with which “evolution” can tinker. But a new study published in Nature Genetics found that they actually contain functional code that is accessed for use in specific tissues.1 Scientists recently discovered that DNA which came from transposons can regulate the expression of gene products. One class of transposons, called “retrotransposons,” is formed when DNA is copied into RNA, which is then reverse-copied back into DNA. Retrotransposon sequences had been almost dogmatically interpreted by evolutionary scientists as remnants of ancient viruses. These viruses supposedly infected the host organism long ago, and it was assumed that the viral DNA became incorporated into one or more of its chromosomes. Intriguingly, chimpanzees and humans share some almost identical repeated sequences that look as though they were formed by retrotransposons. Evolutionists have argued that they must have been introduced by the same virus before the two species diverged from a (presumably) ape-like ancestor. Thus, each species retains today a remnant of the same ancient viral infection. This is often cited as strong evidence that humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry, and therefore that broad-scale evolution is true―that single cells can eventually develop into humans through random natural forces. This is currently one of evolution’s best arguments. But the argument rests squarely upon the premise that these long DNA repeat sequences came from ancient viruses. Creation scientists predicted that not all—and perhaps not any—retrotransposon activity was viral or random, but instead was part of a well-designed, originally created cellular process.2 The new Nature Genetics study has confirmed this creation prediction. I don't know why these folks are so eager to be associated with chimps. So determined to elevate the status of apes and chimps - or so they think, with the "grass looking greener on the other side...." Mind you these posters are all responding in anonymity....we haven't seen any of their photos, did we? Who knows, they could all be responding from the lab! Edited June 29, 2011 by betsy Quote
g_bambino Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) Cite me an irrefutable fact that shows archeology contradicting the Bible. Archaeology, along with other sciences, has confirmed there was no global flood that wiped out all life on the planet all at once. [c/e] Edited June 29, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Cite me an irrefutable fact that shows archeology contradicting the Bible. The earth and universe was not created in seven days. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Sir Bandelot Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Global warming is as much a religious belief as the world according to Betsy is. I've always thought that global warming is real. Its causes can be disputed, but effects are obvious if you look at the rate of glacial melt. Others dispute that GW even exists at all. Do you concede the line between science and mere belief is broken down? Quote
M.Dancer Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 What "error" is that? There are dozens if not more. Genesis 1:17 (science has conclusively proved the moon does not give of light) 2nd Kings 8:26 vs 2 chronicles 22:2 1st kings 4:26 vs 2 chronicles 9:25 Leviticus 11:6 Leviticus 11:13-19 Luke 2:1 (Augustus did not order a census) Joshua 12- Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
cybercoma Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Cite me an irrefutable fact that shows archeology contradicting the Bible. Plants, animals, and human beings were not created in their present form all at once. Quote
jbg Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 I've always thought that global warming is real. Its causes can be disputed, but effects are obvious if you look at the rate of glacial melt. Others dispute that GW even exists at all.There's no question that on a secular overall basis we are coming out of an Ice Age. That trek is not a straight line and at any given point we could be in a cooling or warming stage. Further, we could head back into an Ice Age. The answers won't be known for some time.Do you concede the line between science and mere belief is broken down?It seems to have is some cases, including global warming and the Bible. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
GostHacked Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Although it is my personal belief that the Bible is correct, my posted facts never made any claims that since some Biblical references have been validated that therefore it is correct. Ahh, personal beliefs. Also you are contradicting yourself in that sentence. Your posted facts never made claims that the biblical references have been validated and therefore correct? Ok contradicting yourself 3 times in one sentence. I don't know how you did it, but .. bravo. You are arguing about nothing. Non-issue. So are you apparently. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Here's 381 contradictions of history and science according to the Skeptics Annotated Bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html Quote
Oleg Bach Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Human physical existance is naturally corrupt. Sin is natural - nature is sin - This buisness about believing that we are bad because we sin makes no sense - unless you understand the concept of going above nature...into the heavenly and angelic super natural realm where we as beings at least attempt to escape the bounds of phyisicality to a degree....and become more super natural we will continue to be pawns of nature...The sin of disappation and sensuality are fine - but they must be controlled if you are to evolve. Quote
betsy Posted June 29, 2011 Author Report Posted June 29, 2011 The earth and universe was not created in seven days. God's time. God's days. Quote
betsy Posted June 29, 2011 Author Report Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) name='M.Dancer' date='28 June 2011 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1309313016' post='685516']Haven't you erroneously claimed that archaeology has never contradicted the bible? If that was indeed the case, what is the point of the exercise? Betsy: You think archeology contradicted the Bible. Wishful thinking. Then put your mouth where your money is. Cite me an irrefutable fact that shows archeology contradicting the Bible. M.Dancer' date='29 June 2011 - 07:22 AM' timestamp='1309353741' post='685582'] There are dozens if not more. Genesis 1:17 (science has conclusively proved the moon does not give of light) You think that belongs to ARCHEOLOGY ? We're talking A R C H E O L O G I C A L Discoveries! 2nd Kings 8:26 vs 2 chronicles 22:2 1st kings 4:26 vs 2 chronicles 9:25 Leviticus 11:6 Leviticus 11:13-19 Luke 2:1 (Augustus did not order a census) Joshua 12- And what are those??? Explain what they've got to do with archeological findings contradicting Bible refernces. Support your argument. CITE! Edited June 29, 2011 by betsy Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.