DogOnPorch Posted July 2, 2011 Report Posted July 2, 2011 DOP I've been missing out on those photos you've been posting. For some reason - perhaps due to the antiquity of my computer - they don't show on my screen. Time to upgrade. Allah (pbuh) wills it. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Sir Bandelot Posted July 2, 2011 Report Posted July 2, 2011 Time to upgrade. Allah (pbuh) wills it. Or, not. Quote
betsy Posted July 2, 2011 Author Report Posted July 2, 2011 Time to upgrade. Allah (pbuh) wills it. I'm assuming your photos makes fun of me? Perhaps God wills it that I be spared. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 2, 2011 Report Posted July 2, 2011 I'm assuming your photos makes fun of me? Perhaps God wills it that I be spared. They are videos and only if you can't handle Lewis Black (etc). Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Oleg Bach Posted July 2, 2011 Report Posted July 2, 2011 A book is like a person. There are good qualities and bad ones - Great truths and wisdom and utter falsehood and stupidity....you can not totally write off a person as invalid or a book. Those with this powerful need to debunk ancient scriptures are driven by some need to show that they are so much more sophisticated and their modernity is superiour to the distant past human mind. This is not so - as for science - some of the ancients understood quantum mechanics - understood the concepts and limitaions of the existance of time.. - they were bright people 5000 years ago- we assume that we are smarter...There is mention of extended life spans in the Bible...I believe that some of the ancients were so in tune with nature and God that their flesh sustained longer - We are much to dependent on common human knowledge and science in the regards of life extention....It is the mind and spirit that sustains the flesh ---Sure genetic engineering will extend life -as will modern medical advancement...BUT modern man will never achieve a life span in the hundreds of years - because he ignores and disrespects the forces of nature and GOD..YOU belive in something and it believes in you - that is the great contract. Quote
g_bambino Posted July 4, 2011 Report Posted July 4, 2011 So now you're complaining because he said he "didn't take the Bible literally." I didn't complain at all. Quote
betsy Posted July 4, 2011 Author Report Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) I didn't complain at all. --------- A reputable archaeologist who was also a rabbi. A reputable archaeologist who's career peaked in the 1950s. A reputable archaeologist who asserted he didn't take the Bible literally. What meaning does his claim about no archaeological discovery disproving a Biblical passage have, then, to anyone but himself? Once we stray from the literal words of the Bible into personal interpretation, everything's subjective. So no archaeological discovery up to the 1950s disproved the Bible as Glueck interpreted it away from the literal. Who cares? To date, archaeology has proven quite a few parts of the Bible, as written, to be wrong. Science, broadly, has proven almost all the Bible to be mythical and impossible. That's precisely why the devout are forced to either stick to the literal and dismiss the science as a conspiracy, or move away from the literal and dilute it with added interpretation that fits the science. [sp] Betsy:So now you're complaining because he said he "didn't take the Bible literally." Just for the record, here's the complete statement: He didn't want to confuse fact with faith, history with holiness, science with religion! Can you read that now? Is that any clearer? Of all people, aren't you supposed to approve what he said??? Boy, you're truly confused. No wonder you're like a flea-bag doggie biting its tail (no offense to DOP)...on and on and on and on and on....going circular. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=810 Speaking of circular....I see that you 're biting that tail again with that silly redundant assertion To date, archaeology has proven quite a few parts of the Bible, as written, to be wrong. And I bet if I demand a proof.....you'll bring up that global deluge again! You seem to be catching what PROVEN NO-READ MAN has. Don't you read, too? Or still in denial? Still in the state of confusion? Science, broadly, has proven almost all the Bible to be mythical and impossible. What I do know for sure is that your evolution is the one that's a fairy tale and a myth! A spaghetti myth at that! I was watching a spaghetti western not too long ago - and boy, they are awfully funny and eye-rolling. Like this. And science is giving the proof! Science Overturns Evolution's Best Argument http://www.icr.org/article/science-overturns-evolutions-best-argument/ Furthermore, those who'd set out to write books (and make lots of money, of course) bent on their attacks on God and faith, are both running scared! Dawkins and Grayling. Must be giving themselves up as proof of evolution. From monkeys to chicken! http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18495&st=240 Boy, all tables had truly turned... Edited July 4, 2011 by betsy Quote
g_bambino Posted July 4, 2011 Report Posted July 4, 2011 --------- You still fail to show where I complained about the fact that this archaeologist did not take the Bible literally. Indeed, why would I complain when that fact helps show that his assertion about archaeology having proven nothing in the Bible wrong isn't in itself proof that archaeology has proven nothing in the Bible wrong. As I said, anyone can start with a conclusion and then personally interpret the Bible to fit that end; the faithful do it all the time. Given that archaeology and other sciences have proven many parts of the Bible as literally written to be false or impossible, it's necessary for believers to veer away from unembellished readings of the book. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted July 4, 2011 Report Posted July 4, 2011 anyone can start with a conclusion and then personally interpret the Bible data to fit that end; the faithful do it all the time. As a person who has worked in a physics department for almost 30 years I can assure you, this is how science is done as well. And not always with the most noble intentions. archaeology having proven nothing in the Bible wrong isn't in itself proof that archaeology has proven nothing in the Bible wrong. err... hmm. A proof is a proof. Or so I was led to believe Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 4, 2011 Report Posted July 4, 2011 Just so to make it easier, let's have a recap. So far there are 33 posted facts - not 36, sorry - all scientifically proven. 33 and counting... Can you show in the bible where these claims are made? Even just a few.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
g_bambino Posted July 4, 2011 Report Posted July 4, 2011 As a person who has worked in a physics department for almost 30 years I can assure you, this is how science is done as well. And not always with the most noble intentions. I'm sure there are researchers who do just that. And, since they must encumber the data/evidence with their own personal biases in order to make it fit the end, I wouldn't trust their conclusions, either. Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 4, 2011 Report Posted July 4, 2011 In other words, it's like the Nelson Glueck -Khirbat En-Nahas scenario in the sense that previous archeological assessments that favored the Bible are getting vindicated in the end. Puzzle pieces falling into places. Really....gee... One major problem remains: the date, 1400 B.C.E. Most scholars will reject the possibility that the Israelites destroyed Jericho in about 1400 B.C.E. because of their belief that Israel did not emerge in Canaan until about 150 to 200 years later, at the end of the Late Bronze II period. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted July 4, 2011 Report Posted July 4, 2011 And this one too, which is another long article but quite detailed. So I just give the table of contents and the conclusion. http://www.conservapedia.com/Jericho_chronology_dispute A minority of scholars agrees with the Biblical chronology, a dwindling minority... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Oleg Bach Posted July 4, 2011 Report Posted July 4, 2011 This has turned into a techincal argument. Fact verses fiction assisted by technology will make a muddled mess. The faith needed in the translation and filtering of biblical tales....Is actually very technical _ If it sounds like fiction and makes no sense in so far as logic - then it is to be tossed aside - this still leaves tons of good and factual information that is useful. To approach all religion with contempt and pride does a dis-service to the supposed researcher. You must use your God given moral compass to glean good information...for instance if an immoral or corrupt event is described in scripture - You do not use it as a model for living just because it is in the good book. Fundamentalist NEVER seem to understand that there are bad things in scripture also and it is up to the reader to understand which is which. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted July 4, 2011 Report Posted July 4, 2011 I'm sure there are researchers who do just that. And, since they must encumber the data/evidence with their own personal biases in order to make it fit the end, I wouldn't trust their conclusions, either. The problem is some data/evidence is largely open to interpretation. In some cases, the data one looks for can be found, and can be shown to say exactly what you want it to say. And that can be done without malice. Data/ evidence is not always a proof. Or as the saying amongst physicists goes, seek and ye shall find... Quote
Oleg Bach Posted July 4, 2011 Report Posted July 4, 2011 Love your enemy defys physical laws...You love them - and they have the choice of loving back...but if they are so far gone that the more you love them the more intense their hate becomes - KEEP loving them and intensify their hatred - Eventually they will be destroyed and eaten alive as with a cancer by their own hate - This precept of loving those that hate you is a win win thing...a bit sinister also - Jesus was a clever man...his teachings go to a super natural level that dominates the natural. Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted July 4, 2011 Report Posted July 4, 2011 I'm sure there are researchers who do just that. It's always that human factor that gets in the way of our ideological arguments, isn't it. Damn humans, idiots, they're screwing things up. Quote
betsy Posted July 5, 2011 Author Report Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Can you show in the bible where these claims are made? Even just a few.... Most of the verses/passages relevant to the fact are also posted along with every individual fact. The latest recap lists of 33 facts (p. 55) also include which page you can find them, so scrolling back for referencing wouldn't be too difficult now that we've accumulated so many pages. Edited July 5, 2011 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted July 5, 2011 Author Report Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Really....gee... M.Dancer: One major problem remains: the date, 1400 B.C.E. Most scholars will reject the possibility that the Israelites destroyed Jericho in about 1400 B.C.E. because of their belief that Israel did not emerge in Canaan until about 150 to 200 years later, at the end of the Late Bronze II period. But recently, new evidence has come to light suggesting that Israel was resident in Canaan throughout the Late Bronze II period. As new data emerge and as old data are reevaluated, it will undoubtedly require a reappraisal of current theories regarding the date and the nature of the emergence of Israel in Canaan. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/did-the-israelites-conquer-jericho-a-new-look-at-the-archaeological-evidence.aspx Edited July 5, 2011 by betsy Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 5, 2011 Report Posted July 5, 2011 M.Dancer: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/did-the-israelites-conquer-jericho-a-new-look-at-the-archaeological-evidence.aspx You have painted yourself into a corner. 1) either the city and walls were gone when the Israelites made there march... or as a few have said, the Israelites were already in Canaan 100s of years before the march which means 2) the story of exodus is factually incorrect, they did not leave egypt to go to Canaan, they were already there. So your choices are 1)either the Joshua story is incorrect 2)the exodus story is incorrect 3)both stories are incorrect ...as you have correctly proved. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Oleg Bach Posted July 5, 2011 Report Posted July 5, 2011 The buisness of the old Abarew or Jew being slaves in Egypt is silly - Egypt was a very civil society and took the wandering tribes in-- The fact that Moses lost it and murdered a guy is the core of the exodus...Moses should have controlled his temper. Quote
g_bambino Posted July 5, 2011 Report Posted July 5, 2011 You have painted yourself into a corner.1) either the city and walls were gone when the Israelites made there march... or as a few have said, the Israelites were already in Canaan 100s of years before the march which means 2) the story of exodus is factually incorrect, they did not leave egypt to go to Canaan, they were already there. So your choices are 1)either the Joshua story is incorrect 2)the exodus story is incorrect 3)both stories are incorrect ...as you have correctly proved. Add to that the salient point that, after two and a half centuries of archaeological exploration, not even a hint of evidence of Hebrew enslavement by the Egyptians has been uncovered; and the Egyptians were notorious record keepers. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted July 5, 2011 Report Posted July 5, 2011 Add to that the salient point that, after two and a half centuries of archaeological exploration, not even a hint of evidence of Hebrew enslavement by the Egyptians has been uncovered; and the Egyptians were notorious record keepers. There was a documentary regarding the building of the pyramids. Archaeoligial exploration reveled -- quarters for the workers - they also showed medical facilities and other things to ensure the well being of the workers. Egypt was not a barbaric and cruel nation - they lasted for almost 7000 years - you do not accomplish such a feat being a brutal jerk slave driver. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted July 5, 2011 Report Posted July 5, 2011 I believe that the miracles are literal. I have to. It's been said by Jesus that there wouldn't be any more miracles (and I assume He refer to big miracles like parting of the Red Sea). Therefore to me, that means miracles were truly in literal sense. You mean that some dudes many years after Jesus died said that Jesus did those miracles and said what he did about them. Jesus didn't write the Bible. The Bible is not the word of God. Ordinary people say it is the word of God, yet ordinary people wrote and edited the Bible, chose what to include and what not to. Literally believing in the Bible certainly takes a tremendous amount of faith, because once you try to look at the Bible logically and through a lens of critical analysis it all falls apart. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
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.