Questions for the religious

[Ralph]

Have you ever been to Jericho? Its way below sea level and has been inhabited off and on for 11,000 years.. First evidence is of the Natufian culture. There are seven levels of ruins because it has been felled by earthquakes, not horns, many times over the years.

Exodus is a myth. The Bible says that there were 700,000 able bodied men .. Unless they left their wives, children, parents and sisters behind in Egypt.. they numbered 3 million plus livestock... and two midwives.

Lets say a bare minimum of two goats per person makes 6 million livestock.. and there is no water or pasture in Sinai.... and the climate hasn't changed in 3000 years.

That was 2/3rds of the population of Egypt... yet the Egyptians never noticed.

As I said.....I prefer to base my conclusion of "truth" on that which is found via the SCIENCE OF ARCHELOGOY instead of some biased secular "opinion" of things NOT IN EVIDENCE. Even those who would attempt to refute the evidence presented by the archeological finds of Dr. Garstang have to admit to the geological evidence of that particular area being prone to movements of the earth (earthquakes) and flooding due to the fact of this City being below sea level and the evidence points to the fact that the city found by Dr. Garstang was a doubled wall city with evidence of the Walls (with the exception of the north wall) collapsing in an instant (of course they will never admit this evidence corresponds to the Biblical account in several places in the scriptures....as this supposedly "new" evidence from a dig which began in 1994....SUGGESTS, as they admit they have no actual evidence to support their claim, that the "timelines" of these geological events don't match with the Biblical history of this even (who'd thunk it?). This 1994 secular team base their conclusions on what....can we guess? They have found NOTHING so they base their (wink, wink) SUGGESTION on things "not found". Priceless.

I did take note that you knocked me down with "your" objective evidence. You have presented nothing but speculation, conjecture backed by "nothing" but opinion. Question? If recorded history dates but 5000 years....just what modern math did you use to calibrate this 11,000 year old date? Another question? What about the evidence of the north wall alone standing which supports the history of the bible where the person (Rahab...a Canaanite prostitute who helped the Israelites defeat their enemy and they were promised they would not come to harm in the attack? Its just a quinky ding this one wall was unarmed by the event?

The first rule of real science is based upon "observation"...the 2nd rule is based upon reproducible evidence (like archeological findings) and the 3rd rule of applying science in order to determine FACTS is its consistency when tested by "anyone". What do you call a supposed science that does not welcome actual evidence but attempts to suppress any opposing findings to what the secular world wants to present? Pseudo Science. You sound like some bigoted Muslim....instead of a supporter of Hinduism or follower of Buda. How many "g"ods do you have?

http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html

 

[leaningright]

The point is.....the majority of history was passed down first through an oral path and making a claim void of any archeological findings of fact proves what? Simply because something has not been found YET makes that history a lie? Really? The majority of your parroted attempt to discredit the Bible is based upon "things not found"....I prefer to concentrate on the reality of what the science of Archeology has produced instead of what it has not produced.

Joshua 6 details how the nation of Biblical Israel conquered the double walled city of "Jericho". The bible records that the Israelites marched for 6 days once around the city fortress. On the 7th day they marched around the city 7 times. The priests blew their trumpets, the people shouted and cried out in one voice, and when they did THE WALL FELL DOWN (Joshua 6:20). You claim that this could not have happened because Joshua had no army and never faced such a walled city fortress....yet the science of Archeology tells a different story.

Beginning in 1929 Dr. John Garstang excavated the ancient ruins of Jericho and confirmed the Biblical account of the battle.....with a confirmation that this area was prone to earthquakes with evidence that the walls of the city did fall at one time. Of course you find the seculars screaming bloody murder and making a CLAIM that a consensus OPINION by many other archeologists (void of any findings of factual artifacts) differ as to the date assigned by Dr. Garstang. What's new under the sun? Nothing....some making claims about THINGS not found as if not finding NOTHING disproves anything.

For years the same Consensus opinions called the Bible a book of lies because there had been no evidence of a powerful warlike kingdom mentioned in the scriptures......the Hittites. This nation is mentioned some 48 times in scripture. Again....for years and decades NO ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE existed....so the consensus by the seculars was this made up nation never existed it was just another bible story. Until.........George Smith found the capital city of the Hittites in 1876....a city called Carchemish.

Thus...simply because no evidence has not been found YET...does not preclude a history from being true. Real Science has the mule pulling the plow....not the inversion of attempting to claim that things not in evidence disproves the possibility of truth from existing....i.e., having the mule push the plow. Why should anyone not believe certain parts of the scripts due to a lack of archeological evidence when archeology has proven through the finding of evidence that the biblical account has been truthful? Its called prima facie truth....and it exists until OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is found that actually contradicts the record.

Ralph has done an excellent job in this thread so I’ll just add this about the bolded above: Everything archaeology and science has found to be true supports the biblical record.

 

[domer76]

Ralph has done an excellent job in this thread so I’ll just add this about the bolded above: Everything archaeology and science has found to be true supports the biblical record.

Tell us about that boat with the animals on it. Where is that record? Where is the archaeological record of wombats, koalas and kangaroos trekking from Turkey to Australia?

 

[domer76]

The point is.....the majority of history was passed down first through an oral path and making a claim void of any archeological findings of fact proves what? Simply because something has not been found YET makes that history a lie? Really? The majority of your parroted attempt to discredit the Bible is based upon "things not found"....I prefer to concentrate on the reality of what the science of Archeology has produced instead of what it has not produced.

Joshua 6 details how the nation of Biblical Israel conquered the double walled city of "Jericho". The bible records that the Israelites marched for 6 days once around the city fortress. On the 7th day they marched around the city 7 times. The priests blew their trumpets, the people shouted and cried out in one voice, and when they did THE WALL FELL DOWN (Joshua 6:20). You claim that this could not have happened because Joshua had no army and never faced such a walled city fortress....yet the science of Archeology tells a different story.

Beginning in 1929 Dr. John Garstang excavated the ancient ruins of Jericho and confirmed the Biblical account of the battle.....with a confirmation that this area was prone to earthquakes with evidence that the walls of the city did fall at one time. Of course you find the seculars screaming bloody murder and making a CLAIM that a consensus OPINION by many other archeologists (void of any findings of factual artifacts) differ as to the date assigned by Dr. Garstang. What's new under the sun? Nothing....some making claims about THINGS not found as if not finding NOTHING disproves anything.

For years the same Consensus opinions called the Bible a book of lies because there had been no evidence of a powerful warlike kingdom mentioned in the scriptures......the Hittites. This nation is mentioned some 48 times in scripture. Again....for years and decades NO ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE existed....so the consensus by the seculars was this made up nation never existed it was just another bible story. Until.........George Smith found the capital city of the Hittites in 1876....a city called Carchemish.

Thus...simply because no evidence has not been found YET...does not preclude a history from being true. Real Science has the mule pulling the plow....not the inversion of attempting to claim that things not in evidence disproves the possibility of truth from existing....i.e., having the mule push the plow. Why should anyone not believe certain parts of the scripts due to a lack of archeological evidence when archeology has proven through the finding of evidence that the biblical account has been truthful? Its called prima facie truth....and it exists until OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE is found that actually contradicts the record.

lol

Garsten only sought to bolster his Biblical beliefs with the archaeological record His bias is evident throughout his work.

"Garstang was a Christian and accordingly sought to validate his beliefs with archeological proof. He connects as much evidence as possible to the Bible, even when the connection is tenuous at best. Things found in the ground from thousands of years ago have so many different potential meanings, it is nearly impossible to conclude anything from them with certainty. Each archeologist's interpretations will vary, and Garstang's were guided by his interest in the Bible.

His bias is evident in many of his interpretations of the ruins, for he uses the evidence from the dig to support the Bible whenever remotely possible. When he sees ruined walls and signs of fire, he links them with Joshua's victory, offering no other possible explanations for the destruction. After quoting the sixth chapter of Joshua, which describes the collapse of the walls and the Israelites' burning of the city, he states:

"These episodes are confirmed in all material particulars: the fallen walls have been laid bare, while the burning of demolished buildings is found to have been general and so conspicuous as to suggest a deliberate holocaust." (Garstang, 6)

It is certainly possible that such evidence supports the biblical story, but it is equally possible that the walls were tumbled in connection with something else entirely, and Garstang fails to present all the options.

Garstang's faith in the Bible's accuracy is clear from his view of the biblical narrative as suitable for the referencing of history. He quotes extensively from Exodus and Joshua when trying to give the proper historical perspective on Jericho. This view of the Bible as equitable with other history was hardly questioned at the time Garstang was writing (1939), but has since been widely questioned or condemned by modern culture.

Garstang's view of archeology becomes evident in his discussion of its application to biblical history. He devotes a whole chapter at the end of his book to connections between archeology and the Bible. His position on the role of archeology is clarified in the following passage:

"At Jericho two worlds meet, the world which lives for us still in the imperishable records of the Old Testament, and the world of modern scientific research which lifts it out of the darkness of semi-legend and sets it in the full light of history." (Garstang, 157-58)

He sees archeology as a tool by which to validate biblical history.

http://facultysites.vassar.edu/jolott/old_courses/class of 51/jericho/garstang.html

Another failure, Ralphie!

 

[kudzu]

There was NO Jericho at the time of Joshua.

The archaeologists agree on that.

 

[kudzu]

lol

Garsten only sought to bolster his Biblical beliefs with the archaeological record His bias is evident throughout his work.

"Garstang was a Christian and accordingly sought to validate his beliefs with archeological proof. He connects as much evidence as possible to the Bible, even when the connection is tenuous at best. Things found in the ground from thousands of years ago have so many different potential meanings, it is nearly impossible to conclude anything from them with certainty. Each archeologist's interpretations will vary, and Garstang's were guided by his interest in the Bible.

His bias is evident in many of his interpretations of the ruins, for he uses the evidence from the dig to support the Bible whenever remotely possible. When he sees ruined walls and signs of fire, he links them with Joshua's victory, offering no other possible explanations for the destruction. After quoting the sixth chapter of Joshua, which describes the collapse of the walls and the Israelites' burning of the city, he states:

"These episodes are confirmed in all material particulars: the fallen walls have been laid bare, while the burning of demolished buildings is found to have been general and so conspicuous as to suggest a deliberate holocaust." (Garstang, 6)

It is certainly possible that such evidence supports the biblical story, but it is equally possible that the walls were tumbled in connection with something else entirely, and Garstang fails to present all the options.

Garstang's faith in the Bible's accuracy is clear from his view of the biblical narrative as suitable for the referencing of history. He quotes extensively from Exodus and Joshua when trying to give the proper historical perspective on Jericho. This view of the Bible as equitable with other history was hardly questioned at the time Garstang was writing (1939), but has since been widely questioned or condemned by modern culture.

Garstang's view of archeology becomes evident in his discussion of its application to biblical history. He devotes a whole chapter at the end of his book to connections between archeology and the Bible. His position on the role of archeology is clarified in the following passage:

"At Jericho two worlds meet, the world which lives for us still in the imperishable records of the Old Testament, and the world of modern scientific research which lifts it out of the darkness of semi-legend and sets it in the full light of history." (Garstang, 157-58)

He sees archeology as a tool by which to validate biblical history.

http://facultysites.vassar.edu/jolott/old_courses/class of 51/jericho/garstang.html

Another failure, Ralphie!

Yes, for 150 years archaeologist tried to prove the Bible.. and they have failed utterly. Archaeology has now come to stand on its ow.

 

[Oracle Of JPP 714]

Sorry to butt in on your dialog with Kudzu, but I am reading Karen Armstrong's "The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions"

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/mar/18/highereducation.news

It is outstanding, in my opinion!

Never understood how Noah built a boat big enough for every species of mammal, reptile, bird, insect, plant on the planet.
Probably because it never happened and the early Christians simply borrowed the myth of the great flood from the ancient Babylonians.

and so becameith the births of modern luxury liners, and the diseases within them.

 

[Oracle Of JPP 714]

just think. All this shit started when adam grabbed eve's pussy.

 

[Cypress]

Ralph has done an excellent job in this thread so I’ll just add this about the bolded above: Everything archaeology and science has found to be true supports the biblical record.

Holy smoke. Absolutely gobsmacked.
From a self professed school teacher, no less.

 

[Cypress]

Tell us about that boat with the animals on it. Where is that record? Where is the archaeological record of wombats, koalas and kangaroos trekking from Turkey to Australia?

I do not see how it is even possible to build a boat large enough to carry every species of mammal, bird, insect, and reptile on the Earth.

I can't even believe in the 21st century we are even having the conversation that the Bible represents literal history.

It is a series of stories, written by men, some of which are borrowed from the oral traditions of earlier pagan religions.

That does not diminish the importance of the bible as a piece of literature, as a metaphorical source of moral inspiration, for its spiritual value. You would have to be a very weak person to be threatened by the concept that the Bible may not literally be a historical document.

I personally have always wanted to know exactly how it is that Jonah lived inside the belly of a whale.

 

[kudzu]

I do not see how it is even possible to build a boat large enough to carry every species of mammal, bird, insect, and reptile on the Earth.

I can't even believe in the 21st century we are even having the conversation that the Bible represents literal history.

It is a series of stories, written by men, some of which are borrowed from the oral traditions of earlier pagan religions.

That does not diminish the importance of the bible as a piece of literature, as a metaphorical source of moral inspiration, for its spiritual value. You would have to be a very weak person to be threatened by the concept that the Bible may not literally be a historical document.

I personally have always wanted to know exactly how it is that Jonah lived inside the belly of a whale.

Some Christians claim that if you don't believe the Bible is literal, you aren't a real Christian.

 

[Cypress]

Some Christians claim that if you don't believe the Bible is literal, you aren't a real Christian.

I think it is something some American protestants and evangelicals care about, but is not that important in much of the rest of the world.

I went to Eastern Orthodox service as a child and young adult. They are the oldest and most traditional Christian sect, with theological and religious roots far deeper than American evangelicals. And, while I am sure there are differences of opinion in a body of religion as vast as Eastern Orthodoxy, I do not remember it being made clear to me that the bible was an accurate and literal version of historical events.

 

[kudzu]

I think it is something some American protestants and evangelicals care about, but is not that important in much of the rest of the world.

I went to Eastern Orthodox service as a child and young adult. They are the oldest and most traditional Christian sect, with theological and religious roots far deeper than American evangelicals. And, while I am sure there are differences of opinion in a body of religion as vast as Eastern Orthodoxy, I do not remember it being made clear to me that the bible was an accurate and literal version of historical events.

There were also Nestorian Christians as early as the first century in Syria and Persia. There are a few ancient Nestorian sites in Arabia... They two had bishops.

The story of Jonah is a comic nouvella to show that God also loved the people of Ninevah.

 

[kudzu]

I think it is something some American protestants and evangelicals care about, but is not that important in much of the rest of the world.

I went to Eastern Orthodox service as a child and young adult. They are the oldest and most traditional Christian sect, with theological and religious roots far deeper than American evangelicals. And, while I am sure there are differences of opinion in a body of religion as vast as Eastern Orthodoxy, I do not remember it being made clear to me that the bible was an accurate and literal version of historical events.

There were also Nestorian Christians as early as the first century in Syria and Persia. There are a few ancient Nestorian sites in Arabia... They too had bishops.

The story of Jonah is a comic nouvella to show that God also loved the people of Ninevah.

 

[domer76]

Yes, for 150 years archaeologist tried to prove the Bible.. and they have failed utterly. Archaeology has now come to stand on its ow.

That’s what people like Ralphie do. They have their Biblical views and try to wrap everything else in the world to explain and validate that. It crosses and violates every field in science, not just archaeology. Biology, genetics, evolution, physics, engineering....

 

[kudzu]

That’s what people like Ralphie do. They have their Biblical views and try to wrap everything else in the world to explain and validate that. It crosses and violates every field in science, not just archaeology. Biology, genetics, evolution, physics, engineering....

Archaeology contradicts the Bible.. yet they will claim archaeology validates the OT stories.


For the most part the Bible stories are morality tales like Aesops' Fables.

 

[Oracle Of JPP 714]

I do not see how it is even possible to build a boat large enough to carry every species of mammal, bird, insect, and reptile on the Earth.

I can't even believe in the 21st century we are even having the conversation that the Bible represents literal history.

It is a series of stories, written by men, some of which are borrowed from the oral traditions of earlier pagan religions.

That does not diminish the importance of the bible as a piece of literature, as a metaphorical source of moral inspiration, for its spiritual value. You would have to be a very weak person to be threatened by the concept that the Bible may not literally be a historical document.

I personally have always wanted to know exactly how it is that Jonah lived inside the belly of a whale.

He didn't actually live there. he was invited to dinner.

 

[domer76]

Archaeology contradicts the Bible.. yet they will claim archaeology validates the OT stories.


For the most part the Bible stories are morality tales like Aesops' Fables.

Of course they are. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that. I can’t recall my age at the time, maybe 10 or 12, when I began to say to myself, “Wait, now. A bunch of this stuff just doesn’t make sense.”

It never ceases to amaze me that there are functioning adults who buy it.

 

[kudzu]

Of course they are. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that. I can’t recall my age at the time, maybe 10 or 12, when I began to say to myself, “Wait, now. A bunch of this stuff just doesn’t make sense.”

It never ceases to amaze me that there are functioning adults who buy it.

Probably around ten... Same for me. I think forcing children to believe stories like Jonah drives them away from religion.

 

[Cypress]

Probably around ten... Same for me. I think forcing children to believe stories like Jonah drives them away from religion.

There was undoubtedly a historical person that was an avatar for Jesus, likely some sort of political and theological radical.

But, I never understood why it is so threatening to consider much of the bible parable, and metaphor. It can stand on its own in that very way.

Asking people to accept Noah's Arc and Jonah in the whale's belly as historical fact is absurd. And I am not even sure this mindless fealty to the bible as historical narrative exists widely outside certain strains of American Protestant churches....so I even hesitate to think the belief in the bible as an accurate historical account is really even a "Christian" thing.