Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Camels? In Israel? Sorry, Bible.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
    I don't know one deeply religious person who will care what science has to say Fed. Maybe some people with lots of gaps in their faith will but not the true believers.

    They don't care that it doesn't make sense all the animals fit onto one ark etc etc.

    I never said that the love and comfort gained from religion is exclusive to it.

    Fed talks of forced religion but seriously name one thing in this country you are forced to do because of religion? What a few places you can't buy alcohol? go to a strip club? big friggin deal.

    Go ahead Houghtam go fight the big church so you can make sure everyone can drink on Sundays. It has to be done for the good of the country lol.

    Poor Americans and their oppresive reilgious institutions. give me a break our country more like an orgy then a church.
    But America is puritanical and 83% Christian, how can that be?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by DenverBrit View Post
      But America is puritanical and 83% Christian, how can that be?
      Just like Detroit has been long overrun with Democrats who only care about helping the poor and building the middle class.

      The gap between word and deed is the prime symptom of the human condition.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
        Just like Detroit has been long overrun with Democrats who only care about helping the poor and building the middle class.

        The gap between word and deed is the prime symptom of the human condition.
        According to the latest archeology -- Jerusalem barely existed as a village at the time (of David and Solomon) when it was supposedly a great city --

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by mhgaffney View Post
          According to the latest archeology -- Jerusalem barely existed as a village at the time (of David and Solomon) when it was supposedly a great city --
          Archaelogy presents inarguably the least complete historical picture of the ancient world.

          That's not to say it isn't important. But it has been proven wrong and/or incomplete time and time again by further discovery.

          The best rule of thumb is to suspect any bold claims based solely on a lack of archaeological evidence. (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?) Any attempt to write a complete history of the world based purely on archaeological evidence available at the time would be comically misguided, incomplete, and inaccurate.

          Which is why history is always built first upon the written accounts of our ancestors, and then filled in later with other means of investigation.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
            Archaelogy presents inarguably the least complete historical picture of the ancient world.

            That's not to say it isn't important. But it has been proven wrong and/or incomplete time and time again by further discovery.

            The best rule of thumb is to suspect any bold claims based solely on a lack of archaeological evidence. (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?) Any attempt to write a complete history of the world based purely on archaeological evidence available at the time would be comically misguided, incomplete, and inaccurate.

            Which is why history is always built first upon the written accounts of our ancestors, and then filled in later with other means of investigation.
            Yes archeological results have often been displaced by new evidence -- but this does not help support the Biblical narrative. The newest data will continue to show that biblical history is not accurate -- because of the common practice of over-writing --

            Key parts of the old testament were amended again and again to reflect current political realities. MHG

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by mhgaffney View Post
              Yes archeological results have often been displaced by new evidence -- but this does not help support the Biblical narrative. The newest data will continue to show that biblical history is not accurate -- because of the common practice of over-writing --

              Key parts of the old testament were amended again and again to reflect current political realities. MHG
              Look, there are many ways to take on the historicity of the Bible. Especially the Old Testament.

              Often though the game is played by denouncing the bold claims of the Biblical account by simply pointing at any evidence gaps as definitive evidence in and of itself.

              And all documentation of those inside the community itself are automatically discounted.

              If all of ancient history were challenged by this same standard, we could believe next to nothing about any of it.

              And this latest 'find' is a perfect example. Genesis said Abraham had Camels in Egypt. It could easily be assumed he brought them along. (Why wouldn't he?)

              And so in response some dudes looked around a bunch of ancient Israeli copper mines for signs of them? What would that prove? Why would the ancient Jewish patriarchy have been mining copper? Guessing they might've had more pressing things to attend to.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by mhgaffney View Post
                According to the latest archeology -- Jerusalem barely existed as a village at the time (of David and Solomon) when it was supposedly a great city --
                That's absurd.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                  Archaelogy presents inarguably the least complete historical picture of the ancient world.

                  That's not to say it isn't important. But it has been proven wrong and/or incomplete time and time again by further discovery.

                  The best rule of thumb is to suspect any bold claims based solely on a lack of archaeological evidence. (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?) Any attempt to write a complete history of the world based purely on archaeological evidence available at the time would be comically misguided, incomplete, and inaccurate.

                  Which is why history is always built first upon the written accounts of our ancestors, and then filled in later with other means of investigation.
                  There just...I...the..

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
                    There just...I...the..

                    Sounds like pretty much all of your arguments.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                      Sounds like pretty much all of your arguments.
                      What, me laughing at your "logic" and suppositions based on a complete and total lack of understanding and education on various subjects?

                      You got it.

                      Nail. Head.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                        Look, there are many ways to take on the historicity of the Bible. Especially the Old Testament.

                        Often though the game is played by denouncing the bold claims of the Biblical account by simply pointing at any evidence gaps as definitive evidence in Ana of itself.
                        Gaps? More like a complete absence of any evidence. Sure there's some verifiable things like places, nations, etc. But the Bible provides exactly zero evidence of its claims. Believing in the Christian religion because the Bible mentions some historical facts is akin to believing in vampires and that Lincoln was a vampire Hunter because Abraham Lincoln vampire Hunter is steeped in verifiable historical events places and people. Complete absurdity.
                        Last edited by Fedaykin; 02-14-2014, 04:56 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          , yep, it had been awhile for such a thread. It's either threads justifying the killing of babies on a whim, gay marriage, everybody not a democrat is a racist, or support for atheism. These are always the main topics for liberals. Fun people.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                            Gaps? More like a complete absence of any evidence. Sure there's some verifiable things like places, nations, etc. But the Bible provides exactly zero evidence of its claims. Believing in the Christian religion because the Bible mentions some historical facts is akin to believing in vampires and that Lincoln was a vampire Hunter because Abraham Lincoln vampire Hunter is steeped in verifiable historical events places and people. Complete absurdity.
                            As most archaeologists have come to realize, you need to separate in your mind that which is provable from that which is not. The funny thing is, as I alluded to before, these ancient texts guide archaeologists. They're essentially blind without them. Archaeology would know little about ancient Israel if not for the bible. Both because it serves as their starting point and their frame of reference.

                            Just digging holes in a bunch of places and guessing at what things are would get you next to nowhere. The archaeologist works between his physical discoveries and the written history. In Israel's case, the Bible is the real history of record. Nobody (other than maybe Mr. St Nick was a Turk) could argue otherwise.

                            Now that's not to say there are elements laced in many histories that aren't beyond archaeology or even reason. Whether you allow for faith in those elements or not is your own choice.

                            But the corresponding strategy of discounting the entire book because you believe the more supernatural elements to be apocryphal is a definite double standard. You would struggle to make any sense of any Roman or Greek history at all if you avoided all historians who blended mythology (especially religious) into their work.

                            Tacitus wrote that the infant founders of Rome were suckled by a she-wolf. Herodotus wrote about gods literally speaking to the Greeks through their oracles.

                            Yet much less would be known of either Roman or Greek history without either of their contributions. Archaeology could do little on its own to fill in those gaps.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                              As most archaeologists have come to realize, you need to separate in your mind that which is provable from that which is not. The funny thing is, as I alluded to before, these ancient texts guide archaeologists. They're essentially blind without them. Archaeology would know little about ancient Israel if not for the bible. Both because it serves as their starting point and their frame of reference.

                              Just digging holes in a bunch of places and guessing at what things are would get you next to nowhere. The archaeologist works between his physical discoveries and the written history. In Israel's case, the Bible is the real history of record. Nobody (other than maybe Mr. St Nick was a Turk) could argue otherwise.

                              Now that's not to say there are elements laced in many histories that aren't beyond archaeology or even reason. Whether you allow for faith in those elements or not is your own choice.

                              But the corresponding strategy of discounting the entire book because you believe the more supernatural elements to be apocryphal is a definite double standard. You would struggle to make any sense of any Roman or Greek history at all if you avoided all historians who blended mythology (especially religious) into their work.

                              Tacitus wrote that the infant founders of Rome were suckled by a she-wolf. Herodotus wrote about gods literally speaking to the Greeks through their oracles.

                              Yet much less would be known of either Roman or Greek history without either of their contributions. Archaeology could do little on its own to fill in those gaps.
                              Two things:

                              No one said anything about discounting the entire book, they simply said using it as a 100% truth (a la Ken Ham and people like him) is discounted. If you believe it as 100% literal, the moment one thing is proven untrue, that by definition brings into question everything else. That is why you have people claiming cavemen rode dinosaurs, because they simply cannot reconcile the fact that the Bible isn't entirely word for word the truth. Is this camel discovery a smoking gun? Not at all, just another nail in the coffin, just like the idea that we all came from two people, talking snakes, burning bushes that can talk, arks that can hold every species, people turning into pillars of salt, and on and on and on.

                              Secondly, You're right about Tacitus and Herodotus and what they wrote. What you're absolutely wrong about is how seriously people took them. I once again encourage you to take a classical literature or mythology course (or ten) and you'll discover that by the time of Tacitus, Romans already disbelieved the she-wolf story (much like the Bible, it had been oral tradition looong before Tacitus). Fast forward to today, and literally NO ONE says "Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus!"

                              In a few hundred years, I can only hope the same will be said for the Bible. A book with great wisdom and beautiful language? Yes. A decent guide for how to live your life? Sure, if you leave out large portions of it.

                              The complete truth? Um, no.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by houghtam View Post
                                I once again encourage you to take a classical literature or mythology course (or ten) and you'll discover that by the time of Tacitus, Romans already disbelieved the she-wolf story (much like the Bible, it had been oral tradition looong before Tacitus). Fast forward to today, and literally NO ONE says "Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus!"
                                I won't dispute most of what you say, but the analogy now becomes, who, due to his mythological references, disputes every account of Tacitus until otherwise proven by the archaeological record?

                                Or put another way, what exactly is the point of this thread? Not even getting into the fact that this study does basically nothing to establish what is being heralded throughout the secularist media. It's comical how little they understand.

                                Oh and since you said it takes social activism to put an end to these kinds of mythologies, which social activist was it that made Classical Rome suddenly realize that their myths were just myths?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X