responding to common objections to bible part 7 [Archive]

View Full Version : responding to common objections to bible part 7

total relism

03-02-2014, 18:46

a series responding to the most common objections to Christianity.

How could a loving god send people to Hell?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143245-How-could-a-loving-god-send-people-to-Hell

What about those who die without ever hearing about Jesus?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143263-What-about-those-who-die-without-ever-hearing-about-Jesus&highlight=

does the bible allow slavery?-why is there death and suffering if god is all loving?/the reason for the gospel-does the bible command rape? was rape allowed?-why does god not show himself today?-has the bible been translated accurately?.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143902-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible

Did Jesus claim to be divine?does the bible teach he was god?did man or the councils create Jesus's divinity after he died?-conquest of Canaan, did god order genocide? did god order the killings of entire towns? did god order the killings of woman and children?did god order the death of innocent life?. What was the reason for judgment on the Canaanites?- Did god harden Pharaoh heart? only to punish him for it?.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?144793-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible-part-4

Sins of the fathers punish the children? are children or later generations punished for the sins of the fathers?-OT death penalty laws-What about the crusades,witch trials,inquisitions and other “crimes” of Christians throughout history-God sent plagues,even ones that killed babies such as the ten plagues of Egypt.How could a loving god do that.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?145200-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible-part-5&highlight=

Did god create evil? Isiah 45.7-was the bible influenced by other local religions? -Was Jesus a real human that lived in time-space?.-woman in bible
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?145952-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible-part-6-final

part 7

what is the meaning of eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth found in exodus 21? isen't this opposite of love your enemy as jesus said?.

eye for eye tooth for tooth found in exodus 21 23-25, than read v 26-27 it never taken as literal retaliation, but compensation for loss and penalty cannot exceed punishment.

the bible has always taught to love your enemies.

Do not say, “I’ll do to them as they have done to me;
I’ll pay them back for what they did.” Proverbs 24.29

“If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it. 5 If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it.
exodus 23.4

Why the bible's god over any other? is believing in god like believing in Santa or a flying spaghetti monster?

There can only be one truth, multiple gods cannot be true, assuming there is a god, only one can be true.

why Christianity over any other god?
There is only one creation account that has the support/backing of thousands of PHD scientist around the world, genesis. There is only one book world known for prophecy, the bible. The god of the bible has spoken to man and communicated through written word. The bible is a record of historical events, consistency supported by archeology. The bible has changed billions of lives, what other deity has done so?. Eye witness accounts of even enemies, record Jesus as a miracle worker. Also as the bible says somehow who raised from the dead, all other religious leader to have ever lived, can be found in graves were they died, jesus cannot.

Bible is what god did for us, not what we can do for god [all other religions work based].
All other belief systems say do enough good works to get to haven,give enough money,pray enough help enough old ladies across the street,don’t do this,don’t do that etc etc to get to haven. Christianity teaches no matter what you do you get to haven, you will never be as good as god[ perfect] you cant enter a perfect gods holiness and haven unless you have no sin. So here is what god did for you because he loves you,as a free gift of grace to openly revive haven. It is about what god did for us, not what we can do for god.

the creation of the universe must be# non material because if it was material it would be subject to decay like all material, so the creator must be nonmaterial, spiritual and eternal psalm 90.2 these are biblical ideas of god.

genesis is only true account of creation
Genesis 1:1
1:1 created. No other cosmogony, whether in ancient paganism or modern naturalism, even mentions the absolute origin of the universe. All begin with the space/time/matter universe, already existing in a primeval state of chaos, then attempt to speculate how it might have “evolved” into its present form. Modern evolutionism begins with elementary particles of matter evolving out of nothing in a “big bang” and then developing through natural forces into complex systems. Pagan pantheism also begins with elementary matter in various forms evolving into complex systems by the forces of nature personified as different gods and goddesses. But, very significantly, the concept of the special creation of the universe of space and time itself is found nowhere in all religion or philosophy, ancient or modern, except here in Genesis 1:1.

Appropriately, therefore, this verse records the creation of space (“the heaven”), of time (“in the beginning”), and of matter (“the earth”), the Tri-universe, the space/time/matter continuum which constitutes our physical cosmos. The Creator of this tri-universe is the triune God, Elohim, the uni-plural Old Testament name for the divine “Godhead,” a name which is plural in form (with its Hebrew “im” ending) but commonly singular in meaning.
The existence of a transcendent Creator and the necessity of a primeval special creation of the universe is confirmed by the most basic principles of nature discovered by scientists:
(1) The law of causality, that no effect can be greater than its cause, is basic in all scientific investigation and human experience. A universe comprising an array of intelligible and complex effects, including living systems and conscious personalities, is itself proof of an intelligent, complex, living, conscious Person as its Cause;
(2) The laws of thermodynamics are the most universal and best-proved generalizations of science, applicable to every process and system of any kind, the First Law stating that no matter/energy is now being created or destroyed, and the Second Law stating that all existing matter/energy is proceeding irreversibly toward ultimate equilibrium and cessation of all processes. Since this eventual death of the universe has not yet occurred and since it will occur in time, if these processes continue, the Second Law proves that time (and, therefore, the space/matter/time universe) had a beginning. The universe must have been created, but the First Law precludes the possibility of its self-creation. The only resolution of the dilemma posed by the First and Second Laws is that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The so-called big bang theory of the origin of the cosmos, postulating a primeval explosion of the space/mass/time continuum at the start, beginning with a state of nothingness and then rapidly expanding into the present complex universe, contradicts both these basic laws

Henry M. Morris is Director of the Institute for Creation Research, as well as the Academic Vice-President of Christian Heritage College. He received his Ph.D. in hydraulics, with minors in geology and mathematics. He has spent thirty years in education and research, including thirteen years as Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Chairman of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is also President of the Creation Research Society.

Genesis is only creation account to explain the fossil record [Noah flood].
http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/rock-strata-fossils-and-flood/?sku=30-9-219
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/worldwide-flood-evidence
http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Catastrophic-Past-Andrew-Snelling/dp/0932766943

bible is only religion that can explain death and suffering
number 4
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143902-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible

I could never myself believe in God, if it were not for the cross. #The only God I believe in is the One Nietzsche ridiculed as “God on the cross.” #In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? #I have entered many Buddhist temples in different Asian countries and stood respectfully before the statue of the Buddha, his legs crossed, arms folded, eyes closed, the ghost of a smile playing round his mouth, a remote look on his face, detached from the agonies of the world. #But each time after a while I have had to turn away. #And in imagination I have turned instead to that lonely, twisted, tortured figure on the cross, nails through hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding from thorn-pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in Godforsaken darkness. #That is the God for me! #He laid aside his immunity to pain. #He entered our world of flesh and blood, tears and death. #He suffered for us. #Our sufferings become more manageable in the light of his. #There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we boldly stamp another mark, the cross that symbolizes divine suffering. #”The cross of Christ . . . is God’s only self-justification in such a world” as ours. . . . “The other gods were strong; but thou wast weak; they rode, but thou didst stumble to a throne; But to our wounds only God’s wounds can speak, And not a god has wounds, but thou alone.”
John Stott,#The Cross of Christ p 235-236

The bible/jesus are different in theology and many other aspects than any and all other beliefs.

bible is true history, confirmed by archaeology over and over.Confirming people,places and event throughout its history

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock#Professor of Classics#Auckland University

debates on subject of historical Jesus resurrection.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates

"I know of no finding in archeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen."
Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004Dr. Clifford Wilson His Ph.D. is from the University of South Carolina, and included ‘A’s for field work in archaeology undertaken In association with Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem.

There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.
Clark PinnockMcmaster University

"Through the wealth of data uncovered by historical and archaeological research, we are able to measure the Bible's historical accuracy. In every case where its claims can thus be tested, the Bible proves to be accurate and reliable."
- Dr. Jack Cottrell, The Authority of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 48-49.

"In every instance where the findings of archaeology pertain to the Biblical record, the archaeological evidence confirms, sometimes in detailed fashion, the historical accuracy of Scripture. In those instances where the archaeological findings seem to be at variance with the Bible, the discrepancy lies with the archaeological evidence, i.e., improper interpretation, lack of evidence, etc. -- not with the Bible."
- Dr. Bryant C. Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research

"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 description has often led to amazing discoveries."
- Dr. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, (New York: Farrar, Strous and Cudahy, 1959), 136.

"Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts......Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges.....are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy.....We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong." -
Dr. Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History. Scripture Press, Wheaton, IL, 1969, pg. 1

"The reader may rest assured that nothing has been found to disturb a reasonable faith, and nothing has been discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine. We no longer trouble ourselves with attempts to 'harmonize' religion and science, or to 'prove' the Bible. The Bible can stand for itself." -
Dr. William F. Albright, eminent archeologist who confirmed the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls following their discovery

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." -
Dr. William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religions of Israel. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1956, p. 176.

"On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine....Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown, in a number of instances, that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution and not to be minimized." -
Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University, What Mean These Stones?, Meridian Books, New York, NY, 1956, p. 1

"The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural." -
Professor Millar Burrows (Professor of Archaeology at Yale University), What Mean These Stones?, Meridian Books, New York, NY, 1956, p. 176.

"It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest – that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge." -
Sir Frederic Kenyon, a former director of the British Museum, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1940), page 279.

"I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment." -
Sir William Ramsey (eminent archaeologists who changed his mind regarding Luke after extensive study in the field), (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint), page 89.

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of facts trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense...In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." -
Sir William Ramsey (archaeologist), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915, pages 81, 222

[B]The death/burial/Resurrection of Jesus was event in history.

Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,
“Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death”
Luke Timothy Johnson,#The Real Jesus#(San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.

#"One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.”#
atheist scholar #Bart Ehrman

#Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann declares that “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”#

John Dominic Crossan, of the notoriously liberal Jesus Seminar, says that there is not the “slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.” According to Crossan, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”#

"I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . ."
E. M. Blaiklock#Professor of Classics# Auckland University

and that shortly after within a few years, it was common knowledge to believed he was raised from the dead

Paul’s statement of the gospel in#1 Cor. 15#cites an ancient tradition dating back to only a few years after the event. Mark’s account of the empty tomb reflects the Aramaic, pointing to a very early source. Dr William Lane Craig gives much evidence for the reliability of the burial and empty tomb accounts
Craig, W.,#Apologetics: An Introduction, Moody, Chicago, USA, Ch. 5.2, 1984, and lists at least 30 prominent scholars who agree

debates
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-spong-bethel-college-indiana
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-carrier-nw-missouri-state-university
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-ehrman-college-of-the-holy-cross
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-avalos-iowa-state-university
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman

Jesus was thought of even by enemies to be a healer and miracle worker.

Prophecy only the bible out of any religious book, is known for its prophesy’s even by those of other religions admit to it. Multiple were fulfilled in the life of Jesus.

21#“Present your case,” says the#Lord.
####“Set forth your arguments,” says Jacob’s King.
22#“Tell us, you idols,
what is going to happen.
Tell us what the former things#were,
so that we may consider them
and know their final outcome.
Or declare to us the things to come,
23tell us what the future holds,
so we may know#that you are gods.
Do something, whether good or bad,
####so that we will be dismayed#and filled with fear.
Isisah 41 21-23

World Religions: What Makes Jesus Unique? Dr Ron carlson-bible written over thousands of years by kings,peasants men of all walks of life, yet describe one constant god throughout.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWzpk7X4veM
http://www.christianministriesintl.org/bookstore-cults-evolution-apologetics.php

Why your god over another?
You see there is only one true God (Isaiah 44:6). He makes himself known to us through His Word, the Bible. However a lot of people have created their own gods which exist only in their imaginations—gods that allow them to live how they want, and they still get to a heaven in the end; gods who will look favourable upon them and their families and not punish their sin; gods who are not personal to them, but distant, and who don’t really bother much with them or affect their daily lives. However these ‘god’s are not real and have no power.
Rather the Bible presents the one true God who, in His omnipotence, formed the universe by His command (Hebrews 11:3). He has no equal (Isaiah 40:21–31), and cannot be deceived or mocked as He knows all your ways (Galatians 6:7). He who wants to interact with the mind that he has given you in a fully intelligent way (Isaiah 1:18), and knowing that we could not save ourselves from our sin, sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the price for our sins (John 3:16). I hope that you, “Stop trusting man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?” (Isaiah 2:22), “take refuge in the#Lord” (Psalm 118:8) and come to true repentance and knowledge of saving faith through Jesus Christ.
Every blessing,
Phil

Morality
since Christianity started,morality has been brought to a higher level around the world. Care for poor,elderly,other races,classes forgiveness,putting others before self etc. Just compare the bible to Koran as far as morality goes.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?531553-comparing-islam-and-christanity

worldview/presuppositions.
Only a biblical worldview is internally constant and can make sense of the world around us and our presuppositions that everyone [even atheist] assume to be true.

The ultimate proof of creation 3 part
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/ultimate-proof-of-creation/ultimate-proof
http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/ultimate-proof-creation-book/
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142779-Was-Hitler-a-christian-and-atheist-morallity&highlight=

change in my life and billions of others
Jesus has the ability to change a life comepletley around, not just religion going to church etc but a change of heart, not even a good felling,but a change of heart.

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone#and give you a heart of flesh.
Ezekiel 36:26

The bible is the best sold book ever, it is not even close,. Its the best most influential book ever written.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/1/best-selling-book-of-non-fiction

flying spaghetti monster comparison.
First I will ask what makes the evolutionary fairy tale better than a flying spaghetti monster?. At least he has not been disproved scientifically yet, as your religions origins of life has been for about 200 years know. I dont think it would have to break quit as many scientific laws to be true. but I do question this spaghetti monster. Why did he not communicate until know if he is creator? 2,000 ad. I ask this of Muslims, why did god not give accurate info until Muhammad in 600 ad. But your is worse its 2000 ad for the spaghetti to speak. Also how can a material creator create the world? if it is material it will decay that is a scientific law. It will decay away, so it cant be eternal, but it has to be eternal to create or it was created itself. Therefore a material thing cannot be the creator. It has to be non-material and eternal.

Santa vs god
-evolutionist/atheist have no problem with believing in unobserved, for example they believe in unobserved matter coming alive life from non life that is unobserved and scientifically disproved.
-car when you see a car you conclude a designed even if you have never seen the unobserved designer. Biological systems are far more complex than vehicles.
-Santa can be shown to be false, demonstrably so.
-Because one unobserved thing is false [Santa] does not make another unobserved thing false.
-evolution use to say we had multiple [120] vestibular structures,we know have info that they are not, that does not make evolution false.
-assuming their was no evidence for god,that does not disprove his existence,especially if their I reason for this.
-what positive evidence is their to prove /observed atheism?

Does god hate eunuchs?

For this is what the#Lord#says:
“To the eunuchs#who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—
5#to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.
6 And foreigners#who bind themselves to the#Lord
to minister to him,
to love the name of theLord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the Sabbath#without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—
Isiah 56 4-5

Moabites cant enter assembly of god?

I take this to mean any person of the religion [not people group] can enter, those that practice child sacrifice and other things that are a abomination to god [conquest of Canaan thread].

Ruth was moabite book of ruth.

God loves the foreign resident and Israel is commanded to do the same
Deuteronomy 10.18-19

Korah rebellion from numbers 16 did god kill children unjustly? [no children were killed] Off topic but this is were JRR Tolkien got the idea for the end of return of the king when the land swallowed up the evil [orcs etc] at the black gate.

thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.The word Sheol appears 65 times in the O.T. 31 times it means "the grave"; 31 times it means the "abode of the dead, both wicked and righteous) and 3 times it means simply a "dug out pit". There are also four other Hebrew words besides Sheol that are translated as "the pit" and none of those mean "hell". So there are two ways to look at these verses in Numbers 16.

The first is that they are refering to physical death only. This makes sense in light of the even split between Sheol referring to the grave as much as hell in the O.T. It also makes sense in light of the phrase at the end of verse 33 (they perished from the assembly). and from Moses' own statement in verses 28-29
28-29 "And Moses said: "By this you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these works, for I have not done them of my own will. "If these men die naturally like all men, or if they are visited by the common fate of all men, then the LORD has not sent me". Both of these statements refer to physical death (muwth and abad in the Hebrew meaning perish, die, be exterminated or executed). Plus, it is said in Scripture that the wicked dead will not have a body until the Great White Throne judgment in Rev. 20:5-14. These families would be exceptions to this statement if they were taken alive into Sheol/Hades the place of judgment. This is by far the stronger view, textually, linguistically and in accordance with other teachings of Scripture.

The second position would be that these families were taken to Sheol/Hades alive. If this were the case, it would have to be an exception to the rule stated in Rev. 20. If this did occur, then your question about children needs to be addressed to some extent, but the answer is plain from Scripture and from Hebrew word study of Scripture. God is holy and just and will always do right (Gen. 18:25, Deut. 32:4,Ps. 99:5-9, Isa. 6:3). Plus as I will make the point below (in the last paragraph) it appears that the children didn't die at all (more on that later).
Therefore whether we understand or not is moot, we can rest assured that God would not eternally destroy the righteous or the innocent with the wicked. We must also study the term used in Num. 16:27 for little children. The Hebrew word is "taph" and does not refer to infants, and doesn't seem to mean toddlers either. Most of the time it means daughters as opposed to sons, or boys younger than 13 but older than just walking age. Young male children (and toddlers in ggeneral) are often mentioned with the Hebrew word "yeled". It seems from usage then that this passage is probably referring to daughters and boys between 6 and 12. They probably had some knowledge of what was going on and so could have easily been "guilty" or at least non-innocent. Finally, even if this view is accepted, and they went alive into Sheol, it is quite possible that any "innocent" children could have gone to the righteous Sheol, while Korah and the other rebellious men and women went to the place of punishment Sheol/Hades (see Psalm 16 and Isa 38 verses and note below). Also keep in mind the following passage in Isaiah. Not all the times that a righteous person dies is it a judgment, more often it is as a mercy, so he doesn't become more wicked, or stays around to be vexed by it.
Isa. 57:1 The righteous perishes, And no man takes it to heart; Merciful men are taken away, While no one considers That the righteous is taken away from evil.

Num. 16:33 So they and all those with them went down alive into the pit [Sheol]; the earth closed over them, and they perished from among the assembly.

Example of Sheol as also being for the righteous dead in the O.T.
Ps 16:10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
Isa. 38:9-10 This is the writing of Hezekiah king of Judah, when he had been sick and had recovered from his sickness: I said, "In the prime of my life I shall go to the gates of Sheol; I am deprived of the remainder of my years."

All the passages below are translated "the grave", but the Hebrew word is Sheol, the same as in Num. 16

Gen. 37:35 And all his sons and all his daughters arose to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted, and he said, "For I shall go down into the grave to my son in mourning." Thus his father wept for him.
1 Sam. 2:6 "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up.
1 Kings 2:9 "Now therefore, do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man and know what you ought to do to him; but bring his gray hair down to the grave with blood."
Job 21:13 They spend their days in wealth, And in a moment go down to the grave.
Ps 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Ps 30:3 O LORD, You brought my soul up from the grave; You have kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit {Hebrew is bowr-meaning cistern}.
Ps 49:14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; Death shall feed on them; The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling.
Ps 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, For He shall receive me. Selah
Ps 88:3 For my soul is full of troubles, And my life draws near to the grave.
Ecc. 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going.
Hos. 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes."

But before I close, I want to make one more very important point. The children did not die. If you read the text carefully, you will see that it mentions the men and the households. So it is "assumed" that the children died too. In point of fact, they didn't.
Read Number 26:9-11 The sons of Eliab were Nemuel, Dathan, and Abiram. These are the Dathan and Abiram, representatives of the congregation, who contended against Moses and Aaron in the company of Korah, when they contended against the LORD; and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up together with Korah when that company died, when the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men; and they became a sign. Nevertheless the children of Korah did not die. It appears from Scripture that any children younger than 13 (and possibly even older) did not die. Only the men and their wives did. Apparently sometime between while Moses was talking in Num. 16:29-30 and the ground opened up, other family members had come and pulled the children away from the tents and men involved in the rebellion.

For later discussion on thread involving exodus look under spoiler.

archaeology and the bible

some of the hundreds of finds confirming the bible

archeological finds that confirms the bible

for dozens of examples from NT and OT see
The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict Fully Updated To Answer The Questions Challenging Christians Today
by#Josh McDowell
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631

The Tel Dan Stele (900–850 BC)- house of david
The Meesha Stele (846 BC]-mentions Omri, King of Israel, and David of the United Monarchy. It even refers to Yahweh, the unique name of the God of Israel
The Nabonidus Cylinder (550 BC)
mentioning his elder son, Belshazzar by name. Critics of the Bible had claimed for many years that the account in the book of Daniel was wrong; they said Belshazzar was never a king in Babylon and that Nabonidus was not his father.
Caiaphas Ossuary
twelve ossuaries, one of them being none other than that of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided at the trial of Jesus.#

Pilate Dedication Stone
read: “Tiberieum, (Pon)tius Pilatus, (Praef)ectus Iuda(eae).” Those scholars who questioned Pilate’s existence (and the gospel accounts generally) were silenced with this amazing discovery!

Dr. Bryant Wood presented the evidence from eleven seasons of excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir. No other site meets all the criteria necessary to be the Ai of Joshua 7-8
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2014/03/03/Khirbet-el-Maqatir-A-Fortress-in-the-Highlands-of-Canaan-and-Proposed-New-Site-for-Joshuas-Ai.aspx

Joshua ai
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/bookstore/product.aspx?id=HYPERLINK "http://www.biblearchaeology.org/bookstore/product.aspx?id=93"93
also bible and spade vol 24 no 1
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/publications/bibleandspade.aspx

battle of Jericho
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/bookstore/product.aspx?id=HYPERLINK "http://www.biblearchaeology.org/bookstore/product.aspx?id=89"89

boghazkoy Hittite capital
considered imaginary people invented by biblical authors, the find showed they were a real vast empire and the bible was correct.

The city of Shechem found.-
Confirming multiple bible passages about it.

Many horned alters found
bible speaks many times of these.

The philistines and the temple of Rameses the third.
Bible mentions these people many times.

Dan isreals northern most city
found to be Canaanite taken over by Israelite [judges 20.1]

Megiddo city of war
confirms 1 kings 4.12 9.15]

Shiloh
josh 18 1 samuel 1-4

shishak's invasion record [including Judah]
confirming biblical account [ 1 kings 14 2 Chronicles 12]

beth shemesh confirms both philistine and Israelite artifacts.
1 samuel 6 12-15

pool of gibeon
2 Samuel 2.13 Jeremiah 41.12

Gibeah,king sauls capital
1 sam 10.26 11.4 15.34]

beersheba
1 kings 4.25

samaria
capital of the northern kingdom of Israel
1 kings 16.24

Judges: Forgotten History
dozens of confirmations from the book of judges

ivory as decorations
1 kings 10.18

house of Yahweh ostraon
oldest mention of solomons temple outside of the bible

seals of Israels royal courts
uzziah hoshea hezekiah solomon

the moabite stone
gen 19.37 2 kings 3

The black obelisk of shalmaneser
enemy of isreal depicts jehu king of isreal bowing down before him [2 kings 9-10]

king uzziah's burial plaque
2 chronicles 26

the siloam tunnel inscription
confirms 2 kings 20.20 2 chronicles 32.20

the lachish reliefs Assyrian king sennacherib picture the fall of the judan fortress lachish in 701 bc.
2 kings 18.13

tomb of the Priestley hezir family
1 chronicles 24.15 and Nehemiah 10.20

silver amulets-from 600 b c found verses from numbers 6 24-26 inscribed.

king solomons 10th century bc city
what we have proof of is that there were kingdoms in the 10th century,”

But what he found in Jordan was groundbreaking — thousands of tons of slag, a by-product of smelting ore, and different types of blowpipes. Using the process of radiocarbon dating, his team discovered there was industrial-scale metal production of copper precisely in 10th century BC.
“It would have been like the Pittsburg of Palestine,” said Levy.
http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_contentHYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89"&HYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89"view=articleHYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89"&HYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89"id=HYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89"42912HYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89":claire-HYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89"harlin-writing-for-sdnewscomHYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89"&HYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89"catid=HYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89"87HYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89":regional-newsHYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89"&HYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89"Itemid=HYPERLINK "http://sandiegonewsroom.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=42912:claire-harlin-writing-for-sdnewscom&catid=87:regional-news&Itemid=89"89

King Solomon's Wall Found—Proof of Bible Tale?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/HYPERLINK "http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100226-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/"2010HYPERLINK "http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100226-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/"/HYPERLINK "http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100226-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/"02HYPERLINK "http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100226-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/"/HYPERLINK "http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100226-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/"100226HYPERLINK "http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100226-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/"-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/
also
Archaeologists Return to 'King Solomon's Mines' of Biblical Edom
In short, convincing evidence now supported the suggestion that a massive copper production facility had been operating at KEN during the 10th and 9th centuries B.C., a time period that up until now had been assumed by many scholars, in particular the minimalists, to predate by at least two centuries the emergence of the fully-developed kingdoms of ancient Edom and Israel
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/april-HYPERLINK "http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/april-2011/article/archaeologists-return-to-king-solomon-s-mines-of-biblical-edom"2011HYPERLINK "http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/april-2011/article/archaeologists-return-to-king-solomon-s-mines-of-biblical-edom"/article/archaeologists-return-to-king-solomon-s-mines-of-biblical-edom

Biblical Samson Tale May Be Depicted on Ancient Seal
http://news.yahoo.com/biblical-samson-tale-may-depicted-ancient-seal-141644512.html

a miniature Solomon Temple from 1000 BC means that the real Temple MUST HAVE EXISTED prior to the model. It does fits nicely with Ussher, who had Salomon starting his reign about 1015 BC, which would place the Temple up and running by 1004 BC:

http://news.yahoo.com/earliest-evidence-biblical-cult-discovered-140333875.html

A monumental synagogue building dating to the Late Roman period has been discovered in archaeological excavations at Huqoq in the Galilee, which includes a mosaic depicting Samson...
http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25HYPERLINK "http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1946&module_id=#as"&HYPERLINK "http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1946&module_id=#as"subj_id=240HYPERLINK "http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1946&module_id=#as"&HYPERLINK "http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1946&module_id=#as"id=1946HYPERLINK "http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1946&module_id=#as"&HYPERLINK "http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1946&module_id=#as"module_id=#as

Archaeologists uncover evidence of early cultivation and crop storage throughout the Fertile Crescent.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/07/20/farming-roots-fertile-crescent

Jewish city of Shiloh, the first home of the Tabernacle, the portable sanctuary that for 369 years was the epicenter of religious observance and sacrifices as the Jewish people traveled in the desert.
“People come to Shiloh because it was the first capital of the Jewish nation, it was a spiritual center where the Tabernacle -- housing the ark, the menorah (candelabra), the table, and everything needed to serve God) -- was sitting. This is where#
http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/20Questions/Article.aspx?id=281335

"Hebrew speakers were controlling Jerusalem in the 10th century, which biblical chronology points to as the time of David and Solomon," ancient Near Eastern history and biblical studies expert Douglas Petrovich told FoxNews.com.
"Whoever they were, they were writing in Hebrew like they owned the place," he said.

:#http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/07/31/3000-year-old-inscription-translated-biblical-history/#ixzz2cIKZ8GR3
Ophel inscription: oldest Hebrew writing corroborates Bible history
http://creation.com/ophel

King David-Era Palace Found in Israel, Archaeologists Say

http://news.yahoo.com/king-david-era-palace-found-israel-archaeologists-141207932.html

NT finds

judge feels the prosecution failed to prove the “james” ossuary is fake.
Nov 2010 the Jerusalem post christian edition p 17
also
http://creation.com/james-ossuary-stands

The Knucklebone of John the Baptist?
A knucklebone claimed to be of John the Baptist has been dated as first century AD by Oxford researchers...

#Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.
The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XVIII

Towns found
-betlehem,nazareth,bethsaidia,cana,peters house in capernaum,gergesa,bethany,tiberias,caesarea philippi,megiddo,decapolis,ephesus,thessalonica,antioch,phillippi,
pontius pilate inscription
the pool of bethesda in jurselem
synagogue in capernaum [mark 1,3 luke 4 john 6]

jacobs well near sychar

caiaphas's family tomb-

rolling stone tombs in isreal area, same kind that fits jesus description in matt 27,28 mk 15 16 luke 24

herodium-king herods palace

the galilee boat

pilates praetorium

herods temple

“place of trumpeting temple inscription from jesus day
matt 27 mk 15 john 18

damascas “street called straight”
acts 9

the areopagus at athens
acts 17

the gallio inscription
acts 18.12

the bema at corinth
acts 18

the erastus inscription
romans 16.23

“god fearers” inscription in turkey
acts 17 acts 13

the seven churches of revaluations
revaluations 11

Objections to the bible including exodus

Objections to bible archeology

archeology studies things from thousands of years ago, you cannot find all items through history. The bible has been confirmed from many areas but not in all areas, as it was long ago.

As the famous archeology saying goes

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

dozens of times it has been claimed that the bible was wrong do to lack of proof, only for future years and discoveries to prove them wrong. The bible skeptics attack the few areas that have yet to fill in, and ignore the confirmations.

video totally destroying the jesus family tomb
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/bookstore/product.aspx?id=HYPERLINK "http://www.biblearchaeology.org/bookstore/product.aspx?id=100"100

documentary hypothesis
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/HYPERLINK "http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/09/24/The-Documentary-Hypothesis.aspx"2010HYPERLINK

new technology is making the exodus filled in were it was not before, not until 90's was evidence starting to come in and continues to rapidly, supporting the biblical account, for future reports follow here
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/.

The exodus-
Israelite in egypt from the time of jacob site tell el dab'a
rameses the city the jews lived in/land of goshen eastern delta
escavations started in 1960's
non Egyptian Asian/ modern Israel Syria.
Pottery shows from sountern cannan-were jacob was from
burial and town site fit jospeh/Israelite being buried there.
Burial site contained bones of all dead but the one major tomb of important political leader [ex 13.19]

the exodus from ramses 1446 B.C
site-tell el dab'a ancient capital from time of moses 18th dynasty
austrian team,traced path of nile- palace complex built right on nile, as the bible describes.
Royal precinct found/royal capital- pharoh also had another royal palace in memphis at same time.
located adjacent to the pelusiac branch of nile
abandon at about the time of the exodus/atheist austrian team said most likely a plague. 93 95
Amenophis/amenhotep the second pharoah of exodus

[B]exodus rout
reed sea turned north not south- ballah lakeancient [refereed to as reed sea] formally much larger, still reeds in it today.
Fort migdol- mentioned in bible
rout traced is correct, names,geography given etc.

"We have published a number of articles that demonstrate an Asiatic presence in Egypt during the time of the Sojourn-Exodus period, consistent with the Biblical depiction.We are presently working on additional research in this area, which we hope to publish in the future. Meanwhile, here are some articles of interest:
#
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/09/24/Israel-in-Egypt.aspx
#http://www.biblearchaeology.org/tag/joseph.aspx
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/10/26/New-Discoveries-at-Rameses.aspx
#http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/06/07/Evidence-for-the-Exodus-from-Egypt.aspx
#
I hope this is helpful material.Thanks for your support of the ABR ministry.
#
Blessings,
______________________________
Henry B. Smith Jr.
Director of Development
Associates for Biblical Research

Dr. Bryant Wood#presents evidence that refutes five criticisms of the Bible. Criticism #1: There is no evidence for the presence of the Israelites in Egypt. #2: There was no capital at Rameses for the Israelites to depart from. #3: There is no evidence for the route, date and nature of the Exodus. #4: Jericho was not occupied#when the Israelites entered Canaan.##5: The city of Ai recorded in Joshua 7-8 shows no evidence for destruction as the Bible records it.
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/bookstore/product.aspx?id=129

Criticism #6: The Philistines mentioned in Genesis are a fictitious anachronism. #7:#King David is a#legendary character#in the same vein as King Arthur. #8: Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel during the time of David. #9: There is no evidence#for a kingdom in Edom at the time of David. #10: Most, if not all, of Israel's#history as recorded in the Bible should not be accepted.##
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/bookstore/product.aspx?id=128

Kadagar_AV

03-02-2014, 18:49

YEY!!!!! I was waiting for part 7!!!

Thank god you'r back, we have had to little crazy rambling lately.

HoreTore

03-02-2014, 18:53

Genesis is only creation account to explain the fossil record [Noah flood].

LOL

total relism

03-02-2014, 18:58

LOL

coming next thread. You just show your indoctrination here.

Sarmatian

03-02-2014, 18:59

With the possibility of a WW3 upon us, this is probably the worst possible time or the best possible time to discuss religion.

HoreTore

03-02-2014, 19:03

coming next thread. You just show your indoctrination here.

Sure. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Branches_of_science_you_have_to_ignore_to_believe_in_young_Earth_creationism)

total relism

03-02-2014, 19:07

Sure. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Branches_of_science_you_have_to_ignore_to_believe_in_young_Earth_creationism)

coming next thread. You just show your indoctrination here. I hope you bring this link up and say you agree with it and its true and you have studied to find out. Otherwise your just showing your accepting of your religion without questioning it and total faith in there theology and inability to question and think for yourself....we shall see.

HoreTore

03-02-2014, 19:12

coming next thread. You just show your indoctrination here. I hope you bring this link up and say you agree with it and its true and you have studied to find out. Otherwise your just showing your accepting of your religion without questioning it and total faith in there theology and inability to question and think for yourself....we shall see.

....And you hold a degree in one of the hard sciences, I presume?

Sigurd

03-02-2014, 22:57

genesis is only true account of creation
Genesis 1:1
1:1 created. No other cosmogony, whether in ancient paganism or modern naturalism, even mentions the absolute origin of the universe. All begin with the space/time/matter universe, already existing in a primeval state of chaos, then attempt to speculate how it might have “evolved” into its present form. Modern evolutionism begins with elementary particles of matter evolving out of nothing in a “big bang” and then developing through natural forces into complex systems. Pagan pantheism also begins with elementary matter in various forms evolving into complex systems by the forces of nature personified as different gods and goddesses. But, very significantly, the concept of the special creation of the universe of space and time itself is found nowhere in all religion or philosophy, ancient or modern, except here in Genesis 1:1.

Woah there M8.
Gen 1:1 is no more than a chapter heading and does in no way identify the universe as its topic. Gen 1:2 is the first Scripture to be considered in the creation story.

HoreTore

03-02-2014, 23:09

It's also false in its assertion, of course, as several religions have ex nihilo creation myths.

Here, have an example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_sukta)

Sometimes I wish I was a christian fundamentalist preacher. It must be awesome to know that you can say whatever nonsense you want, and none of your followers will ever attempt to check the validity of the claims you make.

Kadagar_AV

03-02-2014, 23:17

total relism

03-03-2014, 00:33

Woah there M8.
Gen 1:1 is no more than a chapter heading and does in no way identify the universe as its topic. Gen 1:2 is the first Scripture to be considered in the creation story.

interesting, i have never heard that idea before. I do disagree as that would make only genesis of all the book 66 to have as title to it. Not to mention a simple reading of it clearly states heavens and earth and in the beginning, time/space/matter. But the fact being made was time/space/matter and the creation of all three.

It's also false in its assertion, of course, as several religions have ex nihilo creation myths.

Here, have an example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_sukta)

Sometimes I wish I was a christian fundamentalist preacher. It must be awesome to know that you can say whatever nonsense you want, and none of your followers will ever attempt to check the validity of the claims you make.

please show were it includes time/space/matter being created at once.

as for your comment, me thinks you just say this because you clearly have done so with your last post above,so your trying to draw attention away from it. But if your looking for infallible, i promise me or any pastor has no such ability, and if you can show that i was wrong, i thank you and will edit my op.

edit
i just read i dont see creation of time/space/matter in there at all. Please show me if you believe so.

HoreTore

03-03-2014, 00:35

Did you bother to read it? Oh well, I guess I'll have to quote the most direct sections, even though the entire thing is ex nihilo creation:

Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

total relism

03-03-2014, 01:04

Did you bother to read it? Oh well, I guess I'll have to quote the most direct sections, even though the entire thing is ex nihilo creation:

I am sorry its not even close and even admits it.clearly states not creation of time space matter, it is a guess of creation and the gods came after creation, matter already there, no origin of time or space.

Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

so here i see no beginning of time, or space. And not even the very beginning of matter. As there is water and heat [energy] that than i am sure evolves into all matter.

it also says

In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

Kadagar_AV

03-03-2014, 01:49

Wrote gibberish

Gibberish.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-03-2014, 04:48

HoreTore

03-03-2014, 07:18

I am sorry its not even close and even admits it.clearly states not creation of time space matter, it is a guess of creation and the gods came after creation, matter already there, no origin of time or space.

I see you are unable to interpret Indian poetry.

I am not surprised.

Papewaio

03-03-2014, 08:39

....And you hold a degree in one of the hard sciences, I presume?

There is no plural in hard sciences. As spoketh by the hollowed Dr Rutherford "Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting"

And as it has been written it must be so.

:smoking:

Sigurd

03-03-2014, 11:30

interesting, i have never heard that idea before. I do disagree as that would make only genesis of all the book 66 to have as title to it. Not to mention a simple reading of it clearly states heavens and earth and in the beginning, time/space/matter. But the fact being made was time/space/matter and the creation of all three.

It really does beg the question to why Genesis does not come with an introduction like all other books in the Bible. You incorrectly states that because there are no header verses in the other 65 books genesis 1 doesn't need one either.
Most books do have a header verse such as: "and God spake to Moses using these words:" (paraphrasing) or The words of Jeremiah, or the vision of Isiah. Why shouldn't Genesis have one? It really needs something like: The words that God spake unto Moses concerning the creation of heaven and earth.

If you have a look at the Hebrew bible, you'll notice that "heaven" used in verse 1 is the same as used later in verse 8 (Šāmáyim), which should indicate that genesis chapter 1 concerns the creation of our world with its dry land and the air (water) that surrounds it.
The narrative explains the creation as viewed from the perspective of being on or close to the earth. It is a far stretch to attribute heaven in verse 1 to be meaning the entire universe. It is something that is wrongly inferred and I am aware that has been the tradition for many years in Christianity. Simply let it go - and the big bang controversy becomes a non issue with Christians.
Genesis talks about the creation of the earth and its immediate surrounding - from the ignition of our star (1:3) to the clearance of the dense dust cloud that surrounds it (1:14-18).

total relism

03-03-2014, 13:14

Sorry?

The Bible the only book of Prophecy?

What about all the prophecies that didn't make it into the Bible?

The Bible doesn't even MENTION the destruction of Troy!

Look - I'm a Christian - but you're just talking out of the your fundament-alist.

I am sorry but i am not sure what your saying so i will respond to what i think your arguing, that the bible is not the only religious book of Prophecy, and it does not Prophecy because it does not mention the fall of troy.

could you name another book with Prophecy,clear fulfilled Prophecy? a religious book claiming to be gods word? specific Prophecy like the bible has?

troy? why must it? if it was only a book of Prophecy and mentioned everything in future, than you could ask this. But it is gods word to us on salvation with Prophecy in it. Having it not mention one thing [it does not about of allot of things to come] does not take away from what it does.

I see you are unable to interpret Indian poetry.

I am not surprised.

than by all means please interpret it to say just what id does not say. I feel like im talking with Muslims about the Koran here. Please show me how to inteprit it so it says what is not here [absolute origin of space/time/matter/energy] and does not say the gods were created after and there was already matter and energy and gods created after.

It really does beg the question to why Genesis does not come with an introduction like all other books in the Bible. You incorrectly states that because there are no header verses in the other 65 books genesis 1 doesn't need one either.
Most books do have a header verse such as: "and God spake to Moses using these words:" (paraphrasing) or The words of Jeremiah, or the vision of Isiah. Why shouldn't Genesis have one? It really needs something like: The words that God spake unto Moses concerning the creation of heaven and earth.

If you have a look at the Hebrew bible, you'll notice that "heaven" used in verse 1 is the same as used later in verse 8 (Šāmáyim), which should indicate that genesis chapter 1 concerns the creation of our world with its dry land and the air (water) that surrounds it.
The narrative explains the creation as viewed from the perspective of being on or close to the earth. It is a far stretch to attribute heaven in verse 1 to be meaning the entire universe. It is something that is wrongly inferred and I am aware that has been the tradition for many years in Christianity. Simply let it go - and the big bang controversy becomes a non issue with Christians.
Genesis talks about the creation of the earth and its immediate surrounding - from the ignition of our star (1:3) to the clearance of the dense dust cloud that surrounds it (1:14-18).

Just saying to claim its a header verse would go against the bible more than constant with.

you said

" It really needs something like"

but it does not, the other books of moses start that way, not genesis. I think genesis was edited by Moses but was around before him, the focus is not moses but creation of time/space/matter in genisis 1.

you said

" Simply let it go - and the big bang controversy becomes a non issue with Christians. "

I will have to stop here, as i see your a old earth/evolutionist christian. I do not wish to show what i think that your reitpriting the bible to match a unbiblical idea i dont wish to argue this point as i think it may effect your faith [not my goal]. I think a clear Reading of genesis 1 will be constant with what i said.

[B]But as to my op, would you say that genesis does not tell the origin of time/ space/matter? even if we assume Genesis 1 only speaks of earth as you say? only this would conflict with my op.

Sarmatian

03-03-2014, 13:47

as i see your a old earth/evolutionist christian.

and the other side is called uneducated Christians.

Sigurd

03-03-2014, 14:20

But as to my op, would you say that genesis does not tell the origin of time/ space/matter? even if we assume Genesis 1 only speaks of earth as you say? only this would conflict with my op.
Does Genesis state the origin of time/space/matter? I believe it doesn't. It omits it as non relevant for the story at hand (God telling Moses the origin of this world).
I can't twist my head around it telling a creation story of anything other than this world and maybe the solar system (the creation of the Sun).

I have a science degree (MaIT) and there are observations that just can't be ignored - and as such you need to read genesis with this in mind. I found that genesis doesn't really conflict with the current established scientific theory of how our solar system was created (the order of such from the earth's perspective). But if you look further (where is our solar system placed?) which function does the entire milkyway galaxy serve? What about the relatively near Andromeda? Or any of the uncountable other galaxies out there. What purpose does those serve in the great scheme of things?

total relism

03-03-2014, 15:09

Does Genesis state the origin of time/space/matter? I believe it doesn't. It omits it as non relevant for the story at hand (God telling Moses the origin of this world).
I can't twist my head around it telling a creation story of anything other than this world and maybe the solar system (the creation of the Sun).

I have a science degree (MaIT) and there are observations that just can't be ignored - and as such you need to read genesis with this in mind. I found that genesis doesn't really conflict with the current established scientific theory of how our solar system was created (the order of such from the earth's perspective). But if you look further (where is our solar system placed?) which function does the entire milkyway galaxy serve? What about the relatively near Andromeda? Or any of the uncountable other galaxies out there. What purpose does those serve in the great scheme of things?

given the above i have to say i feel no obligation to fit or reinterpret genesis as clearly stated because you believe it must be. My op follows what the bible says, not what others decide it must say. If you must reitpreit the bible, maybe the bible is false? or maybe it is correct and the current materialistic atheistic explanation is false, it must be one or the other. So as far as my op and what was said, it follows what the bible says not how you decide it must say because you believe it otherwise would be false. So our discussion in my mind has nothing to do with op or bible so i must only respond to on topic of op post from here on out. Your thoughts and views will fit perfectly with my next thread.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-03-2014, 15:15

I am sorry but i am not sure what your saying so i will respond to what i think your arguing, that the bible is not the only religious book of Prophecy, and it does not Prophecy because it does not mention the fall of troy.

could you name another book with Prophecy,clear fulfilled Prophecy? a religious book claiming to be gods word? specific Prophecy like the bible has?

troy? why must it? if it was only a book of Prophecy and mentioned everything in future, than you could ask this. But it is gods word to us on salvation with Prophecy in it. Having it not mention one thing [it does not about of allot of things to come] does not take away from what it does.

The recorded Prophecies of the Oracle at Delphi, to name one, were said to predict the fall of Troy and the coming of the "Sea Peoples" who overthrew the Civilisation that Moses knew, yet the Bible says nothing about these people - for all that they laid low Mycenae, Krete, and Egypt, possibly even the Hittites.

Later prophecies foretold the coming of the Persians into Greece and their eventual defeat.

This also, is not recorded in the Bible.

The prophecies in the Bible are only the prophecies of the People of Israel.

InsaneApache

03-03-2014, 16:30

coming next thread. You just show your indoctrination here.

Priceless. :laugh4:

total relism

03-03-2014, 21:46

The recorded Prophecies of the Oracle at Delphi, to name one, were said to predict the fall of Troy and the coming of the "Sea Peoples" who overthrew the Civilisation that Moses knew, yet the Bible says nothing about these people - for all that they laid low Mycenae, Krete, and Egypt, possibly even the Hittites.

Later prophecies foretold the coming of the Persians into Greece and their eventual defeat.

This also, is not recorded in the Bible.

The prophecies in the Bible are only the prophecies of the People of Israel.

would you mind showing me specifics of these oracles? when first written and when fulfilled, just what they actually say. However the bible does mention Alexander, but even if the bible only contains prophecies of isreal or concerning isreal/messiah, how does that not make it a prophetic work?. If there is true accurate fortellings by this other writing, i am very interested. I would love to see them if you can provide for me.

Pannonian

03-03-2014, 23:04

would you mind showing me specifics of these oracles? when first written and when fulfilled, just what they actually say. However the bible does mention Alexander, but even if the bible only contains prophecies of isreal or concerning isreal/messiah, how does that not make it a prophetic work?. If there is true accurate fortellings by this other writing, i am very interested. I would love to see them if you can provide for me.

I'd have thought that someone who is posting in a TW fan forum would be familiar with at least some of the Delphic oracles. Such as the one about wooden walls. Or the one about the King falling in battle. Or indeed the one about the crippled King. That's just a few off the top of my head, which generated considerable discussion at the time, so we know the timings of these oracles. And we certainly know how events turned out.

Also, if the bible is indeed a prophetic work for the people of Israel, and the Delphic oracle also a prophetic work of equal accuracy for the Greek people, does this mean the divine power behind the Delphic oracle is no less valid than the divine power behind the biblical prophecies? Does this mean, gasp, that the biblical god is not the only god out there with oracular credibility?

total relism

03-03-2014, 23:36

I'd have thought that someone who is posting in a TW fan forum would be familiar with at least some of the Delphic oracles. Such as the one about wooden walls. Or the one about the King falling in battle. Or indeed the one about the crippled King. That's just a few off the top of my head, which generated considerable discussion at the time, so we know the timings of these oracles. And we certainly know how events turned out.

Also, if the bible is indeed a prophetic work for the people of Israel, and the Delphic oracle also a prophetic work of equal accuracy for the Greek people, does this mean the divine power behind the Delphic oracle is no less valid than the divine power behind the biblical prophecies? Does this mean, gasp, that the biblical god is not the only god out there with oracular credibility?

I must confess i have never heard of delphic b-4. I would say to your question, first we need to see these delphic claims, investigate them.

HoreTore

03-03-2014, 23:55

I must confess i have never heard of delphic b-4. I would say to your question, first we need to see these delphic claims, investigate them.

What Greek literature(besides the bible, obviously) have you read, then?

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oracular_statements_from_Delphi#630_BC) has an easily accessible article on the subject.

Anyway. Just like several religions have ex nihilo creation myths, so do several religions have prophecies as a central part of their religious practice and beliefs, like the Romans, the Greeks, heck even New Age is big on prophecy. Their claims of prophecy are as "accurate" as those of the bible.

Pannonian

03-04-2014, 00:07

I must confess i have never heard of delphic b-4. I would say to your question, first we need to see these delphic claims, investigate them.

Bloody hell, investigate these Delphic oracles? People have already formed policies and fought and won/lost wars and kingdoms based on them. I daresay there has been far more historical study of the events surrounding these oracles than there has been of the events surrounding the biblical prophecies. Are there any concrete pieces of evidence dating back to when any of the biblical prophecies were made, with accurately dated historical records confirming the existence of the prophecy story, and the response to it? Because we know about the wooden walls oracle, and we have concrete proof of Athenian action based on their interpretation of that oracle, which we can date to within a year of the oracle being made (since we know the sequence of events in detail).

Pannonian

03-04-2014, 00:10

total relism

03-04-2014, 00:22

What Greek literature(besides the bible, obviously) have you read, then?

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oracular_statements_from_Delphi#630_BC) has an easily accessible article on the subject.

Anyway. Just like several religions have ex nihilo creation myths, so do several religions have prophecies as a central part of their religious practice and beliefs, like the Romans, the Greeks, heck even New Age is big on prophecy. Their claims of prophecy are as "accurate" as those of the bible.

you have yet to provide any creation of time/space/matter. You have provided none. as for oracles, i read first few they did not seem to fit a prediction or give time and fulfillment. Could you please provide the best one you have, with time written, than time fulfilled?, in same life time while could be true, does not count,.

Bloody hell, investigate these Delphic oracles? People have already formed policies and fought and won/lost wars and kingdoms based on them. I daresay there has been far more historical study of the events surrounding these oracles than there has been of the events surrounding the biblical prophecies. Are there any concrete pieces of evidence dating back to when any of the biblical prophecies were made, with accurately dated historical records confirming the existence of the prophecy story, and the response to it? Because we know about the wooden walls oracle, and we have concrete proof of Athenian action based on their interpretation of that oracle, which we can date to within a year of the oracle being made (since we know the sequence of events in detail).

I figured you were messing with me b-4. good laugh.

HoreTore

03-04-2014, 00:26

Could you please provide the best one you have

No, you will have to do that job yourself.

We're here to laugh at your ignorance, not educate you.

(and Pannonian has already given the most famous one anyway)

Pannonian

03-04-2014, 00:38

you have yet to provide any creation of time/space/matter. You have provided none. as for oracles, i read first few they did not seem to fit a prediction or give time and fulfillment. Could you please provide the best one you have, with time written, than time fulfilled?, in same life time while could be true, does not count,

In the same lifetime does not count? Are you aware that Greek states formed policies based on these oracles?

Example 1:
Athens sends to Delphi for an oracle seeking for advice on what to do about the coming Persian invasion. The oracle tells them to put their faith in their wooden walls. The Athenian strategists debate what this means. Some side with the interpretation that they should defend their city walls and make a stand on the Acropolis. Themistocles suggests that the wooden walls refers to their navy, Eventually they take this interpretation, and evacuate the whole of the Athenian population to Troizen across the bay, and if need be, elsewhere. Athens, left empty, is burned by the Persians. However, the Athenian strategy, based on their reading of the oracle, makes itself felt, as the military strength of the Greeks and principally the Athenians, transferred to their ships, defeats the Persians in the naval battle of Salamis. Thus we have the oracle, the discussion of the oracle and the formation of policy based on the oracle, and the fulfilment of the oracle.

Is there anything so substantial in the historical concerning the prophecies of the bible? Another oracle from that time resulted in Leonidas leading his 300 Spartans to Thermopylae to make a stand. We know the historicity of that stand because Alexander referred to it when he sent back 300 suits of Persian armour after Granicus, with a note singling out the Spartans for their absence.

Go read some history books. Heck, go read some books that aren't the bible.

Kadagar_AV

03-04-2014, 00:41

you have yet to provide any creation of time/space/matter.

As have you.

Ignorant rambling does not equate proving the bible shows a perfect understanding of the universe. I am just guessing here, but I don't believe knowledge of physics to be your strongest ability.

HoreTore

03-04-2014, 13:54

As to biblical inerrancy...

Jesus is mentioned as born in the reign of Herod the Great. At that time, Judea was a client kingdom of Rome. It also says that there was a census taken at his birth. The romans did not take a census in client kingdoms. They did take a census at a later date when Judea was a province, however, but that means Jesus could not have been born under Herod if the census story is true. Further, Jospeh lived in Galilee, which was not a part of the province of Judea, and so not subject to a census. A census also required the head of the household(the male) to announce his property, there would be no reason for a pregnant Mary to travel.

Thus, the story of Joseph travelling to Bethlehem to register as part of a census under Herod is obvious nonsense. That makes no difference for sane Christians who can happily appreciate the story for its moral value. It does, however, become a significant problem if you treat it as an authoritative history book.

Sigurd

03-04-2014, 22:08

Kadagar_AV

03-04-2014, 22:11

Ya know... If you start interpreting what Luke actually was saying here - this can be explained and supported by outside historical facts... But if that is not an option and you have to take the text at face value as a FUNDAMENTALIST, EDUCATION wins this.

FIFY

Sarmatian

03-04-2014, 23:07

I must confess i have never heard of delphic b-4. I would say to your question, first we need to see these delphic claims, investigate them.

Long story short, there were these people called the Delphs, who everyone hated and wanted to destroy. Their most prominent emperor, Fabulous II, built the oracles to warn them of the Persian invasion.

HoreTore

03-04-2014, 23:36

total relism

03-04-2014, 23:49

No, you will have to do that job yourself.

We're here to laugh at your ignorance, not educate you.

(and Pannonian has already given the most famous one anyway)

i claimed the bible was only account of time space matter in the beginning. You said that was false, you provided a wiki link that does not help your case, than claim i need to be educated. The burden of proof is up to you to counter my op's claim of genesis only account of time/space/matter creation.

In the same lifetime does not count? Are you aware that Greek states formed policies based on these oracles?

Example 1:
Athens sends to Delphi for an oracle seeking for advice on what to do about the coming Persian invasion. The oracle tells them to put their faith in their wooden walls. The Athenian strategists debate what this means. Some side with the interpretation that they should defend their city walls and make a stand on the Acropolis. Themistocles suggests that the wooden walls refers to their navy, Eventually they take this interpretation, and evacuate the whole of the Athenian population to Troizen across the bay, and if need be, elsewhere. Athens, left empty, is burned by the Persians. However, the Athenian strategy, based on their reading of the oracle, makes itself felt, as the military strength of the Greeks and principally the Athenians, transferred to their ships, defeats the Persians in the naval battle of Salamis. Thus we have the oracle, the discussion of the oracle and the formation of policy based on the oracle, and the fulfilment of the oracle.

Is there anything so substantial in the historical concerning the prophecies of the bible? Another oracle from that time resulted in Leonidas leading his 300 Spartans to Thermopylae to make a stand. We know the historicity of that stand because Alexander referred to it when he sent back 300 suits of Persian armour after Granicus, with a note singling out the Spartans for their absence.

Go read some history books. Heck, go read some books that aren't the bible.

I am not saying they cant be true in same lifetime, i am saying to prove true they would have to be written, than fulfilled later that same author/person could not be around to see them fulfilled.

Go read some history books. Heck, go read some books that aren't the bible.

show me the documents when written/when fulfilled in your claims, you wont be able to, they are written after the fact, does not make them false but does nothing to prove they are true.

As have you.

Ignorant rambling does not equate proving the bible shows a perfect understanding of the universe. I am just guessing here, but I don't believe knowledge of physics to be your strongest ability.

please read my op, it will fix your misunderstanding i hope. what were talking of is my claim that only genesis starts with the creation of time/space/matter, of all religious books and writings..

As to biblical inerrancy...

Jesus is mentioned as born in the reign of Herod the Great. At that time, Judea was a client kingdom of Rome. It also says that there was a census taken at his birth. The romans did not take a census in client kingdoms. They did take a census at a later date when Judea was a province, however, but that means Jesus could not have been born under Herod if the census story is true. Further, Jospeh lived in Galilee, which was not a part of the province of Judea, and so not subject to a census. A census also required the head of the household(the male) to announce his property, there would be no reason for a pregnant Mary to travel.

Thus, the story of Joseph travelling to Bethlehem to register as part of a census under Herod is obvious nonsense. That makes no difference for sane Christians who can happily appreciate the story for its moral value. It does, however, become a significant problem if you treat it as an authoritative history book.

off topic, please this is easily refuted, you could search online for your answer. Claimed contradictions i have seen around 400, answered 400. You just dont care or want a answer so you like to hear it to be false, so you never investigate. Contradictions are not topic, i have done them b-4 on this thread and allowed people to bring up top 3 each. I will do so again if you wish on another thread, maybe one focused on contradictions [supposed].

HoreTore

03-05-2014, 00:03

off topic, please this is easily refuted, you could search online for your answer. Claimed contradictions i have seen around 400, answered 400. You just dont care or want a answer so you like to hear it to be false, so you never investigate. Contradictions are not topic, i have done them b-4 on this thread and allowed people to bring up top 3 each. I will do so again if you wish on another thread, maybe one focused on contradictions [supposed].

You had never even heard of the Greco-Persian war before, this proves you have absolutely no authoritative knowledge of the classical world.

You can't even begin to address these contradictions(as you call them), as you do not have the required knowledge to do so.

Kadagar_AV

03-05-2014, 00:21

To be able to think the Bible explain physics, I for one think one have to be insane, uneducated, or religiously brainwashed.

Quite possibly a combination of more than one factor.

The universe is a great and wondrous thing, and I must quite frankly say I get upset when people try to diminish the sheer WORK of humanity's combined intelligence to reach where we are today.

HoreTore

03-05-2014, 00:30

Kadagar_AV

03-05-2014, 00:32

Thankfully, almost all christians refer to the bible for its moral values and tales of redemption and mercy, not scientific facts.

Yeah, because religious books are like a smörgåsbord... Pick and choose the parts you like.

That's why religious people never go absolutely bonkers.

HoreTore

03-05-2014, 00:35

Yeah, because religious books are like a smörgåsbord... Pick and choose the parts you like.

That's why religious people never go absolutely bonkers.

The bonkers ones are usually the ones saying you can't pick and choose: "there's only on truth, and it's mine!!11"

Kadagar_AV

03-05-2014, 00:42

The bonkers ones are usually the ones saying you can't pick and choose: "there's only on truth, and it's mine!!11"

I dunno... I think christianity would be better off if the pope shot anyone through the neck, claiming to be christian but didn't follow his principals.

Not that his truth is worth more than anyone else's, but because then the rest of the world would have a clear source to blame for the ****, and would be able to reason towards a single entity.

As it is now, we have the scientific world, and then a bunch of varied freaks running around with their own idea of what it means to be a good christian.

Sigurd

03-05-2014, 11:49

Interpretation is not an option for a literalist.

Anyway, watcha talking about? They did have a census under Herod?
You need to look what is claimed in the NT and Luke particularly since this is considered THE record of the nativity story.

King James:
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

Douay-Rheims:
And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.
This enrolling was first made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria.
And all went to be enrolled, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem: because he was of the house and family of David,

New English Bible:
IN THOSE DAYS a decree was issued by the Emperor Augustus for a general registration throughout the Roman world. This was the first registration of its kind; it took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria. For this purpose everyone made his way to his own town; and so Joseph went up to Judaea from the town of Nazareth in Galilee, to be registered at the city of David, called Bethlehem, because he was of the house of David by descent;

Two clues are given to the time this happened and that can easily be verified by other records. The decree issued by Gaius Octavius is the first. Did he ever decree such a census? Yes he did and he lists them in his Res Gestae Divi Augusti (§8). One in 28 BC, another in 8 BC and the last in 14 AD. Which one is closest to the Birth of Jesus? It would be the 8 BC one. So that's a start. Then the other clue is; it happened during the reign of Quirinius (spelled the greek way Cyrenius in NT) as governor of Syria. When was Qurinius the legate of Syria? Documented by many contemporary historians to be around 6 AD - 12 AD.

Right, so off the bat if we peg the birth of Jesus to 0 AD we are off with over a decade on both the census and when Quirinius was legate of Syria. Any literal interpretation of the Luke account shows that he was off by too many years, as your Herod (who died in 4 BC) comment also states. He seems to be taking facts from the history, but are not able to match the dates and as such seems to be creative in his narrative. Some claim that Jesus was born sometime around 7 - 4 BC which fits into the Herod period and the Census of 8 BC - but are off with over a decade on the Quirinius claim.

So how to solve this? Well one solution is bad translation. The word "first" (prot) can also be translated as "prior" which then would indicate that it happened before Quirinius became legate of Syria (one of his first duties was to conduct a census in the area). The other solution is that Quirinius somehow was involved in the 8 BC census which was his first census and the one he conducted as legate was the second.

And the comment of having to travel to Bethlehem from Galilee is also explained. If one actually reads such a census, you will discover that people travel from wherever they are currently staying to their original home to register at that census.

HoreTore

03-05-2014, 12:49

Sigurd

03-05-2014, 13:07

It's more trickier than that, Sigurd. Augustus did hold a census before year 0, but not in Judea. The Romans did not order a census of citizens of client states; that's not Roman territory proper. Citizens of client states were not taxed by Rome, thus no reason to hold a census.

And Galilea was never a Roman province; Joseph as a citizen of Galilea would thus never be subject to a census.

And it wasn't standard practice for people to travel to the censor either; it was the censor who travelled to the citizen.
Ah, but you see. Josephus does record that a census for tax purposes was conducted by Quirinius for the area of Syria and Judea in 6-7 AD. And it was not only for tax purposes that Octavius conducted his world wide census. He was genuinely interested in how the population of the world increased. I am not entirely confident on the sources here, but he made legislation to ensure faster growth of the population and used the three world wide censuses mentioned in his Res Gestae to check if it worked. He even proudly numbers the total population of the world for each census.

If a province was taxed based on how many originated from that province - then people would have to travel from all over to their home province for registry. A slimy way to increase taxes though.

Not many censuses survived, but there are records from a few (e.g. 104 AD & 119 AD) where one of the entries is current living location. Where one can clearly see that people traveled from all over to come and register at the census.
It could be that a province didn't like to be taxed based on the many immigrants staying there, which ultimately was the purpose of such censuses. Go home to where you belong and register there.

HoreTore

03-05-2014, 15:23

Yes, a census was conducted in the provinces of Judea and Syria, and Judea only became a province way after Herod died. Galilea wasn't part of the roman province of Judea, thus no reason to hold a census on someone from Galilea.

The only area which wasn't a Roman province who also had a census was Egypt, and that's because the Ptolemies held their own census. The client state Herod ruled wasn't subject to the kind of tax which requires a census.

Augustus may have bragged about the population numbers revealed by the census, but that was never the reason for holding a census. The census when Judea became a province(and thus introduced a capitation tax) sparked a huge rebellion, something that's happened several other places the Romans held a census. Augustus would never "count for the sake of counting" when doing so risked sparking a rebellion in an already shaky empire.

It is entirely more likely that Matthew and Luke simply placed the nativity story into two already well known stories from Judea(death of Herod&the census), than the alternative: completely irrational and innovative actions by the Romans lacking any confirmation in other sources.

A census taking place in a client state would be a massive event. There would be talk of it. There isn't.

The Lurker Below

03-05-2014, 23:50

total relism

03-06-2014, 00:04

You had never even heard of the Greco-Persian war before, this proves you have absolutely no authoritative knowledge of the classical world.

You can't even begin to address these contradictions(as you call them), as you do not have the required knowledge to do so.

no idea were your getting that from, plus has nothing to do with biblical authority. I simply said another time i have and will yet again, answer anyone's top 3 objections like these on another thread. Your objections you bring up are well know and long ago refuted, easily found online.Over and over you ignore points, than try to attack me personally, to avoid the arguments you first come up with. This is a logical fallacy.

this would do you well, not just this thread but over and over
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

To be able to think the Bible explain physics, I for one think one have to be insane, uneducated, or religiously brainwashed.

Quite possibly a combination of more than one factor.

The universe is a great and wondrous thing, and I must quite frankly say I get upset when people try to diminish the sheer WORK of humanity's combined intelligence to reach where we are today.

just wondering why would you say so? what would you say to the many phd scientist who have degrees in astronomy,physics,cosmology etc that would disagree with you. Maybe it is that you have been indoctrinated into certain thinking? so you view with tainted glasses and see what you want see? I also love what we have learned and gotten us here, thank those creationist for starting science

Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology,
University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada
Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed. It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists.

“Science was not the work of western secularist or even diest, it was entirely the work of devout believers in a active,conciuos, creator god”
rodney stark for the glory of god how monotheism led to reformations,science,witch hunts and the end of slavery Princeton university press 2003 p376

The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’. Kepler also calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, close to Ussher’s.
The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution. And a biblical creationist, James Irwin (1930–1991), walked on the moon. See also Exploring the heavens: Interview with NASA scientist Michael Tigges.

Physics—Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Astronomy—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder

some uneducated phd creationist astronomers,cosmologist, today

Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy
Dr John Hartnett, Physics and Cosmology
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physics
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics
Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Dr Robert Gentry, Physics
Dr Jonathan Henry, Chemical Engineering, Astronomy
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physics
Dr David King, Astronomy.
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysics
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Keith Wanser, Physics
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics

total relism

03-06-2014, 00:05

I am sorry for above post, off topic, this is more for creation/evolution thread.

total relism

03-06-2014, 00:15

Excuse me sir,

Your mortal dates and even perception of the passing of time are irrelevant to an ETERNAL spaghetti monster. Who are we to question the timing of an immortal creator/god? If we choose to believe in the concept of a god, such as the god of Abraham in the many forms it has been written about, how would we give such a being the powers we attribute to it, and then question ANY form that power chooses to take, at ANY time it chooses to take it?

This is the internet, granted you can make whatever claim you choose to make. thanks a lot, buddy, don't bother to provide any evidence for this. I will also share an anecdotal story - I've heard some PHDs talk about Genesis as well. One in particular also served as a minister for his Baptist congregation. I distinctly enjoyed his discussions about certain exiles being ridiculed while in Babylon because their religion had no creation story. Their response had some parallels to the Epic of Gilgamesh. That particular PHD minister wasn't the least embarrassed for his religion, as in his ministrations he preferred to preach the love found in the new writing.

Seventh thread, congratulations, you are nothing if not persistent.

never said god could not take form of spaghetti, i said why did your god take so long to introduce himself. if you say your god that appears like spaghetti, but has all the attributes of the god of the bible, than maybe allow me to introduce you to the god of the bible?.

Are yous saying the jews had no creation account while in exile? Please read my 6th thread on has the bible been influenced by other religions.

thousands of phd that believe in genesis.

There are thousands of phd scientist who reject evolution and believe in creationist
Darwin SkepticsA Select List of Science Academics,Scientists, and Scholars Who are Skeptical of Darwinism
a list of almost 3,000 scientists and professors who reject Darwinism most of whom hold a Ph.D. degree in some field of science.
This is but a small percentage of the estimated 113,000 Darwin Skeptic scientists and academics in the
United States alone, accordingly to a Harvard researcher (Gross and Simmons, 2006).
http://www.rae.org/pdf/darwinskeptics.pdf

http://www.creationresearch.org/ over 1 thousand members with scientific degrees this is just one organisation
650 with phd
http://www.creation.or.kr/ at one point had 2,000 phd with 200 non phd
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ not creation but scientist who dont believe in evolution last i herd over 800
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/ list of some creation scientist

http://www.answersingenesis.org/ run by many phd scientist
http://creation.com/ run by many phd creation scientist
http://www.icr.org/ run by many phdcreation scientist
korea asociation of creation resherch kacr over 1,00 members 500 phds
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2
some young earth creation collages with many phd scintist
http://www.liberty.edu/
http://www.bryan.edu/
http://www.cedarville.edu/

there are creation groups poping up all over the world turkey has the largest % population young earth creation at 85% which is mostly do to this one guy http://www.harunyahya.com/
these are just some american ones im aware of.

Ironside

03-06-2014, 00:33

There's more than 40.000 people getting a phd every year in the US. Most of them will not get a phd in a subject that have relevance to evolution. Ergo, they're not more educated on the topic of evolution than the average population.

Kadagar_AV

03-06-2014, 01:04

TR, you can have a PHD and still be a complete religious nutter.

Try making an actual scientific peer revised report on the matter? It has been tried, you know. In all manners of ways.

It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily...

Papewaio

03-06-2014, 01:12

Science is not a democracy.

I would suggest watching the Cosmos TV series. Either the original or the new one.

Also anything by David Attenborough.

CBR

03-06-2014, 04:19

I would suggest watching the Cosmos TV series. Either the original or the new one.

Also anything by David Attenborough.
Well, duh. If they say something that goes against the infallible bible then they are just atheist evilusionists who spreads satanic lies.

There is nothing like a good case of science denial and religious fanaticism. Yummy!

Papewaio

03-06-2014, 05:26

Got to remember that science is also full of prophecies (theories) that are predictions that have been proven true again and again both during the lifetime of the writer and beyond.

Has a creation story that accurately describes the start of the universe and why we have so much hydrogen and even the ratio of neutrons to hydrogen in the universe.

Kadagar_AV

03-06-2014, 05:44

HoreTore

03-06-2014, 11:40

no idea were your getting that from, plus has nothing to do with biblical authority. I simply said another time i have and will yet again, answer anyone's top 3 objections like these on another thread. Your objections you bring up are well know and long ago refuted, easily found online.Over and over you ignore points, than try to attack me personally, to avoid the arguments you first come up with. This is a logical fallacy.

this would do you well, not just this thread but over and over
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

lol, the point of using that website is to specify which logical fallacy was committed, not linking to its front page.

Knowledge of the Greco-Roman world is fundamental when dealing with two claims of how the Greco-Roman world works. You don't need biblical knowledge to decide the validity of the Matthew and Luke claims, you need knowledge of the Roman Empire in order to do that. You do not have this knowledge, and so you are completely unable to decide wether or not the claims in Luke and Matthew make any sense.

As Pannonian said, try reading something besides the bible.

total relism

03-06-2014, 23:21

This will be my last post related to anything involving creation vs evolution, it is so hard as it my fav subject and there is so much claims and misinformation out there, but i must save for that as a topic thread.

TR, you can have a PHD and still be a complete religious nutter.

Try making an actual scientific peer revised report on the matter? It has been tried, you know. In all manners of ways.

It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily...

I agree fully, but your moving the goal post

What Is “Moving the Goalpost?”
The “Moving the Goalpost” logical fallacy is another one that has a fairly descriptive name. It is the case when Person A makes a claim, Person B refutes it, and Person A moves on to a new or revised claim, generally without acknowledging or responding to Person B’s refutation. Hence, the goalpost of the claim has been shifted or moved in order to keep the claim alive.

read your previous post. I will show many a religious nut job evolutionist on my thread.

you said
"It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily..."

i could not agree more, i will post debates between phd vs phd when i do my thread. We will see who gets to laugh more.

Well, duh. If they say something that goes against the infallible bible then they are just atheist evilusionists who spreads satanic lies.

There is nothing like a good case of science denial and religious fanaticism. Yummy!

please provide examples of this from creationist when i do my thread, specific examples, otherwise you look like a indoctrinated bigot. I however will take this and turn it on your belief system, I will show many clear cases of science denial and religious fanaticism, Delicious.

Got to remember that science is also full of prophecies (theories) that are predictions that have been proven true again and again both during the lifetime of the writer and beyond.

Has a creation story that accurately describes the start of the universe and why we have so much hydrogen and even the ratio of neutrons to hydrogen in the universe.

amen to that sister, science is great, people and certain models have made bad predictions and false ones [evolution] but science has not nor can it. You also unkowigley bring out a false prediction and minor problem for the big bang here lol. Biblical predictions will be part of my op on thread. I am glad so many seem interested, it always is my best most posted on thread topic, no matter what forum.

HoreTore

03-06-2014, 23:30

I agree fully, but your moving the goal post

What Is “Moving the Goalpost?”
The “Moving the Goalpost” logical fallacy is another one that has a fairly descriptive name. It is the case when Person A makes a claim, Person B refutes it, and Person A moves on to a new or revised claim, generally without acknowledging or responding to Person B’s refutation. Hence, the goalpost of the claim has been shifted or moved in order to keep the claim alive.

You even failed at understanding a fallacy.

It would have been a case of moving the goalposts if Kadagar stated that "noone with a PHD can believe in creationism", or something along those lines. He made no such statement, and so did not commit the fallacy you claim. In fact, your claim that he did so is a....

Strawman. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html)

Don't play with fallacies until you're older, son.

total relism

03-06-2014, 23:41

You even failed at understanding a fallacy.

It would have been a case of moving the goalposts if Kadagar stated that "noone with a PHD can believe in creationism", or something along those lines. He made no such statement, and so did not commit the fallacy you claim. In fact, your claim that he did so is a....

Strawman. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html)

Don't play with fallacies until you're older, son.

b-4 you get to excited, please read what i was responding to. he said this

To be able to think the Bible explain physics, I for one think one have to be insane, uneducated, or religiously brainwashed.

Quite possibly a combination of more than one factor.

The universe is a great and wondrous thing, and I must quite frankly say I get upset when people try to diminish the sheer WORK of humanity's combined intelligence to reach where we are today.

the bolded section is what i was responding to originally, before he than re-posted this

TR, you can have a PHD and still be a complete religious nutter.

Try making an actual scientific peer revised report on the matter? It has been tried, you know. In all manners of ways.

It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily...

notice it is no longer uneducated or about science, science discovery. But a supposed peer review process that suposidley creationist have not done [false] and laughing.

HoreTore

03-06-2014, 23:48

Kadagar_AV

03-06-2014, 23:52

I admire your patience at times, HT.

HoreTore

03-06-2014, 23:59

I admire your patience at times, HT.

I've been dealing with a lot of parents this week.

He's hardly any worse....

Pannonian

03-07-2014, 00:04

CBR

03-07-2014, 01:30

Oh yes, I will provide examples of creationist using such terms. Just not sure why I even have to...like asking me to provide examples of the sky being blue.

HoreTore

03-07-2014, 17:33

Guys, look!! I found this website (http://www.yr.no/) chock full with prophecies, and they almost always come true!!

total relism

03-08-2014, 01:25

Yes, thank you for making it clear how little you understand.

Kadagar's original claim was that P was true if A, B or C was present. You disproved B, and claim that this disproves P(strawman). When he then responds by expanding on C, you make a false claim that he is moving the goalposts.

HT, please read entire posts and my responses. I showed B [uneducated and scientific knowledge]not to be true as you admitted, i never disagreed with him on C [religiously brainwashed] I said [read my post to him] i agree fully and will even provide many examples of such [evolutionist]. A [one have to be insane] was a completely baseless false opinion that i did not think needed responding to. So i never attack anything that was not his position as you claim [straw man] I simply refuted one, agreed with one, and ignored another baseless claim that is easily false. Unless of course you followed his moving the goal post in the next email, and think i was saying i refuted his second email with responce below that he said

"Try making an actual scientific peer revised report on the matter? It has been tried, you know. In all manners of ways.
It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily..."

if that is the case i earlier said

"i could not agree more, i will post debates between phd vs phd when i do my thread. We will see who gets to laugh more."

also i will respond/refute the rest of his claim when the thread topic has to do with comment.

total relism

03-08-2014, 01:26

Guys, look!! I found this website (http://www.yr.no/) chock full with prophecies, and they almost always come true!!

do they have hundreds of years in advance?

HoreTore

03-08-2014, 02:01

HT, please read entire posts and my responses. I showed B [uneducated and scientific knowledge]not to be true as you admitted, i never disagreed with him on C [religiously brainwashed] I said [read my post to him] i agree fully and will even provide many examples of such [evolutionist]. A [one have to be insane] was a completely baseless false opinion that i did not think needed responding to. So i never attack anything that was not his position as you claim [straw man] I simply refuted one, agreed with one, and ignored another baseless claim that is easily false. Unless of course you followed his moving the goal post in the next email, and think i was saying i refuted his second email with responce below that he said

First off: stop believing other people do not read the relevant posts they are responding to.

The point he was maintaining in his second post, which you claim was a case of "moving the goalpost", was in defense of the actual point he made in his first point: that in order to believe the bible explains physics, you have to be either a, b or c. You responded with the intent of countering his point, and you can't do that by simply refuting one of the three assumptions; you have to take all three down for Kadagar's statement to be shown false.

Your post thus remains a strawman. Or, it could be simply irrelevant and not an argument at all. In either case, Kadagar's point that you have to be insane, uneduated or religiously brainwashed to believe the bible explains physics still stands, and you have offered nothing to counter it.

I also find it hilarious how you apparently rate "debates of phd vs phd" to be a better source of knowledge than, you know, actual sources of knowledge. Like a book. A debate is a show, books are for knowledge.

And no, creation scientists are not published in scientific journals. Their "theories" are lunacy, and are not included in journals dealing with reality.

do they have hundreds of years in advance?

Now looks who's moving the goalposts? How cute.

By the way, my post on the question of Herod and the census was taken directly from a statement from your OP, yet you have not responded to it. I'm not waiting in anticipation, given that you do not have the knowledge required to attempt to counter it.

Empire*Of*Media

03-08-2014, 10:23

Pannonian

03-08-2014, 11:07

horeTore
im not offending you friend ........but you even justify yourself by somethings you think its "Reasonable"? why you always think your the right?! why you always think that those that dont accept your believes are fools and the wrong and must be offensed?!
as Brenus too! but your much better than him his far far worse.

Because he knows about Roman history and the other bloke doesn't? It's not a matter of ethics, but knowledge, and TR has demonstrated a palpable lack of. If I say that 2+2=4 and the other bloke says it's something else, it doesn't matter what his holy book says or how much you sympathise with him, I'm still going to be right and the other bloke who says otherwise is still going to be wrong.

Brenus

03-08-2014, 12:13

“as Brenus too! but your much better than him his far far worse.” I don’t intervene anymore in TR posts as they stop to make me laugh.
Now, as you spoke of me: I don’t “believe”. I came always with facts. Well, I do believe in few things (Justice, Freedom, and others concepts). But when some (as you did few time) come with absolutely no evidences at all, about subjects you have absolutely no clue (i.e. Forrisson being an historian in the WW2 and Holocaust), or me being a US citizen, I have to react, When you pick all revisionist theories you can find in Internet (none of them given a single little proof of what they implies (never came once with invoices testimonies, plans or witnesses), I challenged you. You are the one who went for insults and other smoke screen tactic in order to deflect the need of answers.

Like TR in the religious domains, you carefully avoid facts. You are not alone to do this.
Have to go shopping, will come back on the subject.

Tellos Athenaios

03-08-2014, 16:08

Guys, look!! I found this website (http://www.yr.no/) chock full with prophecies, and they almost always come true!!

Did you know you can get them delivered daily to your phone, as well?

Sigurd

03-08-2014, 20:37

By the way, my post on the question of Herod and the census was taken directly from a statement from your OP, yet you have not responded to it. I'm not waiting in anticipation, given that you do not have the knowledge required to attempt to counter it.
I did make a long post as a rebut to your last, but thought better of it. I realized that I debated something I don't really believe and that the onus is on the believer to make their arguments.

However, even though we "think" we know Roman history, there aren't much material that survived the ages. We don't have a surviving census for example, besides the two scraps found in Egypt that were rather late censuses (104 AD and 119 AD). We don't know much about the censuses that Augustus ordered - only that he mentioned it in his 35 feats in office. Censuses for tax purposes was a local thing and ordered and executed by local officials (the Qurinius one in 6 AD). Why would the Emperor call for an extra-ordinary census? And we don't really know why - other that he was doing a count and posted the result as a great feat in his career. Must it have been a tax census or simply a head count? We are only assuming it was a tax census.

True - that in Rome censuses was conducted by current residence. But in Judea people had to travel to their ancestral home. I don't think this is refutable. Question is - did the Romans allow it, respecting Jewish customs?
I read one scholar's opinion on this. He basically said that traveling to the city of David for the census was just the excuse. Mary tagged along because the future King had to be born in the city of David. Which begs the question - Why did Luke make all the fuss about the census mixing in the wrong references? He is supposed to be THE historian of the gospel writers and would have had access to better sources than we have today.

Damn... did it again.

total relism

03-08-2014, 23:42

First off: stop believing other people do not read the relevant posts they are responding to.

The point he was maintaining in his second post, which you claim was a case of "moving the goalpost", was in defense of the actual point he made in his first point: that in order to believe the bible explains physics, you have to be either a, b or c. You responded with the intent of countering his point, and you can't do that by simply refuting one of the three assumptions; you have to take all three down for Kadagar's statement to be shown false.

Your post thus remains a strawman. Or, it could be simply irrelevant and not an argument at all. In either case, Kadagar's point that you have to be insane, uneduated or religiously brainwashed to believe the bible explains physics still stands, and you have offered nothing to counter it.

I also find it hilarious how you apparently rate "debates of phd vs phd" to be a better source of knowledge than, you know, actual sources of knowledge. Like a book. A debate is a show, books are for knowledge.

And no, creation scientists are not published in scientific journals. Their "theories" are lunacy, and are not included in journals dealing with reality.

Now looks who's moving the goalposts? How cute.

By the way, my post on the question of Herod and the census was taken directly from a statement from your OP, yet you have not responded to it. I'm not waiting in anticipation, given that you do not have the knowledge required to attempt to counter it.

first off [lol] i said maybe this is why you thought were my strawman was[not reading my two post just one].

on his 3 points, as i said i refuted 1, agree with one [no reason to refute what i agree with him on] and third was competeley baseless and clearly false as [that they are insane] that was baseless opinion that he provided no evidence for, so deserves no response. If i were to answer or not it still would not be what you claim a strawman. Not to mention not one did he support. he claimed, all three however will as i have been saying, be handled when brought up on thread of topic.

debates vs books
i will be providing both, both are sources of knowledge despite your claim. there is much that can be learned from both. I think debates are great [as do creationist you will see why if you watch] generally creation views are censored, and evolution only taught. We are taught many things prove evolution and disprove creation and there is great evidence for evolution. What i said i would post debates for is if you remember laughing, creationist will laugh in debates at what evolutionist present when they can be challenged, and when there views are attacked. Because evolutionist are so confident and teach such a way, that when they get there butts kicked, its very funny. So i was simply saying that it is creationist that laugh at evolutionist when challenged, not the other way around as claimed in earlier post.

creationist peer review
not only is your statement demonstrable false, but commits multiply logic fallacies in your wording. These however will have to wait when you confidently assert them on the creation evolution thread.

goalpost moved?
please provide? do you mean that they must be clearly about advances foretelling? I have maintained from beginning this is the case and what makes bible unique. Not to mention your missing another big qualifier [ i wont give away to help you] ,just another example of you not reading post and coming with your opinion/conclusion before reading posts. So just how do you say i moved posts?

Because he knows about Roman history and the other bloke doesn't? It's not a matter of ethics, but knowledge, and TR has demonstrated a palpable lack of. If I say that 2+2=4 and the other bloke says it's something else, it doesn't matter what his holy book says or how much you sympathise with him, I'm still going to be right and the other bloke who says otherwise is still going to be wrong.

please provide a specific example related to anything said on any of my threads.

Like TR in the religious domains, you carefully avoid facts. You are not alone to do this.
.

please provide one specific fact i avoid as you claimed. i will be keeping your quote above for later thread on creation vs evolution to compare and see who does avoid facts. I will ask for any one example from you that i ignore, than i will provide for you one you must ignore, than well keep score, as i said above creationist get to laugh most. Evolutionist so confident, never able to defend their faith, i say indoctrination is the reason.

Brenus

03-08-2014, 23:52

Empire*Of*Media

03-09-2014, 00:18

“as Brenus too! but your much better than him his far far worse.” I don’t intervene anymore in TR posts as they stop to make me laugh.
Now, as you spoke of me: I don’t “believe”. I came always with facts. Well, I do believe in few things (Justice, Freedom, and others concepts). But when some (as you did few time) come with absolutely no evidences at all, about subjects you have absolutely no clue (i.e. Forrisson being an historian in the WW2 and Holocaust), or me being a US citizen, I have to react, When you pick all revisionist theories you can find in Internet (none of them given a single little proof of what they implies (never came once with invoices testimonies, plans or witnesses), I challenged you. You are the one who went for insults and other smoke screen tactic in order to deflect the need of answers.

first of all as once i think Pannonian said you are Imperialists Lover and Support of hatred & Colonialism and you will even justify the most evil of their works! anyway....

Really Facts?! :laugh4: huh you know yourself as The Perfect Truth !!
facts...hmmmm....lol....bringing some vents of hate and Anger and Falsification of a Killer & Imperialist English Officer from Criminal East India Company about a great man like gandhi that millions and Even Billions people adore his Personality is FACT ?!

if thats Fact, i never even look at Facts!!

Kadagar_AV

03-09-2014, 01:15

TR, you would be right, if only "and" and "or" were the same thingy.

Unfortunately it isn't, and that gives room for more than one shiver up ones spine when it comes to your reading comprehension of other more advanced texts.

Basically, I give you a 0/10 in reading comprehension.

You could have got one point, if you acknowledged you haven't got the faintest idea of what you just read.

total relism

03-09-2014, 01:42

"one specific fact" Book of Gilgamesh, written before the Bible (Clay Tablets) and describing the Deluge (with several Gods). proving that the Bible is not written or even not from your god.
That should be enough.
By the way, evolutionist (if you want to use this word) is not a faith, but a scientific hypothesis.

sorry you must have missed what i replied with, i said please read under

16] was the bible influenced by other local religions?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?145952-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible-part-6-final&highlight=

that would be the perfect place to talk on it, may i suggest a little skepticism instead of unquestionable faith in what you hear may do you well. There you will find some facts and references to fully refute the claim. Just to let you know, there are actually hundreds of creation accounts that include a global flood, i am sure we will get to this in the creation vs evolution thread, we as creationist see this as positive to our side.

as i isated earlier

TR, you would be right, if only "and" and "or" were the same thingy.

Unfortunately it isn't, and that gives room for more than one shiver up ones spine when it comes to your reading comprehension of other more advanced texts.

Basically, I give you a 0/10 in reading comprehension.

You could have got one point, if you acknowledged you haven't got the faintest idea of what you just read.

thanks for the kind words jerk....lol. well your stupid, so take that you big bully.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

03-09-2014, 10:12

I did make a long post as a rebut to your last, but thought better of it. I realized that I debated something I don't really believe and that the onus is on the believer to make their arguments.

However, even though we "think" we know Roman history, there aren't much material that survived the ages. We don't have a surviving census for example, besides the two scraps found in Egypt that were rather late censuses (104 AD and 119 AD). We don't know much about the censuses that Augustus ordered - only that he mentioned it in his 35 feats in office. Censuses for tax purposes was a local thing and ordered and executed by local officials (the Qurinius one in 6 AD). Why would the Emperor call for an extra-ordinary census? And we don't really know why - other that he was doing a count and posted the result as a great feat in his career. Must it have been a tax census or simply a head count? We are only assuming it was a tax census.

True - that in Rome censuses was conducted by current residence. But in Judea people had to travel to their ancestral home. I don't think this is refutable. Question is - did the Romans allow it, respecting Jewish customs?
I read one scholar's opinion on this. He basically said that traveling to the city of David for the census was just the excuse. Mary tagged along because the future King had to be born in the city of David. Which begs the question - Why did Luke make all the fuss about the census mixing in the wrong references? He is supposed to be THE historian of the gospel writers and would have had access to better sources than we have today.

Damn... did it again.

True, so far as it goes, but as a historian who focuses on the Republic, I have to say that there are many things with can be inferred with confidence.

The censuses ordered by Augustus in the res gestae are not exceptional in and of themselves.

In my fifth consulship [29 BC] I increased the number of patricians on the instructions of the people and the senate. 2 I revised the roll of the senate three times. In my sixth consulship with Marcus Agrippa as colleague [28 BC], I carried out a census of the people, and I performed a lustrum after a lapse of forty-two years; at that lustrum 4,063,000 Roman citizens were registered. 3 Then a second time I performed a lustrum with consular imperium and without a colleague, in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius [8 BC]; at that lustrum 4,233,000 citizens were registered. 4 Thirdly I performed a lustrum with consular imperium, with Tiberius Caesar, my son, as colleague, in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius [AD 14]; at that lustrum 4,957,000 citizens were registered.

The reference to the lustrum indicates that Augustus was, in essence, holding the Republican office of censor (though with added perks in the second and third instances). This indicates that these were censuses held in the city of Rome itself and Italy, and ought to have no relevance to the wider empire.

There is a the difficulty of a sudden increase in the number of citizens recorded (1000000 ~85 BCE; 4000000 ~28 BCE), but the inclusion of women, children and old men, could account for this. The point is that the people recorded were citizens. There is a plausible political motive for this revival, but it does not impact the NT cnensus.

This must be related to that of Quirinius in 6 AD, the 'local census': now this must be for taxation purposes, since there is no other reason for the state to make a record of the number and wealth of inhabitants of a newly acquired province. Also, as HT has mentioned, the is no reason why Joseph, as a Galilean under the rule of Herod Antiphas, would be effected. It would be reasonable, then, to assume that Luke has simply connected the birth to a well-known event, and sought to account for the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in the 'City of David'...

please provide one specific fact i avoid as you claimed. i will be keeping your quote above for later thread on creation vs evolution to compare and see who does avoid facts. I will ask for any one example from you that i ignore, than i will provide for you one you must ignore, than well keep score, as i said above creationist get to laugh most. Evolutionist so confident, never able to defend their faith, i say indoctrination is the reason.

With respect to the word 'fact': from 'factum' a thing done. Literally, the latin root means something that was done, but in English something that is verifiably true. The problem arises in the verification. TR would, I presume, argue that Biblical text in itself is verification enough for the status of fact, though he he would deal with different readings I do not know. Brenus, again I presume, would suggest that something which is generally accepted by experts in a given scientific or historical field would be a fact, hence the Gilgamesh reference.

My own view is that all facts, and 'truths' are subjective. If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements and be convinced that we were correct. CCTV footage might give you the answer, and you might argue that a record of something is a fact, but records can be faked/mistaken. A record of an event proves only that someone recorded that event in that way.

Hence, these irreconciable differences: each has his own truth, and if unwilling to accept that his truth could be false: deadlock.

Brenus

03-09-2014, 10:15

"sorry you must have missed what i replied with, i said please read under"
Perfect example of what I said. Thanks. You duck answer again. So here, without any smoke screen, diversions or deflections, do you acknowledge that the Bible copies and Pastes from others Religions, so the Bible is not the Word of God, but just a book of Jewish Legends, like we have the Legends from Scotland, France and others...
Answer is simple:
a) Yes, I do knowledge that the Bible is not the Word of God but a human fabrication as it is known (as one example) from 1870 first modern translation of the Sumerian Legends known under the title "the Book of Gilgamesh", and you can add a but (it doesn't matter because whatever reason you what)
b) No, against all evidences, I carry on to pretend/believe that the Bible is the Word of God, source of all knowledge even when facts are against it

"If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements" But we would agree that it was a Robbery. TR would deny the robbery if it not in the Bible, or if the Robbery is mentioned in the Bible but was reported before the Bible will just ignore this fact (not the robbery, the fact that someone told the story before).

total relism

03-09-2014, 12:25

With respect to the word 'fact': from 'factum' a thing done. Literally, the latin root means something that was done, but in English something that is verifiably true. The problem arises in the verification. TR would, I presume, argue that Biblical text in itself is verification enough for the status of fact, though he he would deal with different readings I do not know. Brenus, again I presume, would suggest that something which is generally accepted by experts in a given scientific or historical field would be a fact, hence the Gilgamesh reference.

My own view is that all facts, and 'truths' are subjective. If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements and be convinced that we were correct. CCTV footage might give you the answer, and you might argue that a record of something is a fact, but records can be faked/mistaken. A record of an event proves only that someone recorded that event in that way.

Hence, these irreconciable differences: each has his own truth, and if unwilling to accept that his truth could be false: deadlock.

I actually agree with you very strongly. Worldviews are strong, i was simply saying his claim facts that must be ignored by christian because the epic has a global flood or that it is claimed the bible copied from it, are no such thing and do not refute the bible.

"sorry you must have missed what i replied with, i said please read under"
Perfect example of what I said. Thanks. You duck answer again. So here, without any smoke screen, diversions or deflections, do you acknowledge that the Bible copies and Pastes from others Religions, so the Bible is not the Word of God, but just a book of Jewish Legends, like we have the Legends from Scotland, France and others...
Answer is simple:
a) Yes, I do knowledge that the Bible is not the Word of God but a human fabrication as it is known (as one example) from 1870 first modern translation of the Sumerian Legends known under the title "the Book of Gilgamesh", and you can add a but (it doesn't matter because whatever reason you what)
b) No, against all evidences, I carry on to pretend/believe that the Bible is the Word of God, source of all knowledge even when facts are against it

"If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements" But we would agree that it was a Robbery. TR would deny the robbery if it not in the Bible, or if the Robbery is mentioned in the Bible but was reported before the Bible will just ignore this fact (not the robbery, the fact that someone told the story before).

perfect example, you duck my response again, without any smoke screen, diversions or deflections, do you acknowledge that the bible has not copied and pasted from other religons, so does not ignore any facts you claim? answer is simple

1] yes you agree the bible does not copy from any legends as you orginally claimed because you read my link
was the bible influenced by other local religions?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?145952-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible-part-6-final&highlight=

2] no against all evidence you will still claim is so because you enjoy the conclusion.

"If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements"

but Brenus would claim the robbery was copied from a later robbery and took the ideas on how the robber stole it from a earlier account. He would ignore all the differences and evidence refuting such a claim and talk about this other robbery that was off topic, than when its time to talk about the earlier robbery he does not want to.
16] was the bible influenced by other local religions?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?145952-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible-part-6-final&highlight=

notice his complete silence on his objection when it is topic, he does not want to confront his claim being faced with truth.

Rhyfelwyr

03-09-2014, 13:53

"one specific fact" Book of Gilgamesh, written before the Bible (Clay Tablets) and describing the Deluge (with several Gods). proving that the Bible is not written or even not from your god.

If anything, that would surely support TR's claims? If there was an ancient flood, you would expect other cultures to have records of it.

Sigurd

03-09-2014, 14:04

If anything, that would surely support TR's claims? If there was an ancient flood, you would expect other cultures to have records of it.
Yeah.. If you want to prove the Judeo-Christian religion false -the worst thing to do is to dig up stuff predating the Bible that supports the events recorded there.
The Judeo-Christian religion claim to be the original religion taught the first men. The second men - Egypt,Sumeria etc.. fashioned their religion after the religion of the first. Christians aren't using this trump card at all. Was Adam a Christian?

Brenus

03-09-2014, 14:08

“If anything, that would surely support TR's claims? If there was an ancient flood, you would expect other cultures to have records of it.” Oh, the flooding thing is very common indeed. Sumerian civilisation was dead when the Jewish one came in. So it contradicts his claim that that the Bible was written by the Jewish version of god as it didn’t exist at that time: Except of course if he agree that the Sumerians had the knowledge of the Biblical God (but more than one) and before the Bible.:yes:

Pannonian

03-09-2014, 14:11

If anything, that would surely support TR's claims? If there was an ancient flood, you would expect other cultures to have records of it.

Or that one culture has influenced another culture, or indeed has taken it over as their own. I don't think many people with historical knowledge would claim that Jesus was born on 25th December. The presence of festivals around that period in many other cultures isn't proof that they were celebrating the birth of the Son of God. Look into the timing of when Christmas began to be celebrated and other Christian festivities, and it's far more likely that organised Christianity took on the stories of other cultures and appropriated them for itself. Eg. the song "We wish you a merry Christmas".

Brenus

03-09-2014, 14:17

“If you want to prove the Judeo-Christian religion false” I don’t want to prove a Religion false. I don’t care of Religions, or Legends or Myths. I just give one exemplar, as asked by TR, of him ignoring facts in order to keep his beliefs. So either he acknowledges that the Bible is not literally the Words from God, or he (as he will probably do) dodges the question.
If a book was written before a book I write, it is a copyright infringement. In fact, just to take for a book the main storyline is one. So a Jewish Script, at one point, decided to adapt the Sumerian account (or legend) to a Jewish version et voilà. Hollywood does it regularly. And most of the time, they pay the copyrights.

Rhyfelwyr

03-09-2014, 14:40

Or that one culture has influenced another culture, or indeed has taken it over as their own. I don't think many people with historical knowledge would claim that Jesus was born on 25th December. The presence of festivals around that period in many other cultures isn't proof that they were celebrating the birth of the Son of God. Look into the timing of when Christmas began to be celebrated and other Christian festivities, and it's far more likely that organised Christianity took on the stories of other cultures and appropriated them for itself. Eg. the song "We wish you a merry Christmas".

I don't think your analogy works because you are talking about something entirely different. The global flood would have affected everybody on earth and thus you would expect all peoples on earth to have some recollection of it. On the other hand, the date of Jesus' birth is something highly specific and not something most people would have knowledge of without being told of it. Thus celebrating Christmas on December 25th is obviously an example of co-opting other beliefs - the knowledge of a past, global flood is not.

either he acknowledges that the Bible is not literally the Words from God, or he (as he will probably do) dodges the question. If a book was written before a book I write, it is a copyright infringement. In fact, just to take for a book the main storyline is one. So a Jewish Script, at one point, decided to adapt the Sumerian account (or legend) to a Jewish version et voilà. Hollywood does it regularly. And most of the time, they pay the copyrights.

Well, that could be what happened. But how can you be sure? Maybe belief in an ancient flood was widespread throughout all the ancient peoples of the Fertile Crescent (which would not be surprising given its geography of major rivers and flood plains), and the Sumerians were simply the first to write it down?

Certainly, a competing Sumerian account in no way disproves the authenticity of the Jewish account.

Brenus

03-09-2014, 15:18

Empire*Of*Media

03-09-2014, 16:47

Or that one culture has influenced another culture, or indeed has taken it over as their own. I don't think many people with historical knowledge would claim that Jesus was born on 25th December. The presence of festivals around that period in many other cultures isn't proof that they were celebrating the birth of the Son of God. Look into the timing of when Christmas began to be celebrated and other Christian festivities, and it's far more likely that organised Christianity took on the stories of other cultures and appropriated them for itself. Eg. the song "We wish you a merry Christmas".

indeed its a false celebration

the roots of 25th December and celebrating the "Christmass" and making holiness of SUNDAY its all roots from Mehr Worship or as Greek MITHRAYISM! so it has Iranian & Mesopotamian Roots......

20The December Anahita Is Born. 25th December Mithra Is born!! even Iranians & Kurds & Indians celebrate 19th December to 30th specially major ones in 20th-25th December as the YALDA NIGHTS or The Winter nights. but actually its a Mithrayism Custom and tradition and has resisted Islam all these centuries too.

in Mithrayism & even Zoroastrian, FIRE has a great Holy place in the religion! so Mithra is The SUN GOD Shine God Light God Light God Love God Kindness God Warmness God & ...... so the holiness of Fire make people later put an special day for Respecting Sun & Fire & SUN GOD. well, they all accepted the Sunday for that...........havent you ever wondered, why its SUNDAY not SONDAY?! (The Son of God Day) its for respecting SUN as its SUN Day not SON Day! and Mithra is a SUN GOD(ess) ......... Interesting ha?
as we see even Mithrayism influenecd highly in Hinduism & Jainism and in Greek & Roman Religions and Mythology. nut they edited it by their own wish and renamed many of those gods and Godess in their Cultural style. even the great place that CEDAR & LARCH is in Mithrayism and influenced into Christianity by Roman Priests! see that why i said before whatever good and wealthy went to west it was corrupted and its not the original's fault! as Christianity too.
you see the falsification of Roman Priests that were EX-MITHRAISTS (Roman Version of it) and were fully influenced by it injected it into Chirstianity! i believe in Armenian Christianity not its Roman & European Version.

so yes i dont believe in the Jesus Birth date as its being celebrated for 1700 years....and also in the European Version of Christianity.......

so happy Celebrating Daily SUN day and Yearly SUN Birth......as its a good tradition inviting for the world for more closeness and sincerity and peace and love. there's nothing bad in it.........

HoreTore

03-09-2014, 16:52

Incohorent ramblings mixed with spiritualist nationalism

Mithra?

Why on earth did the Romans need to steal an event from the Persians, when the winter solstice has been celebrated by basically every civilization in history...?

The traditions of Mithra are about as original as christmas itself.

Pannonian

03-09-2014, 17:03

Mithra?

Why on earth did the Romans need to steal an event from the Persians, when the winter solstice has been celebrated by basically every civilization in history...?

The traditions of Mithra are about as original as christmas itself.

I've heard of some large-ish pebbles in southern England...

Empire*Of*Media

03-09-2014, 17:08

soery it was doubled

Empire*Of*Media

03-09-2014, 17:11

sorry for empty post again i had to update the post and be in the latest........

Empire*Of*Media

03-09-2014, 17:31

I updated the Helios origin and SOL INVICTUS with MITHRA and christianity In BLUE

Mithra?

Why on earth did the Romans need to steal an event from the Persians, when the winter solstice has been celebrated by basically every civilization in history...?

The traditions of Mithra are about as original as christmas itself.

Who said PERSIANS ??! its far far much older than an 3500 years old Aryan Tribe origin. but in Mesopotamian and Iranian Plateau Roots that most backs to older than 7000 years. that does not mean Persian!

i brought Facts that does not need sources even, you can see with some little research even among ordinary people. i did not mentioned any nation Persian or Kurd or Armenian, so you cant blame me Nationalistic favors! or if you would like, doesnt mattr i dont mention it.......what is the matter is the TRUTH

indeed its a false celebration

the roots of 25th December and celebrating the "Christmass" and making holiness of SUNDAY its all roots from Mehr Worship or as Greek MITHRAYISM! so it has Iranian & Mesopotamian Roots......

20The December Anahita Is Born. 25th December Mithra Is born!! even Iranians & Kurds & Indians celebrate 19th December to 30th specially major ones in 20th-25th December as the YALDA NIGHTS or The Winter nights. but actually its a Mithrayism Custom and tradition and has resisted Islam all these centuries too.

in Mithrayism & even Zoroastrian, FIRE has a great Holy place in the religion! so Mithra is The SUN GOD Shine God Light God Light God Love God Kindness God Warmness God & ...... so the holiness of Fire make people later put an special day for Respecting Sun & Fire & SUN GOD. well, they all accepted the Sunday for that...........havent you ever wondered, why its SUNDAY not SONDAY?! (The Son of God Day) its for respecting SUN as its SUN Day not SON Day! and Mithra is a SUN GOD(ess) ......... Interesting ha?
as we see even Mithrayism influenced highly in Hinduism & Jainism and in Greek & Roman Religions and Mythology (Such as the Origins of Sol Invictus AND "Hellenic" that came from HELIOS the SUN god that was Hellenic derivatived name of Mithra Sun God.) and they edited it by their own wish and renamed many of those gods and Godess in their Cultural style. even the great place that CEDAR & LARCH is in Mithrayism and influenced into Christianity by Roman Priests! see that why i said before whatever good and wealthy went to west it was corrupted and its not the original's fault! as Christianity too.
you see the falsification of Roman Priests that were EX-MITHRAISTS (Roman Version of it) and were fully influenced by it injected it into Chirstianity! i believe in Armenian Christianity not its Roman & European Version.

see this too:
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems

so yes i dont believe in the Jesus Birth date as its being celebrated for 1700 years....and also in the European Version of Christianity.......

so happy Celebrating Daily SUN day and Yearly SUN Birth......as its a good tradition inviting for the world for more closeness and sincerity and peace and love. there's nothing bad in it.........

i just forgot that YEZIDISM too has a special celebration exactly in 22th-25th december celebrating the MALAK TAWUS that its the newer version (Arabic?!) of Mithra's Name. they said themselves.

at all i will post a thread in MONASTRY about this soon................

HoreTore

03-09-2014, 17:59

I updated the Helios origin and SOL INVICTUS with MITHRA and christianity In BLUE

Who said PERSIANS ??! its far far much older than an 3500 years old Aryan Tribe origin. but in Mesopotamian and Iranian Plateau Roots that most backs to older than 7000 years. that does not mean Persian!

i brought Facts that does not need sources even, you can see with some little research even among ordinary people. i did not mentioned any nation Persian or Kurd or Armenian, so you cant blame me Nationalistic favors! or if you would like, doesnt mattr i dont mention it.......what is the matter is the TRUTH

i just forgot that YEZIDISM too has a special celebration exactly in 22th-25th december celebrating the MALAK TAWUS that its the newer version (Arabic?!) of Mithra's Name. they said themselves.

at all i will post a thread in MONASTRY about this soon................

The origin of Sol Invictus and similar celebrations are definitely not "inspired" by Mithra.

It's inspired simply by the sun.

HoreTore

03-09-2014, 18:01

I've heard of some large-ish pebbles in southern England...

Obviously erected by traveling Iranian nomads.

Empire*Of*Media

03-09-2014, 18:13

HoreTore

03-09-2014, 18:21

im not your enemy that you front me in a battle!!

for what i dont know despite i gave you sources & Facts & References, yet your job is to deny and you show yourself as a logical person ............oh my.............

OK anything you say its the Perfect & Unlimited Truth..why you dont create a cult or religion or an Ideaology yourself?! you could gather many people like you! your kind are so many!

Most(all?) ancient civilizations worshiped the sun. Every single civilization who worshiped the sun have had a celebration at winter solstice. It is after all the time when their deity and life-giver comes back after a period of decline.

To say that this celebration has its origin in one specific culture is just nonsense. Winter solstice definitely comes from the sun, and the celebrations are found in plenty of cultures who had no contact whatsoever with ancient iranian nomads, like the Brits mentioned above.

Empire*Of*Media

03-09-2014, 18:32

Most(all?) ancient civilizations worshiped the sun. Every single civilization who worshiped the sun have had a celebration at winter solstice. It is after all the time when their deity and life-giver comes back after a period of decline.

To say that this celebration has its origin in one specific culture is just nonsense. Winter solstice definitely comes from the sun, and the celebrations are found in plenty of cultures who had no contact whatsoever with ancient iranian nomads, like the Brits mentioned above.

i dont see any Sun worship in China and far East. only in Americas.

and even The Worship of ATUN (SUN) in ancient Egypt is from mythraism as the orientalists say. like Girtschmann

BUT

OK Whatever you say GOD HoreTore !!~;)

Rhyfelwyr

03-09-2014, 18:38

So, now, believers in the Bible as literal have to explain why, when the Jewish were not on Earth, the Sumerians had a knowledge of this flooding before the Bible was written, if given by God.

The obvious answer to that would be that the Sumerians had a knowledge of the flood because they had experienced it themselves. Their ancestors would have passed knowledge of it down through the generations by oral traditions etc.

The flood happened before Jacob/Israel even existed, so of course the Israelite people were not the first to record it in their own histories.

HoreTore

03-09-2014, 18:39

i dont see any Sun worship in China and far East. only in Americas.

and even The Worship of ATUN (SUN) in ancient Egypt is from mythraism as the orientalists say. like Girtschmann

BUT

OK Whatever you say GOD HoreTore !!~;)

No sun worshp in China, eh? You're wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_deity#Chinese_mythology), what a shocker!

The origin of sun worship is uite simple: it was created by people who managed to tilt their necks and look up to the sky. As this is a relatively simple task, it is no wonder that you can find it all over the world. And once you start worshiping the sun, you're pretty much obligated to celebrate winter solstice.

Anyway, how did the ancient iranians manage to travel to the british isles to erect Stonehenge, if I may ask?

Empire*Of*Media

03-09-2014, 19:01

No sun worshp in China, eh? You're wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_deity#Chinese_mythology), what a shocker!

The origin of sun worship is uite simple: it was created by people who managed to tilt their necks and look up to the sky. As this is a relatively simple task, it is no wonder that you can find it all over the world. And once you start worshiping the sun, you're pretty much obligated to celebrate winter solstice.

Anyway, how did the ancient iranians manage to travel to the british isles to erect Stonehenge, if I may ask?

ok....i dont call myself god as like you......i acknowledge i didnt know that about china.thank you for that. but that cult in there had not much influence in China's Believes and thoughts & customs.

but what we see close customs & believes in near east and hellenics were similar .... i dont mean with other civilizations! because the Word Helios has Mythrayism Roots as i linked you. the greeks did not worship anything before that (i mean worship one god, but after mithrayism, also many gods were added it was because of their past Pagan believes)
i mean Mithrayism as expanding Iranian & Mesopotamian Sun Worship to hellenics & Latin Rome & Near East, because there are similarity in customs and believes while it was much lesser than other civilizations.

please God HoreTore, before you show your hatred on me or any Iranian & Kurdish races, Think without Hatred and Fanaticism! because in some points you should THINK than Read!! not many things were written for you !!

HoreTore

03-09-2014, 19:04

before you show your hatred on me or any Iranian & Kurdish races

Yes, of course, doubting a single origin for Mediterranean sun worship is definitely racism directed at Kurds and Iranians.

This is a contender for the Backroom's weirdest comment of all time.

Empire*Of*Media

03-09-2014, 19:11

Yes, of course, doubting a single origin for Mediterranean sun worship is definitely racism directed at Kurds and Iranians.

This is a contender for the Backroom's weirdest comment of all time.

you show it hiddenly in your posts not only here. i think your Brenus friend?!

and we suppose that your not that (Suppose!!) you too do like that as you throw the word "Anti Semitic" & Ultranationalist & Ignorant!!

i know your answer says that me and like meare, so..........OK GOD your right!!! :laugh4: what should i say more??!!

HoreTore

03-09-2014, 19:17

you show it hiddenly in your posts not only here. i think your Brenus friend?!

and we suppose that your not that (Suppose!!) you too do like that as you throw the word "Anti Semitic" & Ultranationalist & Ignorant!!

i know your answer says that me and like meare, so..........OK GOD your right!!! :laugh4: what should i say more??!!

Please explain how pointing out that some of your statements are antisemitic and describing you as an ignorant nationalist equals racism towards all Kurds and Iranians.

Brenus

03-09-2014, 19:37

total relism

03-09-2014, 20:17

"Certainly, a competing Sumerian account in no way disproves the authenticity of the Jewish account." Nope, but it proves the Bible is not written by the Jewish acceptation of God. Which is the aim of my comment. I do not deny the fact of flooding. It happened all the time (Nile flooding arriving at the hottest moment were for the Egyptians the PROOF that Gods were existing), nor I doubt that unusual (one per century as we say now) flooding were the end of the world for civilisations near big rivers, literally.
So, now, believers in the Bible as literal have to explain why, when the Jewish were not on Earth, the Sumerians had a knowledge of this flooding before the Bible was written, if given by God. The Bible doesn't mention God (under few several split identities) going to warn the Sumerians, who built an Arch, loaded animals, send 3 birds etc... The fact is the Jewish at one moment incorporate this story in their own (plus few others). Nothing wrong with that, but if, as TR, you believe the the Bible is the Word of Good, it can't match. So, as I said, he just ignores the fact. Denial of reality is frequent, not only in Religious faith, as a defense system to notion that could put our belief system, or our emotions and so on..

as i mentioned b-4, there is a clear reason brenus avoids my other link on this very topic, it refutes his claims that isreal copied from any other local belief. so everytime he ignores it, so can can keep asuming his claim to be true, he likes the conclusion. For anyone after truth or just interested, look here

16] was the bible influenced by other local religions?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?145952-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible-part-6-final&highlight=

I just dont want people to assume his claim true without all the facts. Notice all he has done is claim, facts provided on my thread that he must ignore.

HoreTore

03-09-2014, 20:25

I just dont want people to assume his claim true without all the facts. Notice all he has done is claim, facts provided on my thread that he must ignore.

Every single one of the links you provided come from sources who believe in biblical literalism(except the wiki Horus article). This is, to put it mildly, questionable. Since you have not provided any reputable sources, your claim is as baseless as you claim Brenus' statement is.

It's like proving the Holocaust false by linking to a dozen neo-nazi sites.

Rhyfelwyr

03-09-2014, 21:21

"the Israelite people were not the first to record it in their own histories.." Yes. That is my point. The discussion we have here is not about the flooding, the point I made was TR avoid reality (or will ignore, push aside) in order to keep his faith that the Bible is from God. Not a writing about what God wants, but by God him/herself, as you point out in "their own histories"..

Please don't blatantly twist my words. In saying "their own history" I do not mean to say that they wrote it independently of God.

The bottom line is this - the fact that the Biblical account of the flood is preceded by a Sumerian one does not definitively prove that the Biblical account was not inspired by God.

HoreTore

03-09-2014, 21:23

Please don't blatantly twist my words. In saying "their own history" I do not mean to say that they wrote it independently of God.

The bottom line is this - the fact that the Biblical account of the flood is preceded by a Sumerian one does not definitively prove that the Biblical account was not inspired by God.

All quite irrelevant, since a global flood is proven false by geology, as well as common sense.

Brenus

03-09-2014, 23:02

Rhyfelwyr

03-09-2014, 23:30

All quite irrelevant, since a global flood is proven false by geology, as well as common sense.

Meh, often minor changes in our understanding of the sciences can place entire scientific narratives in a whole different light. This is true for geology, biodiversity, migrations, population growth, the boat-making capacities of ancient peoples, and many other controversies associated with the flood. I'm not a geologist and I'm not going to make geological arguments, but I believe in time that the scientific understanding will come to be in line with the Biblical one.

A Biblical young earth theory still makes more sense to me than the scientific account. Why did agriculture begin at more or less the same time across the whole world regardless of climate, technology or social arrangements, at around 10,000 BC? Why were humans milling around for hundreds of thousands of years before this happened? Why does all civilization begin at around 10,000 BC? Why were humans just another endangered species until this point? At around 10,000 BC, out of supposedly hundreds of thousands of years wandering around as little better than apes, why do humans all over the world, with no contact with each other and living in hugely different circumstances, suddenly develop agriculture, civilization, and explode in population?

I am genuinely asking this because it is something I have been thinking about and it is not even an argument I have seen being made by fundamentalist Christians. But science does not seem to explain this coincidence.

Yes it does. As the description in the Sumerians Myths preceding the Bible accounts provides different names to the Deities and humans involved in the story. If others spoke of it before, God can’t inspire the wording of a known story.

Right, so the Sumerian story is in fact 100% historically accurate, and the Biblical account is therefore wrong because it doesn't match the Sumerian account?

Your reasoning here is bizarre. At the time the Bible was composed, the flood (real or not) was something that had happened in a far and distant past. It stands to reason that many civilizations would give their own account of it, and no doubt attribute their gods as having some role in it. In turn, the Hebrews gave their own account. Why must the Hebrews write of this first in order for their writings to be inspired by God?

HoreTore

03-09-2014, 23:46

But science does not seem to explain this coincidence.

Science doesn't explain it, or you simply do not know the science?

The rise of agriculture coincides with the end of the ice age. Perhaps these two events are related, and perhaps there are scientific theories explaining it.

Rhyfelwyr

03-10-2014, 00:04

Science doesn't explain it, or you simply do not know the science?

The rise of agriculture coincides with the end of the ice age. Perhaps these two events are related, and perhaps there are scientific theories explaining it.

Yeah I know I looked into that, and knew that would be brought up. The thing is we are talking about completely disconnected peoples growing all sorts of different crops in completely different climates - much of the world was suitable for some sort of agriculture even during the last glacial period. Please explain why we record agriculture as beginning at around 7,000 BC in Papua New Guinea, 10,000 BC in Mexico, 5-8,000 BC in South America, when these areas were all still temperate or tropical even during the maximum extent of the ice sheet during the last glacial period (a full 22,000 years ago, supposedly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png

total relism

03-10-2014, 00:23

EDIT

sorry i almost let myself be brought in to off topic talk [flood stories].

brenus, if you believe yourself to be true in what you claim, please go post on my thread were that is topic, i will gladly reply there. Also if willing, please provide your case/evidence for your beliefs [jews copied] as well.

HoreTore

03-10-2014, 00:24

Yeah I know I looked into that, and knew that would be brought up. The thing is we are talking about completely disconnected peoples growing all sorts of different crops in completely different climates - much of the world was suitable for some sort of agriculture even during the last glacial period. Please explain why we record agriculture as beginning at around 7,000 BC in Papua New Guinea, 10,000 BC in Mexico, 5-8,000 BC in South America, when these areas were all still temperate or tropical even during the maximum extent of the ice sheet during the last glacial period (a full 22,000 years ago, supposedly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png

A difference of 5000 years is more or less the same time...?

Anyway, it wasn't an instant thing (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23290-farming-has-deep-roots-in-chinese-ice-age.html) either. As for why it happened in the first place, there are several hypothesis (http://www.nmns.edu.tw/nmns_eng/04exhibit/permanent/permanent/Agricultural_Ecology/origins.htm).

Anyhoo Rhy, can you think of a single instance where modern science has moved towards the bible instead of away from it?

Also, a rather long read (http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=475) about the flood. Long, but fun, so I recommend it.

Jarmam

03-10-2014, 00:57

total relism

03-10-2014, 02:02

What I want everyone to take away from this thread:

If your anti-scientific religious belief system is being challenged, your best strategy is to point at the assailant and say "but you're doing the same as I am...! Are too!". Best case scenario is that you win the jolly old "I know you are but what I am"-game so intellectually stimulating that it fuels thousands of de facto identical mudslinging contests.

Also I take pleasure in reading these, which I am quite sure makes me either malevolent or moronic. More importantly it means they are not irrelevant. Game on!

you said
"If your anti-scientific religious belief system is being challenged"

I hope your not referring to me, if so please show me were this happened, if your referring to epic of gilgamesh, I will ask you read my post that provide links to refute the claim, as i have done many times to the thread were that is on topic and already discussed.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?145952-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible-part-6-final&highlight=

if it is not to me or that, than i am a idiot and am sorry.

Rhyfelwyr

03-10-2014, 02:51

A difference of 5000 years is more or less the same time...?

Anyway, it wasn't an instant thing (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23290-farming-has-deep-roots-in-chinese-ice-age.html) either. As for why it happened in the first place, there are several hypothesis (http://www.nmns.edu.tw/nmns_eng/04exhibit/permanent/permanent/Agricultural_Ecology/origins.htm).

5,000 years (I noticed you went with the maximum figure, 2-3 is equally likely) is nothing out of a supposed history of hundreds of thousands of years. As for the link on Chinese ice age farming, I don't doubt people take time to settle into an agricultural lifestyle, my point was that, globally-speaking, the advent of agriculture is pretty instantaneous.

The second link reaffirms my point - it seems that climate change, demographics, habitat etc cannot explain such a sudden advent of farming throughout the world, since these things varied hugely from place to place.

I will check out your other link etc tomorrow running out of time here...

Tuuvi

03-10-2014, 03:18

"clear reason brenus avoids my other link on this very topic, it refutes his claims that isreal copied from any other local belief.” :laugh4: I don’t avoid other link, you just expose why I don’t take them seriously. You are telling that you refute bla bla bla. So you refute that the Bible copied from the Sumerian Legends, so you avoid reality/facts in order to keep your faith. You just confirm what I said from the start. See, even I was able to make a prediction: “he (as he will probably do) dodges the question.”

“The bottom line is this - the fact that the Biblical account of the flood is preceded by a Sumerian one does not definitively prove that the Biblical account was not inspired by God.” Yes it does. As the description in the Sumerians Myths preceding the Bible accounts provides different names to the Deities and humans involved in the story. If others spoke of it before, God can’t inspire the wording of a known story.

This of course without the knowledge of what HoreTore just highlight: The Deluge (global one) never happened. I was generous in conceding a local reality enlarged to a Mythic History (as we don’t know if the Sumerian did believe in it or if it was just a story for the long winter nights without TV, local version of Scary Movies).

According to the Biblical narrative Noah and his family were the only ones who survived the flood. Over time Noah's descendants broke away from Jehovah worship (yes I know Jehovah is not the correct form) and founded their own religions and nations. So as Rhyfelwyr says it makes perfect sense that the Sumerians would have their own flood account alongside the Jewish one.

Also according to the Bible the Israelite religion was codified by Moses during the Exodus, but the Hebrews had already been worshiping Jehovah as Jehovah was the God of Abraham and Jacob, the founders of the Israelite nation. The book of Genesis, which contains the flood account, was purportedly written by Moses. When Moses was writing the flood account he would have been writing a story that had been passed down for generations. The flood story was not revealed by God the moment it was written down, it already existed.

In short, the fact that there is a Sumerian flood story does not falsify the belief that the Bible is an inspired text.

Yeah I know I looked into that, and knew that would be brought up. The thing is we are talking about completely disconnected peoples growing all sorts of different crops in completely different climates - much of the world was suitable for some sort of agriculture even during the last glacial period. Please explain why we record agriculture as beginning at around 7,000 BC in Papua New Guinea, 10,000 BC in Mexico, 5-8,000 BC in South America, when these areas were all still temperate or tropical even during the maximum extent of the ice sheet during the last glacial period (a full 22,000 years ago, supposedly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png

Agriculture began in the Americas much later than it did in Eurasia. Plant cultivation was only invented in 7 different places, if I remember right, and then it slowly spread to the rest of the world. Even today there are societies which do not practice agriculture and subsist on hunting and gathering.

Farming was actually a pretty miserable lifestyle compared to gathering. Farmers had to work longer and harder to obtain food and because they relied on only a few food sources they had worse nutrition and health than gatherers (I'm willing to bet that modern gatherers have better nutrition than Americans do). I believe the current hypothesis is that at first crop cultivation was only practiced on a small scale to supplement gathering. As time went on the population grew and people began to rely on farming more and more until hunting and gathering was no longer enough to sustain the population.

Agriculture did not lead to civilization overnight either. The first farmers lived in small communities that show no sign of divisions in wealth or status. Over time (hundreds or thousands of years) societies became more and more complex until they were what we would call "Civilization".

Papewaio

03-10-2014, 03:22

Advantage.

Once farming showed it was at an advantage it spread.

Having said that nomadic lifestyles still exist for instance there is about half a million nomadic pastoralists in Tibet alone.

Advantages where they exist spread quickly. So where farming gave an advantage is generally when there is consistent seasons and a semi-harsh environment meaning that farming is a safer option then nomadic lifestyle.

Tuuvi

03-10-2014, 03:54

5,000 years (I noticed you went with the maximum figure, 2-3 is equally likely) is nothing out of a supposed history of hundreds of thousands of years. As for the link on Chinese ice age farming, I don't doubt people take time to settle into an agricultural lifestyle, my point was that, globally-speaking, the advent of agriculture is pretty instantaneous.

The second link reaffirms my point - it seems that climate change, demographics, habitat etc cannot explain such a sudden advent of farming throughout the world, since these things varied hugely from place to place.

I will check out your other link etc tomorrow running out of time here...

Looks like we both posted at the same time. A few thousand years might not seem too long in the grand scheme of things, but remember the average human lifespan is only 60-70 years. 5,000 years is a long time.

Also as I mentioned before the invention of agriculture only happened in a few places. Farming was not invented by everyone. To give an example, the main crops of North American agriculture were maize, beans, and squash, all of which were domesticated in Southern Mexico. This is one small region, inhabited by only a few different cultures, in a vast continent with hundreds of different peoples. In most places agriculture wasn't invented, it was adopted.

Tellos Athenaios

03-10-2014, 07:07

Looks like we both posted at the same time. A few thousand years might not seem too long in the grand scheme of things, but remember the average human lifespan is only 60-70 years

Today. With relatively good preventive health care, at least for childhood diseases; you know the type of thing that in Biblical times did take out 4/5 of the population as a matter of course.

That aside, I think it's more instructive to think of this in terms of generations. As a rule of thumb, a generation is ~20 - 25 years. So 5000 years equates to 200 - 250 generations...

Brenus

03-10-2014, 08:39

“Right, so the Sumerian story is in fact 100% historically accurate, and the Biblical account is therefore wrong because it doesn't match the Sumerian account?” No. Sumerian story is a legend like the one in the Bible. At this point, I don’t know if the Sumerian believed in their story or if it was the equivalent of a Doom Days Books or movies. What we know (and I understand you agree with it) is the Biblecists believe that the Flood was real and that the Bible comes from God herself.

“In short, the fact that there is a Sumerian flood story does not falsify the belief that the Bible is an inspired text.” So your point is the inspired by God text has mistaken the names of the protagonists and number of Gods involved in it. So God made mistakes as forgetting under which names and number he/she did it and to whom… Interesting theories! She/he could have a sense of humour as well, doubtfully, but possible.

“7,000 BC in Papua New Guinea, 10,000 BC in Mexico, 5-8,000 BC in South America” And this what we call “at the same time”? 3000 years… Waoh…

Ironside

03-10-2014, 09:35

5,000 years (I noticed you went with the maximum figure, 2-3 is equally likely) is nothing out of a supposed history of hundreds of thousands of years. As for the link on Chinese ice age farming, I don't doubt people take time to settle into an agricultural lifestyle, my point was that, globally-speaking, the advent of agriculture is pretty instantaneous.

It's not hundreds of thousands of years.

It's about 50.000-45.000 years. The creative explosion is quite important and shows a significant leap. One of the better theories for that one is that grandparents started to become common. Better experience accumulation, generational knowledge transfer and more time to do something else than food gathering and taking care of the children.

And really, it's not uncommon with great leaps happening relativly suddenly. It happens often in evolutionary history. It's just hard to track down why.

“In short, the fact that there is a Sumerian flood story does not falsify the belief that the Bible is an inspired text.” So your point is the inspired by God text has mistaken the names of the protagonists and number of Gods involved in it. So God made mistakes as forgetting under which names and number he/she did it and to whom… Interesting theories! She/he could have a sense of humour as well, doubtfully, but possible.

Ofcourse he has humour. He did intentionally lose most of his followers after having 100% of them in more or less direct contact with him. I mean the Bible is full of draconic counter meassurements God implemented as soon as He got questioned. And that was a mere fickle of His glorious powers.

Jarmam

03-10-2014, 12:38

you said
"If your anti-scientific religious belief system is being challenged"

I hope your not referring to me, if so please show me were this happened

coming next thread. You just show your indoctrination here. I hope you bring this link up and say you agree with it and its true and you have studied to find out. Otherwise your just showing your accepting of your religion without questioning it and total faith in there theology and inability to question and think for yourself....we shall see.

I know you are but what am I

Greyblades

03-10-2014, 12:47

Totalrelism and kurdishspartakus in the same thread... I need a frigging drink.

total relism

03-10-2014, 22:01

Totalrelism and kurdishspartakus in the same thread... I need a frigging drink.

cheers.

Kadagar_AV

03-11-2014, 00:52

thanks for the kind words jerk....lol. well your stupid, so take that you big bully.

I guess that won you the debate then.

I point out that you can't even, as evidenced, differentiate between "and" and "or" when reading texts, and you in turn point out that I am stupid and a big bully.

Seems legit.

total relism

03-11-2014, 02:24

I guess that won you the debate then.

I point out that you can't even, as evidenced, differentiate between "and" and "or" when reading texts, and you in turn point out that I am stupid and a big bully.

Seems legit.

it was a joke, sorry thought it was clear.

Kadagar_AV

03-11-2014, 02:36

it was a joke, sorry thought it was clear.

With your shown comprehension of... Well... Pretty much anything. How is one to tell?

Rhyfelwyr

03-11-2014, 02:42

Agriculture began in the Americas much later than it did in Eurasia. Plant cultivation was only invented in 7 different places, if I remember right, and then it slowly spread to the rest of the world. Even today there are societies which do not practice agriculture and subsist on hunting and gathering.

Of course, people will only practice agriculture where it is efficient or necessary to do so. My point was that agriculture is something that came about quite suddenly on a global scale. Those different places where agriculture spread from must themselves have been spread across the world, because the many peoples had no contact with each other since agriculture began. Why, out of hundreds of thousands of years of human history, do people across the world all develop agriculture within just the last 10-13,000 years? I'm not overly concerned with the particulars of where and when, I'm talking generally with this massive timescale in mind.

Farming was actually a pretty miserable lifestyle compared to gathering. Farmers had to work longer and harder to obtain food and because they relied on only a few food sources they had worse nutrition and health than gatherers (I'm willing to bet that modern gatherers have better nutrition than Americans do). I believe the current hypothesis is that at first crop cultivation was only practiced on a small scale to supplement gathering. As time went on the population grew and people began to rely on farming more and more until hunting and gathering was no longer enough to sustain the population.

Of course, but why is does this need for an agricultural supplement come about so suddenly? We are talking about all sorts of people living in hugely different conditions, with different climates, crops, forms of social organization, evolutionary pressures, etc.

Agriculture did not lead to civilization overnight either. The first farmers lived in small communities that show no sign of divisions in wealth or status. Over time (hundreds or thousands of years) societies became more and more complex until they were what we would call "Civilization".

Indeed, but I think this is a bit tangential to the main point here. 99.999999% of all our historical finds concern just the last 10,000 years of human history where farming and civilization mutually developed. Now, a handful of fossils (almost entirely from Africa, earliest human remains from much of the world date to within the last 10,000 years) seem to indicate by dating methods that humans have been around longer than this. However, these datings do not seem to make sense to me with the historical narrative - because as I said why would they be milling around like apes for hundreds of thousands of years and then all suddenly, independent develop agriculture and civilization at pretty much the same time, despite living in completely different environments, in completely different conditions?

Advantage.

Once farming showed it was at an advantage it spread.

So why did that advantage only become apparent around 10,000 years ago, and become apparent right then in so many different environments?

It's not hundreds of thousands of years.

It's about 50.000-45.000 years. The creative explosion is quite important and shows a significant leap. One of the better theories for that one is that grandparents started to become common. Better experience accumulation, generational knowledge transfer and more time to do something else than food gathering and taking care of the children.

And really, it's not uncommon with great leaps happening relativly suddenly. It happens often in evolutionary history. It's just hard to track down why.

It is hundreds of thousands of years according to Wikipedia and my google-fu.

Well, as with the advent of agriculture, why did this phenomena suddenly occur across all peoples in all situations, even with they were completely cut off from each other and living in completely different environments? And anyway I don't think this "creative explosion" is directly relevant since why does it take another 40,000 years across all peoples and all situations before farming and civilization suddenly become apparent?

CBR

03-11-2014, 05:13

Why, out of hundreds of thousands of years of human history, do people across the world all develop agriculture within just the last 10-13,000 years? I'm not overly concerned with the particulars of where and when, I'm talking generally with this massive timescale in mind.
If everything happened in this inter glacial period then that might be the key. The dry conditions and lower Co2 levels of the glacial age might not been good enough, even for big river cultures to start up.

Papewaio

03-11-2014, 06:36

The last ice age ended about 11k years ago.

Aborigines have been in Australia for about 40-50k years ago... And funnily enough that is when the mega fauna died out too.

But Australia does not have a stable seasonal trend that is good for agriculture without modern infrastructure. So without modern plants, dams, transportation and other technology it would be rather hard to kick start an agriculture based civilisation compared with a nomadic one.

Sigurd

03-11-2014, 09:47

Ironside

03-11-2014, 10:21

Of course, people will only practice agriculture where it is efficient or necessary to do so. My point was that agriculture is something that came about quite suddenly on a global scale. Those different places where agriculture spread from must themselves have been spread across the world, because the many peoples had no contact with each other since agriculture began. Why, out of hundreds of thousands of years of human history, do people across the world all develop agriculture within just the last 10-13,000 years? I'm not overly concerned with the particulars of where and when, I'm talking generally with this massive timescale in mind.

What problem does agriculture (and animal husbandry) solve?
It improves the amount of food you can get from a region.
What issues does it have?
It costs a lot of spare time.
Think of it this way. Would you work twice as much if you got 3 times the money, but you can only spend as much as you do now? Of course not, that would be pointless.
So it only solves food shortages if the population density is high.

It does seem to take several thousands of years to go from hunter gathering to agriculture. So basically the problem is only solvable if you have a few thousand years when overpopulation is a consistant problem. You'll need population boom, crash, boom, crash. Not boom, crash, wait 400 years, boom, crash. Who remebers an oral source that haven't been relevant for 400 years?
So if a global event, like the end of an ice age, gives higher consistant, but unsustainable growth rates, then the problem would occur at about the same point globally. Add then that you'll need specific plants (and animals) fit for domestication and you'll get a pattern like this.

It's similar to cocurrent independent inventions. They have the added factor of shared starting information, but they still have the same principle that when the problem occurs and its solution is possible, it won't take long for similar, yet different solutions to appear around the same time.

Well, as with the advent of agriculture, why did this phenomena suddenly occur across all peoples in all situations, even with they were completely cut off from each other and living in completely different environments? And anyway I don't think this "creative explosion" is directly relevant since why does it take another 40,000 years across all peoples and all situations before farming and civilization suddenly become apparent?

It didn't. That one seems to have spread. And progressed. It's kind of a starting leap (it's the start of the Upper Paleolithic).

Its relevance is that to solve this kind of multigenerational problem you'll need to have a culture that allows for its invention. The average human are poor on advanced inventing, but good at understanding it after its been invented. Time jump a bunch of Romans and it'll probably take them fairly little effort to make new cellphone models with proper education and training. But that fact doesn't change that the Romans didn't invent the cellphone.
So the timeframe is how long you had a culture that allowed for the invention of agriculture, not how long you had a people capable of doing agriculture after it has been invented.

Empire*Of*Media

03-12-2014, 09:38

Totalrelism and kurdishspartakus in the same thread... I need a frigging drink.

ah i now mentioned no one can think about what others post in here, its not me only its Rhyfelwyr too! and Tiago too! and many too!
and why you people always think your the Right one huh ?

ok i said.....say whatever you want GODS your the perfect right there is nothing wrong about your ideas & believes ..........

cheers now....

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-13-2014, 03:35

Anyhoo Rhy, can you think of a single instance where modern science has moved towards the bible instead of away from it?

Moving from "Steady State" to "Big Bang"

Cookie please.

Tuuvi

03-13-2014, 08:50

“In short, the fact that there is a Sumerian flood story does not falsify the belief that the Bible is an inspired text.” So your point is the inspired by God text has mistaken the names of the protagonists and number of Gods involved in it. So God made mistakes as forgetting under which names and number he/she did it and to whom… Interesting theories! She/he could have a sense of humour as well, doubtfully, but possible.

Huh? No. Who says the Sumerian account had the details right or didn't deviate from what actually happened over time?

And it looks like you didn't read my paragraph about how the flood account wasn't directly inspired by God, as in God wasn't the one telling the story, either.

However, these datings do not seem to make sense to me with the historical narrative - because as I said why would they be milling around like apes for hundreds of thousands of years and then all suddenly, independent develop agriculture and civilization at pretty much the same time, despite living in completely different environments, in completely different conditions?

I don't know enough to answer your questions but I want to point out that living as a hunter gatherer does not equate to milling around like apes for hundreds of thousands of years.

Hunter Gatherers have culture and raise families just like "Civilized Man" does. They are/were Homo Sapiens after all.

Before the advent of agriculture, humanity spread across the globe, adapted to new climates and invented new technologies. It's not like nothing was going on before people started farming.

Sigurd

03-13-2014, 09:13

Moving from "Steady State" to "Big Bang"

*coughBOLLOCKScough* :sneaky:

Brenus

03-13-2014, 20:28

total relism

03-13-2014, 22:10

Brenus

03-14-2014, 20:24

You will never understand: I don't think that religious writings/manipulation/opinions/fairies tales are facts. None of them.

Tuuvi

03-15-2014, 06:47

“And it looks like you didn't read my paragraph about how the flood account wasn't directly inspired by God, as in God wasn't the one telling the story, either.” So if a part of the Bible is not inspired by God, the Bible as such is not inspired by God. It is like a woman being pregnant: she is or not (she can’t be half). For the bilblecists, the Book is from God and no question asked. So, in order to believe so, they have to reject all notions or informations dismissing this belief. That is my point from start.
“Who says the Sumerian account had the details right or didn't deviate from what actually happened over time?” Well, the fact is they don’t pretend (well, as they were a dead civilisation even before the Hebrews show-up). The Biblecists insist on God writting the Bible. The fact that the Sumerian story (legend) is reported (based upon as they say in Hollywood) in the Bible prove them wrong. Note: As said before, the deluge NEVER happened….

I said "not directly inspired", not "not inspired". What I meant was, Genesis was written by a man thousands of years after the flood took place (hypothetically speaking, I'm not trying to argue that the deluge was a real event). God did not write the Bible. That is an absurd belief even from a Christian/Jewish perspective.

If the flood really happened, and if both the Sumerians and the Hebrews were descendants of the survivors, then it is possible that the Hebrew flood account was not based on the Sumerian one, and that both accounts are alternate depictions of the same event.

Brenus

03-15-2014, 09:04

HoreTore

03-15-2014, 09:51

Ah. So I misunderstood you. It happens. Yeah, in theory, it could be that, except for the fact that the Bible one takes all the details from the Sumerian one, thousand years after, translated in several languages. So, the most likely is the Hebrew scripts just paste and copy a nice story from a ancient book and adapted it.

I highly doubt the Hebrews copied from another book.

I'd say it's a lot more likely that they adopted the oral traditions of other cultures.

total relism

03-15-2014, 11:54

You will never understand: I don't think that religious writings/manipulation/opinions/fairies tales are facts. None of them.

Ah. So I misunderstood you. It happens. Yeah, in theory, it could be that, except for the fact that the Bible one takes all the details from the Sumerian one, thousand years after, translated in several languages. So, the most likely is the Hebrew scripts just paste and copy a nice story from a ancient book and adapted it.

I fully understand, you start with a anti god worldview, so than of course you done believe in "fairy tales". But this clouds how you view evidence and interpret it, that is why you claim as you do, because in your mind there is no god or divine book, so it must be copied from other "fairy tales". Than you have to claim facts [jews copied] that you cant support.

brenus- please i know your full in your worldview, but please at least read the two accounts and show me were you can support this

"the Bible one takes all the details from the Sumerian one, thousand years after, translated in several languages"

this shows as i suspected,you have never even read the accounts, instead have accepted and assumed what you have been told is true, because you liked the conclusion of it. This is terrible way to find truth [i think you want nothing of truth] to reject a position because your religious worldview and biases.

“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge
The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15

brenus claim
that jews copied creation/flood account- this is a completely undemostrated assumption.

facts to ignore

simply read them both much different than what brenus claims [he has never read them]

segments of Samaritan

Apsu, the freshwater ocean male deity, mates with Ti’amat, the saltwater ocean goddess, yielding offspring which are a host of lesser deities representing various aspects of nature. However, Apsu becomes irritated with their noise and resolves to destroy them, but he fails, and is killed by Ea the god of wisdom (l.68–69). Ea in turn fathers the god Marduk (figure 4). Ti’amat becomes enraged, and gives birth to a host of dragons to fight Marduk; but Marduk, not intimidated by Ti’amat’s threats, gathers the other gods together in a great banquet, and they resolve on war with Ti’amat, with Marduk as their representative. So a great war erupts, from which Marduk emerges victorious by killing Ti’amat. He first splits Ti’amat’s skull open with his mace, and then splits her whole body. The upper half he makes into the sky; the lower half into the earth. From this chaos comes order: the sun, moon, and stars appear, and the calendar is formed. Finally, there is Qingu, Ti’amat’s general. Marduk speaks to Ea of his desire to make man, who will wait on the gods so that the latter can rest. Marduk addresses both the Igigi (sky gods) and the Anunnaki (underworld gods), and the Igigi reply that since Qingu started the war, he should therefore pay the penalty. Marduk slays Qingu, takes his blood and some earth, and makes man. Then the Anunnaki toil to create Babylon, and the Esagila, one of the prime temples in Babylon. Finally, Tablet VII relates the fifty names of Marduk in order to exalt the patron deity of Babylon:With fifty epithets the great godsCalled his fifty names, making his way supreme

now read Genesis
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NKJV

The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC. But the internal evidence shows no sign of this, and every sign of being written for people who had just come out of Egypt. The Eurocentric inventors of the Documentary Hypothesis, such as Julius Wellhausen, thought that writing hadn’t been invented by Moses’ time. But many archaeological discoveries of ancient writing show that this is ludicrous.

-why would jews adopt views of their enemy, when there own history/culture says it wrong? multiple gods etc
-it starts with the [B]assumption, there is no biblical god that could revel his truth of creation to moses and earlier jews [adam,noah abraham etc] so then who even cares, if we start with assumption of no god, than if the jews copied or not does not matter as genesis would not be divinely inspired, the very question at hand.

-the further back to creation you go the more the similarities in creation accounts.Writings from 2600 b c 1,000 years before moses
biblical creation account must have been derived before older and different sources than Sumerians
halloww 1970 antediluvian cities journal of cuneiform studies 23,65,66

- Samaritan copy of jewish Pentateuch is written in ancient form of Hebrew that proceeds exile in 6th century.
-most ancient copy contains over 2,000 corruptions from original jewish manuscript, very unlikely to make copy soon after return.
-unlikely Samaritans would make a copy of Jewish writings at all, hostile between the two.
- Marduk is a fashioner, not a true creator

-The final overall point concerns the chronological setting of what we might call “origins literature” in the Ancient Near East. K.A. Kitchen argues that this is clearly the early 2nd millennium BC, as opposed to later periods of Near Eastern history.He then concludes:

“In short, the idea that the Hebrews in captivity in Nebuchadrezzar’s Babylon (6th century BC) first ‘borrowed’ the content of early Genesis at that late date is a non-starter.”
the early second millennium BC (and earlier) is the period for Mesopotamian—and Hebrew—‘origins literature’, and not later.

Battle elements. Genesis does not envision creation as a war of the gods.
Pantheistic elements. Genesis does not talk about natural elements as gods.
Creative activity as sexual activity. Genesis does not describe God’s creation in this way.
Poetic language. Genesis does not have “synonymous parallelism” (restating the same idea in two ways) in every description.
Reference to time. Genesis speaks of creation “in the beginning” and “days,” contrary to myths, which speak more about seasons.

Leroy Waterman, “Cosmogonic Affinities in Genesis 1:2,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 43, no. 3 (April 1, 1927): 181. Waterman argues that Genesis is unique in that it depersonalizes all the forces of nature. An easy-to-read reference is John Oswalt’s The Bible among the Myths (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009).
Jakob H. Gronbaek, “Baal’s Battle with Yam-A Canaanite Creation Fight,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (1985): 27–44.

-The first observation is that this is a political document, setting forth why Babylon is the pre-eminent city in the world with its pre-eminent deity, Marduk, as opposed to Anu or Ea or whoever. As such it constituted part of ritual for the Akitu new-year festival which re-confirmed the kingship for the coming year. Genesis 1 has no such function, and assertions to the contrary—commonly alleged by critical or secular scholars—are merely circular reasoning.

-Fourth, Enuma Elish has no six-days-plus-one format. The seven tablets of the epic are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with days (or long periods either, for that matter). In this respect (among many others) Genesis 1 stands alone and unique in the ancient world.

-Second, it is a theogony rather than a cosmogony, that is, its basic intent is to explain the origin of gods rather than the origin of the universe, where the latter is more of an afterthought. Thus the major part of Tablets I–V relate the generation of gods and their fierce battles, with a small section at the end of Tablet IV (figure 2) about the creation of the cosmos. The main part of “creation” story occurs in Tablet VI, relating the origin of man and the establishment of the various temples. In fact, Stephanie Dalley of Oxford University argues that the original story was not a creation story at all—that element was incorporated later.
Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford, pp.233–77, 1988.

assuming genesis was written after [ i dont believe so].
Maybe it was done so to correct the false teachings of other nations, to show the correct account.

total relism

03-15-2014, 12:44

I just wanted to post this for people who take brenus claim as truth without looking into it.

brenus claim
that jews copied creation/flood account- this is a completely undemostrated assumption.

facts to ignore

simply read them both much different than what brenus claims [he has never read them]

segments of Samaritan

Apsu, the freshwater ocean male deity, mates with Ti’amat, the saltwater ocean goddess, yielding offspring which are a host of lesser deities representing various aspects of nature. However, Apsu becomes irritated with their noise and resolves to destroy them, but he fails, and is killed by Ea the god of wisdom (l.68–69). Ea in turn fathers the god Marduk (figure 4). Ti’amat becomes enraged, and gives birth to a host of dragons to fight Marduk; but Marduk, not intimidated by Ti’amat’s threats, gathers the other gods together in a great banquet, and they resolve on war with Ti’amat, with Marduk as their representative. So a great war erupts, from which Marduk emerges victorious by killing Ti’amat. He first splits Ti’amat’s skull open with his mace, and then splits her whole body. The upper half he makes into the sky; the lower half into the earth. From this chaos comes order: the sun, moon, and stars appear, and the calendar is formed. Finally, there is Qingu, Ti’amat’s general. Marduk speaks to Ea of his desire to make man, who will wait on the gods so that the latter can rest. Marduk addresses both the Igigi (sky gods) and the Anunnaki (underworld gods), and the Igigi reply that since Qingu started the war, he should therefore pay the penalty. Marduk slays Qingu, takes his blood and some earth, and makes man. Then the Anunnaki toil to create Babylon, and the Esagila, one of the prime temples in Babylon. Finally, Tablet VII relates the fifty names of Marduk in order to exalt the patron deity of Babylon:With fifty epithets the great godsCalled his fifty names, making his way supreme

now read Genesis
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC. But the internal evidence shows no sign of this, and every sign of being written for people who had just come out of Egypt. The Eurocentric inventors of the Documentary Hypothesis, such as Julius Wellhausen, thought that writing hadn’t been invented by Moses’ time. But many archaeological discoveries of ancient writing show that this is ludicrous.

-why would jews adopt views of their enemy, when there own history/culture says it wrong? multiple gods etc
-it starts with the assumption, there is no biblical god that could revel his truth of creation to moses and earlier jews [adam,noah abraham etc] so then who even cares, if we start with assumption of no god, than if the jews copied or not does not matter as genesis would not be divinely inspired, the very question at hand.

-the further back to creation you go the more the similarities in creation accounts.Writings from 2600 b c 1,000 years before moses
biblical creation account must have been derived before older and different sources than Sumerians
halloww 1970 antediluvian cities journal of cuneiform studies 23,65,66

- Samaritan copy of jewish Pentateuch is written in ancient form of Hebrew that proceeds exile in 6th century.
-most ancient copy contains over 2,000 corruptions from original jewish manuscript, very unlikely to make copy soon after return.
-unlikely Samaritans would make a copy of Jewish writings at all, hostile between the two.

- Marduk is a fashioner, not a true creator

-The final overall point concerns the chronological setting of what we might call “origins literature” in the Ancient Near East.[B] K.A. Kitchen argues that this is clearly the early 2nd millennium BC, as opposed to later periods of Near Eastern history.He then concludes:

“In short, the idea that the Hebrews in captivity in Nebuchadrezzar’s Babylon (6th century BC) first ‘borrowed’ the content of early Genesis at that late date is a non-starter.”
the early second millennium BC (and earlier) is the period for Mesopotamian—and Hebrew—‘origins literature’, and not later.

Battle elements. Genesis does not envision creation as a war of the gods.
Pantheistic elements. Genesis does not talk about natural elements as gods.
Creative activity as sexual activity. Genesis does not describe God’s creation in this way.
Poetic language. Genesis does not have “synonymous parallelism” (restating the same idea in two ways) in every description.
Reference to time. Genesis speaks of creation “in the beginning” and “days,” contrary to myths, which speak more about seasons.

Leroy Waterman, “Cosmogonic Affinities in Genesis 1:2,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 43, no. 3 (April 1, 1927): 181. Waterman argues that Genesis is unique in that it depersonalizes all the forces of nature. An easy-to-read reference is John Oswalt’s The Bible among the Myths (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009).
Jakob H. Gronbaek, “Baal’s Battle with Yam-A Canaanite Creation Fight,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (1985): 27–44.

-The first observation is that this is a political document, setting forth why Babylon is the pre-eminent city in the world with its pre-eminent deity, Marduk, as opposed to Anu or Ea or whoever. As such it constituted part of ritual for the Akitu new-year festival which re-confirmed the kingship for the coming year. Genesis 1 has no such function, and assertions to the contrary—commonly alleged by critical or secular scholars—are merely circular reasoning.

-Fourth, Enuma Elish has no six-days-plus-one format. The seven tablets of the epic are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with days (or long periods either, for that matter). In this respect (among many others) Genesis 1 stands alone and unique in the ancient world.

-Second, it is a theogony rather than a cosmogony, that is, its basic intent is to explain the origin of gods rather than the origin of the universe, where the latter is more of an afterthought. Thus the major part of Tablets I–V relate the generation of gods and their fierce battles, with a small section at the end of Tablet IV (figure 2) about the creation of the cosmos. The main part of “creation” story occurs in Tablet VI, relating the origin of man and the establishment of the various temples. In fact, Stephanie Dalley of Oxford University argues that the original story was not a creation story at all—that element was incorporated later.
Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford, pp.233–77, 1988.

assuming genesis was written after [ i dont believe so].
Maybe it was done so to correct the false teachings of other nations, to show the correct account.

Brenus

03-15-2014, 15:08

total relism

03-15-2014, 18:29

“he has never read them”. :laugh4:
The Jews just adapt the tale for their own purpose. Deal with it. So, all the discrepancies are due to the fact that the Jewish script(s) had to adapt a tale from a polytheist society to a monotheist society. And all “studies” from the bilbegateway are de facto non-sense. The key-word is “adapt”, based upon, like when you watch Troy on TV and read the Iliad: Same story, adaptation.

Both Stories have the same pattern: Motive, Warning, Construction of the Arch, Flooding/deluge, Birds, leaving the Arch, Sacrifice to God(s), God(s) blessing and God(s) promise/alliance. All the rest, as use of vocabulary is smoke screen,

For for information, I read the book in French. So, by definition I will have different interpretations. And it is the same for the Jewish Script, from whatever languages he translated the story from.

notice what he did there, he avoided all presented,made more baseless claims [jews copied] avoided the clear fact he had never read the two by his earlier statment made
""the Bible one takes all the details from the Sumerian one, thousand years after, translated in several languages""

makes more baseless claims, than points to a argument for a global flood often used by creationist [coming soon].

“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

it is clear evidence does not matter to those like brenus, all that matters is that the bible is incorrect and he will twist anything to fit his worldview.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
romans 1

Idaho

03-15-2014, 19:04

I just started reading the bible. I got as far as Genesis 1.29. Cool. I'm off to plant some ganga and opium.

Brenus

03-15-2014, 19:28

“notice what he did there, he avoided all presented,made more baseless claims [jews copied] avoided the clear fact he had never read the two by his earlier statment made”.
Ahhh, now we are in the “smear” campaign… Hmm: I will make it clear (as I did but apparently TR English is becoming deficient): I read in FRENCH the Book of Gilgamesh.
Now, TR is so corned (and up-set) than he resorts to claim that I am lying, and he KNOWS my intention.
I present all evidences that the Book of Gilgamesh and the Bible are very similar and explain why some details had changed (language and adaptation from Poly to Monotheism).
All what your so-called studies just do the same than you, thinking that repetition make truth. I read them (not all, I confess, too boring and all this non-sense…, in English and in French).

TR, for info, the Flood never happened. It is a tale, a Myth.
I do not give more value to the account of Gilgamesh or the one from the Bible.

You prefer to avoid reality and run away from contradiction in your own books in order to keep for faith. It is what I said from the start, and you prove my “predictions” true more than I was expecting, thanks.

Pannonian

03-15-2014, 20:04

total relism

03-15-2014, 20:09

I just started reading the bible. I got as far as Genesis 1.29. Cool. I'm off to plant some ganga and opium.

but more important, do it seem similar to the account of Gilgamesh ?. Coming from someone who enjoyed the fruits of god creation alittel to much....... i swear by it, but does pot cause slight Hallucinations for yourself? i say yes, but many say not true, it did for me.

“notice what he did there, he avoided all presented,made more baseless claims [jews copied] avoided the clear fact he had never read the two by his earlier statment made”.
Ahhh, now we are in the “smear” campaign… Hmm: I will make it clear (as I did but apparently TR English is becoming deficient): I read in FRENCH the Book of Gilgamesh.
Now, TR is so corned (and up-set) than he resorts to claim that I am lying, and he KNOWS my intention.
I present all evidences that the Book of Gilgamesh and the Bible are very similar and explain why some details had changed (language and adaptation from Poly to Monotheism).
All what your so-called studies just do the same than you, thinking that repetition make truth. I read them (not all, I confess, too boring and all this non-sense…, in English and in French).

TR, for info, the Flood never happened. It is a tale, a Myth.
I do not give more value to the account of Gilgamesh or the one from the Bible.

You prefer to avoid reality and run away from contradiction in your own books in order to keep for faith. It is what I said from the start, and you prove my “predictions” true more than I was expecting, thanks.

I am sorry i never meant to [never did imo] attack you in any way. I cannot believe you did read the epic in any language [maybe if you dont know french lol] given your claims made, that is all i have to go buy. I have learned those who deny god, often lie whenever they feel it helps [after all no reason not to, 10 commandments are not from god there is no absolute morale law saying dont lie] so when you say

"""the Bible one takes all the details from the Sumerian one, thousand years after, translated in several languages""

i can only take you at your word, given this and other claims to me its clear you have never read either [up to know likely].

you said
"I present all evidences that the Book of Gilgamesh and the Bible are very similar and explain why some details had changed (language and adaptation from Poly to Monotheism"

i presented them both,showing extreme dissimilarities,showing hebrew was first,showing that the claim you make is baseless, you posted neither of them, just claimed they were the same for all to trust you. Many [and i] showed that even if hebrew was later, it still does nothing to prove your claim. As that can be exspalined in other ways. Difrences happen as i sited article, because both come from earlier historic monotheistic thought, that was changed by Babylonians later..

you said
TR, for info, the Flood never happened. It is a tale, a Myth

Begging the question
another baseless claim with no support, you are very good with these. You will have your chance to support this in upcoming thread. But as will be true there as well, your worldview [not evidence] drives your conclusions.

you said
You prefer to avoid reality and run away from contradiction in your own books in order to keep for faith. It is what I said from the start, and you prove my “predictions” true more than I was expecting, thanks.

clear "red herring
no idea what your referring to,but let me guess, a atheist website or phd told you there was contradictions, they gave what seem to be, you enjoyed the conclusion and accepted by faith without looking into it [just as with these accounts and comparisons you clearly did not read] . You run away from clear truth to keep your faith as you have shown.

total relism

03-15-2014, 20:13

You can't blame total relism for being unfamiliar with reality, as he can't even spell the word.

ad hominem

this thread is becoming disappointing, facts out the window and resulting in logical fallacies.

please let me in on this amazing reality,that can change creation accounts that differ greatly and change time and wording of them and go back in time and make one copy the other [yet change the whole thing,point,topic etc] i call it a fantasy,faith,not sure what,false maybe?.

Pannonian

03-15-2014, 20:21

ad hominem

this thread is becoming disappointing, facts out the window and resulting in logical fallacies.

please let me in on this amazing reality,that can change creation accounts that differ greatly and change time and wording of them and go back in time and make one copy the other [yet change the whole thing,point,topic etc] i call it a fantasy,faith,not sure what,false maybe?.

It would be hard to charge you with logical fallacy. One would have to sort through your numerous grammatical fallacies first before one can make out what kind of logical argument you're trying to put forward.

Kadagar_AV

03-15-2014, 20:41

OK, who gave TR the link to the logical fallacies?? :stare:

Brenus

03-15-2014, 22:23

"showing hebrew was first": Non-sense
Basic archaeology: Stones tools were invented and used before the Iron one because it is more simple to make tools from stone than from iron as iron needs the development of several technology and knowledge.
It is the same for the material where we can write. Caves wall are perfect but can't be moved. So humans founded new media, and the Clay tablets being one of the media. Clay tablets were used before papyrus or Animals Skins as it is easy to write on it, and to shape. And when baked, it stay as new for a long time (if not broken by pillaging barbarians)So, when you find a library full of Clay Tablets that means it is older than a library full of papyrus.
We don't have any Clay Tablets with texts from the Bible. We have Clay Tablets for the book of Gilgamesh. So, Book of Gilgamesh is older than Bible, like a Bronze axe is older than Iron axe but newer that a Stone axe.
Before you ask, the older Jewish Clay Tablet is dated from the 14 Century BC, which is after the fall of the Sumerian Civilisation (oldest Sumerian Clay Tablet is 6000 BC). The book of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the oldest written story on Earth. It was originally written on 12 clay tablets in cunieform script (somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE).

Kadagar_AV

03-15-2014, 22:26

TR, you are aware that you are the one making a claim that "the flood" existed.

Thus, it comes to YOU to prove it.

Be my guest.

The idea is quite honestly laughable.

Beskar

03-16-2014, 01:33

There is an old argument about a flood existing, originating from Babylonian mythology and there was some evidence. However, it was a large localised flooding, nothing global spanning.

Kadagar_AV

03-16-2014, 01:41

There is an old argument about a flood existing, originating from Babylonian mythology and there was some evidence. However, it was a large localised flooding, nothing global spanning.

Yepp, don't get me wrong. I am sure that somewhere in history a local area was flooded. We see it every day.

Now, as to a world wide flood... And an Ark... <- It is, to put it very mildly, rubbish.

total relism

03-16-2014, 02:31

TR, you are aware that you are the one making a claim that "the flood" existed.

Thus, it comes to YOU to prove it.

Be my guest.

The idea is quite honestly laughable.

while i indeed say yes to a global flood [with large amounts of evidence] i never said it on my op, that is for next thread. So stay tuned.

"showing hebrew was first": Non-sense
Basic archaeology: Stones tools were invented and used before the Iron one because it is more simple to make tools from stone than from iron as iron needs the development of several technology and knowledge.
It is the same for the material where we can write. Caves wall are perfect but can't be moved. So humans founded new media, and the Clay tablets being one of the media. Clay tablets were used before papyrus or Animals Skins as it is easy to write on it, and to shape. And when baked, it stay as new for a long time (if not broken by pillaging barbarians)So, when you find a library full of Clay Tablets that means it is older than a library full of papyrus.
We don't have any Clay Tablets with texts from the Bible. We have Clay Tablets for the book of Gilgamesh. So, Book of Gilgamesh is older than Bible, like a Bronze axe is older than Iron axe but newer that a Stone axe.
Before you ask, the older Jewish Clay Tablet is dated from the 14 Century BC, which is after the fall of the Sumerian Civilisation (oldest Sumerian Clay Tablet is 6000 BC). The book of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the oldest written story on Earth. It was originally written on 12 clay tablets in cunieform script (somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE).

do you not see your assumption even assuming all you say is true? There are civilizations around today that dont have technology of USA or europe, yet are older. There are cases of people losing technology and going "backwards", so your dating is based 100% on assumptions [even if generally true] are not absolute. No to mention going off what we do have in archaeology does not equal what we dont have. There is famous saying in archaeology [forget who dont ask] said absence of evidence is not evidence against.

but i am glad to see you have moved the goalpost, you no longer defend isreal copying in 6th century bc it seems. That is the date that is important, did jews creation acount predate this time period that it is claimed they copied, the answer is yes, for the many reasons i gave earlier you ignored [or at least did not respond to]. Not to mention the whole idea of coping either jews were worse in world, or they never did [something your worldview cant accept]. To anyone who reads the text in full, i cant help but think they are not so willing to believe your claims as yourself.

Brenus

03-16-2014, 09:40

HoreTore

03-16-2014, 10:25

There is an old argument about a flood existing, originating from Babylonian mythology and there was some evidence. However, it was a large localised flooding, nothing global spanning.

All early civilizations arose around a river. They were based on the annual flooding, but a larger-than-normal flooding would spell doom.

It's no surprise that you'll find myths concerning a giant flood in each of these civilizations. It was the ultimate fear of these civilizations.

ad hominem

this thread is becoming disappointing, facts out the window and resulting in logical fallacies.

Nonsense. Again, don't play with fallacies until you're older, son. Ad hominem is concerned with an argument. More specifically, it is when someone tries to disquise an attack upon a person as an argument against their case.

Pannonian made a remark on your person which he did not try to disguise as an argument against your case. Thus, this is not an example of an ad hominem argument.

Anyway, you wrote in your OP:

Just as the whole bible was, it is confirmed by archeology over and over,confirming people,places,events at various times throughout biblical history.

I have attempted to debate this point, but you refused to comment on the contradictory statements of Matthew and Luke concerning the date of Jesus' birth. So, I'll try another:

The exodus is a made up story. The Jewish people were never held in captivity in Egypt. The story is not found anywhere else than in the bible, and the Egyptians were very keen on recording their history. There is no mention of hardships for Egypt in the time the plagues supposedly took place, nor is there a reference to an army being lost. There is no archeological evidence of any Jewish presence in Egypt, and there's a wealth of evidence saying the Jews were in palestine the entire time. The places the jews supposedly stayed at during their 40 years in the desert did not exist until centuries later than when it supposedly took place. The bible, usually extremely anal about naming people, does not name the chief antagonist of the story, the Pharaoh.

In conclusion, the story was made up at a later date to justify jewish dominance over palestine. It is a political, not a historical, story.

ICantSpellDawg

03-16-2014, 11:24

Whacker

03-16-2014, 11:34

So.... anyone else like basket weaving? I'm really thinking about getting into that.

total relism

03-16-2014, 14:02

“you no longer defend isreal copying in 6th century bc it seems” Err, I never gave a date as it is, first, irrelevant, and, second, I have no indication of when the Jewish Script(s) decided to incorporate the Sumerian Myth in the Bible.

“There are civilizations around today that dont have technology of USA or europe, yet are older.” True, but irrelevant. If theses civilisations want to reach the level of Europe or USA, they will have to learn and developed the same skills. So, they will still have to learn the several technologies to make possible the development of a new technology.

“absence of evidence is not evidence against.” Nice try. Do try this in a Court of Justice. I have no evidence you kill your neighbour, doesn’t prove you didn’t kill him/her. In our case, even if the neighbour is still alive.

well since you seem unaware of your own claim [not a surprise given you never read accounts] i shall enlighten you.

The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC. But the internal evidence shows no sign of this, and every sign of being written for people who had just come out of Egypt. The Eurocentric inventors of the Documentary Hypothesis, such as Julius Wellhausen, thought that writing hadn’t been invented by Moses’ time. But many archaeological discoveries of ancient writing show that this is ludicrous..

so if not than when did they copy from them? jews copied a story from enemies at a time they were separate because?

civilizations
missed whole point, when is what is important,age, you own statement proves what i said to be true. That technology does not equal perfect age.

“absence of evidence is not evidence against
that is why i said in archaeology.

All early civilizations arose around a river. They were based on the annual flooding, but a larger-than-normal flooding would spell doom.

It's no surprise that you'll find myths concerning a giant flood in each of these civilizations. It was the ultimate fear of these civilizations.

Nonsense. Again, don't play with fallacies until you're older, son. Ad hominem is concerned with an argument. More specifically, it is when someone tries to disquise an attack upon a person as an argument against their case.

Pannonian made a remark on your person which he did not try to disguise as an argument against your case. Thus, this is not an example of an ad hominem argument.

Anyway, you wrote in your OP:

I have attempted to debate this point, but you refused to comment on the contradictory statements of Matthew and Luke concerning the date of Jesus' birth. So, I'll try another:

The exodus is a made up story. The Jewish people were never held in captivity in Egypt. The story is not found anywhere else than in the bible, and the Egyptians were very keen on recording their history. There is no mention of hardships for Egypt in the time the plagues supposedly took place, nor is there a reference to an army being lost. There is no archeological evidence of any Jewish presence in Egypt, and there's a wealth of evidence saying the Jews were in palestine the entire time. The places the jews supposedly stayed at during their 40 years in the desert did not exist until centuries later than when it supposedly took place. The bible, usually extremely anal about naming people, does not name the chief antagonist of the story, the Pharaoh.

In conclusion, the story was made up at a later date to justify jewish dominance over palestine. It is a political, not a historical, story.

coming from someone who has committed many logical fallacies [53] than claim i committed a strawman [64] warned me to wait till i was older to use logical fallacies. Only to than admit you were wrong and i did not commit it [80] claimed another logical fallacies goalpost [74,refuted 80, showed you dont read post b-4 commenting] than commited one more on 114 that i did not even feel needed responding to.

ad hominem
while i agree with what you said, if you read post 159 [this seems common you always miss what starts discussion and come to wrong conclusion]. he was using the personal attack [spelling grammar] as a response to what i had sed in argument against brenus i believe that he quoted.

I have attempted to debate this point, but you refused to comment on the contradictory statements of Matthew and Luke concerning the date of Jesus' birth. So, I'll try another:

This is a contradiction claim,not archaeological claim.

The exodus is a made up story.The exodus is a made up story. The Jewish people were never held in captivity in Egypt. The story is not found anywhere else than in the bible, and the Egyptians were very keen on recording their history. There is no mention of hardships for Egypt in the time the plagues supposedly took place, nor is there a reference to an army being lost. There is no archeological evidence of any Jewish presence in Egypt, and there's a wealth of evidence saying the Jews were in palestine the entire time. The places the jews supposedly stayed at during their 40 years in the desert did not exist until centuries later than when it supposedly took place. The bible, usually extremely anal about naming people, does not name the chief antagonist of the story, the Pharaoh.In conclusion, the story was made up at a later date to justify jewish dominance over palestine. It is a political, not a historical, story.

I agree 100% with you actually. That is because you follow the traditional timeline current held by most, if true i agree than that would make your whole point good and valid. If the traditional timeline [that is unknown by created and built on assumptions and has horrible problems etc] than the time of the exodus is wrong. I am busy now to get into details i will leave you some references to look over at moment. I believe once the current chronology is changed by 150 or maybe 350 years [it has been awhile] the evidence for the exodus goes from zero to amazing. More and more secular archaeologist and universities are teaching the reduced chronologies such as Cambridge and others.

Egyptian dating

Egyptian dating

the Egyptian dating is always being lowered to a earlier date.
It cannot match up with other countries writing with its current extended date

-the Egyptians did not record history they get it from temple walls
-there are 5 kings list which contradict each other and all have gaps as well
-manethos king list is not chronological, there are many at same time overlapping, it was several kings reining at the same time In different regions. He assumed the pharoes reigns were consecutive coming to a extended chronology. But some of these kings were ruling at the same time but different kingdoms. The upper,middle and lower kingdom, sometimes fathers and sons reigned together for long periods of time.
-A few recent books have been written challenging current accepted date to shorten Egyptian dates.
-Cambridge is now teaching reduced age and other scholars are as well
-link below shows many problems with Egyptian chronology and why it needs to be shortened
-many countries match up, but than differ with Egypt current extended age
unmasking the pharoahs david down 2006

Also there kings list is not very accurate it has problems with matching other country's writings, also the bibles kings list names kings places and dates through there whole list so which should we listen to?

England's top archaeologist professor Colin renfew of Cambridge supports the reduced chronology of Egypt and in his book centuries of darkness said “That a chronological revolution is on its way”
http://www.amazon.com/Centuries-Darkness-Challenge-Chronology-Archaeology/dp/HYPERLINK
josh mcdowell kings list ot reliability video free online video on reliability of bibles kings list
http://www.josh.org/site/c.ddKDIMNtEqG/b.HYPERLINK "http://www.josh.org/site/c.ddKDIMNtEqG/b.4172663/k.624E/Can_I_Trust_the_Bible.htm"4172663HYPERLINK

LOWERING THE DATESThe very earliest Egyptian date would be the one assigned to the beginning of its first dynasty. Menes was the first king. Cerem, in his Gods, Graves, and Scholars, tells us that the date assigned to that earliest Egyptian event, as estimated by several scholars, has gradually lowered with the passing of time: Champollian - 5867 B.C. / Lesueur -5770 B.C. / Bokh - 5702 B.C. / Unger - 5613 B.C. / Mariette - 5004 B.C. / Brugsch - 4455 B.C. / Lauth - 4157 B.C. / Chabas - 4000 B.C. / Lapsius - 3890 B.C. / Bunsen - 3623 B.C. / Breasted - 3400 B.C. / George Steindorff - 3200 B.C. / Eduard Meyer - 3180 B.C. / Wilkinson -2320 B.C. / Palmer - 2224 B.C.

At the present time that earliest of Egyptian dates is considered to be c. 3100 B.C., with some considering 2900 B.C. still better.

"In the course of a single century's research, the earliest date in Egyptian historythat of Egypt's unification under King Meneshas plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C. and not even the latter year has been established beyond doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?" Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204.

Ancient Egyptian Chronology and the Book of Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/egyptian-chronology-genesis

#The analyses suggest the rise to statehood occurred between 200 and 300 years faster than previously thought, beginning between 3800 B.C. and 3700 B.C., rather than the past estimate of 4000 B.C.#
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/who-ruled-ancient-egypt-when-most-precise-timeline-yet-8C11071362

http://creation.com/timing-is-everything good article on Egyptian dating

this would be good for exodus

Dr. Bryant Wood presents evidence that refutes five criticisms of the Bible. Criticism #1: There is no evidence for the presence of the Israelites in Egypt. #2: There was no capital at Rameses for the Israelites to depart from. #3: There is no evidence for the route, date and nature of the Exodus. #4: Jericho was not occupied when the Israelites entered Canaan. #5: The city of Ai recorded in Joshua 7-8 shows no evidence for destruction as the Bible records it
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/bookstore/product.aspx?id=129

Unwrapping the Pharaohs
http://www.amazon.com/Unwrapping-Pharaohs-Egyptian-Archaeology-Confirms/dp/0890514682

Kadagar_AV

03-16-2014, 14:16

while i indeed say yes to a global flood [with large amounts of evidence] i never said it on my op, that is for next thread. So stay tuned.

No way, that's not how things are run here.

You cant make idiotic claims, completely unsupported, and expect people to move on with a vague statement of "future thread".

Your threads SO FAR have been laughed out because of their absurdity, and your lack of understanding when questioned upon them. Is the future thread you talk about of the same quality?

Your style of argumentation is completely idiotic, rinse and repeat and MAYBE I start taking your seriously.

total relism

03-16-2014, 14:19

I am a Catholic. The largest Christian denomination on the planet earth accepts the theory of evolution. Most other denominations that I know of do as well. Likewise, the big bang theory is accepted. Science explains the how, my faith explains the why.

If anyone here has theological questions, your best bet is to sit through a Mass or service and listen to the homily. I recomend that you do this with a single question per week for the rest of your life at a church that provides you with peace. You should also speak to scholars from other religions for a deeper understanding.

The answers from people who don't despise the Bible will be very different from the answers provided on a Total War forum.

here is from a catholic creation site, would be good for you.

The Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation
http://www.kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/

Evolution and Revisionist Catholicism
http://www.kolbecenter.org/evolution-and-revisionist-catholicism/

WHY FAITHFUL CATHOLICS SHOULD OPPOSE EVOLUTION
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt28.html#II

your denomination makes no claim and says either creation/evolution could be true.

you said
Science explains the how

I agree fully, this is better for another thread though. It is science that caused me to become a creationist and reject evolution.

You should also speak to scholars from other religions for a deeper understanding.
I do,but what understanding do you believe they have? is it not a false understanding?

The answers from people who don't despise the Bible will be very different from the answers provided on a Total War forum.
I agree with that, but i go places people hate god [twc,here other places] on purpose.

total relism

03-16-2014, 14:22

No way, that's not how things are run here.

You cant make idiotic claims, completely unsupported, and expect people to move on with a vague statement of "future thread".

Your threads SO FAR have been laughed out because of their absurdity, and your lack of understanding when questioned upon them. Is the future thread you talk about of the same quality?

Your style of argumentation is completely idiotic, rinse and repeat and MAYBE I start taking your seriously.

sorry you feel that way, but when people say things [no evidence for flood etc] i simply tell them of a future thread coming if they are interested that disagrees with them and can come and talk etc. I think it is a good idea to stay on topic of thread it may be crazy, but that i think is the general idea of having a topic and op of a thread. If things are indeed run different here [please link rules for forum] let me know and i will change.

Kadagar_AV

03-16-2014, 14:26

sorry you feel that way, but when people say things [no evidence for flood etc] i simply tell them of a future thread coming if they are interested that disagrees with them and can come and talk etc. I think it is a good idea to stay on topic of thread it may be crazy, but that i think is the general idea of having a topic and op of a thread.

The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.

AGAIN, your last threads have been shot down, argumentatively speaking. So it's not like you have some stellar history that leaves some room for doubt.

On the contrary, people expect to read lunatic ramblings from a madman when opening up your threads. So show the cards you have, or shut up and leave the game.

Hax

03-16-2014, 14:39

How does this thread have nine pages?

total relism

03-16-2014, 15:36

The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.

AGAIN, your last threads have been shot down, argumentatively speaking. So it's not like you have some stellar history that leaves some room for doubt.

On the contrary, people expect to read lunatic ramblings from a madman when opening up your threads. So show the cards you have, or shut up and leave the game.

The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.

apply to yourself, someone claims no evidence for noahs flood,no global flood, yet does not provide anything for claim. I say there is, that leads us off topic for a future great thread.

The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.
you claim my past threads have been shot down. Please apply here, please show me on any thread [on the thread you claim] were it has been shot down as you baseless claim.

you wont be able to support any of your claims without not responding and ignoring refutations. That is why any claim you make of my threads being shot down, i can just show counter post you ignored or did not read.

The rest is just clear case of you wanting me to shut up, given your history on my threads i dont blame you one bit.

HoreTore

03-16-2014, 16:15

coming from someone who has committed many logical fallacies [53] than claim i committed a strawman [64] warned me to wait till i was older to use logical fallacies. Only to than admit you were wrong and i did not commit it [80] claimed another logical fallacies goalpost [74,refuted 80, showed you dont read post b-4 commenting] than commited one more on 114 that i did not even feel needed responding to.

ad hominem
while i agree with what you said, if you read post 159 [this seems common you always miss what starts discussion and come to wrong conclusion]. he was using the personal attack [spelling grammar] as a response to what i had sed in argument against brenus i believe that he quoted.

lol, this is just too funny. As I have said several times already, don't play around with fallacies until you're older. It would be preferable for you to get some knowledge of mathematics and/or logic before you do.

You could say that Brenus' comment of your struggles with reality was an ad hominem attack. Pannonian's comment, however, was simply an expansion of Brenus' attack on you, while not dealing with any of Brenus arguments at all. It is thus a pure personal attack, and so fails the definition of an ad hominem. It was nothing more than an assertion of your complete lack of education.

If I were you, I would also focus on actually reading the posts made by others, instead of trying to figure out whether or not someone else is reading them.

I agree 100% with you actually. That is because you follow the traditional timeline current held by most, if true i agree than that would make your whole point good and valid. If the traditional timeline [that is unknown by created and built on assumptions and has horrible problems etc] than the time of the exodus is wrong. I am busy now to get into details i will leave you some references to look over at moment. I believe once the current chronology is changed by 150 or maybe 350 years [it has been awhile] the evidence for the exodus goes from zero to amazing. More and more secular archaeologist and universities are teaching the reduced chronologies such as Cambridge and others.

Moving the timeline by 150-350 years moves the exodus from the category of "impossible" to "impossible and absurd". Congratulations.

The main facts are:
1. There is no evidence whatsoever of any hebrew presence in Egypt
2. There is no evidence of over half a million people milling about the Sinai for 40 years, nor is there any evidence of the major incidents mentioned, like the demise of Pharaos(who is "curiously" not named) army
3. There is plenty of evidence of a continued Hebrew presence in Palestine.

The exodus is a clear political document, made up to justify all the raping, pillaging and slaughtering committed by the israelites when they asserted their dominance in Palestine. In that regard, it is similar to other claims, like Rome's claim of a Trojan beginning.

I would strongly suggest you get some education before you try to deal with tricky subjects like archeology, history and biology.

Brenus

03-16-2014, 16:21

“i shall enlighten you.” When did I give a date? Copy and paste, you know how to do it.

“The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC” You assume I took it from your source, but no, and I assume nothing. I find it all by myself (just reading things and thinking. You should try). Don’t assume what, how and from where others take or reach conclusion, this would be a good start.
Note: To highlight stupidities doesn’t make them realities. A succession of absolutes lies or refusal to recognise archaeological finding doesn’t make a lie true. I gave the dates, proved by sciences, you come-up with verbs.

"I would strongly suggest you get some education before you try to deal with tricky subjects like archeology, history and biology." and others...

ICantSpellDawg

03-16-2014, 17:18

I don't make arguments about Genesis or Exodus. I take the Bible as an extremely important book in understanding the nature of man with the inspiration of God as the source, recorded with man's hand. Inconsistencies don't keep me up at night and do not pre-occupy me. Again, reason is extremely important in Catholic Theology and the Church that I know is open to knowledge and understanding.

Biblical fundamentalism is alien to me. I have only ever met one person who believed that God or Satan planted dinosaur bones in order to trick us into old earth heresy. That person had a fist sized piece of their brain removed. I do not hold such arguments in high regard.

I believe that God directs our lives in mysterious ways and that we are only privy to a tiny piece of truth. More, if you use your mind and the minds of others to reason.

Kadagar_AV

03-16-2014, 17:38

The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.

apply to yourself, someone claims no evidence for noahs flood,no global flood, yet does not provide anything for claim. I say there is, that leads us off topic for a future great thread.

You want me to supply evidence... That there are no evidence...? Are you on drugs!?!?!?

Have you heard of Russel's Teapot? He answered your line of thinking way better than me.

But long story short, YOU are the one making a claim something exists, thus YOU have to provide evidence for it. Would you believe it fair if I stated that Invisible Unicorns exist, and then expect you to PROVE me wrong? Of course not!

The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.
you claim my past threads have been shot down. Please apply here, please show me on any thread [on the thread you claim] were it has been shot down as you baseless claim.

you wont be able to support any of your claims without not responding and ignoring refutations. That is why any claim you make of my threads being shot down, i can just show counter post you ignored or did not read.

The rest is just clear case of you wanting me to shut up, given your history on my threads i dont blame you one bit.

You think your previous threads have been successful? Re-read them, everyone is absolutely laughing themselves to bits over your line of reasoning and argumentational skills. Just like now.

Rhyfelwyr

03-16-2014, 17:48

Sorry to bail mid-discussion but I have had to switch to Firefox to get this forum working.

I don't know enough to answer your questions.

If you will forgive my selective quoting here, this for me is the crux of the matter. It is one thing for the scientific establishment to hold their hands up and say "we don't know", but it is another to allow huge apparent contradictions to exist between different disciplines and maintain them both to be compatible and true. Anthropology doesn't match up with biology for me, because 99.9999999% of evidence for the the former shows about 10-15,000 years of human presence on the planet, whereas the latter claims hundreds of thousands. There is no evolutionary, social, demographic, environmental (etc) explanation as to why humans left mountains of evidence of their existence for the last 10-15,000 years, and not the hundreds of thousands of years before that.

Also, if I may stick up for TotalRelism on the Egyptian dating point, I also have noticed this and bookmarked a BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23947820) from a few months back. I don't understand how people can be so confident that archeology disproves the Bible, when they can so flippantly change their whole analysis of something like that by half a millenia. Evidently, their own understanding isn't that well consolidated and is highly prone to wild changes, as I noted earlier.

HoreTore

03-16-2014, 18:37

I don't understand how people can be so confident that archeology disproves the Bible, when they can so flippantly change their whole analysis of something like that by half a millenia. Evidently, their own understanding isn't that well consolidated and is highly prone to wild changes, as I noted earlier.

....And how does not the same apply to biblical literalism...? How can someone believe the bible to be an inerrant history book, when we continually discover facts which disprove it, and extremely rarely discover something which supports it?

The brilliant thing about science, however, is that we actually do change stuff. A biblical literalist does not change his position, ever. Give strong evidence to a scientist, and he will discard his old view. Give strong evidence to a biblical literalist, and he will conjure up some pseudoscience.

total relism

03-16-2014, 20:41

lol, this is just too funny. As I have said several times already, don't play around with fallacies until you're older. It would be preferable for you to get some knowledge of mathematics and/or logic before you do.

You could say that Brenus' comment of your struggles with reality was an ad hominem attack. Pannonian's comment, however, was simply an expansion of Brenus' attack on you, while not dealing with any of Brenus arguments at all. It is thus a pure personal attack, and so fails the definition of an ad hominem. It was nothing more than an assertion of your complete lack of education.

If I were you, I would also focus on actually reading the posts made by others, instead of trying to figure out whether or not someone else is reading them.

Moving the timeline by 150-350 years moves the exodus from the category of "impossible" to "impossible and absurd". Congratulations.

The main facts are:
1. There is no evidence whatsoever of any hebrew presence in Egypt
2. There is no evidence of over half a million people milling about the Sinai for 40 years, nor is there any evidence of the major incidents mentioned, like the demise of Pharaos(who is "curiously" not named) army
3. There is plenty of evidence of a continued Hebrew presence in Palestine.

The exodus is a clear political document, made up to justify all the raping, pillaging and slaughtering committed by the israelites when they asserted their dominance in Palestine. In that regard, it is similar to other claims, like Rome's claim of a Trojan beginning.

I would strongly suggest you get some education before you try to deal with tricky subjects like archeology, history and biology.

knowledge of mathematics and/or logic before you do.

what does math have to do with logical fallacies?I have show your logical fallacies over and over and that the ones you claim of me are not, and you respond with telling me to wait till i am older? instead next time please try to logic thought them. also if i should not point out yours, than you really should wait till your older, i differ in opinion, i think all should use sound logic.

Pannonian's comment, however, was simply an expansion of Brenus' attack on you

would that not just make brenuses attack on me faulty as well.?

I would also focus on actually reading the posts made by others

I cannot agree more if applied to you, if i have not read or made a mistake in someones post, i hope they would show it to me.

Moving the timeline by 150-350 years moves the exodus from the category of "impossible" to "impossible and absurd". Congratulations.

The main facts are:
1. There is no evidence whatsoever of any hebrew presence in Egypt
2. There is no evidence of over half a million people milling about the Sinai for 40 years, nor is there any evidence of the major incidents mentioned, like the demise of Pharaos(who is "curiously" not named) army
3. There is plenty of evidence of a continued Hebrew presence in Palestine.

It has been awhile, i could [most likely am wrong] on it being 150 or 350 years off. That is why i said its been awhile and i was not sure and gave references.

your baseless claims

1- false,need more education and learning, right time period there certainly is.
2-false see above
3-agreed

the rest is your baseless opinion driven by your worldview not facts. If anyone is interested for the evidence of a shorten chronology that brings bible [and Israelite in egypt exodus etc] in unity with Egyptian history,look to references on post 173.

The last comment sadly shows what some will resort to when evidence is needed instead of their position.

“i shall enlighten you.” When did I give a date? Copy and paste, you know how to do it.

“The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC” You assume I took it from your source, but no, and I assume nothing. I find it all by myself (just reading things and thinking. You should try). Don’t assume what, how and from where others take or reach conclusion, this would be a good start.
Note: To highlight stupidities doesn’t make them realities. A succession of absolutes lies or refusal to recognise archaeological finding doesn’t make a lie true. I gave the dates, proved by sciences, you come-up with verbs.

"I would strongly suggest you get some education before you try to deal with tricky subjects like archeology, history and biology." and others...

date came with your claim of them copying from other account, otherwise how,why,when did they copy?.

The last comment sadly shows what some will resort to when evidence is needed instead of their position.

I don't make arguments about Genesis or Exodus. I take the Bible as an extremely important book in understanding the nature of man with the inspiration of God as the source, recorded with man's hand. Inconsistencies don't keep me up at night and do not pre-occupy me. Again, reason is extremely important in Catholic Theology and the Church that I know is open to knowledge and understanding.

Biblical fundamentalism is alien to me. I have only ever met one person who believed that God or Satan planted dinosaur bones in order to trick us into old earth heresy. That person had a fist sized piece of their brain removed. I do not hold such arguments in high regard.

I believe that God directs our lives in mysterious ways and that we are only privy to a tiny piece of truth. More, if you use your mind and the minds of others to reason.

....And how does not the same apply to biblical literalism...? How can someone believe the bible to be an inerrant history book, when we continually discover facts which disprove it, and extremely rarely discover something which supports it?

The brilliant thing about science, however, is that we actually do change stuff. A biblical literalist does not change his position, ever. Give strong evidence to a scientist, and he will discard his old view. Give strong evidence to a biblical literalist, and he will conjure up some pseudoscience.

that is great, i think all churches should be, sadly some here and other churches [atheistic materialistic minded people] do not hold this, they online indoctrinate and alienate anything against their beliefs. Anyone who reads the bible should be open to knowledge and understanding, we are commanded to, that is why almost all branches of sciences were started by Christians.

wow Biblical fundamentalism is alien to me, so let me get this right, they believe old god or satan planted dinosaur bones in the ground to trick us in a old earth?. ouch, they must not have read the bible were it says god cannot deceit or Satan cannot create. They must have gotten that from ancient Greece who believed in a god that tricks and is deceitful in all he does [this was a belief that this originated from] it was not just fossils but all things. I Cant blame you for not holding that argument in high regard. In fact, how just do dinosaur bones make one think the earth is old? see that did not come till 17-18 hundreds. People are indoctrinated to day to believe such things, to view a certain way and not think for themselves [more on this in future thread].

ICantSpellDawg

03-16-2014, 20:47

wow Biblical fundamentalism is alien to me, so let me get this right, they believe old god or satan planted dinosaur bones in the ground to trick us in a old earth?. ouch, they must not have read the bible were it says god cannot deceit or Satan cannot create. They must have gotten that from ancient Greece who believed in a god that tricks and is deceitful in all he does [this was a belief that this originated from] it was not just fossils but all things. I Cant blame you for not holding that argument in high regard. In fact, how just do dinosaur bones make one think the earth is old? see that did not come till 17-18 hundreds. People are indoctrinated to day to believe such things, to view a certain way and not think for themselves [more on this in future thread].

So you are saying that my example did not have a firm hold of facts or logic? Also, are you saying that dinosaurs roamed the earth within the past 20k years?

total relism

03-16-2014, 20:53

....And how does not the same apply to biblical literalism...? How can someone believe the bible to be an inerrant history book, when we continually discover facts which disprove it, and extremely rarely discover something which supports it?

The brilliant thing about science, however, is that we actually do change stuff. A biblical literalist does not change his position, ever. Give strong evidence to a scientist, and he will discard his old view. Give strong evidence to a biblical literalist, and he will conjure up some pseudoscience.

HT i agree 100% how could someone believe something show false [evolution will be future thread] many times over?. I would not believe the bible if it were shown false over and over,the assumption being,it has been proven false over and over. no dout you can find claims luke census,no evidence in egypt, than run with it because you like the conclusion, but never question it as you do. Or you can watch debates,study and find at the end the bible was right all along, you could start with the references i gave you, we both know you wont because your not after truth.

as for evolutionist, when i do my thread if you watch debates and references, you will see over and over evolutionist wrong, evidence against their position yet they still believe. They will change how evolution happened, but wont question materialistic/naturalistic assumptions and that evolution happened no matter what. All people are worldview driven, I will show studies and evolutionist who admit to just what your saying of them being fully false. But that would be to off topic here.

You want me to supply evidence... That there are no evidence...? Are you on drugs!?!?!?

Have you heard of Russel's Teapot? He answered your line of thinking way better than me.

But long story short, YOU are the one making a claim something exists, thus YOU have to provide evidence for it. Would you believe it fair if I stated that Invisible Unicorns exist, and then expect you to PROVE me wrong? Of course not!

You think your previous threads have been successful? Re-read them, everyone is absolutely laughing themselves to bits over your line of reasoning and argumentational skills. Just like now.

I agree fully with you, please tell brenus that. But you have misunderstood i think, i said making unsupported claims and think people to buy into it. I never thought or expect you to believe there is evidence for noahs flood because i say so. That is why i said future thread,.

Shot down to me means disproved,refuted etc not peoples opinions. You will find with me opinions mean nothing, if all disagree with me i am 100% ok with that, that is not how truth is measured. But if anything of my prevoius op's has been refuted factual, than please show, we know you cant as none has. Successful,no, shot down no.

total relism

03-16-2014, 20:55

So you are saying that my example did not have a firm hold of facts or logic? Also, are you saying that dinosaurs roamed the earth within the past 20k years?

I have no idea about the Biblical fundamentalism you speak of, if they believe this factual than it is a great ideas not to listen to them, instead listen to the bible imo. Dinosaurs will be addressed in future thread, and age of the earth please re-read my op.

Kadagar_AV

03-16-2014, 21:10

You will find with me opinions mean nothing, if all disagree with me i am 100% ok with that, that is not how truth is measured.

So basically, you are a fanatic of the most stupid and dangerous kind.

HoreTore

03-16-2014, 21:22

what does math have to do with logical fallacies?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Logic is mathematics. Or rather, a mathematical way of arguing. See what I meant earlier when I told you not to dabble with things you do not understand?

would that not just make brenuses attack on me faulty as well.?

An ad hominem argument is not "faulty" as in "false". Rather, it exists besides the debate in which it is put forth, and has nothing to do with it. So, the fault of the ad hominem is that it fails to engage an argument, but that does not mean what is said is not true. As Pannonian did not attempt to engage in any of your arguments, applying the ad hominem label to his reply makes no sense. As for Brenus, his personal attack does not render the rest of his statement untrue. Not to mention that even an ad hominem can be considered true, like in this situation. I'll explain:

1. You are uneducated.
2. You construct scientific arguments you would need to have some education in order to understand.
3. When someone then points out that your argument is most likely untrue because you are uneducated, this is not irrelevant to the argument. In fact, it makes perfect sense that an uneducated person will make incorrect arguments when dealing with complex issues. Thus, pointing out your lack of education is an attack upon your person rather than your argument, but it is by no means invalid to your argument. We can safely assume that given your low level of education, you are very likely to make mistakes, and so we can safely disregard your arguments.

Ad hominem is considered faulty because the person making an argument is generally considered unimportant. This is not always the case. It should be noted though that this is still a weak argument even if it isn't an outright faulty one, since "a blind chicken may find corn" and all that.

If anyone is interested for the evidence of a shorten chronology that brings bible [and Israelite in egypt exodus etc] in unity with Egyptian history,look to references on post 173.

There is a grand total of 0 evidence in that post, just a reference to videos by rabid evangelicals.

You can put the exodus story in any time frame you wish, and it still won't make any sense at all. There is no evidence at all of Pharaohs army at the bottom of any sea, nor any evidence of Hebrews in Egypt.

I really do hope you're going to show me that "chariot wheel" at the bottom of the sea though....

The last comment sadly shows what some will resort to when evidence is needed instead of their position.

The simple fact is that you are uneducated, and you are trying to debate with educated people here. And it shows. Massively. I would advise you to get some education before you attempt to do so.

Just a simple bachelors(anyone get one these days...) would do the trick. At least you'd learn the basics of reasoning and interpretation while writing your paper. Not to mention grammar, structure and punctuation.

Perhaps you will also discover why "watching debates" is a horrendously poor way of gaining any knowledge.

Rhyfelwyr

03-16-2014, 21:26

HoreTore

03-16-2014, 21:34

Right, but if they are having to discard their own views so often, maybe they should not be quite so confident in them. The same theories that the Egyptologists used to disprove the Bible in recent decades have themselves been proved to be nonsense by modern Egyptologists. Their beliefs are so flimsy that a few months ago they stated that they had in fact been half a millenia out of whack with what is currently believed to be the historic reality.

There was never any evidence used to disprove the exodus story. That story is disproved by a complete lack of proof.

History is living and changing. That's a good thing, not a bad one. There will always be discussions concerning dating, and no date(except those we can calculate) is a given, we always deal with estimates. Rather than "being proven wrong", we are constantly refining our knowledge.

And when that compares to the bible the simple truth is that science has always moved away from the "bible is historical proof"-thingy, not towards it. Whatever we discover, we always seem to discover something which makes the biblical account even less likely to be the true one.

Why that should surprise anyone is beyond me though. The bible is concerned with detailing how your soul can be saved and you can reach a happy afterlife. When its purpose is to save the souls of mankind, why on earth should it bother with an anal account of getting the correct King X raping King Y in the year Z?

Rhyfelwyr

03-16-2014, 22:08

There was never any evidence used to disprove the exodus story. That story is disproved by a complete lack of proof.

Except, we have very limited evidence of ancient Egyptian society in general, as is testified by the fact that we are still constantly and dramatically changing our understanding of it. Our understanding can barely date things to within the right millenia. So if you can hardly make an even near-accurate claim about the ancient Egyptians, I hardly expect there to be much knowledge about a sub-group living within their society at the time.

And I think there is some evidence that could at least be interpreted as evidence of Hebrew presence in ancient Egypt. For example the early Semitic/Proto-Hebrew inscriptions (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070129100250.htm) inside pyramids.

HoreTore

03-16-2014, 22:11

And I think there is some evidence that could at least be interpreted as evidence of Hebrew presence in ancient Egypt. For example the early Semitic/Proto-Hebrew inscriptions (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070129100250.htm) inside pyramids.

Given that we know of Semitic Pharaohs, that's hardly a surprise.

Also, it must be stated(though it should be obvious, really) that the new chronology is far from accepted; it is considered fringe science. The loonies have, unsurprisingly, jumped on the bandwagon, but that doesn't change the fact that Rohl's chronology is not in any way an accepted chronology.

The vast majority stick with the standard one, with the predictable furious arguments over minor details.

Sigurd

03-16-2014, 22:47

There was never any evidence used to disprove the exodus story. That story is disproved by a complete lack of proof.

Classic Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. :sneaky:

Rhyfelwyr

03-16-2014, 22:48

Given that we know of Semitic Pharaohs, that's hardly a surprise.

Indeed, so a powerful Hebrew advisor, or a Hebrew child being raised in the Pharaoh's court, or Hebrew workers making the pyramids and leaving their inscriptions are all in fact quite plausible given the evidence...

HoreTore

03-16-2014, 22:50

Classic Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. :sneaky:

Sigh....

Alright, I'll be more accurate: it is not proven true because of a complete lack of any evidence.

Feel better now?

HoreTore

03-16-2014, 22:51

Indeed, so a powerful Hebrew advisor, or a Hebrew child being raised in the Pharaoh's court, or Hebrew workers making the pyramids and leaving their inscriptions are all in fact quite plausible given the evidence...

Since when did Semitic equal Hebrew, Rhy?

It's like saying Caesar must be Norwegian because he's European.

Anyhoo, if you happen across any actual evidence of Moses and his crew, please let me know. I won't be waiting by the phone, however....

Brenus

03-16-2014, 22:55

“date came with your claim of them copying from other account, otherwise how,why,when did they copy?” How to copy? You do it all the time, come on: You read a text, you copy. Easy. Why: They like the story and though it was a good one with minor adaptations. When, I can’t know and it is irrelevant.

Rhyfelwyr

03-17-2014, 00:26

Since when did Semitic equal Hebrew, Rhy?

It's like saying Caesar must be Norwegian because he's European.

I was more specific than that. To go into even more detail, the article says it is Proto-Canaanite - the precursor to Hebrew and some others, but distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic, and many others. So, by your analogy (not exactly but you will get the point), we've at least narrowed it down to Scandinavian.

Anyhoo, if you happen across any actual evidence of Moses and his crew, please let me know. I won't be waiting by the phone, however....

Well, the original manuscripts from which the Pentateuch is derived are historic sources.

HoreTore

03-17-2014, 00:34

Well, the original manuscripts from which the Pentateuch is derived are historic sources.

What did you learn in school about relying on a single source?

The Egyptian sources tell a different picture. The Jews simply told a story to justify their presence in Caanan(promised land, etc). It really isn't much more to it than that.

Ironside

03-17-2014, 10:13

If you will forgive my selective quoting here, this for me is the crux of the matter. It is one thing for the scientific establishment to hold their hands up and say "we don't know", but it is another to allow huge apparent contradictions to exist between different disciplines and maintain them both to be compatible and true. Anthropology doesn't match up with biology for me, because 99.9999999% of evidence for the the former shows about 10-15,000 years of human presence on the planet, whereas the latter claims hundreds of thousands. There is no evolutionary, social, demographic, environmental (etc) explanation as to why humans left mountains of evidence of their existence for the last 10-15,000 years, and not the hundreds of thousands of years before that.

...For starters:
The older a thing are, the more rarely it's preserved. It's an exponentional curve. In most places, by 5,000 years a well preserved skeleton is a place where you can see that there been a skeleton because of a typical kind of soil. You'll never find a trace of a skeleton as old as 15,000 years there.

Humanity has relativly low genetical variation due to a bottleneck of some type. That means two things. One, the population has been very low so you don't have that much people, and/or current humanity is decendants of a population that had an explosive population growth. That one is much earlier than 10-15,000 years ago and coincides with the "cultural explosion" about 50-45,000 years ago. Even African tribes that has an older divergence at about 90,000 years ago, were only isolated until those 50-45,000 years ago.
A 15,000 year flood would give an entirely different bottleneck btw.

When you start to make stone buildings, they are quite a bit more prone to be preserved. Incidently, one of the more common older sign of human activity is the remains of stone making. The Amazon forest had cities inside that literally disappeared in a century after they got abandoned. Hunter gatherers today doesn't leave much traces either.

Agriculture is pointless unless you're close to the population cap for millenia. By default, that means that any previous population can't been close to the limit for a long time, and that the population will grow rapidly after the invention of agriculture.

That's not counting that a proper scientist will always answer. "I don't know, but the these are the theories we have".

A Christian divine inspiration theory would be. "God gave this information to different people at a several thousand years interval and decided to not give this information to most people. He also decided that the Chinese would dominate, but changed his mind after having a discussion with Jesus for many centuries." I'm not feeling that it improves anything.

Also, if I may stick up for TotalRelism on the Egyptian dating point, I also have noticed this and bookmarked a BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23947820) from a few months back. I don't understand how people can be so confident that archeology disproves the Bible, when they can so flippantly change their whole analysis of something like that by half a millenia. Evidently, their own understanding isn't that well consolidated and is highly prone to wild changes, as I noted earlier.

There's quite a diffference between: "My research shows that the timeline is different, thus the alibies for the murder won't hold." to "The only sign of murder is your word. We got no sign of it on other sources, even the ones that should tell about a murder."

Sigurd

03-17-2014, 10:29

What did you learn in school about relying on a single source?

What do you consider as a single source? Anything written by a Hebrew?

HoreTore

03-17-2014, 17:36

What do you consider as a single source? Anything written by a Hebrew?

Hebrew tradition would be one source, yes.

Just like we don't entirely trust the picture painted of Sparta, since we rely so heavily on Athenian sources(one source, even though it's several writers).

total relism

03-17-2014, 22:43

So basically, you are a fanatic of the most stupid and dangerous kind.

you could chose to see it that way, i simply dont care of opinions, but why people have opinions. If you can give me a good reason why this is bad, let me know. If i went off majority opinion all the time

[majority opinion
In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."]

I would be in alot of trouble imo. If that makes me stupid,dangerous etc than that just makes me even more convinced not to listen to opinion's such as yours.

Socrates said
“ that no one is to be preferred to truth”

Saul Alinsky’s RULES FOR RADICALS:
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions …# Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Logic is mathematics. Or rather, a mathematical way of arguing. See what I meant earlier when I told you not to dabble with things you do not understand?

An ad hominem argument is not "faulty" as in "false". Rather, it exists besides the debate in which it is put forth, and has nothing to do with it. So, the fault of the ad hominem is that it fails to engage an argument, but that does not mean what is said is not true. As Pannonian did not attempt to engage in any of your arguments, applying the ad hominem label to his reply makes no sense. As for Brenus, his personal attack does not render the rest of his statement untrue. Not to mention that even an ad hominem can be considered true, like in this situation. I'll explain:

1. You are uneducated.
2. You construct scientific arguments you would need to have some education in order to understand.
3. When someone then points out that your argument is most likely untrue because you are uneducated, this is not irrelevant to the argument. In fact, it makes perfect sense that an uneducated person will make incorrect arguments when dealing with complex issues. Thus, pointing out your lack of education is an attack upon your person rather than your argument, but it is by no means invalid to your argument. We can safely assume that given your low level of education, you are very likely to make mistakes, and so we can safely disregard your arguments.

Ad hominem is considered faulty because the person making an argument is generally considered unimportant. This is not always the case. It should be noted though that this is still a weak argument even if it isn't an outright faulty one, since "a blind chicken may find corn" and all that.

There is a grand total of 0 evidence in that post, just a reference to videos by rabid evangelicals.

You can put the exodus story in any time frame you wish, and it still won't make any sense at all. There is no evidence at all of Pharaohs army at the bottom of any sea, nor any evidence of Hebrews in Egypt.

I really do hope you're going to show me that "chariot wheel" at the bottom of the sea though....

The simple fact is that you are uneducated, and you are trying to debate with educated people here. And it shows. Massively. I would advise you to get some education before you attempt to do so.

Just a simple bachelors(anyone get one these days...) would do the trick. At least you'd learn the basics of reasoning and interpretation while writing your paper. Not to mention grammar, structure and punctuation.

Perhaps you will also discover why "watching debates" is a horrendously poor way of gaining any knowledge.

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] has two meanings: first, it describes the use of valid reasoning in some activity; second, it names the normative study of reasoning or a branch thereof.
logic was established as a formal discipline by Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy

logic
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

logic
a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety
c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable

that should do.

Pannonian -
ad hominem
while i agree with what you said, if you read post 159 [this seems common you always miss what starts discussion and come to wrong conclusion]. he was using the personal attack [spelling grammar] as a response to what i had sed in argument against brenus i believe that he quoted.

your Ad hominem on me
please prove premise 1] also please show specific example as well.
2] please show were lack of education caused a faulty argument i have made
3]faulty, unless you can show were this has happened with all my arguments, or at least the one you discard. Not to mention no argument i make will not in some way be supported by well educated [phds in specific area] in the area.

nor any evidence of Hebrews in Egypt or the exodus story

This is my fault, i should have been prepared. However your claim is false, i shall show, give me 2 weeks [maybe less]. I need to go back over my stuff as i said before its been awhile. I would like you first to explain [so we can come back to your opinion] and tell me how well educated and freethinking you are on this subject. Than tell me all the ways this disproves the bible,how it is inconstant with it and what evidence is lacking please. I would just like it all in one statement.

I would call the rest a

Red Herring Fallacy
ad hominem

Given that we know of Semitic Pharaohs, that's hardly a surprise.

Also, it must be stated(though it should be obvious, really) that the new chronology is far from accepted; it is considered fringe science. The loonies have, unsurprisingly, jumped on the bandwagon, but that doesn't change the fact that Rohl's chronology is not in any way an accepted chronology.

The vast majority stick with the standard one, with the predictable furious arguments over minor details.

majority opinion
In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

Socrates said
“ that no one is to be preferred to truth”

yes fringe archaeologist like England's top archaeologist professor Colin renfew of Cambridge supports the reduced chronology of Egypt and in his book centuries of darkness said “That a chronological revolution is on its way”
http://www.amazon.com/Centuries-Darkness-Challenge-Chronology-Archaeology/dp/

I will post some more for people to see and understand why some reasons people reject current accepted chronology.

Egyptian dating
the Egyptian dating is always being lowered to a earlier date. It cannot match up with other countries writing with its current extended date

-the Egyptians did not record history they get it from temple walls
-there are 5 kings list which contradict each other and all have gaps as well
-manethos king list is not chronological, there are many at same time overlapping, it was several kings reining at the same time In different regions. -He assumed the pharoes reigns were consecutive coming to a extended chronology. But some of these kings were ruling at the same time butdifferent kingdoms. The upper,middle and lower kingdom, sometimes fathers and sons reigned together for long periods of time.
-A few recent books have been written challenging current accepted date to shorten Egyptian dates.
-Cambridge is now teaching reduced age and other scholars are as well
-link below shows many problems with Egyptian chronology and why it needs to be shortened
-many countries match up, but than differ with Egypt current extended age
unmasking the pharoahs david down 2006
-Ancient nations histories were recorded well after the events took place, first historian to write ancient Egypt was herodotus 484-425 b c
-early historians did not use absolute dates until 250 b c before they marked time by reigns of kings

LOWERING THE DATESThe very earliest Egyptian date would be the one assigned to the beginning of its first dynasty. Menes was the first king. Cerem, in his Gods, Graves, and Scholars, tells us that the date assigned to that earliest Egyptian event, as estimated by several scholars, has gradually lowered with the passing of time: Champollian - 5867 B.C. / Lesueur -5770 B.C. / Bokh - 5702 B.C. / Unger - 5613 B.C. / Mariette - 5004 B.C. / Brugsch - 4455 B.C. / Lauth - 4157 B.C. / Chabas - 4000 B.C. / Lapsius - 3890 B.C. / Bunsen - 3623 B.C. / Breasted - 3400 B.C. / George Steindorff - 3200 B.C. / Eduard Meyer - 3180 B.C. / Wilkinson -2320 B.C. / Palmer - 2224 B.C.

At the present time that earliest of Egyptian dates is considered to be c. 3100 B.C., with some considering 2900 B.C. still better.

"In the course of a single century's research, the earliest date in Egyptian historythat of Egypt's unification under King Meneshas plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C. and not even the latter year has been established beyond doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?" Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204.

Ancient Egyptian Chronology and the Book of Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v4/n1/egyptian-chronology-genesis

#The analyses suggest the rise to statehood occurred between 200 and 300 years faster than previously thought, beginning between 3800 B.C. and 3700 B.C., rather than the past estimate of 4000 B.C.#
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/who-ruled-ancient-egypt-when-most-precise-timeline-yet-8C11071362

http://creation.com/timing-is-everything good article on Egyptian dating

some books on chronology problems and reduced chronology

Ages in Chaos
Immanuel Velikovsky

The foreword to this book was written by (then) Professor Renfrew, who is the leading archaeological scholar at Cambridge University. He wrote in part:

"The revolutionary suggestion is made here that the existing chronologies for that crucial phase in human history are in error by several centuries, and that, in consequence, history will have to be rewritten. ... I feel that their critical analysis is right, and that a chronological revolution is on its way."
Centuries of Darkness pp XV, XVI.

Centuries Of Darkness
Peter James

A Test of Time
David Rohl

Sir Alan Gardiner, an authority on Egyptian history,
Even when full use has been made of the king lists and of such subsidiary sources as have survived, the indispensable dynastic framework of Egyptian history shows lamentable gaps and many a doubtful attribution …What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters
Gardiner, Allan Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 53, Oxford University Press, London, UK, 1964.

David Down
Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline

archaeologist at ABR such as http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
Dr. Bryant Wood
DR Scott Stripling
Dr. David Livingston
and others

some more issues that question the tradition chronology

Manetho perfect source?
1] Manetho was writing hundreds, even thousands of years after many of the actual events.
2] none of Manetho’s writings exist. The only source we have for Manetho’s writings are some of his statements that have been quoted by much later historians such as Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus.

Q: Have you found in your researches in archeology anything that has contradicted the biblical account in a definite sense?

A: There have been plenty of claims that things contradict the biblical account, but the Bible has a habit of being proved right after all. I will remember one of the world’s leading archaeologists at Gezer rebuking a younger archaeologist who was ‘rubbishing’ the Bible. He just quietly said, ‘Well, if I were you, I wouldn’t rubbish the Bible.’ When the younger archaeologist asked ‘Why’?, he replied, ‘Well, it just has a habit of proving to be right after all.’ And that’s where I stand.
http://creation.com/archaeologist-confirms-creation-and-the-bible

I know of no finding in archeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.
Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004
Dr. Clifford Wilson His Ph.D. is from the University of South Carolina, and included ‘A’s for field work in archaeology undertaken In association with Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem.

“date came with your claim of them copying from other account, otherwise how,why,when did they copy?” How to copy? You do it all the time, come on: You read a text, you copy. Easy. Why: They like the story and though it was a good one with minor adaptations. When, I can’t know and it is irrelevant.

so at some point some Hebrews could not come up with their own creation account [not sure why], so traveled down to their enemies and copied there's. Just the type of stuff the books of moses tell isreal not to do [follow customs beliefs etc of surrounding nations]. But than interpreted it in their own beliefs [mono thesis etc] so as to change it so much its not recognizable [as when i posted both together] to than have a creation account of their own, copied that does not read like the people they copied from. Am i right so far? this of course avoids all evidence i posted b-4 that you ignore. Such as earlier text from those the jews copied with monotheism belief so if any copied it was the later Babylonians from earlier account. But you are sure the jews copied, just dont know when.how, we just know they did [with no supporting evidence of course]. I think there is no longer any reason to discuss, i am going to know go focus on exodus.

total relism

03-17-2014, 22:53

And when that compares to the bible the simple truth is that science has always moved away from the "bible is historical proof"-thingy, not towards it. Whatever we discover, we always seem to discover something which makes the biblical account even less likely to be the true one.

Why that should surprise anyone is beyond me though. The bible is concerned with detailing how your soul can be saved and you can reach a happy afterlife. When its purpose is to save the souls of mankind, why on earth should it bother with an anal account of getting the correct King X raping King Y in the year Z?

I hope you will support this on the creation thread.I look forward to it.

I find the second part funny, because that is what your accepted Egyptian dating does not do correct, it does not match up with multiple other countries that do match up at various time periods. Yet you accept it. the bible however does not, here is the OT kings list, no question you will ignore and come up with some faulty logic why.

josh mcdowell kings list OT reliability video free online video on reliability of bibles kings list
http://www.josh.org/site/c.ddKDIMNtEqG/b.HYPERLINK "http://www.josh.org/site/c.ddKDIMNtEqG/b.4172663/k.624E/Can_I_Trust_the_Bible.htm"4172663HYPERLINK

Kadagar_AV

03-17-2014, 23:01

you could chose to see it that way

Editors note: Then followed insane gibberish

Cheers, at least we agree then.

HoreTore

03-17-2014, 23:29

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] has two meanings: first, it describes the use of valid reasoning in some activity; second, it names the normative study of reasoning or a branch thereof.
logic was established as a formal discipline by Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy

logic
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

logic
a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety
c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable

Yes, as I said: mathematics (http://www.personal.psu.edu/t20/papers/philmath/).

I do find it both hilarious and cute that you believe you can grasp a concept just by looking up the term in a dictionary.

Pannonian -
ad hominem
while i agree with what you said, if you read post 159 [this seems common you always miss what starts discussion and come to wrong conclusion]. he was using the personal attack as a response to what i had sed in argument against brenus i believe that he quoted.

You can't blame total relism for being unfamiliar with reality, as he can't even spell the word.

See the complete lack of any reference to any of Brenus' arguments? Pannonian simply made a comment on your lack of spelling ability. He did not attempt to support Brenus' arguments in any way.

your Ad [s]hominem personal attack, not ad hominem, on me
please prove premise 1] also please show specific example as well

You do not have any education beyond compulsory schooling. You have not attended an accredited college and/or university. How much more specific do you want it?

yes fringe archaeologist like England's top archaeologist professor Colin renfew of Cambridge supports the reduced chronology of Egypt

-Cambridge is now teaching reduced age

I'm just cherry-picking the two most obvious lies here. Cambridge does not teach the chronology you promote. They teach the one which puts the exodus squarely in a time of great Egyptian expansion. Did you ever check up this claim you have obviously copied from some hacks website? Fortunately, Cambridge has their Egyptology resources available online (http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/er/essential.html). Go to their website, and see for yourself which timeline they're using.

Colin Renfew does not support the reduces chronology. In fact, Colin Renfew does not use any timeline at all. Colin Renfew does not exist.

Colin Renfrew, on the other hand, is a British archologist. Unfortunately for you, he supports the current chronology. I believe the "mix up"(or lie) leading to the claim that he supports a reduced chronology comes from his work with carbon dating, where he has refined several historical dates. Still, he does not use the chronology you promote.

All in all, you've got jack shit. And you resort to lies in your attempt to prove your argument.

Brenus

03-17-2014, 23:37

“Such as earlier text from those the jews copied with monotheism belief so if any copied it was the later Babylonians from earlier account. But you are sure the jews copied, just dont know when.how, we just know they did [with no supporting evidence of course].”
TR, I work in the Crown Court (Criminal Court). When somebody kills a baby 3 months old, we don’t care why he did it, or when. The only matter is he did it.
I am not here to explain why the Hebrew copied the text, and when. That is a smoke screen tactic. I don’t care, perhaps laziness, perhaps lack of imagination... The only thing real, as proven by the comparison of the 2 texts (quite easy to do), is they did it. They didn’t copy from a monotheist text, they did it from Gilgamesh book (see chapter about pattern).

“all evidence i posted b-4” If you call this evidences, I understand why you prefer faith…

“I think there is no longer any reason to discuss”: Of course, as I “predicted” earlier.:yes:

HoreTore

03-17-2014, 23:40

Of course, as I “predicted” earlier.:yes:

THE PROPHECY HAS BEEN PROVEN

I hereby declare Brenus to be the official God of the Backroom. Convert, ye unbelievers!

Kadagar_AV

03-18-2014, 00:39

ALL HAIL BRENUS :bow:

Brenus

03-18-2014, 08:41

Hey, I have another prediction as predictable: Tomorrow, the sun will rise.

Sigurd

03-18-2014, 09:21

Hey, I have another prediction as predictable: Tomorrow, the sun will rise.
We'll see, we'll see. Right now it's not something I'll put my money on. (Oh and if the sun does not rise - we'll burn you at the stake for heresy).

Brenus

03-18-2014, 20:34

Harsh!!! Every body has the right to do mistake...

Papewaio

03-19-2014, 05:53

We'll see, we'll see. Right now it's not something I'll put my money on. (Oh and if the sun does not rise - we'll burn you at the stake for heresy).

If you were a proper inquisitor you would burn him at the stake if the sun did rise.

Sigurd

03-19-2014, 09:23

I woke up today to heavy rains... seems we need to stoke that pyre.

HoreTore

03-19-2014, 09:27

I woke up today to heavy rains... seems we need to stoke that pyre.

That's an unfair statement.

Considering where you live, you always wake up to heavy rains...

Sigurd

03-19-2014, 11:29

That's an unfair statement.

Considering where you live, you always wake up to heavy rains...
You don't have to be a prophet to predict rain here... But actually seeing the sun... I had such secret high hopes for this one (can't show it in public). Damnable. Just another quack. "Stoke the pyre Sigvart!!"

HoreTore

03-19-2014, 12:21

You don't have to be a prophet to predict rain here... But actually seeing the sun... I had such secret high hopes for this one (can't show it in public). Damnable. Just another quack. "Stoke the pyre Sigvart!!"

As if you can get a fire going in Bergen....

Ironside

03-19-2014, 12:36

As if you can get a fire going in Bergen....

They do indoor pyres. Even if the building catches fire, there's no risk of it spreading.

Brenus

03-19-2014, 20:49

Hey, I think there is a general misunderstanding here. When I said sun, it was more in the meaning light, after the darkness will be the light… And the one(s) who are denying the FACT (see post 211) is just indoctrinated by materialism and evolutionism.

total relism

03-20-2014, 00:37

Yes, as I said: mathematics (http://www.personal.psu.edu/t20/papers/philmath/).

I do find it both hilarious and cute that you believe you can grasp a concept just by looking up the term in a dictionary.

See the complete lack of any reference to any of Brenus' arguments? Pannonian simply made a comment on your lack of spelling ability. He did not attempt to support Brenus' arguments in any way.

You do not have any education beyond compulsory schooling. You have not attended an accredited college and/or university. How much more specific do you want it?

I'm just cherry-picking the two most obvious lies here. Cambridge does not teach the chronology you promote. They teach the one which puts the exodus squarely in a time of great Egyptian expansion. Did you ever check up this claim you have obviously copied from some hacks website? Fortunately, Cambridge has their Egyptology resources available online (http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/er/essential.html). Go to their website, and see for yourself which timeline they're using.

Colin Renfew does not support the reduces chronology. In fact, Colin Renfew does not use any timeline at all. Colin Renfew does not exist.

Colin Renfrew, on the other hand, is a British archologist. Unfortunately for you, he supports the current chronology. I believe the "mix up"(or lie) leading to the claim that he supports a reduced chronology comes from his work with carbon dating, where he has refined several historical dates. Still, he does not use the chronology you promote.

All in all, you've got jack shit. And you resort to lies in your attempt to prove your argument.

Very important notice, urgent need of you to respond on exodus/Egypt, you have made much of this and i would love the statement here.
I would like you first to explain [so we can come back to your opinion] and tell me how well educated and freethinking you are on this subject. Than tell me all the ways this disproves the bible,how it is inconstant with it and what evidence is lacking please. I would just like it all in one statement, thanks

I know we have been arguing but it does not mean we cant get along so i wanted to same something nice. I like how much trash talk you do online on a forum when arguing, i played alot of sports and have played with allot of trash talkers. I have picked some up myself. When i argue online i think or say stuff like that as well, but i keep it in my head. You have no hold back, anytime you think you make a great argument or refute something out comes "All in all, you've got jack shit." or "Wait till your older son" etc. I have never met someone so open with online trash talk [not emotional outburst and attacks on person some do, i don't see you doing that] I think if we had same worldview we would most likely get along.

Logic
Ok i can see what your saying on logic, certainly one way to put it.

Pannonian
technically true i will give you that, but me thinks you know just how he was using it.

your argument put fourth quoted on post 206

your Ad hominem on me
please prove premise 1] also please show specific example as well.
2] please show were lack of education caused a faulty argument i have made
3]faulty, unless you can show were this has happened with all my arguments, or at least the one you discard. Not to mention no argument i make will not in some way be supported by well educated [phds in specific area] in the area

But lets try it on you.
1] you are uneducated compared to the phd's you disagree with on Egyptian chronology [and many other areas exodus etc]
2]. You construct scientific arguments you would need to have some education in order to understand.
3]When someone then points out that your argument is most likely untrue because you are uneducated, this is not irrelevant to the argument. In fact, it makes perfect sense that an uneducated person will make incorrect arguments when dealing with complex issues. Thus, pointing out your lack of education is an attack upon your person rather than your argument, but it is by no means invalid to your argument. We can safely assume that given your low level of education, [compared to specialized phd you disagree with] you are very likely to make mistakes, and so we can safely disregard your arguments.

colin renfew of Cambridge

he indeed teaches a reduced chronology in lectures at Cambridge were he was professor [see below].

some books on chronology problems and reduced chronology

Ages in Chaos
Immanuel Velikovsky

The foreword to this book was written by (then) Professor Renfrew, who is the leading archaeological scholar at Cambridge University. He wrote in part:

"The revolutionary suggestion is made here that the existing chronologies for that crucial phase in human history are in error by several centuries, and that, in consequence, history will have to be rewritten. ... I feel that their critical analysis is right, and that a chronological revolution is on its way."
Centuries of Darkness pp XV, XVI.

Centuries Of Darkness
Peter James

A Test of Time
David Rohl

Sir Alan Gardiner, an authority on Egyptian history,
Even when full use has been made of the king lists and of such subsidiary sources as have survived, the indispensable dynastic framework of Egyptian history shows lamentable gaps and many a doubtful attribution …What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters
Gardiner, Allan Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 53, Oxford University Press, London, UK, 1964.

David Down
Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline

archaeologist at ABR such as http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
Dr. Bryant Wood
DR Scott Stripling
Dr. David Livingston
and others

some more issues that question the tradition chronology

Manetho perfect source?
1] Manetho was writing hundreds, even thousands of years after many of the actual events.
2] none of Manetho’s writings exist. The only source we have for Manetho’s writings are some of his statements that have been quoted by much later historians such as Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus.

“Such as earlier text from those the jews copied with monotheism belief so if any copied it was the later Babylonians from earlier account. But you are sure the jews copied, just dont know when.how, we just know they did [with no supporting evidence of course].”
TR, I work in the Crown Court (Criminal Court). When somebody kills a baby 3 months old, we don’t care why he did it, or when. The only matter is he did it.
I am not here to explain why the Hebrew copied the text, and when. That is a smoke screen tactic. I don’t care, perhaps laziness, perhaps lack of imagination... The only thing real, as proven by the comparison of the 2 texts (quite easy to do), is they did it. They didn’t copy from a monotheist text, they did it from Gilgamesh book (see chapter about pattern).

“all evidence i posted b-4” If you call this evidences, I understand why you prefer faith…

“I think there is no longer any reason to discuss”: Of course, as I “predicted” earlier.:yes:

I dont really disagree, i am glad you brought up court. If someone did the crime it matters not why, same here if jews did copy it matters not why we both agree.

SO lets see your case for copying, you said

"I am not here to explain why the Hebrew copied the text, and when. That is a smoke screen tactic. I don’t care, perhaps laziness, perhaps lack of imagination... The only thing real, as proven by the comparison of the 2 texts (quite easy to do), is they did it. They didn’t copy from a monotheist text, they did it from Gilgamesh book (see chapter about pattern)."

so your case has no motive [why] i gave multiple reasons why they would not. You place the supposed guilty person at the scene of the crime [when,were]. You have no direct evidence to confirm your [as you even said] imagination, your god like ability to go back in time and know who copied from who and know that one copied from the other. If you were on a jury and told the judge he just needed more imagination when he asked for positive evidence, would that work well?. I think nothing can be a better refutation than comparing the documents as i did b-4.

the case against your imagination

segments of Samaritan

Apsu, the freshwater ocean male deity, mates with Ti’amat, the saltwater ocean goddess, yielding offspring which are a host of lesser deities representing various aspects of nature. However, Apsu becomes irritated with their noise and resolves to destroy them, but he fails, and is killed by Ea the god of wisdom (l.68–69). Ea in turn fathers the god Marduk (figure 4). Ti’amat becomes enraged, and gives birth to a host of dragons to fight Marduk; but Marduk, not intimidated by Ti’amat’s threats, gathers the other gods together in a great banquet, and they resolve on war with Ti’amat, with Marduk as their representative. So a great war erupts, from which Marduk emerges victorious by killing Ti’amat. He first splits Ti’amat’s skull open with his mace, and then splits her whole body. The upper half he makes into the sky; the lower half into the earth. From this chaos comes order: the sun, moon, and stars appear, and the calendar is formed. Finally, there is Qingu, Ti’amat’s general. Marduk speaks to Ea of his desire to make man, who will wait on the gods so that the latter can rest. Marduk addresses both the Igigi (sky gods) and the Anunnaki (underworld gods), and the Igigi reply that since Qingu started the war, he should therefore pay the penalty. Marduk slays Qingu, takes his blood and some earth, and makes man. Then the Anunnaki toil to create Babylon, and the Esagila, one of the prime temples in Babylon. Finally, Tablet VII relates the fifty names of Marduk in order to exalt the patron deity of Babylon:With fifty epithets the great godsCalled his fifty names, making his way supreme

now read Genesis
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

-why would jews adopt views of their enemy, when there own history/culture says it wrong? multiple gods etc
-it starts with the assumption, there is no biblical god that could revel his truth of creation to moses and earlier jews [adam,noah abraham etc] so then who even cares, if we start with assumption of no god, than if the jews copied or not does not matter as genesis would not be divinely inspired, the very question at hand.

-the further back to creation you go the more the similarities in creation accounts.Writings from 2600 b c 1,000 years before moses
biblical creation account must have been derived before older and different sources than Sumerians
halloww 1970 antediluvian cities journal of cuneiform studies 23,65,66

- Samaritan copy of jewish Pentateuch is written in ancient form of Hebrew that proceeds exile in 6th century.
-most ancient copy contains over 2,000 corruptions from original jewish manuscript, very unlikely to make copy soon after return.
-unlikely Samaritans would make a copy of Jewish writings at all, hostile between the two.
- Marduk is a fashioner, not a true creator

-The final overall point concerns the chronological setting of what we might call “origins literature” in the Ancient Near East. K.A. Kitchen argues that this is clearly the early 2nd millennium BC, as opposed to later periods of Near Eastern history.He then concludes:

“In short, the idea that the Hebrews in captivity in Nebuchadrezzar’s Babylon (6th century BC) first ‘borrowed’ the content of early Genesis at that late date is a non-starter.”
the early second millennium BC (and earlier) is the period for Mesopotamian—and Hebrew—‘origins literature’, and not later.

Battle elements. Genesis does not envision creation as a war of the gods.
Pantheistic elements. Genesis does not talk about natural elements as gods.
Creative activity as sexual activity. Genesis does not describe God’s creation in this way.
Poetic language. Genesis does not have “synonymous parallelism” (restating the same idea in two ways) in every description.
Reference to time. Genesis speaks of creation “in the beginning” and “days,” contrary to myths, which speak more about seasons.

Leroy Waterman, “Cosmogonic Affinities in Genesis 1:2,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 43, no. 3 (April 1, 1927): 181. Waterman argues that Genesis is unique in that it depersonalizes all the forces of nature. An easy-to-read reference is John Oswalt’s The Bible among the Myths (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009).
Jakob H. Gronbaek, “Baal’s Battle with Yam-A Canaanite Creation Fight,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (1985): 27–44.

-The first observation is that this is a political document, setting forth why Babylon is the pre-eminent city in the world with its pre-eminent deity, Marduk, as opposed to Anu or Ea or whoever. As such it constituted part of ritual for the Akitu new-year festival which re-confirmed the kingship for the coming year. Genesis 1 has no such function, and assertions to the contrary—commonly alleged by critical or secular scholars—are merely circular reasoning.

-Fourth, Enuma Elish has no six-days-plus-one format. The seven tablets of the epic are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with days (or long periods either, for that matter). In this respect (among many others) Genesis 1 stands alone and unique in the ancient world.

-Second, it is a theogony rather than a cosmogony, that is, its basic intent is to explain the origin of gods rather than the origin of the universe, where the latter is more of an afterthought. Thus the major part of Tablets I–V relate the generation of gods and their fierce battles, with a small section at the end of Tablet IV (figure 2) about the creation of the cosmos. The main part of “creation” story occurs in Tablet VI, relating the origin of man and the establishment of the various temples. In fact, Stephanie Dalley of Oxford University argues that the original story was not a creation story at all—that element was incorporated later.
Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford, pp.233–77, 1988.

assuming genesis was written after [ i dont believe so].
Maybe it was done so to correct the false teachings of other nations, to show the correct account.

If any copied it was the samaritains who had earlier monotheistic beliefs. Likely they were going off account that changed passed down through generations.

We'll see, we'll see. Right now it's not something I'll put my money on. (Oh and if the sun does not rise - we'll burn you at the stake for heresy).

If you were a proper inquisitor you would burn him at the stake if the sun did rise.

13- What about the crusades,witch trials,inquisitions and other “crimes” of Christians throughout history.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?145200-responding-to-common-objections-to-bible-part-5&highlight=

total relism

03-20-2014, 00:44

Just in case anyone is interested, many claim the bible has been disproved by archaeology regarding the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the battle of Jericho, the book of judges. One thing they all have in common is the evidence all matches up....... the time is corrected, all stems from a reduced chronology of egypt. Also in past there has been dozens of claims from archaeology [i may list them soon] that have been refuted with time, all claim the bible was false only for later info to show it true.

Q: Have you found in your researches in archaeology anything that has contradicted the biblical account in a definite sense?

A: There have been plenty of claims that things contradict the biblical account, but the Bible has a habit of being proved right after all. I will remember one of the world’s leading archaeologists at Gezer rebuking a younger archaeologist who was ‘rubbishing’ the Bible. He just quietly said, ‘Well, if I were you, I wouldn’t rubbish the Bible.’ When the younger archaeologist asked ‘Why’?, he replied, ‘Well, it just has a habit of proving to be right after all.’ And that’s where I stand.
Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology

Kadagar_AV

03-20-2014, 01:20

Brenus

03-20-2014, 08:53

HoreTore

03-20-2014, 13:43

Bollocks.

That someone who identifies as a young earth creationist supports such a position is very unsurprising. That his education comes from a bible college is even less surprising.

Anyway, presenting him as a "former director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology" is highly disenginius to the point of lying. He held that position for three years in the late 60's. It does not at all represent the opinion of the institute.

Anyway TR, I see that you have now downgraded your statement on Cambridge from "Cambridge teaches this" to "One guy at one time used to teach this stuff at Cambridge". Good. Nice to know that you are aware that Cambridge does not teach this chronology. Anyway, Colin Renfrew (Colin Renfew still does not exist) still doesn't use the chronology you promote. It is true that he is critical of the chronologies which have been used, and that he believed several dates should be pushed further towards the present. However, this was way back in the 70's, and the chronology we use today is not the same as the chronology used back then. In fact, the current chronology has been made because of Renfrew's work with carbon dating. He argued for a revision of a former chronology, not the current one. He still doesn't argue for the chronology you're advocating for.

He is also, naturally, arguing for the earth being billions of years old, with humans having been around for millions. Since you use him as a source of truth, I assume you also agree with him on this?

As for my education, my degree includes the following relevant for the topics discussed in this thread:
1. Natural science
2. Mathematics
3. Social science
4. Scientific method courses required for writing bachelors and masters degrees

The first three consists of two full semesters, while number 4 is one full semester combined. Further, there are others who have replied in these threads with a much higher level of education than me. For example, I believe PVC has more than a masters degree in european history.

Your education? Nothing. And that's why you fail at understanding what these educated people you are reading are talking about. In particular, you fail to understand the theory of how knowledge is formed and created, underlined by your use of quotes. Lastly, almost all of the quotes you have mined are in the category of statements(and on its own, that means they are worthless).

Rhyfelwyr

03-21-2014, 00:21

Kadagar_AV

03-21-2014, 00:34

Educated people haven't done too well in answering questions coming from me, a nobody. There remains no explanation for the birth of civilization within a old-earth framework, and that for me is a pretty important piece of the puzzle that needs to fit.

IMO the scientific establishment is great at establishing isolated facts, but far less adept at making sense of them. I think this is because of the tendency for scientists to be specialized and isolated in particular disciplines. Norms from one discipline are taken for granted by those in another. An anthropologist will always be biased by the assumption that the earth is billions of years old because a geologist says so, for example. The fact may be true, but it will always influence the athropologist's understanding of the facts he uncovers in his own field, thus he can never be entirely unbiased, even if he influenced by something he does not even understand.

People have so much trust in the scientific establishment, and yet I am amazed at how lacking it is in some fundametal areas. How can the discipline of 'big history' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History)only be 20 years old? How?! For all the facts we have, attempts to piece together the human story remain incredibly speculative and diverse. IMO we do not have anything near the understanding we think we do, and there is a lot of misplaced confidence in our knoweldge.

Well Rhyf, all I can say is: The more you learn, the more you will understand the perspective of people who has not learned.

Not that you agree with them, you just understand where they are coming from.

You are obviously a very intelligent guy. Your analysis of science being to spear-headed goes right along with my view of it. I guess that is why I consider you a very intelligent guy!!

Personal love aside though, I would love it if you start your own thread, bringing up your own religious questions. I very much respect you as a christian, but honestly, you jumping in to a TR thread, randomly waving your sword around, doesn't make the thread justice.

Heck, it doesn't make YOU justice.

But then, I am just a silly old ski instructor :clown:

Papewaio

03-21-2014, 00:49

"Educated people haven't done too well in answering questions coming from me, a nobody. There remains no explanation for the birth of civilization within a old-earth framework, and that for me is a pretty important piece of the puzzle that needs to fit."

Guns, Germs and Steel is a fairly accessible book and Jared Diamond is a good communicator who doesn't smear his opposition. He also goes into detail why some places could become farmers and others had virtually no chance to do so.

The short answer for the book is that plants and animals are grown in an particular environment and it is much easier to transplant the same foods in the same environment ie humdity and temperature range. The same environments are on the same latitude.

So if you want to duplicate a food set it is much easier to move it on an East-West axis then a North South one. So the place with the longest axis gets civilized faster ie Europe to Asia vs the Americas or Africa purely because Eurasian can share the most food crops by foot.

CBR

03-21-2014, 02:27

Was Agriculture Impossible During the Pleistocene but Mandatory during the Holocene? (http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/richerson/AgOrigins_2_12_01.pdf) (pdf)

Nonetheless, we propose that much about the origin of agriculture can be understood in terms of two propositions: Agriculture Was Impossible During The Last Glacial. During the last glacial, climates were variable and very dry over large areas. Atmospheric levels of CO2 were low. Probably most important, last-glacial climates were characterized by high-amplitude fluctuations on time scales of a decade or less to a millennium. Because agricultural subsistence systems are vulnerable to weather extremes, and because the cultural evolution of subsistence systems making heavy, specialized, use of plant resources occurs relatively slowly, agriculture could not evolve.

Constraints on the Development of Agriculture (http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/ConstraintsEvolAg.pdf) (pdf)

The development of agriculture was limited by external constraints, mainly climate, before the Holocene and mainly by social institutions after that. Population size and growth was important but ultimately did not determine where and why agriculture evolved.

total relism

03-21-2014, 11:18

“I think nothing can be a better refutation than comparing the documents as i did b-4.” You refutation is like linking a message from our Kurdish Friend to “prove” that the Holocaust didn’t happened

“so your case has no motive [why] i gave multiple reasons why they would not.” I can give a lot of reason why someone didn’t commit a crime. However they did it. So these reasons are irrelevant: Same for yours.

“You have no direct evidence to confirm your [as you even said] imagination” Err, that was a lack of imagination or laziness from the Jewish Scripts, not from me: They copy the Book od Gilgamesh because laziness, lack of imagination, the why they did it is not my problem.

“your god like ability to go back in time and know who copied from who and know that one copied from the other.” Err, not mine, archaeological evidences prove that Book of Gilgamesh was written before Bible… Illustration of what was the start of this conversation: denial of reality when doesn’t fit the need of belief.

http://www.la-bible.net/page.php?ref=ressourcesnbs_at2

I give you a link. Work on your French (and I choose a “Christian” site) and you will see the obvious link between the two texts.

not at all, its like referencing original story lines and accounts on how they differ to disprove your similarity claims, of course if i am wrong you could point that out [had you read either bible or account your refer to].

Just as i said, you have no motive[ important in court] i have many reasons why they would not have motive to do so, you offer nothing but imagination [you admitted] to support they do.

ah ok my bad on lack of imagination. But so know were actually suppose to believe that the jews copied from their enemies, traveled all the way down there, because they were lazy............ oh than change the crap out of it to fit their own beliefs, yet to lazy to come up with their own account,perfect response thanks.

You keep saying when,why they did etc does not matter only that they did [you have no evidence for] the only thing that matters is they did. Have you ever heard of Begging the question? Please read all your statements on your claim you may indeed find your faulty logic you apply.

You said " archaeological evidences prove that Book of Gilgamesh was written before Bible" this commits the logical fallacy of reification
please read up
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/08/03/logical-fallacies-reification

you cannot know they copied, what we do know is they both have accounts that are both similar and different. It is only a god like ability that can go in the past and know that the jews copied from they [no wonder liberals dont believe in god, they think they are]. Even in your link there are great differences, on post 223 you will see many more.

But besides showing your claim false on 223, let do it once more. I wont even point to the differences this time. Brenus, there are many accounts that are more similar to the flood and creation of bible from places such as north america [Indian legends] . What is the conclusion there? There are more similar flood accounts around the world [many of them] that have similarities that your account does not have with the bible. If similarities prove copied, than please explain. We must have had allot of lazy people traveling all over the world copying other people lol. Know this wont fit your worldview, but what if the creation/flood account was true, and all people spread out with the account mostly intact,than told the story to the next gen etc would we not expect similar and different accounts worldwide? that is what we find, your explanation of laziness [actually lazy would be coming up with your own instead of traveling thousands of miles to fond someone account] cant exspalin the data. I say denial of reality.

Crap i change my mind brenus is right
clouds 100% water water melon 97% the jellyfish 98%- that just proves it, the jellyfish must have copied from the cloud, but changed slightly to fit his own water habitat, he was lazy and left ocean to find create himself. But by all means the cloud did not copy from the fish, nor was there something they both copied from, that cannot be true, because i say so.

Finally you are trying to prove a positive, you cannot rule out the other explanations given, and cant defend why your is false. So your claim is imagination at best.

That someone who identifies as a young earth creationist supports such a position is very unsurprising. That his education comes from a bible college is even less surprising.

Anyway, presenting him as a "former director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology" is highly disenginius to the point of lying. He held that position for three years in the late 60's. It does not at all represent the opinion of the institute.

Anyway TR, I see that you have now downgraded your statement on Cambridge from "Cambridge teaches this" to "One guy at one time used to teach this stuff at Cambridge". Good. Nice to know that you are aware that Cambridge does [I]not teach this chronology. Anyway, Colin Renfrew (Colin Renfew still does not exist) still doesn't use the chronology you promote. It is true that he is critical of the chronologies which have been used, and that he believed several dates should be pushed further towards the present. However, this was way back in the 70's, and the chronology we use today is not the same as the chronology used back then. In fact, the current chronology has been made because of Renfrew's work with carbon dating. He argued for a revision of a former chronology, not the current one. He still doesn't argue for the chronology you're advocating for.

He is also, naturally, arguing for the earth being billions of years old, with humans having been around for millions. Since you use him as a source of truth, I assume you also agree with him on this?

As for my education, my degree includes the following relevant for the topics discussed in this thread:
1. Natural science
2. Mathematics
3. Social science
4. Scientific method courses required for writing bachelors and masters degrees

The first three consists of two full semesters, while number 4 is one full semester combined. Further, there are others who have replied in these threads with a much higher level of education than me. For example, I believe PVC has more than a masters degree in european history.

Your education? Nothing. And that's why you fail at understanding what these educated people you are reading are talking about. In particular, you fail to understand the theory of how knowledge is formed and created, underlined by your use of quotes. Lastly, almost all of the quotes you have mined are in the category of statements(and on its own, that means they are worthless).

Very important notice, urgent need of you to respond on exodus/Egypt, you have made much of this and i would love the statement here.
I would like you first to explain [so we can come back to your opinion] and tell me how well educated and freethinking you are on this subject. Than tell me all the ways this disproves the bible,how it is inconstant with it and what evidence is lacking please. I would just like it all in one statement, thanks

"this was way back in the 70's, and the chronology we use today is not the same as the chronology used back then. In fact, the current chronology has been made because of Renfrew's work with carbon dating. He argued for a revision of a former chronology, not the current one. He still doesn't argue for the chronology you're advocating for."

please read his interview with archaeologist David down. Also why if the chronology keeps being shortened,vastly over the last 100 years, and contains inconsistencies and problems, why are you against a shortened chronology so much?.

He is no source of truth in all things.

your education
so applying your own logic i showed false against me, when applied to you works, so according to your own logic we must discard anything you say and your arguments. As noone on this forum is educated to a phd on Egyptian history and chronology, as are the phd who produced those books, you all must shut up and we cant listen to you.

total relism

03-21-2014, 11:22

That someone who identifies as a young earth creationist supports such a position is very unsurprising. That his education comes from a bible college is even less surprising.

Anyway, presenting him as a "former director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology" is highly disenginius to the point of lying. He held that position for three years in the late 60's. It does not at all represent the opinion of the institute.
.

sorry who is lying?

Dr. Wilson obtained his M.A. in archaeology from the University of Sydney in Australia (1958), his B.D. from Melbourne College of Divinity (1968), and his Ph.D. in psycholinguistics from the University of South Carolina (1972). His Ph.D. included "A"s for field work in archaeology undertaken in association with Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem. He explored many of the Mideastern archaeological sites, and in 1969 served as area supervisor of the excavation of Gezer in Israel.

as i posted

formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology

Gaius Scribonius Curio

03-21-2014, 12:25

sorry who is lying?

Dr. Wilson obtained his M.A. in archaeology from the University of Sydney in Australia (1958), his B.D. from Melbourne College of Divinity (1968), and his Ph.D. in psycholinguistics from the University of South Carolina (1972). His Ph.D. included "A"s for field work in archaeology undertaken in association with Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem. He explored many of the Mideastern archaeological sites, and in 1969 served as area supervisor of the excavation of Gezer in Israel.

as i posted

formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology

Hore Tore did not say that you lied, simply that the presentation of Wilson is somewhat disingenuous. I do not think that it is deliberately so, but he is right.

The Australian Institute of Archaeology, for all its official sounding title, is actually a fairly small beast: it is certainly not the major association of archaeologists in this country (that would be the Australian Archaeological Association). It is also something of a misnomer: Australian Institute of Biblical Archaeology would be more to the point. It does (part-)fund an annual lecture on the subject in Melbourne, which coincidentally is next week: delivered by a Professor of Religion from the USA. Among its listed aims are: ' to facilitate and monitor the scientific study of the Biblical period....to encourage an informed understanding of the Biblical story, which is integral to many aspects of civilisation as we know it...'. This is fair enough, so far as it goes, and the organisation now certainly seems to support a balanced view of how archaeology in the Near east should be practiced.

However, in the 1960s and 1970s, even persisting into the 80s and 90s in some cases, the prevailing purpose of Biblical Archaeology was to prove the veracity of the Bible, from the archaeological evidence, rather than to assess the evidence on its own merits to acquire a more informed view of the Biblical period and its wider context.

In other words, by citing Wilson (not to mention Wood), TR, you are appealing to an outdated authority. Almost exactly what you are criticising HT for with Renfrew. As an aside, I am pretty sure that Hore Tore is right, and Renfrew does not support the chronology that you are claiming. I can check with the Near Eastern archaeologists, with whom I share an office, if you would like.

HoreTore

03-21-2014, 12:32

Thanks for your clarifications, Gaius, and it seems I must retract one of my points:

I mixed up the two austrialian organizations, and I checked the Australian Archaeological Association for their current opinion, which was not the one of the guy mentioned by TR.

So, the opinion does represent the opinion of the institute accurately. It's just that the institute itself is a whacko organization....

total relism

03-21-2014, 12:40

Hore Tore did not say that you lied, simply that the presentation of Wilson is somewhat disingenuous. I do not think that it is deliberately so, but he is right.

The Australian Institute of Archaeology, for all its official sounding title, is actually a fairly small beast: it is certainly not the major association of archaeologists in this country (that would be the Australian Archaeological Association). It is also something of a misnomer: Australian Institute of Biblical Archaeology would be more to the point. It does (part-)fund an annual lecture on the subject in Melbourne, which coincidentally is next week: delivered by a Professor of Religion from the USA. Among its listed aims are: ' to facilitate and monitor the scientific study of the Biblical period....to encourage an informed understanding of the Biblical story, which is integral to many aspects of civilisation as we know it...'. This is fair enough, so far as it goes, and the organisation now certainly seems to support a balanced view of how archaeology in the Near east should be practiced.

However, in the 1960s and 1970s, even persisting into the 80s and 90s in some cases, the prevailing purpose of Biblical Archaeology was to prove the veracity of the Bible, from the archaeological evidence, rather than to assess the evidence on its own merits to acquire a more informed view of the Biblical period and its wider context.

In other words, by citing Wilson (not to mention Wood), TR, you are appealing to an outdated authority. Almost exactly what you are criticising HT for with Renfrew. As an aside, I am pretty sure that Hore Tore is right, and Renfrew does not support the chronology that you are claiming. I can check with the Near Eastern archaeologists, with whom I share an office, if you would like.

wow thank you much for that and correcting me and yes i would love for you to contact him if possible.

Thanks for your clarifications, Gaius, and it seems I must retract one of my points:

I mixed up the two austrialian organizations, and I checked the Australian Archaeological Association for their current opinion, which was not the one of the guy mentioned by TR.

So, the opinion does represent the opinion of the institute accurately. It's just that the institute itself is a whacko organization....

Question begging epithet
when someone imports bias often emotional language to support a claim "ignorant" "dishonest" "stupid" "gullible" or other disparaging remarks

while not mentioned implied
no true Scotsman fallacy
Special pleading

Aimed at those who believe the bible to be what it claims and the data supports. I will show in your future post when you come out clear with it. Actually just tell me your position on archaeologist who accept the bible as 100% accurate.

Brenus

03-21-2014, 20:30

“Finally you are trying to prove a positive, you cannot rule out the other explanations given, and cant defend why your is false. So your claim is imagination at best.” I understand now why you got everything wrong. You don’t understand what you read.

“[had you read either bible or account your refer to].” I gave you a link. You obviously didn’t read it.

“[ important in court]”; Not. What is important is facts. Motive is use only for sentencing. Yesterday, at the Crown Court, a rapist got 16 years of jail. Jury and Judge didn’t care why he raped his grand-daughter as it is irrelevant. What was relevant was what he did.

“But so know were actually suppose to believe that the jews copied from their enemies, traveled all the way down there” You really have not a clue of what and whom we speak about, do you? The Sumerian Civilisation was extinct and their towns erased from the ground (so the authors of the Book of Gilgamesh) before the Jewish Civilisation even appear on the surface of earth. Sumerians and Hebrews never fight each other’s. The Jews copied from a dead civilisation because the book was transmitted through time by others civilisations…

“[you have no evidence for]”! You really should learn to read, or at least to understand the meaning of what others write.

“your faulty logic you apply.” I don’t apply logic. Where did I apply logic? I refer to Archaeological Evidences, material evidences, object you can see in museums: I refer you to: Clay Tablets of the Book of Gilgamesh, earliest Hebrew clay tablet, papyrus.

“logical fallacy of reification” Before to offer a link, read it, understand what it says, then, perhaps, you will find out it is irrelevant. Your problem is you so much in denial that you try to put your kind of demonstration as universal (by the way, the examples given in you links are rubbish).

“Brenus, there are many accounts that are more similar to the flood and creation of bible from places such as north america [Indian legends]” There is a lot of legend about Heroes killing dragons, that doesn’t make dragons a reality. And no, all floods legends are not similar to the Book of Gilgamesh.

“[many of them” Which one? Because I went to search and no, no much similarities. (600 legends). The vast majority differs on almost every things. The only really close are..... The Bible and the Book of Gilgamesh... Which is normal as the Bible one is largely copied from the oldest book.

Pannonian

03-22-2014, 06:05

“But so know were actually suppose to believe that the jews copied from their enemies, traveled all the way down there” You really have not a clue of what and whom we speak about, do you? The Sumerian Civilisation was extinct and their town erase from the ground (so the authors of the Book of Gilgamesh) before the Jewish Civilisation even appear on the surface of earth. Sumerians and Hebrews never fight each other’s. The Jews copied from a dead civilisation because the book was transmitted through time by others civilisations…

Here's another fallacy for TR to digest: temporal fallacy. It goes hand in hand with cluelessness. Eg. The British Empire adopted many of the trappings of the Roman Empire after the British conquered their deadly enemies the Romans.

Sigurd

03-22-2014, 12:21

Here is a little gem: Abraham was Sumerian.

Brenus

03-23-2014, 08:46

"Here is a little gem: Abraham was Sumerian.". I like this one. :2thumbsup: I read it somewhere, and the author(s) even didn't even ask, if so, why the Bible and the Book of Gilgamesh defer in term of number of gods and names.
The problems for the Biblecists have they can't can't answer all questions in a co-ordinate manner. One answer they will give to one point will contradict the answer they give to another point.