Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
- From: "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:00:58 -0500
"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e32vb4h40rr3tjoi5q4h309a6aiqocj1ed@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 00:34:42 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>Bob, I've shown you that Jericho has been dated by
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
[snip]
"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:i2jtb45lojh6plftt5rjemgk7i9e47gi4g@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:00:12 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ejisb4pqiv86i3g7p82br643q16l7u74ii@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 01:01:54 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dtqpb4ldq7ba7nahkjes2h7v1sc3ja26i8@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:20:37 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Scientific results, no. The archaeologists are the scienceI don't agree with you at all,I see. No comment from you. Strange that.I've shown you the evidence at Jericho. It's very,
very detailed, and accurate.
No, it is not that detailed and, most importantly, it does not match
the biblical dates.
I don't care whether you agree or not - those are the scientific
results.
persons, not "the majority" that you claim are for your
date.
Well, archaeologists are not really scientists. They hand their finds
to scientists for dating, usually by radiocarbon dating.
radiocarbon dating to 1400 B.C. by Woods "plus
or minus 40 years" most recently by Woods. I've
shown you that he used 4 methods to date the site,
also. I've given you websites showing actual pictures
that show what I've told to you about the site, including
pictures of the base of the walls, diagrams of the wall
that made stairstep-like entrance into the city, exactly
like it says in the Bible and also not some, but all of the
criteria met.
It is by the acceptable scientific methods of dating a
It is with the scientific results that I side.
place that have been followed, Bob.
Neither I, nor does the Bible say that the walls fell
It's the other way around, Bob. But you still don't getbut it is right that you
should express what you feel is right. I do feel that
you are not fair with your assessment of the
archaeological findings.
Hard luck, the science is good, has been confirmed by most researchers
and is generally accepted by all except those that demand "The science
must match the bible because that is the only truth."
something. If the writers wrote the Old Testament in
the 7th Century as you are claiming, and the tell at
Jericho was still covered up deeply with dirt, even if
word was passed down by word of mouth, what was
written down turns out to be accurate to the last detail,
Rubbish. No Joshua, no exodus, no invasion of Canaan, no battle of
Jericho and no walls tumbling down as a result of trumpet blaring.
because of the blasting of trumpets. It says that the
people were told to march around 7 days 7 times,
blowing trumpets and that when they did that, the
walls would fall. It never says those things caused
the walls to fall, only that it would happen. The walls
fell because they believed God and did exactly what
he told them to do. He answered their faith by
bringing about the collapse of the walls. It does not
say that he didn't do that with an earthquake. It does
not say that he did it with an earthquake either. It
simply is not mentioned that there was an earthquake,
if it happened then. So an earthquake could have been
there. The point is that their faith was answered, and
apparently God was in control of when the earthquake
(if that happened then) would happen, and/or when it
would happen if there was no earthquake that day.
If you read the biblical account, they were not in the
city when the walls fell, they were off a distance
where they had been marching around the city. They
could have seen the walls fall, then gone in right
away to conquer the city. They were already told what
to do when that happened. So all these people that
claim that it didn't happen with the Israelites blowing
horns need to go back and read what it says in the
Bible, because they are fighting a fight that is not
what is present in the verses. It doesn't matter if God
stationed invisible angels at the walls to wreck it
when the last trumpet blast came, or if he caused the
walls to crumble with an earthquake, or both even,
it just matters that after they put their faith into action,
the walls did fall after the 7 day period.
The story of Jericho was written down and when it was
and the words in the Bible about Jericho are exactly
--
what the archaeologists found there. But according to
your version the ones handing down by word of mouth
what you claimed was a myth anyway,
What was passed down was a folk legend, please take the time to
investigate what is meant by "folk legend".
written down, Jericho was fallen already. The writer
could have been there, or he could have visited the site
and reported what was there. It doesn't matter. But years
later, after the walls were long covered up with dirt that
formed the "tel" which is the ancient archaelogical site,
someone could not have written the story down in such
accuracy unless it was true. Archaeology has shown that
what the Bible says is exactly what they found there.
It took a while even to show all the details were there.
For example, the base of the walls were not found until
later in the examination of this site. But all the details
have now been verified to be there, just as it says in the
Bible.
Many people had began to believe that Troy was just a myth
had to have been
psychics in order to tell people what had not yet been
unearthed by archaeologists.
We knew a lot about the city of Troy - long before we uncovered it.
before it was finally discovered. So just because people
wrote about it, didn't mean that many people were not
skeptical that it existed. Here are some photos of Troy
that are people might be interested in seeing, and a brief
history about it's existence, if anyone is interested.
http://www.iit.edu/~agunsal/truva/truva/truva.html
(snip)
It didn't happen that way
anyway. You are either confused or have not heard
No, I'm not confused - you are deluded.
Simply the truth, Bob. Archaeologists do not attempt to
the right teaching on the subject.
I suppose by that you mean "biblical" teaching. The bible has little,
if anything, to teach.
flatter the Bible. Quite the opposite.
"The oldest known piece of biblical Hebrew is a fragment from
The Greek Septuagint
is not the only translated version of the Old Testament,
or didn't you know that? There are a good few others,
such as the Samaritan one. The Greek Septuagint was
a translation of the Hebrew scrolls and is proof that
--
there were earlier scrolls of the Old Testament. Not
only that, but the Dead Sea Scrolls group has found
enough fragments from the other books of the O.T.
with enough on them to identify what books they
came from, and those alone prove that there were
earlier copies way back in the B.C.
The DSSs are from the first century BC and early second century BC.
the book of Samuel discovered in Cave 4, and is dated from the
third century B.C."
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_dead_sea_scrolls.html
And the answer to the above is yes, I have done that.
The Old Testament
was not written in the 7th Century.
Some of the books were written down by 600BC, the genesis we know
today did not arrive until about 360-340BC being a compellation of two
different version of genesis (resulting in two different creation
myths in the one book).
I've shown you
that with the Greek Septuagint, itself.
Have you? News to me.
Not that anyone knows what that means, of course,
since some is erased. : )
It was not directed at you, and I think it refers back to
The people
making these claims sound very antiSemitic.
In what way?
what had been snipped. I'm saying that there are those
that genuinely have true skepticism, which I guess is
like you, but then there are others that seem to just
be saying something against the Jews just to heckle
them as a people. I don't think that is what you are
like at all.
Yes I have.
Oh, yeah, right!Many people do not know
--
what they even are and comment on Jericho without
the knowledge of what they found. You comment
even knowing what they found and ignore the
evidence that you say you need in order to make up
your mind about something.
Nononononono. Bloody hells bells! I'm not the one ignoring the
evidence to get things to fit with their fairy stories - you are.
I'm the one who accepts the scientific data.
Yes, right.
I've spent a lot of time showing this
to you and you haven't accepted a bit of the evidence.
Because, so far, you have not come up with any.
It's like saying that when they find a tablet in merry
They find "GOLIATH" written on something in the
place he lived, and you tried to say that "there must
be many people named Goliath,"
And the problem with that is?
ole England saying "King Arthur" that someone
would say "there must be plenty of people named
King Arthur." The name "Goliath" was found exactly
where Goliath lived. How big could his city have
been?
"The mound where the dig took place is widely
believed to be the site of the ancient city of Gath,
which the Bible calls Goliath's hometown."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Goliaths-name-found-at-Israeli-dig/2005/11/14/1131816832591.html
Why do you think so?
completely snubbing
where it was found. Two houses built on the wall of
Jericho, a very surprising find,
No surprise at all, it was the norm.
All of the wall is missing except for this part with houses
and that is the absolute
only part of the wall intact,
Since nobody has excavated the whole site that is a conclusion you
cannot draw.
built on it. The bases of the city walls are found also.
You are using uncommon sense. : )
and you act like it's no big
deal.
It isn't, not when you stand back, look at the evidence and apply some
common sense.
You were so sure it was 1800's B.C. weren't you?
These houses were on the correct wall, not some
wall in China, and found in the exact biblical city where
the Bible said they would be.
But in a destruction that was at least 200 years, and possible 400
years, too early.
And now it is 1600's, isn't it? You argue this, but
then turn around and say there was no invasion and
that Joshua didn't exist. So you are not arguing with
facts, just making negative statements that do not
agree with your own statements.
You are going in circles and proving nothing.
These had all been buried
for centuries, just waiting to be revealed by excavation
of archaeology scientists.
Joshua 6:17:
When I reported about
the two houses found still unharmed that were built
--
on the wall of Jericho, you claimed that many people
in other places built houses on the wall.
Yes, at that time, that is correct. It was done to save on building
materials and time - the outer walls formed the back walls of the
buildings. Some would have been houses, some other buildings.
"And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein,
to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that
are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that
we sent."
Joshua 6:25:
"And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's
household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel
even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which
Joshua sent to spy out Jericho."
Fairy stories.
Wandering bandits did not destroy the city of Jericho.
But you did
not back up what you said. The Jamison-Fausset-Brown
Commentary says that in the Orient this was known to
have been done, but would that cover Canaan in that
day in time?
Remember that Canaan was under the rule of Egypt at the time, most
towns would have been Egyptian administrative centers, this made them
targets form the locals as well as wandering bandits.
Egyptians did not do that either.
No, it was just a natural earthquake.
Was bedeuted dass?
If one detail had been found, that could be coincidence.Nevertheless, these two houses obviously
survived quite a catastrophe,
Look at any modern earthquake. There are always some buildings that
escape.
If two were found exactly as was reported in the Bible,
that could still be a coincidence. But for every single
detail that the scriptures say happened to be all at Jericho,
that shows that it was exactly as the Bible says it happened.
Remember the angel Katrina?
The size of it doesn't mean they didn't conquer it. Itr was a
Even the fact that the city walls fell outward and flat, is
in Joshua 6:20.
Since the village walls [yes, I know it was classed as a city back
then, but with only about 2,000 inhabitants it would not qualify as a
town today, so I call it a village to keep things in perspective.
strategic city.
Suzanne
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Without God
- Next by Date: Re: Palin says teach evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
- Next by thread: Re: Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
