Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ubeae4h7khachf6nn827dgfmd8khd83cse@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:48:44 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qgu8e4d6l0ljm43khk9iq8c97np4qa5noh@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:00:58 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e32vb4h40rr3tjoi5q4h309a6aiqocj1ed@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 00:34:42 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"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:

[snip]
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 agree with you at all,

I don't care whether you agree or not - those are the scientific
results.

Scientific results, no. The archaeologists are the science
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.

Bob, I've shown you that Jericho has been dated by
radiocarbon dating to 1400 B.C. by Woods "plus
or minus 40 years" most recently by Woods.

And very few accept that figure because it is anomalous, the
overwhelming majority of test put the destruction of Jericho at around
1600BC.

Very few liberal people.

I don't know what political persuasion the scientists are. I don't
even know what religious persuasion they are. But I do know that they
are proper scientists who publish their results in proper peer
reviewed publications.

It's a little more complicated than just going by
carbon dating, though. Many of the other dates
are formed by people confusing the Hyksos with
the Israelites. Kathleen Kenyon is said to have
done this also. Part of the reason people get them
confused is because of confusion over what
Josephus said about the Hebrews being in Egypt.
Josephus reported that the Hyksos were in Egypt,
and built monuments there. People came along,
and not knowing the difference, they printed that
he said the Hebrews were in Egypt. Well...there
are Hebrews that were not Israelites. They are all
Semitic people, which means they are descendants
of Shem [S(h)emitic] who is one of the sons of
Noah. The Hebrews came through Eber (:Eber-ews),
and Abraham was a Hebrew. Abraham had many
children, and the Israelites come through his
descendant, Jacob, one of the two sons of Isaac.
The confusion over what Josephus wrote, is shown
here in this account of what Josephus actually said,
himself: see the inset paragraph, the sixth paragraph
down:
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/hapiru.html
I don't think Kenyon knew this information when she
was doing her analysis of Jericho. The word is still
getting around even now that what Josephus wrote is
that the Hyksos were in Egypt, since some have written
that Josephus said the Hebrews were in Egypt, when
he said Hyksos, which are a specific group within the
Hebrew branch of the Semitic people.
--
The Hyksos people, the ones that were expelled from
Egypt, lived in Avaris, which is the same city location
as the city of Raamses that the Israelites are reported
in the Bible to have built. Archaeologists have
determined that Raamses is built on top of the ruins
of Avaris, in the same fashion that cities of long ago
were built on top of an earlier city layer of a location.
So what the Israelites are said in the Bible to have
built is the city that was built later than Avaris. It is
the Hyksos that your date matches and not the Israelites.
--
Since you probably won't believe me, here is a website
that is written by people who say they are atheists,
explaining that the Hyksos and the Israelites are not
the same people. They have different reasons than I
do for stating this, which I don't agree with, but I do
agree that they are likely to not be the same people.
http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/fcar5.php
--
A long time ago, in the beginning of the town of
Avaris, or maybe even earlier, there was a large
family of Egyptians who were called Rameses.
During the Hyksos occupation of Avaris, later
pharaohs were Rameses, and I can only assume
they are descended from that large family that
lived in Avaris earlier. But the town built after
Avaris by the Israelites, according to the Bible
is named Raamses (with two a's), and it surely
was named that for a pharaoh. The Hyksos rule
in Egypt would have been in the 16th and 17th
century, and easily one of those rulers could
be the one that was so kind to Joseph and made
him the second in command, when Joseph got his
family to move to Egypt. The Israelites were in
Egypt for 450 years.
--
The Hyksos were Canaanite Semites. Their names
were Canaanite, and not Hebrew types and they
often had the names of the Canaanite idols attached
to their name. The Israelite Semitic group did not
have names like that. One of the Hyksos leaders
was named Ahmose, and because of the "-mose"
part of his name, some have thought this may have
been Moses. The name Moses has a double meaning,
for the name was known in both Egyptian as well
as in Hebrew. The princess that found the baby
--
Moses in the bullrushes in a basket, hovered over
by his older sister Miriam, who just happened to
know a Hebrew woman (her mother, Moses' mom)
who could wet-nurse this baby, decided to call
this baby "Moses," according to the Bible, but
she pulled the wool over her father, the pharaoh's
--
eyes by saying "because I have drawn you out of
the water," which is the Hebrew meaning of
Moses. The Egyptian meaning of Moses is simply
"child." Her father pharaoh was the one that ordered
the Hebrew boy babies to be killed. She evidently
knew the Hebrew children and had learned some of
their language.

(snip for brevity only)

Ah! Only in that Woods himself points out that his is very much a
minority view.

He's referring to archaeologists, and those probably
go by what Kenyon said. Thousands of people believe
Wood.

that says there is new information that people have
about Jericho. Are you not aware of that? In his position,
he can't afford not to include all information. I have
reported to you accurately the date that the site has been
tested at,

Nooooooooo. What you have given is the date he has chosen to publish.
It differs from most others. He admits few agree with him.

There is something that is strange about it though. Soon as
he published that the date was 1400 B.C., the museum with
the piece of charcoal said it was not dated correctly because
the equipment was faulty, and that it had been now retested
and that the date was earlier. But he used more than just
figure by c-14 dating. Besides that, the scarabs found were
much later than the 1600 B.C. date, since on the back of the
scarabs are the presence of pharaohs that were later pharaohs.
I've read that it was Kenyon that found those scarabs, too.
So she went with her idea of the Hyksos and I guess didn't
pay attention to the scarabs since she must've thought the
Hyksos date was more convincing. But the Hyksos are not
the Israelites.

not once but many times, and you don't
understand how they are arriving at the other dates
that you have been quoting.

Yes I do.

This man has tested the
date by 4 accepted ways, and they all test to 1400. What
you keep quoting are people who date it according to
when Hyksos people did whatever. The Hyksos are not
the Israelites. They are Semitic but not Israelite Jews.

The dating to 1600BC is achieved by:-

1) Radiocarbon dating of the wood and other bio material from the
layer.

2) Radiometric dating of the pottery recovered from the layer.

3) Dating by either of the above methods of material found above and
below the burnt layer.

4) Dating of finds from the layers by other respected archeological
methods.

5) Comparison of finds with other sites in the area.

#4 refers to Kenyon, who used the then Egyptian
chronology as well as, it is said, the Hyksos as
being the Israelites.

You also should do a search of the chronology of
Egypt being updated from time to time, and you will
see that they are often going by the Hyksos.

I've given you websites showing actual pictures
that show what I've told to you about the site,

You just don't get it do you? The websites you give are not credible
in this matter. What you need are cites to proper peer reviewed
articles.

You are the one who is harping on the dates. You
are ignoring what has been found there. Whether the
walls fell because God commanded an earthquake, or
if he just commanded them to fall, they fell as it is
described in the Bible, flat, and outwards, and that
was examined and attested to by Garstang and then
the base of the walls demonstrated that the walls fell
as they are described to have fallen, according to the
way that they were broken. You reasoned that they
could not have fallen inward because the city was so
solid, you say, but they appear not to have even tried
to do that.

And yet you still cannot come up with any proper peer reviewed
articles on the subject.

I've given you articles from people that actually have
been there and have seen what is there, Bob.

But not peer reviewed. I wonder why?

How do you know that he wasn't going to do that
before the museum issued their statement?

Someone
sitting in a building somewhere that is liberal that
reads only liberal articles is not a very good judge of
things. I read all the articles, liberal, conservative, and
everything. Can you read articles on both sides and
remain neutral?

I am about as conservative as it is possible to get.

Hmmmm. I guess in a sense, someone who is
skeptical could be conservative about their
skepticism. But usually when someone is liberal,
when speaking of biblical matters, the person who
does not believe the biblical account is spoken of
as being liberal. Some of them label themselves as
being "moderate," because they think liberal sounds
more like the word "radical." But the way in which
I think your thinking is, I trust you are conservative
with what facts you know. But don't deny what is
found there. You may not think it's relevent, but
don't deny it, such as the section of wall with
two houses on it that were undamaged. Acknowledge
also the scarabs that were found there, with later
pharaoh's names on them. I can prove this with
this photo and what is written on them, and bear in
mind the Israelites are said in the Bible to have
been in Egypt for 450 years:
---
"Shown clockwise from upper left are scarabs bearing
the names of Tuthmosis III (c. 1504-1450 B.C.E.),
Amenhotep III (c. 1386-1349 B.C.E.) and Hatshepsut
(c. 1503-1483 B.C.E.) and the reverse side of a seal,
lower left, of Thuthmosis III. The cemetery outside
Jericho has yielded a continuous series of Egyptian
scarabs from the 18th through the early-14th centuries
B.C.E., contradicting Kenyon's claim that the city was
abandoned after 1550 B.C.E.
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx

(snip some that repeats)

But the majority (by a long mark) of tests done agree with her's.

Well, many of her things, yes. She did do that before
they found some newer things.

Her idea
is based on the Hyksos, which she thinks is the Israelites.

When are you going to understand that the people you call the
Israelites evolved out of the population of Canaan much later - about
1200-1000 BC.

I'm not going to learn it because it didn't happen
that way.

But since Kenyon's work (and she did do many things
good) more of the city has been excavated, and people
going by her date are behind the current findings,

Wrong again.

I've shown you above it's not wrong.

including scarabs, pottery, etc. If you notice, whoever
wrote the article doesn't supply how the date of 1500
is arrived at. Do you see that? The person sums up
by just going by Kenyon's date alone and says "Clearly,
the destruction of City IV Jericho and the destruction
of Jericho by Joshua cannot be the same event if they
are separated by 150 years." Now, that doesn't even
match your own date of 1600!

The date is, IIRC, given as 1580BC +20/-30 years. 1600BC is just a
nice round figure that fits in that range.

No information is
given as to how the date was even arrived at. What
kind of truth is that?

Better than yours. Her work was published in proper journals, go and
look it up if you want.

I was not speaking of Kenyon, clearly, I was speaking
of the person who wrote the wiki article. I said, "Do you
see that? "The person sums up...."


(snip)

Rubbish. No Joshua, no exodus, no invasion of Canaan, no battle of
Jericho and no walls tumbling down as a result of trumpet blaring.

Neither I, nor does the Bible say that the walls fell
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.

You are pathetic at times. Have you never heard of cause and effect?

You still don't get it. The Bible does not say that there
was no earthquake.

Well you would have thought they would have mentioned it - big things
earthquakes, especially one large enough to wipe out a walled "city".

I suppose that when the walls all started to fall, they were
standing there with their mouths hanging open in awe at
their faith being rewarded that way. They were to go right
in, and it says they went "up" into Jericho. It explained that
they were to go right over the fallen walls. That could
have accounted for the wording "they went up into." They
rescued Rahab, killed the inhabitants, took the gold, left the
grain, and then set fire to the place. An earthquake could
have happened after that or even during the fire, if there was
an earthquake, but all the destruction was covered with the
layer of ash.

(snip)

There is no evidence that Jericho was conquered at any time that
matches the story. You also have to deal with the historical fact that
the Israelites evolved out of the Canaanite people around 1200BC, so
they never invaded anywhere.

There is proof. The city was burned.

Following an earthquake.

There is a good reason why it was conquered, because
their gold was all gone, and the grain was there, just
as it says in the Bible. No one would have left the
grain of a fresh harvest, especially a people who
had been travelling for years and had no crops. But
they left it as a memorial, and that was something
that just was not usually done when a city was captured.
A fresh harvest would have normally been just too
precious to people, unless they were otherwise instructed.

The grain is there.

Where else would you expect it to be?

In someone else's belly.

The
houses on the wall...which you so lightly dismiss.

Because it was common practice.

Joshua 6:17 says...
"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."
It's interesting that two houses were found undamaged
by the wrecking of the city. People can certainly say it
may not have been her house, but it sure reminds us of
the verse.

The walls formed a rampart which allowed the
soldiers easy access into the city. Every single
detail given in the Bible is there whether you like
it or not.

Is it?

Haven't you read it?
Garstang confirmed the walls had fallen flat like
described. He also found a section of the wall.
It's probably the one that I showed the photo of,
where it looks like the bricks even formed steps
up into the city the way that it fell.

The grain was there in the houses, and
not only that, but the harvest had just taken place
prior to this event.

How do you know that?

The harvest? There is something about the Jewish
holiday that helps verify the month which coincides
with harvest time, but the archaeologists found all
the grain containers full as though the harvest had
just occurred. You know, if months had past, then
some of the stored grain would be used up. But
the containers in the houses were very full.

(snip)

There is good evidence it was used as a necropolis.

Would a fresh years supply of grain be in all the
houses in a cemetery? For that matter, houses
were found, and you can see the bases of their
walls in the archaeology photos of the city. The
local cemeteries were also found. The city was
not a cemetery.

The writer
could have been there,

Hardly, he would have to have been very old to do that.

It was not written in 600 B.C. as you've said. You have
no proof of that anyway. None.

You really think the experts have no evidence?

Bob, people can always find something to be
skeptical about.

There is some proof in this verse that it would have
been written within the lifetimes of the ones who
actually destroyed the city, according to this:
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 unto this day* ; because she
hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out
Jericho."
* "UNTO THIS DAY" would mean within the
lifetime of the one writing this, Rahab would still
be alive. She is also in the genealogy of Christ. She
is one of only five women mentioned in his
genealogy.

A rampart was made of the walls because of the way
they fell. According to your claim, if the writer wrote in
600 B.C., he would have to uncover a tel, find the
evidence he wrote about, then cover it all back up again
for us to find years and years and years later.

You really are very stupid if you think that. Once again I ask you to
learn what folklore is.

No, I'm not. Your claim of 600 B.C. for the date of
the book of Joshua doesn't fit. The city would be
covered up with dirt and be in an archaeological tell
by 600 B.C. The author wrote it when Rahab was still
alive: Joshua 6:25.

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.

Rubbish. Stories are handed down by word of mouth for centuries. It is
known as folklore - look it up.

All you are proving with this speculation is that
the story handed down would be the true story,

No, the story gets altered, personalized to the group listening to
make it more exciting to them.

Read the text. Nothing is altered, Bob.

since what was told is what is in the Bible and
is what is found at Jericho.

Not true.


Archaeology has shown that
what the Bible says is exactly what they found there.

For the last time NO IT HAS NOT.

It is what was found.

Wrong.

the grains,

Where else would you expect the grain to be? Do try to answer the
question - you keep trying to avoid it.

Archaeologists say the grains were usually always
taken as part of their loot. The Israelites were
ordered not to take them.

(snip)

the walls formed
a rampart,

Did they?

Yes, they did.

the walls fell outwards and flat.

How else do you think they would fall? The can't fall inwards - the
"city" is an almost solid structure.

There were two walls. An inner wall and an outer wall. They
could have fallen in the space between the walls. They could
have fallen inward, too, on top of everything. They didn't do
that. This was confirmed by Garstang who found a section
of the wall.

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.

(Snip)

Suzanne


.

Relevant Pages
Loading