Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qoqge4h7tq7s8oae6l5mt1ieu1919i4lui@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 01:30:32 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ukjee4t70u22nat2ppic4gle4pjvn5016e@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 03:49:37 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"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.

Do stop talking rubbish. The Hyksos were earlier, 17th century BC. The
Israelites emerged out of the general population in Canaan around
1200-1000BC.

Sounds very much like Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed,"
with his "chieftain" theory, if David or Solomon ever existed.
He's wrong, and an archaeologist named Mazar has found
the palace of King David, and/or an important building to
his world. She found a bulla that has the name on it of a
Jewish man mentioned in the Bible, Yehuchal Ben Shelemiah,
chapters 37 an 38 in Jeremiah. This palace/bldg. is south of
the Temple Mount. Do notice the mention of Kenyon's time
frame, which I mention elsewhere in this post, in connection
with when she thinks the Israelites entered Canaan.

But there is no evidence that they did "enter" Canaan. The evidence,
both archaeological and genetic, if that they developed as a separate
people purely by the development of their religion.

Notice also
the mention of the destruction of the Temple Mount by the
Waqf. The things they bulldozed were retrieved and dated to
the first and second temples. They bulldozed columns they
found underneath the Temple Mount, which ended up being
broken and heaped up in trash piles in the road, awaiting
dump trucks to pick up to throw over the cliff of the local
dump, over in the Kidron Valley. They were retrieved from
that dump and dated. The reason that the Waqf is said to
have done this destruction has to do with the building of a
mosque in an entrance to a tunnel they would not let the
Jews go in and investigate and excavate! They sealed up the
tunnel and built their mosque, and have prevented Jews from
going near the tunnel.

What has that got to do with the subject at hand?

It has to do with what you are saying, that there is "no"
evidence. It shows that people have tried, have done,
and are still trying to destroy the evidence. According
to Finkelstein's book, David would have only been a
very lowly chieftain of a small group, but this find
illustrates David as being a king with a palace and
with wealth and a large kingdom. In fact, it was so large
because it included the Southern and the Northern
kingdoms after he united them. David had truly been a
shepherd, but he was also a king.

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jerusalem/Reclaiming_Biblical_Jerusalem.asp

Please feel free to come back when you can quote a proper archaeology
site.

It's a Jewish website and a proper site. Are you going to say it
is biased because it is Jewish? Who do you think wrote your
book?

Kathleen Kenyon is said to have
done this also.

Cite?

I'm not talking rubbish. Kenyon associated the destruction
of the layer of city of Jericho called "City IV," with the
expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt in about 1570 B.C.:
Kenyon, "Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age," in CAH3,
pp. 92-93; "Jericho," EAEHL, p. 563
Kenyon was a good archaeologist, but she was off with
the date because of her associating the Israelites with the
Hyksos, which they were not. But she did not know that.

True, the Israelites have nothing to do with the Hyksos - there are
separated by 300-500 years.

I think they were contemporary with each other, and
that maybe the Hyksos rule in Egypt overlapped the
Israeli's lives there. The Israelites where there 450
years.

Part of the reason people get them
confused is because of confusion over what
Josephus said about the Hebrews being in Egypt.

They were not, at least not in any large number.

It sounds like you have this idea because of
Finkelstein's book.

No.

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.

You are getting fiction confused with reality again.

[Snip more rubbish.]

You are confused.

No, the confusion is yours - mainly I think caused by your firm belief
that the bible has to be right even when real evidence contradicts it
so much.

I don't know what others think, but I can tell you that
I feel an inner confirmation that it is the truth, so I
don't need outside archaeological evidence to prove to
me that it is true. I've also seen good evidence be
confirmed after many attacks. It's just a matter of time.

What we have, in the real world, is a bible that is pure fiction. It
was written to promote a set of gods who were used to explain things
that the priesthood could offer no better (scientific) explanation
for. It was also written to allow a priesthood to control a population
- that has always been one of the main aims of religion. If the people
live in fear of their gods then the priesthood can control them, and
in the case of most religions they can milk them dry.

Maybe you have observed the wrong priesthood. One time
Christ saw the disciples fishing in a boat and they had not
caught anything all day long. He told them to cast their nets
on the other side of the boat. If you think about it, the very
same fish would be on one side of the boat that were on
the other side. The thing that was different was that they
were doing what he said to do. The power was in who was
doing the leading.

Like any good work of fiction the bible tries to bend old stories to
fit its overall aims. The flood myth is one such example, a story far
older than the bible that they simply rewrote to fit. The bible also
uses real places because it has to be familiar to the people. In the
same way some real names are used, having biblical attributes added to
them. If I wanted to sit down and write a new religion around a
worship of King Arthur then I would use real places in Britain, and
real people from our past, to make my story more realistic.

The stupidity is that some people can read an ancient collection myths
and fairy stories and actually believe they are real.

The Bible is not just one book. It's many books. Your
suggestion would be an impossible conspiracy of people
from different eras and times. What you are saying is not
what the Bible is. It's God's word. The stories in it are not
allegories, they are real events.

As for the story of King Arthur, whoever he was, whether
he was a real person or not, in the story, in order for him
to succeed, he had to go back and find Wart again. In every
person there is the child that he once was, and some bind up
that child and don't let him show any more. As a rule,
children are superior to adults in their faith.

Suzanne

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast