Re: Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their worldview


"Ye Old One" <usenet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ivgje4ljubfr8ndhm5pe3abs4cnnklmqf9@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:47:30 -0500, "Suzanne" <shiloh7@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"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.

Sorry, I thought the subject was Jericho.

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.

Does it?

Well, not Finkelstein. He's telling what he believes.
People at the Temple Mount that prevented archaeologists'
work there.

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.

Possible, but certainly not proven yet.

It's a sure thing.

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.

Yes, but it is NOT a proper archaeology site, one based on a credible
or respected archaeology publication.

The woman that is excavating the Davdic find is a
respectable, and well-known archaeologist. What in
the world would you find fault with her about?

Are you going to say it
is biased because it is Jewish?

It is biased because it is a largely religious site.

You would rather turn things over to someone that
has no religion? You think that is unbiased? Maybe
chimps would suit you better? What ever gave you
the idea that someone with a religion has to be so
biased they can't do their job right? This archaeologist
is Jewish. All the better. Someone with a knowledge of
the Bible is what is needed.

Who do you think wrote your
book?

What book?

Oh, it must not have been you that recommended
The Bible Unearthed.

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

Then you are, as usual, ignoring the experts.

The words "the experts" covers a lot of people,
and they all do not agree. If you want to make
discoveries you have to be willing to read what
all archaeologists say, not just some. If you want
to find chariot wheels in the Red Sea, you might
really need to go to the Yam Suf and dig up a crop
that gets planted every year over an excavation.
There are countries and governments that are not
friendly to just any discovery.

that maybe the Hyksos rule in Egypt overlapped the
Israeli's lives there.

There is no evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt.

The scarabs do not lie.

The Israelites where there 450
years.

Since the Israelites did not exist as a separate group until about
1200BC that is an impossibility - and one for which there is zero
evidence.

Tell it to the guards of the Cave of Machpeleh, Bob.

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.

Then you really are a fool.

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.

Nope, I'm not talking about one priesthood, not even one religion.
Though I must admit that the christian priesthood have taken fear and
control to the limit.

Sounds like a man-made priesthood, and not the
one of the New Testament. In the Lord, perfect
love casts out fear.

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.

How do you work that out? Many fish move in shoals, and someone stood
on the shore may well be able to see where a shoal is better than the
people on a boat.

That's entirely possible. But the point is that the one
telling them where the fish were, knew where they
were. This is from John 21, and it was the third time
that Jesus showed himself to his disciples after he
had been resurrected. It has to do with being obedient.

The thing that was different was that they
were doing what he said to do. The power was in who was
doing the leading.

You see, "power" "leading" - that is what religion has always been
about, putting the power in the hands of the few.

There was only one in this case and it was the Son
of God, not just anyone. People who really are
Christians should concentrate on letting the Lord
work through them, not on themselves being the
power.

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.

No, a conspiracy started around 700BC.

No, and Job is believed to be written at least 3500
years ago.

What you are saying is not
what the Bible is. It's God's word.

Please provide even one scrap of evidence that gods exist.

Maybe because you keep running into
Christians on the Internet.

The stories in it are not
allegories, they are real events.

Rubbish.

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.

Hohohohoho! Stupid moron!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_arthur

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.

Religion is for kids, like all fairy stories. When you grow up you see
through its lies.

When are you going to grow up?

I grew up when I was seven.

Suzanne

.

Relevant Pages