Can creationists make good scientists?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Luke 2:1 mentions Caesar Augustus. Do you believe he did not exist because he was mentioned in the Holy Bible?

If that were the only source for Caesar Augustus then one would have to doubt his existence. As far as I can tell the bible is the only source for King Solomon.

Originally posted by Kepler
If that were the only source for Caesar Augustus then one would have to doubt his existence. As far as I can tell the bible is the only source for King Solomon.

The existence of any leader going back that far could be challenged based on a lack of evidence. Just because it is a Biblical historical account does not necessarily make it less credible than Egyptian accounts of their leaders or any other national leaders from only their accounts. The existence of King David was also strongly challenged for the same reason at one time. The uncovering of archaeological evidence has reduced that criticism on his existence for many. However, no amount of evidence will be enough for some people who do not want to believe.

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

Originally posted by RJHinds
The existence of any leader going back that far could be challenged based on a lack of evidence. Just because it is a Biblical historical account does not necessarily make it less credible than Egyptian accounts of their leaders or any other national leaders from only their accounts. The existence of King David was also strongly challenged for the same rea ...[text shortened]... will be enough for some people who do not want to believe.

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

The point is that most leaders, even that far back, leave more than just a few pages in a book. There are bloody great monuments with their name all over them in many cases. This is certainly true of Caesar Augustus. Solomon though seems to have left nothing other than that one book.

There is a theory that the archeologists have put the old chap in the wrong time though, partly because of a case of mistaken identity regarding a pharaoh identified as Shishak. Change the pharaoh and Solomon gets pushed back a couple of hundred years to a time when the sort of construction work mentioned in the biblical account was actually happening.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The existence of any leader going back that far could be challenged based on a lack of evidence. Just because it is a Biblical historical account does not necessarily make it less credible than Egyptian accounts of their leaders or any other national leaders from only their accounts. The existence of King David was also strongly challenged for the same rea ...[text shortened]... will be enough for some people who do not want to believe.

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

I agree , in a lot of cases disputing the bible is not really fair as it is your best / sometimes only record other than a few relics . it is a carbon date like that and more accurate when talking about people

Originally posted by Kepler
The point is that most leaders, even that far back, leave more than just a few pages in a book. There are bloody great monuments with their name all over them in many cases. This is certainly true of Caesar Augustus. Solomon though seems to have left nothing other than that one book.

There is a theory that the archeologists have put the old chap in the wro ...[text shortened]... ime when the sort of construction work mentioned in the biblical account was actually happening.

King Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah and Jerusalem and apparently must have took away all of the riches that Solomon had accumulated when carrying many of the people into slavery and destroying the temple Solomon built in Jerusalem.

Originally posted by RJHinds
King Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah and Jerusalem and apparently must have took away all of the riches that Solomon had accumulated when carrying many of the people into slavery and destroying the temple Solomon built in Jerusalem.

The construction I was talking about was ashlar construction, sawn stone. It is mentioned as being one of the techniques used in building the temple. No ashlar construction has been found in any level supposedly linked to Solomon's time anywhere in Palestine. However, it is known from earlier times in that region and that is the time that redating would place Solomon in.

It would make a lot more sense to put Solomon in an age when the techniques used in his temple were actually being used and it lends credibility to that part of the biblical account. If Solomon is not placed further back in time then Palestine doesn't look much like the biblical account at all.

Originally posted by Kepler
The construction I was talking about was ashlar construction, sawn stone. It is mentioned as being one of the techniques used in building the temple. No ashlar construction has been found in any level supposedly linked to Solomon's time anywhere in Palestine. However, it is known from earlier times in that region and that is the time that redating would place ...[text shortened]... placed further back in time then Palestine doesn't look much like the biblical account at all.

I really can't respond to this because I'm not aware of such a problem in dating.