10 Mar 11
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI will say this only once, yer bum!
[b]I will do no such thing! There is a plethora of archaeological evidence which backs up the Biblical accounts, as well as cultural and historical. From observable science we draw many inferences which you cannot disprove. Indeed, faith is not the same as mere belief, the Bible itself alludes to this,
There is no archaeological or historic rgue didn't constitute 'mere' belief - is that what you're getting at?[/b]
Archaeology supports the destruction of Tyre, the destruction of Babylon, there have been inscriptions found with the name of Pilate inscribed upon them, infact, i suggest you take a trip along to the British museum, they have both the Rosetta stone and other cuneiform tablets, the Moabite stone, which corroborate the Biblical account. We also have the Dead sea scrolls, thousands of extant manuscripts blah de blah
Noted American archaeologist W. F. Albright wrote: “Archeological data have . . . demonstrated the substantial originality of the Books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah, beyond doubt; they have confirmed the traditional picture of events, as well as their order.”—The Bible After Twenty Years of Archeology (1932-1952), 1954, p. 547.
The New Encyclopædia Britannica answers: “Archaeological criticism has tended to substantiate the reliability of the typical historical details of even the oldest periods [of Bible history] and to discount the theory that the Pentateuchal accounts [the historical records in the earliest books of the Bible] are merely the reflection of a much later period.”
mundane details, pah!
I will not go further than this at present for it will require more effort than i can spare, Biblical account has been corroborated through archaeological finds! You cannot dispute it.
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiemun·dane (mn-dn, mndn)
I will say this only once, yer bum!
Archaeology supports the destruction of Tyre, the destruction of Babylon, there have been inscriptions found with the name of Pilate inscribed upon them, infact, i suggest you take a trip along to the British museum, they have both the Rosetta stone and other cuneiform tablets, the Moabite stone, which corrob ...[text shortened]... re, Biblical account has been corroborated through archaeological finds! You cannot dispute it.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or typical of this world; secular.
2. Relating to, characteristic of, or concerned with commonplaces; ordinary.
Freedictionary.com again.
10 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatA purely semantic argument, again! We are interested in examining details, not in obfuscation. Being booted from the Pc, by wife, go to the British museum, do a tour, the Assyrian room, anything!
mun·dane (mn-dn, mndn)
adj.
1. [b]Of, relating to, or typical of this world; secular.
2. Relating to, characteristic of, or concerned with commonplaces; ordinary.
Freedictionary.com again.[/b]
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadbirds are not reptiles? ha ha ha ha ha ha! what school did you drop out from?
Birds are not reptiles and reptiles are not birds. He is wrong and so are you.
I ask you the same question: why is it so important to you that the Bible agrees with science? Couldn't science be wrong?
it doesn't matter to me, I just think you are very very misguided here. Birds are indeed reptiles, and the "order of creation" is the same as the order of evolution, whether that means the bible is correct or its simply a coincidence is another question.
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHonestly Robbie I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the evidence you are waving at me, I just don't see how you can take it as supporting your position regarding the significance of scripture.
A purely semantic argument, again! We are interested in examining details, not in obfuscation. Being booted from the Pc, by wife, go to the British museum, do a tour, the Assyrian room, anything!
10 Mar 11
Originally posted by DowardHe's right you know - birds are not reptiles.
birds are not reptiles? ha ha ha ha ha ha! what school did you drop out from?
it doesn't matter to me, I just think you are very very misguided here. Birds are indeed reptiles, and the "order of creation" is the same as the order of evolution, whether that means the bible is correct or its simply a coincidence is another question.
http://tolweb.org/tree/
10 Mar 11
2 edits
Originally posted by DowardThe international school of Wikipedia.
birds are not reptiles? ha ha ha ha ha ha! what school did you drop out from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile
So tell us, which order of reptiles includes birds:
Crocodilia (crocodiles, gavials, caimans, and alligators): 23 species
Sphenodontia (tuataras from New Zealand): 2 species
Squamata (lizards, snakes, and worm lizards): approximately 7,900 species
Testudines (turtles and tortoises): approximately 300 species
Birds are indeed reptiles, and the "order of creation" is the same as the order of evolution, whether that means the bible is correct or its simply a coincidence is another question.
I will ask you again: why is it so important to you?
10 Mar 11
7 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatwhy not cat dude? its simply corroborative that's all. For example, were the Assyrian's extremely cruel? The Bible describes Nineveh as a city of bloodshed, a lair of Lions? We know from archaeology that this is the case, they were exceptionally cruel, flaying prisoners alive, building mounds from their skulls, impaling them etc, its simply corroborative.
Honestly Robbie I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the evidence you are waving at me, I just don't see how you can take it as supporting your position regarding the significance of scripture.
Consider what archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon comments regarding the destruction of the northern Kingdom at the hands of the Assyrian's, 2 Kings 17:6-18 , “One might have a suspicion that some of this is hyperbole.” But is it? She adds: “The archaeological evidence of the fall of the kingdom of Israel is almost more vivid than that of the Biblical record. . . . The complete obliteration of the Israelite towns of Samaria and Hazor and the accompanying destruction of Megiddo is the factual archaeological evidence that the Bible writer was not exaggerating.”
Also consider this, the Bible tells us that Jerusalem under King Jehoiachin was besieged by the Babylonians and was defeated. This event is recorded on the Babylonian Chronicle (housed in the British museum), a cuneiform tablet discovered by archaeologists. On this, we read: “The king of Akkad [Babylon] . . . laid siege to the city of Judah (iahudu) and the king took the city on the second day of the month of Addaru.” Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon and imprisoned. But later, according to the Bible, he was released from prison and given an allowance of food. (2 Kings 24:8-15; 25:27-30) This is supported by administrative documents found in Babylon, which list the rations given to “Yaukin, king of Judah.”
see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeconiah
Archaeology is simply used to corroborate the text. Why it should be a problem i do not know?
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by Taoman"I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life."
Preliminary:
I am not a theist nor a creationist. I no longer conceive of a divine being outside of "his" creation, but something more mysterious and ineffable within all of life itself, something like a transcendent unborn infinite awareness as a ground of all that arises from it. What you label it as is secondary. It is both personal and impersonal. It con ...[text shortened]... nnot allow a Divine foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, Geneticist)
If it is true, that life originated with a cause by "something like a transcendent unborn infinite awareness", then, whatever it is, truth proceeds from it.
I can't help thinking truth is objective.
Good post Taoman. Enjoyed the read.
11 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Taoman
Preliminary:
I am not a theist nor a creationist. I no longer conceive of a divine being outside of "his" creation, but something more mysterious and ineffable within all of life itself, something like a transcendent unborn infinite awareness as a ground of all that arises from it. What you label it as is secondary. It is both personal and impersonal. It con nnot allow a Divine foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, Geneticist)
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWhich is even more reason to say that the Biblical account differs from the Scientific one.
Birds were created, they did not evolve from something else.
RJHinds
So I ask you again: why is it so important to you to make the claim that the two agree when they clearly don't?
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by josephwMy take on it is that even "final" truths cannot be finally defined, just got near.
[b]"I posit to you that all the evidence points, in an obvious and inextricable way, to a supernatural explanation for the origin of life."
If it is true, that life originated with a cause by "something like a transcendent unborn infinite awareness", then, whatever it is, truth proceeds from it.
I can't help thinking truth is objective.
Good post Taoman. Enjoyed the read.[/b]
Another way of saying that is that truth is even in the opposing "untruth" in some form also.
"Emptiness" from a Buddhist perpective, does not mean there is nothing, just that it is finally so ineffable, so great and embracing and mysterious in quality, that it cannot be grasped as a "thing", cannot be differentiated from everything else. If you like, in theist terms, God is so great, so embracive we cannot lay our eyes on "Him" and exactly define what we see. To limit "him" to a book or one person of whatever nature, blocks our seeing the "magic" also in the events and life around us. And no matter what we believe, the real question to me, is how we are able to live what we believe. That is a greater truth than some formal belief of an idea.
My take with a lot of theist views is not that they are basically wrong, but just need to expand their vision of the greatness of the Divine Reality. We need to stop bringing the Divine down to our puny human size, trying to "possess" God, although it is common and understandable.