Originally posted by whodeyActually, that's one scientist. He's also the same guy that thought wind could account for the dividing of the Red Sea. He appears for all the world like a confused idiot. That's what happens when you try to mix myth with science.
Check out this web site:
http://livescience.com/othernews/060404_jesus_ice.html
Apparently scientists seem to think that conditions could have conspired to create hard-to-see ice on the Sea of Galilee that Jesus could have walked on.
Reactions??????????
Originally posted by whodeyEven if the events which it is claimed happened, actually did happen (and I don't believe that they did), then the fact that a scientific explanation, no matter how inplausible it may be, exists means that there is absolutely no need to invoke imaginary gods to explain these phenomena.
I have heard scientist try to come up with explanations as to why the Red Sea may have parted. I have heard theories about how there may have been earthquakes and such that may have been attributable to the phenomenon. I also heard a theologian of all people say that the Sea of Reeds was simply shallow enough for them to pass through and that no miracle act ...[text shortened]... iracles in science, which includes the origins of life itself. It can all be explained away.
Originally posted by howardgeeI was under the impression that archaelogists had discovered that Jericho never had any walls.
Actually, scientific opinion is that this was a Tsunami caused by an Earth quake.
That other 'miracle'. the walls of Jericho is also attributable to an earthquake. Indeed, archeologists have seen that the walls had previously been repeatedly repaired after similar earthquakes.
Soon there will be no ignorance, and no room for God in the world of man.
It was either no walls or very very small ones, more like inconvenient barriers. I forget which now.
Originally posted by telerionYes, I think this is the only interesting part of the whole thread. Who the heck is this crackpot scientist that thinks giving scientific explanations to miracles is a valuable way to spend ones time? This idiot is to science and scientists as pat Robertson is to Christianity and Christians.
Actually, that's one scientist. He's also the same guy that thought wind could account for the dividing of the Red Sea. He appears for all the world like a confused idiot. That's what happens when you try to mix myth with science.
TheSkipper
Originally posted by TheSkipperGood post! If nothing else I think we can all agree with this.
Yes, I think this is the only interesting part of the whole thread. Who the heck is this crackpot scientist that thinks giving scientific explanations to miracles is a valuable way to spend ones time?
TheSkipper
Originally posted by scottishinnzI am not blaming archaeologists for anything. However, what is absurd is the attempt to say on the one hand you will scientifically account for the miracles in the Bible when the text you are using is has no validity to scinece. Science is about the scientific method and observation. The Bible is about faith and the miraculous power of God. You cannot place the miraculous powers of God to the scientific method. To take the stories revolving around these miracles and somehow pretend they are plausable and reasonable to science is absurd. Especially when the only records of such miracles come direclty from the Bible. Science has its place and theologians have their place. Why don't we all stick to our profession and leave the rest to the professionals.
Ah, so the lack of proof for the biblical account is now the fault of the nasty egyptian archaeologists now, is it? Good to know about you christians, that you hold everyone else in such contempt. People, this is the true rub of christianity. I've maintained the position on these forums for a long time that neither good nor evil people actually exist ...[text shortened]... out and slaughter those unbelieveing, treacherous archaeologists - repressing your god and all.
Breaking news everyone!! Scientists have explained how Jesus walked on water via the ice. However, they forgot to explain how Peter also walked on the water when Jesus called for him. It turns out that archaelogical excavation have uncovered these.
http://www.gameops.com/spot/promo/inflate_shoes.php
Originally posted by whodeyIce doesn't make any sense at all.
Breaking news everyone!! Scientists have explained how Jesus walked on water via the ice. However, they forgot to explain how Peter also walked on the water when Jesus called for him. It turns out that archaelogical excavation have uncovered these.
http://www.gameops.com/spot/promo/inflate_shoes.php
Jesus and Peter walk all the way to the boat. The disciples would have been on a boat trapped in ice.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe scientist quoted in the article states that such ice could have existed; (s)he clearly declines to make any statement regarding the Biblical accounts.
Check out this web site:
http://livescience.com/othernews/060404_jesus_ice.html
Apparently scientists seem to think that conditions could have conspired to create hard-to-see ice on the Sea of Galilee that Jesus could have walked on.
Reactions??????????
"We simply explain that unique freezing processes probably happened in that region only a handful of times during the last 12,000 years," said Doron Nof, a Florida State University Professor of Oceanography. "We leave to others the question of whether or not our research explains the biblical account."
Originally posted by telerionHere's one from Wik:
I was under the impression that archaelogists had discovered that Jericho never had any walls.
It was either no walls or very very small ones, more like inconvenient barriers. I forget which now.
"Confirmed Biblical structures
Gibeon pool (at el-Jib)
Hezekiah's tunnel under Jerusalem
Jericho's walls
They date to sometime in the mid-second millennium BC and may have been destroyed by a siege or an earthquake. Opinions differ as to whether they are the walls referred to in the Bible. The walls were originally dated by John Garstang to c. 1400 BC. Kathleen Kenyon later disputed Garstang's dating and instead placed them c. 1550 BC, a date supported by the majority of archaeologists. Bryant Wood has recently argued that Garstang's dating was correct. Garstang and Wood's date is consistent with the dating of Joshua used by many Christian Bible scholars. However traditional Jewish dating places Joshua in the 13th century and the earliest archaeological evidence of an Israelite presence also dates to this period."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFrom the Wik Jericho article:
Here's one from Wik:
"Confirmed Biblical structures
Gibeon pool (at el-Jib)
Hezekiah's tunnel under Jerusalem
Jericho's walls
They date to sometime in the mid-second millennium BC and may have been destroyed by a siege or an earthquake. Opinions differ as to whether they are the walls referred to in the Bible. The walls were originally dated by J ...[text shortened]... esence also dates to this period."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology
Other scholars see a contradiction between history and the biblical text in this area, as the earliest known Israelite settlements do not appear until ca.1230 BC, long after Jericho's walls had already been destroyed.