It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:45 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 341 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:25 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:49 am
Posts: 4430
Bret Ripley wrote:
LittleNipper wrote:
There is a lot of questions as to if the date of the event was correct.
Not really, no. At least, not a lot of questions coming from archaeologists not named Bryant Wood.
LittleNipper wrote:
I feel you place far too much trust in man and noyhing on the Word of God.
I'm sure you do, and I appreciate your concern.
LittleNipper wrote:
Thanks, but I've already read this article. This is yet another article by Bryant Wood, whose attempts to force the data to match the Biblical narrative have been thoroughly rejected by the scholarly community. Brett Palmer sums it up like this:
Quote:
Dr. Wood was obviously not honest with his research...Dr. Wood’s redating of Jericho has not been accepted by competent archaeologists, who all still accept that the end of the Middle Bronze town of Jericho should be dated to c. 1550 BCE. This does not align it with the biblical date for the conquest of Jericho: c. 1407 BCE.
By the way, I anticipated that someone might be tempted to bring this article up, which is why I mentioned that Wood's attempt to re-date the destruction to ~1400bce has been discredited. The article I linked to earlier addresses this. Here is the link again: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/BPBobbyWallsOfJericho.html

There really isn't much room for argument on this matter, which is why some defenders of Biblical inerrancy have proposed that Joshua must have subdued some other town called Jericho (a sort of "Jericho Jr., Jericho Sr." argument, if you will). At the time "the conquest" should have been occurring, Jericho was unoccupied (and un-walled).

I understand that this does violence to your worldview, and I am sorry about that (hey, I've been there).
Do you realize that 100 year swing is nothing when regarding ancient archaeological evidence. Also, the fact surfaced that apparently there was a poor section and a wealthy section of town. So depending on where one does one's reasearch would make a difference...

Please see: http://www.biblica.com/niv/study-bible/joshua/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:00 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:53 pm
Posts: 1457
BretRipley wrote:
I understand that this does violence to your worldview, and I am sorry about that (hey, I've been there).
LittleNipper wrote:
Do you realize that 100 year swing is nothing when regarding ancient archaeological evidence.
If you don't mind, I prefer to stick to the actual figures under discussion: it is a minimum of 150 years, not 100 years. When we are looking at events from the the 2nd millennium BCE, the precision with which the age of materials can be measured actually does make a difference of 150 (or even 100) a significant period of time. For example, for the time period in question radiocarbon dating is accurate to within about 40 years. Radiocarbon dating dates objects found in the destruction layer to the late 17th and early 16th century BCE. 1550 BCE marks the approximate latest time at which the destruction occurred.
Quote:
Also, the fact surfaced that apparently there was a poor section and a wealthy section of town. So depending on where one does one's reasearch would make a difference.
I don't see how that helps matters at all. There is still no credible evidence of a destruction layer circa 1400 BCE.
LittleNipper wrote:
I don't see anything here pertaining specifically to Jericho that argues for a later destruction date. In fact, the author indicates that evidence from other Canaanite sites makes it difficult to decide whether "the conquest" occurred around 1400BCE or 1250 BCE. This further illustrates that the evidence does not readily fit a literal reading of the Biblical narrative.

By the way: I've been checking out the links you've suggested -- have you had a chance to look at the article I linked to? Cheers.

(Edited to fix my formatting error.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:58 am 
God

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:49 am
Posts: 4430
Bret Ripley wrote:
BretRipley wrote:
I understand that this does violence to your worldview, and I am sorry about that (hey, I've been there).
LittleNipper wrote:
Do you realize that 100 year swing is nothing when regarding ancient archaeological evidence.
If you don't mind, I prefer to stick to the actual figures under discussion: it is a minimum of 150 years, not 100 years. When we are looking at events from the the 2nd millennium BCE, the precision with which the age of materials can be measured actually does make a difference of 150 (or even 100) a significant period of time. For example, for the time period in question radiocarbon dating is accurate to within about 40 years. Radiocarbon dating dates objects found in the destruction layer to the late 17th and early 16th century BCE. 1550 BCE marks the approximate latest time at which the destruction occurred.
Quote:
Also, the fact surfaced that apparently there was a poor section and a wealthy section of town. So depending on where one does one's reasearch would make a difference.
I don't see how that helps matters at all. There is still no credible evidence of a destruction layer circa 1400 BCE.
LittleNipper wrote:
I don't see anything here pertaining specifically to Jericho that argues for a later destruction date. In fact, the author indicates that evidence from other Canaanite sites makes it difficult to decide whether "the conquest" occurred around 1400BCE or 1250 BCE. This further illustrates that the evidence does not readily fit a literal reading of the Biblical narrative.

By the way: I've been checking out the links you've suggested -- have you had a chance to look at the article I linked to? Cheers.

(Edited to fix my formatting error.)

There is a question as to when the Israelites actually left Egypt and that would effect the time they entered into the land of Promise. So one can only more closely dertermine when Joshua attacked Jericho. There are no years provided in the Historic Biblical account, so I cannot see what you have proven or disproven... People who claim absolutes for their own calculations are usually wrong. Humans are not God --- for all their attempts at perfection...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:05 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:53 pm
Posts: 1457
LittleNipper wrote:
There is a question as to when Israelites actually left Egypt and that would effect the time they entered into the land of Promise.
I Kings 6:1 wrote:
In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the Lord.
Edwin R. Thiel's The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (frequently cited as the definitive work on the chronology of Hebrew kings) places the fourth year of Solomon's reign at 966BCE. 966 + 480 = circa 1446 BCE for the exodus, and 40 years in the wilderness puts the conquest at circa 1406 BCE. Others argue for a later date (~1250BCE), but it doesn't really matter because that date doesn't match the archaeological evidence either.

So even though there may be some question regarding the date of the exodus (assuming it is historical), the proposed dates do not match the archaeological record. I trust it is obvious that citing uncertainty on the part of Biblical literalists over the date of the exodus is a non-starter.
LittleNipper wrote:
So one can only more closely dertermine when Joshua attacked Jericho.
I can't parse that sentence.
LittleNipper wrote:
There are no years provided in the Historic Biblical account, so I cannot see what you have proven or disproven.
I am taking the proposed dates set forth by Biblical literalists and comparing them to the archaeological record. If you can't see the ramifications of the discrepancies, with all due respect I'm afraid that's entirely on you.
LittleNipper wrote:
People who claim absolutes for their own calculations are usually wrong.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, here. The results of radiocarbon dating are not expressed in absolute terms, but as a range. If I have been inconsistent in using terms such as "circa" and "approximately", it is due to laziness and not some unfounded certainty over a precise date.

Also, let me state that I am perfectly happy to be wrong. I like learning, and I typically learn more from being proven wrong than I do by being right. If you can demonstrate where and how I have gone wrong, I will thank you for it. However, I hope you will forgive me for observing that your posts on this subject seem to be little more than attempts to muddy the water. You do not seem interested in addressing the points or questions raised. If you have some evidence you wish to discuss, that's great. However, I am not very interested in participating in a scramble to claw out some plausibility-space for an ideologically-driven, evidence-be-damned reading of this ancient text.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:47 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:49 am
Posts: 4430
Bret Ripley wrote:
LittleNipper wrote:
There is a question as to when Israelites actually left Egypt and that would effect the time they entered into the land of Promise.
I Kings 6:1 wrote:
In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the Lord.
Edwin R. Thiel's The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (frequently cited as the definitive work on the chronology of Hebrew kings) places the fourth year of Solomon's reign at 966BCE. 966 + 480 = circa 1446 BCE for the exodus, and 40 years in the wilderness puts the conquest at circa 1406 BCE. Others argue for a later date (~1250BCE), but it doesn't really matter because that date doesn't match the archaeological evidence either.

So even though there may be some question regarding the date of the exodus (assuming it is historical), the proposed dates do not match the archaeological record. I trust it is obvious that citing uncertainty on the part of Biblical literalists over the date of the exodus is a non-starter.
LittleNipper wrote:
So one can only more closely dertermine when Joshua attacked Jericho.
I can't parse that sentence.
LittleNipper wrote:
There are no years provided in the Historic Biblical account, so I cannot see what you have proven or disproven.
I am taking the proposed dates set forth by Biblical literalists and comparing them to the archaeological record. If you can't see the ramifications of the discrepancies, with all due respect I'm afraid that's entirely on you.
LittleNipper wrote:
People who claim absolutes for their own calculations are usually wrong.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, here. The results of radiocarbon dating are not expressed in absolute terms, but as a range. If I have been inconsistent in using terms such as "circa" and "approximately", it is due to laziness and not some unfounded certainty over a precise date.

Also, let me state that I am perfectly happy to be wrong. I like learning, and I typically learn more from being proven wrong than I do by being right. If you can demonstrate where and how I have gone wrong, I will thank you for it. However, I hope you will forgive me for observing that your posts on this subject seem to be little more than attempts to muddy the water. You do not seem interested in addressing the points or questions raised. If you have some evidence you wish to discuss, that's great. However, I am not very interested in participating in a scramble to claw out some plausibility-space for an ideologically-driven, evidence-be-damned reading of this ancient text.

Try to consider the following:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html
http://www.christiancourier.com/article ... nt-jericho
http://www.frontlinemin.org/exodus.asp
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... richo.aspx
http://www.truthortradition.com/iphone/ ... &Itemid=55


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:53 pm
Posts: 1457
LittleNipper wrote:
Seriously? You're killing me, here. The first is yet another article by the thoroughly discredited Bryant Wood (although in the article he refers to himself in the third person), and the second relies exclusively on Wood.

From the first article, here is an example of the type of deception in which Wood trades:

"...Kathleen Kenyon (1952-1958) ... dug at Jericho for six seasons and a German excavation directed by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger dug for three. All found abundant evidence of the city's destruction by fire in a layer related to the Biblical date of 1400 BC."

Wood is being dishonest. Watzinger/Sellin dated their finds to 1950-1550 BCE, and Kenyon dated the destruction of Jericho's wall to approx. 1550 BCE. Addressing the question of the conquest, Kenyon wrote:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

Contrary to what Wood wrote, Kenyon specifically ruled out a date of 1400 BCE. In other words, Wood is lying. Why on earth do you continue to cite him?

Now, enough already: will you please stop being content to simply link to discredited articles and offer some of your own thoughts on the various evidences?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:57 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:49 am
Posts: 4430
Bret Ripley wrote:
LittleNipper wrote:
Seriously? You're killing me, here. The first is yet another article by the thoroughly discredited Bryant Wood (although in the article he refers to himself in the third person), and the second relies exclusively on Wood.

From the first article, here is an example of the type of deception in which Wood trades:

"...Kathleen Kenyon (1952-1958) ... dug at Jericho for six seasons and a German excavation directed by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger dug for three. All found abundant evidence of the city's destruction by fire in a layer related to the Biblical date of 1400 BC."

Wood is being dishonest. Watzinger/Sellin dated their finds to 1950-1550 BCE, and Kenyon dated the destruction of Jericho's wall to approx. 1550 BCE. Addressing the question of the conquest, Kenyon wrote:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

Contrary to what Wood wrote, Kenyon specifically ruled out a date of 1400 BCE. In other words, Wood is lying. Why on earth do you continue to cite him?

Now, enough already: will you please stop being content to simply link to discredited articles and offer some of your own thoughts on the various evidences?

I see that you are being true to yourself but unfair and unrealistic in your opinions. Secular scientists are in no way perfect or better than anyone else, and as such they do often have an ax to grind. To suggest that secular scientists could never be out to discredit or disprove the Bible, is exactly like saying that Christians and Jews are not trying to prove the Bible. I'm sorry to see that you are so intent on lumping everyone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God as less honest than those who think the Bible is simply a fable. You clearly imagine that Christians are out to prove the Bible right no matter what; however, where evidence is available, you seem to think it is okay to only accept the word of someone trying to negate what is clearly seen. So in reality, it doesn't matter if Noah's ark were to be found or not, there will be those who will try to prove it a hoax in some way, shape or form. The reality is that faith is the work of GOD, as also is the hardening of one's heart... God gives to each what they ultimately desire. You wanted my thoughts and now you have them. Carbon dating is unreliable at best. Dating based on geological soil layers is even more unreliable. And people have always liked to stick with that which they are comfortable/familiar with for years after such is considered outmoded or out of fashion. So I have absolutly no problem with the fact that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the wall came tumbling down. You will believe what you will --- it doesn't change the reality in the least.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:38 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:52 am
Posts: 7306
LittleNipper wrote:
I see that you are being true to yourself but unfair and unrealistic in your opinions. Secular scientists are in no way perfect or better than anyone else, and as such they do often have an ax to grind. To suggest that secular scientists could never be out to discredit or disprove the Bible, is exactly like saying that Christians and Jews are not trying to prove the Bible. I'm sorry to see that you are so intent on lumping everyone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God as less honest than those who think the Bible is simply a fable. You clearly imagine that Christians are out to prove the Bible right no matter what; however, where evidence is available, you seem to think it is okay to only accept the word of someone trying to negate what is clearly seen. So in reality, it doesn't matter if Noah's ark were to be found or not, there will be those who will try to prove it a hoax in some way, shape or form. The reality is that faith is the work of GOD, as also is the hardening of one's heart... God gives to each what they ultimately desire. You wanted my thoughts and now you have them. Carbon dating is unreliable at best. Dating based on geological soil layers is even more unreliable. And people have always liked to stick with that which they are comfortable/familiar with for years after such is considered outmoded or out of fashion. So I have absolutly no problem with the fact that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the wall came tumbling down. You will believe what you will --- it doesn't change the reality in the least.


I notice you didn't address the problem that the source of your supporting evidence, Wood, lied. :rolleyes:

_________________
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:34 am 
God

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:49 am
Posts: 4430
Drifting wrote:
LittleNipper wrote:
I see that you are being true to yourself but unfair and unrealistic in your opinions. Secular scientists are in no way perfect or better than anyone else, and as such they do often have an ax to grind. To suggest that secular scientists could never be out to discredit or disprove the Bible, is exactly like saying that Christians and Jews are not trying to prove the Bible. I'm sorry to see that you are so intent on lumping everyone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God as less honest than those who think the Bible is simply a fable. You clearly imagine that Christians are out to prove the Bible right no matter what; however, where evidence is available, you seem to think it is okay to only accept the word of someone trying to negate what is clearly seen. So in reality, it doesn't matter if Noah's ark were to be found or not, there will be those who will try to prove it a hoax in some way, shape or form. The reality is that faith is the work of GOD, as also is the hardening of one's heart... God gives to each what they ultimately desire. You wanted my thoughts and now you have them. Carbon dating is unreliable at best. Dating based on geological soil layers is even more unreliable. And people have always liked to stick with that which they are comfortable/familiar with for years after such is considered outmoded or out of fashion. So I have absolutly no problem with the fact that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the wall came tumbling down. You will believe what you will --- it doesn't change the reality in the least.


I notice you didn't address the problem that the source of your supporting evidence, Wood, lied. :rolleyes:

Every Christian website is not about Woods or just his finding. Lets face it, I feel Darwin is a liar/cheat/fraud ------ likely you embrace him among others. I do not worship Woods. I worship the God of the Bible and have every faith in His Word even when I do not totally understand every aspect. However, Jericho's walls fell out flat and the city was burned and grain was left behind and not taken... That is what the Bible says and that is exactly what I believe and those are the findings. Twist everything else and you are only fighting about opinion concerning the date...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:54 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:53 pm
Posts: 1457
LittleNipper wrote:
Bret Ripley wrote:
... offer some of your own thoughts on the various evidences?

I see that you are being true to yourself but unfair and unrealistic in your opinions.
That is always a possibility, of course. However, I think you misunderstand my position on a number of matters. Read on.
Quote:
Secular scientists are in no way perfect or better than anyone else, and as such they do often have an ax to grind.
Of course. That's why it is important for us non-scientists to try to understand the data (as much as it is in our power to do so) and its interpretations. Scholarly consensus is not infallible, of course, but it is a good place to start for non-scientists.
Quote:
To suggest that secular scientists could never be out to discredit or disprove the Bible, is exactly like saying that Christians and Jews are not trying to prove the Bible.
It is just as well that I make no such suggestion.
Quote:
I'm sorry to see that you are so intent on lumping everyone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God as less honest than those who think the Bible is simply a fable. You clearly imagine that Christians are out to prove the Bible right no matter what;
That's not correct: I am quite familiar with Christian scholars who are happy to follow the evidence wherever it may lead (one of these Christian scholars happens to be a dear friend of mine). In Wood's case, however, he is director of a Christian ministry whose stated purpose is to "prove the Bible". I think I am probably justified in taking them at their word.
Quote:
however, where evidence is available, you seem to think it is okay to only accept the word of someone trying to negate what is clearly seen.
Dude, I think you owe me a new Irony Meter. :smile: Let us remember that I am the one sympathetic to the consensus view, here, and it is Bryant Wood and his followers who are trying to negate "what is clearly seen" by pretty much every other archaeologist on the planet.
Quote:
So in reality, it doesn't matter if Noah's ark were to be found or not, there will be those who will try to prove it a hoax in some way, shape or form. The reality is that faith is the work of GOD, as also is the hardening of one's heart... God gives to each what they ultimately desire.
And if one desire's the truth, regardless of whether it flatters their preconceptions?
Quote:
You wanted my thoughts and now you have them.
For which I thank you very much indeed.
Quote:
Carbon dating is unreliable at best.
QED? Also, is it worth noting that Dr. Wood was happy to cite the single C-14 result that seemed to support his preferred date?
Quote:
Dating based on geological soil layers is even more unreliable.
If you are serious about the unreliability of carbon dating and soil layers, please feel free to try to support your bald assertions.
Quote:
And people have always liked to stick with that which they are comfortable/familiar with for years after such is considered outmoded or out of fashion.
Okay, that's two Irony Meters.
Quote:
So I have absolutly no problem with the fact that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the wall came tumbling down.
If the evidence supported it, I would have no problem with it either.
Quote:
You will believe what you will --- it doesn't change the reality in the least.
And that's three.

See, I don't care whether the destruction of Jericho dates to 1550 BCE, 1400 BCE, or any other date. I am quite happy to follow the evidence wherever it leads. If the evidence happens to challenge some preconceived notion, the honest response is a willingness to re-examine the preconceived notion. Contrast that with Wood's response, which you have seen is to misrepresent the findings of other archaeologists in an attempt to make the evidence appear to support his preconceived notion. Interesting, no?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:56 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:53 pm
Posts: 1457
Drifting wrote:
I notice you didn't address the problem ...
Hey, at least he's finally talking to me! :smile:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 11:43 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:53 pm
Posts: 1457
LittleNipper wrote:
Drifting wrote:
I notice you didn't address the problem that the source of your supporting evidence, Wood, lied. :rolleyes:

Every Christian website is not about Woods or just his finding.
All but one of the links you have provided are articles that were either authored by or depend on Dr. Wood. The one link that does not explicitly cite Wood follows him in his assertion that the evidence must be re-interpreted in order to fit their particular ideological approach to Biblical texts. In other words, every link you have provided tacitly admits that the unmanipulated findings of competent archaeologists are stacked against their ideologically-driven preconceptions.
Quote:
Lets face it, I feel Darwin is a liar/cheat/fraud ------ likely you embrace him among others. I do not worship Woods. I worship the God of the Bible and have every faith in His Word even when I do not totally understand every aspect.
I hope you will forgive me, but I'm not at all certain this is completely true. It appears to me that the object of your faith is not God (per se) but a specifice and fairly modern (late-19th, early 20th century) approach to Biblical exegesis. To illustrate: there are many faithful, God-loving people who do not regard the Bible as some sort of hyper-precise history book. Everyone agrees that the Bible certainly possesses historical value, but this is not its primary purpose or focus. In fact, I would go so far as to say that an expectation that the Biblical authors meet our 21st century standards of recording history is disrespectful to those authors and to the Biblical texts themselves.
Quote:
However, Jericho's walls fell out flat and the city was burned and grain was left behind and not taken... That is what the Bible says and that is exactly what I believe and those are the findings. Twist everything else and you are only fighting about opinion concerning the date...
The discrepancy regarding the dates is the subject of the links you provided. Would you now prefer that we ignore them? Your links do not treat the dating methods as "opinions", but instead seek to re-interpret (and in some cases lie about) the data to try to make them less inconvenient to their ideology. If you now wish to argue that the dates are just a matter of opinion, you are throwing the sources you have cited under the proverbial bus.

Which isn't a bad day's work, I'll admit. :smile:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 11:57 am 
2nd Quorum of Seventy
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:14 am
Posts: 688
Location: Sweden
LittleNipper wrote:
There is a question as to when the Israelites actually left Egypt and that would effect the time they entered into the land of Promise. So one can only more closely dertermine when Joshua attacked Jericho. There are no years provided in the Historic Biblical account, so I cannot see what you have proven or disproven... People who claim absolutes for their own calculations are usually wrong. Humans are not God --- for all their attempts at perfection...


Now you're finally addressing the actual question. "There is a question as to when the Israelites actually left Egypt". How true. Since no evidence exists to prove that the Israelites actually lived in Egypt, it is equally true that no exit date exists. Furthermore, despite sincere and devoted research has never found any evidence that 600,000+ people wandered about in the Sinai desert it makes it doubly difficult to establish a date when said 600,000+'s offspring would have entered Israel.

Just find one (1) piece of evidence of 600,000+ people wandering about in the Sinai, such as fire places, rubbish, bones, graves, or anything, and I will re-consider. Just one piece of evidence. Get back to me at your leisure.

_________________
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:53 pm
Posts: 1457
bcuzbcuz wrote:
Just find one (1) piece of evidence of 600,000+ people wandering about in the Sinai ...
Do you think it is fair to note that is considerably greater than the current population of the peninsula? Because I am tempted to note that this is considerable greater than the current population of peninsula. But I won't mention it if you think it unfair.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:16 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:28 pm
Posts: 2689
Location: AZ
Bret Ripley wrote:
I Kings 6:1 wrote:
In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the Lord.

Edwin R. Thiel's The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (frequently cited as the definitive work on the chronology of Hebrew kings) places the fourth year of Solomon's reign at 966BCE. 966 + 480 = circa 1446 BCE for the exodus, and 40 years in the wilderness puts the conquest at circa 1406 BCE. Others argue for a later date (~1250BCE), but it doesn't really matter because that date doesn't match the archaeological evidence either.


The problem with scholars is they have an agenda of the world and are not even looking for God's message. The timeline you use is based on worldly assumptions. A more accurate timeline based on scriptural study can be found here.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm

"The date of 1545 BC ± 6 years for Joshua's conquest of Canaan accords with both the Bible and archaeology."

It is a good read by the way. So if you have been misreading scripture and forming your worldview on a misread maybe you should study scripture more and re-evaluate your worldview. It appears to me that the scholars you follow do not know much about scripture.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:16 am 
tired, less active investigator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:07 am
Posts: 10158
Location: Hungary
Franktalk wrote:
The problem with scholars is they have an agenda of the world and are not even looking for God's message.
No. YOU have the agenda.

Pierre-Simon Laplace said:
- "[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse."
(Translation: "[No, Sire,] I had no need of that hypothesis.")
Reputed reply to Emperor Napoleon I, who had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his discourse on secular variations of the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter ("Mais où est Dieu dans tout cela?"/'But where is God in all this?').



Franktalk wrote:
http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htmIt is a good read by the way.
No. It is stupid reading. By the way.
Fortunately, there are less and less setterfields around.



Franktalk wrote:
So if you have been misreading scripture and forming your worldview on a misread maybe you should study scripture more and re-evaluate your worldview. It appears to me that the scholars you follow do not know much about scripture.
When some criticize the bible for scientific errors ("the hare, because he cheweth the cud", or healing leper with "scarlet and the hyssop... the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water", or stopping the Sun for a day), the bible defenders - like You - are shouting "No, it is a scripture, it is not biology, not medicine, not astronomy - not science."

In this case, You - and bible defenders - are right.
The scriptures are not science. They are far from it.

[#img] http://wumocomicstrip.com/img/strip/-WM ... -12-16.gif[#/img]

Then, why should scientists use them? Why should know them much about?
The scientists have their scientific books, written by other scientists - not written by unknown or never existed tribal leaders.

by the way to know much about scriptures there are the well educated catholic priests, the little less educated muslim mullahs, and the totally uneducated Mormon priesthood holders - concerning scripture and/or theology.

Which category is Your lonesome pet Setterfield?

_________________
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:28 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:28 pm
Posts: 2689
Location: AZ
ludwigm wrote:
by the way to know much about scriptures there are the well educated catholic priests, the little less educated muslim mullahs, and the totally uneducated Mormon priesthood holders - concerning scripture and/or theology.


I wish to know what is your measuring stick that you use to determine this ranking? You must feel there is some set of knowledge out there that is truth and everything else can be compared to it.

I think that at one time science and religion were pretty tight with each other. Then came the naturalistic period and we now see a major gap between the two. I think in time the two will merge again. Science just needs to catch up with truth. But the end of this age may come first. I sure don't know.

Nice to see you post.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:09 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 12749
Franktalk wrote:
You must feel there is some set of knowledge out there that is truth and everything else can be compared to it.



Truth is in the proposition.

Quote:
I think that at one time science and religion were pretty tight with each other.


I suppose. Many of the great thinkers of the past were very religious, although religion in many cases were not a help.

Quote:
Then came the naturalistic period and we now see a major gap between the two.


Sure, and we see what from religion? I can easily see what science has brought to our understanding. I can see what it has done in medicine, Engineering, Physics, math, biology, geology, etc. How well is religion at predicting volcanic activity. Will religion or science be the first to heal the amputee?

Quote:
I think in time the two will merge again.


Yes, but it will be religion that has to move to catch up with science.

Quote:
Science just needs to catch up with truth.


Truth is not some thing. Truth is only in the proposition.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:28 pm
Posts: 2689
Location: AZ
Themis wrote:
[
Truth is not some thing. Truth is only in the proposition.


Truth is absolute and not relative. Science does not deal with truth. Many think it does. Science deals with observation and guesswork. The real foundations of reality science still does not have a clue.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:51 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:53 pm
Posts: 1457
Franktalk wrote:
The timeline you use is based on worldly assumptions.
I am merely addressing the timeline used in LittleNipper's links. I do not begin with the assumption that the conquest is historical, and I don't need to manipulate the evidence to make it fit some pet hypothesis. To spell out what should be quite obvious: I don't much care what date is proposed for the conquest.
Quote:
A more accurate timeline based on scriptural study can be found here.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm
This article is an entertaining read, at any rate. I am oddly fascinated by pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and the like. I don't want to spend a lot of time discussing Setterfield (ludwigm has already hit the high spots), but I will offer a brief comment on your link.

In this article Setterfield is cherry-picking among sources, sometimes relying on sources from some 1600 years after the supposed events took place. He embraces expediency as a valid epistemic principle. For an example of his cherry-picking, he is happy to follow variant texts that appear in the Septuagint when they suit his purposes, but doesn't even mention the fact that the Septuagint contains a version of of I Kings 6:1 which reports a period of 430 years (instead of 480) between the exodus and commencement of construction of Solomon's temple. This is inconvenient to his hypothesis, and so does not even merit a mention.

But Setterfield has shown he is capable of much more egregious breaches of rationality when it comes to defending his pet theories. He has famously proposed changing the laws of physics for the sole purpose of rescuing his theories. Quixote ain't in it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:06 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 12749
Franktalk wrote:
Themis wrote:
[
Truth is not some thing. Truth is only in the proposition.


Truth is absolute and not relative. Science does not deal with truth. Many think it does. Science deals with observation and guesswork. The real foundations of reality science still does not have a clue.


LOL You don't even understand what I said. Truth is in the proposition. Some truths can be subjective, while others objective. I love chocolate is a subjective truth for me. The Moon currently orbits the earth is an objective truth. As to science, your posts reveal you understand little of it.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 341 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group