Hey! The rest of us are curious too. Sometimes there’s no harm in preaching to the converted… 
Yea, spread the Word to us, brother David!
Opus1 wrote:
Well, the really good ones are.
The cheap ones are printed on newsprint and bound in paperback.
Satan wrote:
How dare you question the Gospel of Kong!
Maybe this new book will tell us if the Flood waters were salty or fresh. If they were fresh, maybe there’s a clue as to how all the marine life survived. If they were salty, maybe there is a clue as to how the fresh-water life survived.
Bah, childs play. Wait till they dig up my apartment. Then and only then will I gain credit for my amazing ability to turn both Mountan Dew and 7-11s into Dr. Pepper! That’ll show 'em all!
–
“You die, she dies, everybody dies!”
“I don’t like this new version of She-bop.”
It would be nice if clear evidence like this was part of creationist logic processes, but alas, it was never meant to be. As an aside, the whole issue of the salinity of the flood waters is even more problematic for creationists then your statement implies. In actuality, most aquatic life is extremely sensitive to even minor changes in salinity. Rather than killing half of all aquatic animals, the Flood would actually kill almost all of them.
SuaSponte said:
Interesting that you mentioned this one! This just happened sometime during the 90’s, I think close to 1995 or 1996 but I’m not sure. Anyway, I remember reading the article in the paper the day they found the remains of Jericho. I was curious what they would find.
According to the article, the walls were found as if they had been shoved into the ground. In other words, the top of the walls were at the same height as ground level (the ground level of that time). They were not crumbled.
When I read this I thought, “hmmm”. That didn’t fit AT ALL with my picture of the walls of Jericho falling down! I ran to my Bible to see if it gave any clue as to this discovery. When I read the actual description of the wall falling, my jaw dropped …
It then goes on to say that the Israelites ran straight into the city! Now, I had obviously never put any significance on the words “flat” or “straight” before. But the Bible says exactly what apparently happened. The walls fell down FLAT … no crumbling into little tiny pieces … so flat that the Israelites were able to run straight across into the city!
So no it doesn’t prove that it happened because of the Israelites blowing the trumpet and shouting, but it does show a rather supernatural act, as well as yet MORE evidence that science and archeology eventually catch up with what the Bible’s always said, not the other way around.
Whoops, I put the wrong book title on my scripture reference. That should be Joshua 6:20, not Jer.
From http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/2/982front.html
“The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua’s conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.”
-Ben
…is there such thing as an unbiased source now a days?
OK, due to popular demand (even without CollegeStudent), I’ll type in a summary when I get a chance. This might not be 'til tomorrow or the weekend. Sorry.
From substantial reading in reference works on archaeology and a year’s subscription to Biblical Archaeology Review, I have come to one conclusion: You get out of it what you read into it.
Most archaeological finds are not proof of anything but the data on hand, but can be interpreted in support of any special pleading you care to make. There is even some “proof” on hand that the Sphinx (the one by the Pyramids of Giza) was the product of that sun-worshipping civilization of 8000 BC that nobody in his right mind subscribes to. (Of course the “proof” might equally well be attributed to the effects of climatic change on sandstone over about four millennia, but…)
Dr. Fidelius said:
And of course I misread the last word as “logic” … 
Just to let you know College Student…fundamentalist theologists are not very happy with Biblical archeology. They don’t particularily like the way historical evidence often removes the element of pure “faith” out of the stories. You can take the “story” that Jesus was a simple carpenter. For one thing he was more than likely more of a stone mason type of builder. He did after all live in a desert climate where wood was not very plentiful. There is also some doubt as to his “simplicity”. Yes, he was from a small town, but he more than likely worked about 5 miles away in one of the biggest and fastest growning urban cities of his time. According to archeological finds this neighboring city was probably occupied by many people of diverse cultures. In order for Jesus and the men in his family to practice their profession there they were much more likely to have been at least bi-lingual being able to speak at least Arabic and Greek. The Greek influences (or Hellenistic) influences found at this cite bare this theory out. Thus it is theorized that Jesus was probably no “hick” if he was not formally educated then he was more than likely at least “experienced” by means of outside influences. Historical evidence is also criticized quite often for displaying the evidence of “pagan” influences on Christianity such as the story of “virgin birth”, which is quite ancient and an integral part of several other religons, even the Egyptians.
You do have to realize that the Bible you are familiar with is a writing based on “oral” histories and was taken from many different writings that were produced long after the actual events took place. This does not however prove that these stories were not based on some type of fact. Just keep in mind as you explore these findings the notion that you may find a few disparities in the “archeological” interpretations and your “faith teachings”.
My advice to you is to continue to explore the history of your faith, for better or worse. And just keep it to yourself, use, enjoy and share the knowledge with your close friends and people who will help you grow in understanding. Leave the assholes on this board alone that only love to jump at the opportunity to ridicule or argue with your new discovery. The more you explore the more you will come to a greater understanding one way or another. But if you try to discuss this here you will end up getting pissed off or having your feelings hurt. You’re on your way to coming to your own conclusions, which is how it should be.
Needs2know
Hi there! Asshole here!
Just thought I’d mention that this is a public message board designed to combat ignorance. And as such, when someone starts quoting Chick Tracts as a source (and also not crediting them), I think we have a duty to respond.
You’re right. If he does not want his little worldview shattered by facts (and occassionally cynicism and skepticism, sure) then he should go to LBMB and (literally) preach to the converted.
As for you, if you think we are assholes, I believe there is another forum for that kind of talk, and also I believe you are free to go as well.
Yer pal (unless you’re an asshole),
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, one day, 12 hours, 37 minutes and 4 seconds.
4941 cigarettes not smoked, saving $617.63.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 3 hours, 45 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
I don’t follow. That the walls were knocked down flat shows that it was a supernatural act? I would think that the walls crumbling (accelerated erosion) would be the true sign of supernatural acts.
Sua
Actually Satan you do not seem to use the tone of ridicule that many of your friends do when discussing this subject. So I was not necessarily referring to you. The information you provide is usually done so in what I would call the proper spirit. So accept my apology if you were offended by my comment.
What the poster might find easier is to engage in a little further study of this particular subject and the SDMB before he sets himself up for the smart ass tone he has experienced here. Naturally there are very few here that would cut the fellow a break, realizing that he might be a little bit misguided and uninformed, not merely stupid.
Anyway, I just wanted to warn him that he might need to have a very thick skin and an open mind if he wants to discuss this subject on the SDMB. I personally find ancient history very facinating, regardless of the culture.
Needs2know
Actually, CollegeStudent sets himself up for the “smart ass tone” by the fact that he has zero idea of what constitutes a reliable source, and zero interest in discussing the issues he raises. He’ll gladly quote a Chick track as “proof” that evolution is false, but he won’t even acknowledge the counter-arguments that are presented.
I think that if CollegeStudent wants to be treated with respect, he could start by respecting others.
-Ben
Needs2know, honeybunny, if you’re trying to say something, please just say it. Otherwise, the snide asides are not very appropriate, especially when you’re deriding the inappropriate behavior of others.
Ok Andros is this plain enough for you…
I don’t really know CollegeStudent. I actually pay very little attention to individual posters and I don’t look at every thread. (The exception would be those prolific posters, Satan being one of them, that I have come to recognize readily over time.) At one point I had stopped opening ANY threads that dealt with Judeo/Christian belief systems simply because it pissed me off to see so many people being rude to each other over this subject. (Pros and Cons alike.) I only opened this thread because I find Biblical Archeology interesting. But naturally within the first couple of posts I noticed snide behavior toward the original poster. Now if CollegeStudent is indeed some hard headed fool that has addressed this subject before and refuses to look at ALL the facts, even those that do not necessarily support his view, then great, fuck with him all you want. Otherwise it has been my view and I still maintain that Christians are often treated very rudely on this board. I’m not talking about Christians who have “proved” themselves to be well educated and aren’t prone to prostylizing, I’m talking about pretty much anyone that might even be new and hasn’t realized how hard hit he might be if he posts ANYTHING addressing this subject.
I no longer consider myself a Christian. I was raised this way and often find it hard to separate what I have learned and come to doubt about the practice with what has been so deeply ingrained from past teachings. It does however piss me off to see people attempt to be honest about their beliefs only to have them subject to ridicule. I think we can concede here that it is part of the doctrine of Christianity that it’s followers separate themselves from anything that would score across these beliefs. So naturally it may be hard for some individuals to open themselves up to anything that contradicts what they have learned. I have decided to deal with people who are still in this mind-set with patience and understanding, hoping that one day they will come to some greater understanding or reconciliation through their own studies. I do not choose to use ridicule as a means to get any kind of point across. I just don’t think it works. It only makes others hold more stubbornly to their opinions.
I’m thinking that the more effective way to get someone to see your point of view would be to offer examples and pose questions that might challenge them to think about what makes them form their views. In this case there is quite a bit of material that can be explored, some of it supports the OP and others do not. CollegeStudent should be encouraged to explore this subject further. Perhaps he might need a gentle admonishment not to take one source, and a biased source at that, as “gospel” (pardon the wording), but to talk down to him and subject him to a patronizing tone will not get anyone’s point across.
Needs2know