OK, I understand what you’re saying, Needs. I don’t see it that same way, but I do understand your point of view.
I think this is not the best of threads to use as an example of Christian-bashing, however. You said “within the first couple of posts I noticed snide behavior toward the original poster.” Well, duh. Of course you did. Someone posted a topic saying “the Bible has been proven!” and then providing no argument whatsoever.
In this case, at least, it’s not a matter of whether he’s a Christian or not. It’s a matter of making huge claims with nothing to back them up. As an example, if I posted that I had found a book that clearly disproved the Bible, but I couldn’t tell you how it did so, would you calmly accept that? I don’t think so.
Perhaps when the OP returns from his studies, he can provide a little something besides hearsay. Then, perhaps, he will not be chided for poor or nonexistent scholarship.
That said, I was at Stonehenge the other day, and I found a book in a New Age bookstore which clearly demonstrates that evolution is false. I’ll expand tomorrow morning, when I have time to respond fully.
Please provide evidence where someone who was not an idiot got jumped by the anti-Christian brigade here?
I don’t believe you can.
As for your convenient little “out” about how you’re not talking about “Christians who have ‘proved’ themselves,” I don’t think that the likes of Polycarp, Tris, Libertarian, Jeff and any other open Christnas who are NOT like them were treated badly until they “proved” themselves. Please show me differently.
The people who are treated badly here are guilty not of being Christian, but of being willfully ignorant, a capital offense in these here parts.
Lesser charges that these types are guilty of include debating with fallacies, using previously debunked and/or unreliable sources, giving opinions without backing those opinions up with an iota of evidence, not replying to answers given by others, twisting the words of others, and even coming off with condescending attitudes similar to what you accuse others here of doing.
The poster in question is guilty of several of these things.
Anyone who is guilty of these things is likely to face some attitudes from others here. But here’s a newsflash: NOT BECAUSE THEY’RE CHRISTIANS! Because they are guilty of the above.
In fact, please point out to me in the history of this board where someone was not guilty of the above but was treated badly en masse?
You won’t find it.
**
Nobody here is ridiculed for their beliefs! They are ridiculed for their inability to defend them and their arrogance to push them on others and their illogical reasoning behind them!
**
I don’t concede anything of the sort. If Polycarp and Gaudere can come to mutual respect with vastly different worldviews, I don’t see why others cannot.
**
Feel free to do that your way. Nobody is stopping you.
I think that people are treated as they deserve. ColleStudent is not here to learn. This poster has not answered questions, cited sources, or acknowledged anything. He deserves everything he gets, and basicly is nothing more than a troll for Christ.
As annoying as FriendofGod is, he gets treated better because he is at least TRYING, but not as good as someone like the newbie poster Joel who seems to genuinely want to hear what other people say and decide for himself.
As I said, people are treated as they deserve to be treated, religious or not.
**
He will not. He has not. How about considering that maybe we know what we are talking about and that he is not going to do these things?
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, one day, 19 hours, 43 minutes and 40 seconds.
4952 cigarettes not smoked, saving $619.11.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 4 hours, 40 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, one day, 19 hours, 51 minutes and 23 seconds.
4953 cigarettes not smoked, saving $619.14.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 4 hours, 45 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
Preview is your friend.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, one day, 19 hours, 52 minutes and 57 seconds.
4953 cigarettes not smoked, saving $619.14.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 4 hours, 45 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
I wonder what Bible literalists think when an archaeological dig supports a Biblical story through the us of C-14 dating? Say, for example, a C-14 of 800 BC +/- 125 at a site which matches the Biblical description of an event believed by Biblical chronology to have occured 795 BC? If they accept THAT carbon date, why not a carbon date of a pre-Columbian North American site of 11,500 BC +/- 350, long before the purported origin of the Universe? More tricksterism from God, like the fossils?
I gotta stand with Needs2Know on this one. CollegeStudent has displayed extreme ignorance and refusal to discuss that ignorance; for example, on the last few pages of the Where’s the evidence against evolution? thread. Nonetheless, it appears to me that the first portion of this thread consists of people discussing and debunking suppositions about what he/she might say if she/he actaully did post some claims. I think that’s inappropriate.
I dunno, Jon. Without a topic for debate, I think folks have done a pretty good job at addressing both “how certain archaeological digs have proven stories of the bible” as well as whether or not that means “the bible has been proven.”
There’s a conflict right there, and the conflict was discussed.
I don’t see it as inappropriate to discuss what’s presented. Especially when the poster has not presented anything but the OP.
Is that any more inappropriate than the original poster saying a book proves the Bible right when e did not read it yet? How is this different? Did you reaqd the OP and the very first dead-on response?
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, one day, 23 hours, 8 minutes and 12 seconds.
4958 cigarettes not smoked, saving $619.82.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 5 hours, 10 minutes.[/sub]
I must not have described the way the walls were found very well. The news article said the walls were flat in the sense that it was like someone PUSHED them straight into the ground. For example, picture a wall around a city. Now picture a giant grabbing the sides of the wall, and pushing it STRAIGHT into the ground until the top of the wall is level with the ground. That’s what the news article said was the condition of the walls of Jericho. That’s why I was shocked when I read “the walls fell flat”.
Picture people living in one place for several centuries without any real concept of sanitation. They tend to throw their garbage and trash into the streets where it gets trampled underfoot. Eventually this builds up.
Picture that they had built walls around their settlement at an early stage. Over the course of centuries the accumlation of trash and dirt will build up level with the walls.
Jericho’s walls were not pushed into the ground; the hill they are part of was built slowly around them.
I believe that this is a common occurance in Middle Eastern sites. IIRC, the proper term for the hill produced by the action of peoople over centuries is called a tor. Archeology is fascinating.
The man-made hills around the Middle East that formed from centuries of occupation at a given site are called tells, not tors. The ancient site of Jericho is now known as Tell es-Sultan.
ben, you just love this cite, and this quote, even tho I have shown that it is completely wrong as it has been taken
out of context by an extremely biased site. To give you folks some History: early this century, they did a Dig at Jericho, and found a set of ruins from the heyday of the city, ie late stoneage. At the current time that was thought to be the right time for the Exodus, etc (ie about 2300BC). Even better, the Wall had been destroyed by an earthquke!! Yes!, said the Biblical experts and the Biblical Archeologists, this shows the Bible was right!! However, Kenyon looked into it, and found that the City had been destroyed too early, (the exodus having been placed in the bronze age, instead, about 1200>1400 BC), and thus Joshua did not destroy those walls, and that was not evidence of biblical history. However, the site goes on to infer, that as Jericho was destroyed 1000 years prior to Joshua, that the Bible made this up (“How can you destroy a city that isn’t there anymore?”). Nope, and Kenyon never said that. See, Jericho was rebuilt and destroyed many times after that, with a couple in the right period. True, the BIG destruction at the heyday of Jericho, that was thought to be by Joshua, was very likely not, but that does not show the Book of Joshua wrong, just those Archeologists that thought that dig illustrated a Biblical story. No, they can’t show a destruction that is for SURE done by Joshua, but that can show 2 that are in the right time period ("Recent work by Bryant Wood, using well established methods of pottery analysis supported by carbon 14 dating, have shown that…evidence actually supports a violent overthrow of Jericho about 1400 BC), more or less (It is thought to be the 2nd, as after J did it, the Jews rebuilt the city some time later, and occupied the site for a 1000 years or so).
Now, let me say this. The Bible is not inerrant. The stories of the Miracles have to be taken on faith. The pre-Moses history is fuzzy, etc. But, compared to “histories” of the period and indeed many “modern” histories, the Bible is damn good history. Sure, they exaggerated their victories- didn’t we do this, during the Viet-nam war? But, showing that the Bible is good History, does not prove that G-d exists, only that the Jewish faith is strong (and I hope we already all knew that). Contariwise, showing that the Bible made an error, does not show that G-d does NOT exist.
Perhaps my memory is failing me, but I don’t recall ever bringing up this quote until now.
A few more points:
My “biased” source is Biblical Archaeology Review. If you want to prove that the information was taken out of context, then by all means provide that context.
The city of Ai was not resettled, and so the story of Joshua still has problems.
The real question was whether the walls were shoved into the ground. Would you care to comment on this point?
-Ben
Ben, (& Opus) go up there and read the link you posted, “infidels.org” not “Biblical Arch review”, and it is a “skeptical review” by the “Errancy” folks. What part of this is not biased to you? Errancy attampts to prove the Bible is wrong, and “infidels” is a known secular humanist skeptic site. Yes, Kenyon wrote for “B.A.R.”, but she did not write this article, nor is it a review of her work. They are using her out of context to show the Bible incorrect.
As for Ai, yes, it was destroyed before Joshua. Which indicates 3 things: either the Bible made this up (why?) or: Joshua destroyed a smallish tribe living where the great city of Ai was, or: Joshua destroyed another “Ai”,- the last is what most Biblical Archeologists think, ie the City of Ai that Joshua destroyed was not that found at Et Tell, but more likely at Khirbet Nisya, close nearby. (Do you even recognize the names of the Digs?)
And, guys, is the best you can come up with to show that the History in the Bible might be wrong is the same, outdated, biased site? I mean, that is a short “review”, not a scholarly article, written for a very biased source, back in 1992. True, it does quote some very well known experts, BUT out of context. I am sure Prof Kenyon would not like the use and abuse her work was put to there. Look, go out and read some actual sources yourselves, instead of citeing outdated, biased ‘reviews’ which take other folks work out of context. Read Kenyons work direct. Read “BAR”. Read the Oxford History of the Biblical time/area. (I have) THEN come back with direct cites of original 'source" material.
Issac Asimov & Kenneth Davis, in their rather skeptical (but unbiased) Biblical Reviews have no problems with Joshua destroying Jericho, nor does any other unbiased mainstream Archeologist. True, Asimov wrote in 1981, but Davis wrote in 1998.
Now, yes, it was Opus, not you, that posted that before.
Yes, but unlike some people they actually provide citations. If you want to claim the citation is out of context, then please provide the quote in its original context.
**
I think it’s rather obvious that Biblical Archaeology
Review is the part that I find to be non-biased.
**
They attempt to prove that the Bible is not supernaturally inerrant. That’s a pretty strange definition of “wrong” you have there.
Besides, this is circular reasoning via ad hominem. The argument being made is that the Bible is wrong about Jericho. Anyone who promotes such an argument is trying to prove that the Bible is wrong. You say that if someone tries to prove the Bible is wrong, then we can dismiss their argument because they have an obvious bias. Therefore, the only people who can convince you that the Bible is wrong are those people who do not try to do so.
**
Heaven forbid that anyone with an opinion should make an argument. Daniel, is this the best you can do? Dredge up the old “they disagree with me, therefore they’re biased, therefore I can disregard everything they say” argument? Honestly, you’re no better than Averroes.
I’ll tell you what we told the Muslims: don’t whine about bias. If you think an article is untrustworthy, make a case which goes beyond “they disagree with me, therefore they can’t be trusted.”
**
Did not write which article? The infidels article, or the article which they used as a reference?
**
Prove it.
**
I believe that that has already been addressed.
**
Why should I? I’ve never claimed to be an expert on Biblical archaeology.
**
Given that I’m a bit busy at the moment, yes.
Is this the best you can do- bringing up Asimov as an authoritative source again?
I do wish Asimov had spend more than three weeks writing that book.
Well, Davis spent more than 3 weeks writing “Don’t know much about the Bible”.
And, I have shown that they took Kenyons work out of context. Again, her dig showed that the early, “heyday” Jericho was not the one that Joshua destroyed, but she never said it was not rebuilt and destroyed again.
So you have one terribly biased “review”, written by the editor of a Skeptics & Secualar Humanist Journal. It takes legitimate Archeologists work, and uses out of context quote to derive biased conclusions. The quotes themselves do not make the conclusions, the writer does. You say the “BAR” quote is non-biased, but it is meaningless out of context, in this context. Sure it shows a city was destroyed earlier, but it does not say that the city was never destroyed by Joshua, and I have explained, clearly, using small words, why the Bible appears correct. And I do not say the site is biased, the site says so itself. It’s very goal is to refute to Bible and show that it is “errant”, but apparently you read no further in that site.
I have quoted 2 large, respected Biblical reference works, both written by respected & well known authors, niether of whom are biased. I have also researched into the Oxford History, and one rather biased book “Baffling Bible Questions answered”. But you blithly dismiss Asimov as 'he wrote the book in 3 weeks", which makes not a rats ass worth of difference, and you have been unable to back up. How do you refute Davis? He also writes books?
“The Archaeology agrees with the Biblical records even in minor details… Miss Kenyon reports of the Middle Bronze age city, that very little metal was found. This is consistant with Joshua 6:24” G. Lemmon “The Walls of Jericho”, 1998.
But, again, even if the OT exaggerated some victory, or was other wise “proved” to be wrong in some small part of its History, that does not mean the entire Judeao-Christain religion is based on mummery. Nor, even if every historical fact of the Bible was 100%, would it prove the existance of G-d.
