Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 117 (8777 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2017 2:06 AM
364 online now:
CRR, frako, GDR (3 members, 361 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DOCJ
Post Volume:
Total: 816,103 Year: 20,709/21,208 Month: 1,142/2,326 Week: 478/345 Day: 1/134 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   A Bronze Standard
jar
Member
Posts: 29180
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1 of 41 (788387)
07-30-2016 9:31 AM


Supposedly the Biblical flood, whichever of the Biblical Flood stories is considered, happened about 2500-2000 BCE.

That firmly places the Biblical Flood, if it had happened, during the Bronze Age. Fortunately there has been lots of research done on Bronze Age sites and also on the earlier Stone age sites. Many locations show continuous habitation from the Stone Age through the Bronze Age and even into the Iron Age.

This gives us a great method and guide to look for any indications that either of the Biblical Flood myths might have actually happened. We can use the known Stone, Bronze and Iron age sites to guide our exploration and narrow the search. Any sites from before the Bronze age would have been pre flood sites while any Iron age sites would have been post flood sites.

So in that narrow time span between the Stone and Iron age, that period during the Bronze Age, where is the World-Wide Flood?

AbE: likely in Dates and Dating or Geology and the Great Flood.

Edited by jar, : suggest likely locations

Edited by jar, : method & method ----> method & guide...


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2016 1:22 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 11:32 AM jar has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4753
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 41 (788389)
07-30-2016 10:13 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the A Bronze Standard thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5927
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 3 of 41 (788391)
07-30-2016 11:22 PM


It all comes down to the dating
I predict that the dating will be questioned.

For creationists, the biblical flood is a movable event! We've seen it placed anywhere from 2000 BCE back to a few hundred million years ago--or more.

For any time period where you present evidence to the contrary, the flood will show up elsewhere (elsewhen?).

I have from my own archaeological work mtDNA evidence from 5,300 years ago that shows a direct and continuous link to living descendants, with no change over to Middle Eastern mtDNA types. So naturally I've been told the dating is wrong.

Other archaeologists have provided the same evidence going back 10,300 years. Same result.

In the Old World DNA continuity is now stretching back 50,000 years and more. Same result.

When creationists use rubber band years for the date of the flood, any fact-based arguments fall on deaf ears. For any evidence you can present, the flood is always somewhere else, and round and round we go.

And then they claim to be doing science!!!???


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2016 1:17 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 41 (788393)
07-31-2016 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
07-30-2016 11:22 PM


Re: It all comes down to the dating
I predict that the dating will be questioned.

For some folks, the date of the flood is movable. For the rest of the folks, the dates of historical and pre-historical events and artifacts are questions. There are artifacts much older than the flood, (e.g. cave paintings in France and Asia, Stonehenge) that predate the flood, as well as things that are closely contemporary to the flood (e.g. Pyramids) any one of which renders the Flood an impossibility. Creationists respond to that evidence by challenging dating methods.

Unfortunately, I think that means that we should not expect great creationist responses to this thread. Our primary participant denies dating methods, but has no clue as to why those methods might be wrong.

Here is a web page from icr questioning the age of Stonehenge (as they must):

http://www.icr.org/article/recent-origin-for-stonehenge/

quote:
First, we can reject the stone artifactís reported ages, ranging from 6000 to 2500 B.C., for at least two reasons. Secular archaeologists regularly select dates simply because they align with the evolutionary timescale of human history, but Institute for Creation Research scientists, along with other researchers, have amply demonstrated why that timescale has failed. Enlightenment era secularists concocted it, and their disciples continue to systematically reject any dates that donít fit, protecting their timescale with what amounts to mere circular reasoning.2 Another reason to reject their reported ages is that they dismiss written records detailing Britainís past and similar records from several ancient European nations that trace royal ancestries all the way back to Japheth son of Noah.3

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 07-30-2016 11:22 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2016 4:23 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 5 of 41 (788394)
07-31-2016 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
07-30-2016 9:31 AM


Where does Tubal-Cain fit into all this?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 07-30-2016 9:31 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2016 2:03 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 41 (788396)
07-31-2016 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Adequate
07-31-2016 1:22 AM


Where does Tubal-Cain fit into all this?

The reference to Tubal-Cain is used to show that Noah may have had access to iron tools. Tools of that sort are depicted at the Noah's Ark exhibit in Kentucky. I'm not sure that Tubal-Cain is used to question the dates of the iron age. Also from what I've read, there were folks that worked in iron that was found in meteorites even before the technology of the day was capable of smelting iron. Tubal-Cain may have worked in extra-terrestrial iron even before the true iron age.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2016 1:22 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-31-2016 11:11 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12955
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 7 of 41 (788397)
07-31-2016 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by NoNukes
07-31-2016 1:17 AM


Re: It all comes down to the dating
While the rest of the quote is completely dishonest I have a little something to say about this:


Another reason to reject their reported ages is that they dismiss written records detailing Britainís past and similar records from several ancient European nations that trace royal ancestries all the way back to Japheth son of Noah.

While it is true that such documents exist, there is no reason to think that they are anything more than Christian attempts to integrate the pagan histories - such as they were - with Christian belief.

One of the cited sources for this claim is Snorri Sturluson's Edda. Sturluson was an Icelandic historian who tried to preserve the folklore of his people. If the connection was genuine Sturluson would be more likely to know of it than the monks who wrote the other documents - and as a Christian he had no motive to deny it.

However, Sturluson is not cited to support the connection with Noah - the material cited stops short, naming only a figure from pagan folklore identified with Japeth - by some. On checking I found the reason for the omission. Sturluson had also integrated Christian belief with the folklore histories - but he placed the Flood much further back in time, contradicting the claim. Needless to say, I found this omission more than a little dishonest. Admitting and answering this evidence would be the only honest way to handle it. Ignoring it and hoping that nobody notices is neither honest, nor sensible.

As a side note I have also seen Creationist's cite the Edda as evidence of the Flood in Norse mythology. In fact - as is perfectly obvious to anyone who reads it - the Flood story is taken from the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2016 1:17 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 871
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 8 of 41 (788411)
07-31-2016 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by NoNukes
07-31-2016 2:03 AM


What are the typical Bronze age dates?
3100-1200 B.C. is the Bronze Age

The Iron began 1200 and ended around 500 I think.

Iron Age I was 1200 to 1000 B.C.

Iron Age II started around 1000 B.C.E. (most fundamentalists actually accept that Solomon is correctly placed here, but they ignore the implications)

There have been attempts (mostly by fundamentalists who want to maintain a c. 2300 B.C.E. flood date) to move Solomon back to the Bronze Age I think. I also think that there have been attempts, by more mainstream archaeologists, to move Solomon back to the Iron Age I period, but I'm not too sure about that one.

Egyptologists have really crunched Egyptian chronology in order to cram everything into the tight chronology that the Sothic dates required. There was a post 2000 B.C.E. astronomical calculation made to fit with Egyptian records discovered archaeologically. It made them have to start the 12th Dynasty after 2000 BCE and that meant that they had to crunch the entire Hyksos period into just 100 years or so, while ancient Egyptians seemed to consider it like 500+ years.

Other astronomical records have forced the period from around 1500 BCE to be crunched downward a bit.

Egyptian chronology has been crunched, not inflated.

The 1st and 2nd Intermediate Periods have been squished and flattened into almost nothing (especially the first), and some have even chopped off the Early Dynastic Period down to a much shorter time.

There is no room to start Egyptian chronology much lower than 2800 BCE (if even that low) if one allows Solomon to fit in with the 22nd Dynasty Pharaoh of the 10th century (and that actually crunched the 3rd Intermediate Period more than the Egyptian records would indicate).

Egyptian chronology has been crunched and not stretched out as fundamentalists maintain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 07-31-2016 2:03 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25777
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 9 of 41 (788412)
07-31-2016 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
07-30-2016 9:31 AM


It's the height of foolishness to prefer mere humanly devised dating methods to a revelation given us by God Himself that tells us clearly what happened when.

Denying this revelation or its Authorship leaves you with the flawed human methods, but surely it ought to be logical that IF the Bible IS the Creator God's revelation to His human creatures then contradicting it is sheer foolishness.

Also any attempt by its supposed believers to reinterpret time indicators in that revelation, especially in order to reconcile it with worldly methods and ideas, is even more foolish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 07-30-2016 9:31 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 11:44 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 11 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-31-2016 11:49 AM Faith has responded
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2016 11:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29180
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 10 of 41 (788416)
07-31-2016 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
07-31-2016 11:32 AM


Faith writes:

It's the height of foolishness to prefer mere humanly devised dating methods to a revelation given us by God Himself that tells us clearly what happened when.

Denying this revelation or its Authorship leaves you with the flawed human methods, but surely it ought to be logical that IF the Bible IS the Creator God's revelation to His human creatures then contradicting it is sheer foolishness.

Also any attempt by its supposed believers to reinterpret time indicators in that revelation, especially in order to reconcile it with worldly methods and ideas, is even more foolish.

Dogma Faith, nothing but Dogma.

This is a Science forum though and so you need to present more than mere dogma.

It would even be a good idea to present the reasoning of why it is foolish to prefer reality and the actual evidence God left in the form of this Earth over 2000 year old mythology?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 11:32 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 871
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 11 of 41 (788417)
07-31-2016 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
07-31-2016 11:32 AM


What about the "sight to the blind" issue, Faith?
quote:

Luke 4:18,19
The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

This comes from where?

Here is the King James quote you used in the Messiah thread.

quote:

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God

Here is the Septuagint

quote:

Isaiah 61:1,2
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn;

Here is the Massorah again

quote:

Isaiah 61:1,2 The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

You put trust in man's translations and texts.

That is why your Old Testament has removed the part of Isaiah talking of the giving of sight to the blind.

Be careful when you trust men.

It will blind you with bad text, removed text, and ignorance of what was actually written.

How can one find God that way?

How can one get an accurate history that way?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 11:32 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 12:02 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12955
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 12 of 41 (788418)
07-31-2016 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
07-31-2016 11:32 AM


quote:

Denying this revelation or its Authorship leaves you with the flawed human methods, but surely it ought to be logical that IF the Bible IS the Creator God's revelation to His human creatures then contradicting it is sheer foolishness.

Since the Bible makes no such claim about its authorship, then, even by your standards it must be the idea of flawed humans. When the evidence so clearly contradicts such an idea even believers can - and should - discard it as an error.

Surely, setting up humans as absolute authorities is idolatry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 11:32 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25777
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 41 (788419)
07-31-2016 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by LamarkNewAge
07-31-2016 11:49 AM


Re: What about the "sight to the blind" issue, Faith?
Jar says what he calls "dogma" doesn't belong on this thread so I'm not going to answer any posts about the Biblical context here. What I said is complete in itself, perfectly logical and that's the end of it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-31-2016 11:49 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 12:07 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 15 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-31-2016 1:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29180
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 14 of 41 (788420)
07-31-2016 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-31-2016 12:02 PM


Why ignore reality?
Faith writes:

What I said is complete in itself, perfectly logical and that's the end of it.

Then perhaps you can explain why what is in the Bible should be preferred over what is actually found in reality particularly when there are two mutually exclusive stories about the event in the Bible?

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 12:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 871
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 15 of 41 (788423)
07-31-2016 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-31-2016 12:02 PM


Re: What about the "sight to the blind" issue, Faith?
quote:

jar says what he calls "dogma" doesn't belong on this thread so I'm not going to answer any posts about the Biblical context here. What I said is complete in itself, perfectly logical and that's the end of it.

The dates from Adam to Abraham do NOT agree from one Old Testament text to another. The King James uses the Massorah in the Old Testament, but uses Septuagint quotes in the New Testament. Jesus said that "Moses" (possibly referring to Genesis but he does refer to the peoples beliefs in Mosaic authorship from Exodus to Deuteronomy) was the work of men, not God. Matthew chapter 19 documents that Jesus did not consider Moses of divine authority.

Jeremiah said the same thing in 7:22.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis has the contradictions for every patriarch from Adam to Abraham.

Exodus 12

quote:

Exodus 12
King James Version (KJV)

27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.
....
29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
....
37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.

38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.

39 And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Egypt, for it was not leavened; because they were thrust out of Egypt, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual.

40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame DAY it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.

Jeremiah 7:22
King James Version (KJV)

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the DAY that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:


Same "DAY".

Science is about learning about the "creation" (yes the astronomers often use that word) of the universe, galaxies, stars, planets.

Jesus dealt with the actual existing world, which was considered to be the creation of God, while He/he (and Jeremiah) rejected the false history and man-tampered pseudo-law of God.

Science represents an attempt to learn about the "creation".

The works of "Moses" were man-made according to Jesus (and Jeremiah).

O and one more thing. Exodus 12:27 in the King James is not the text Jesus and Paul used. They felt the 430 years, according to the "scripture" (Septuagint type!), started back in the time of the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 12-17, like the Septuagint Exodus text they used! It is relevant to the chronology. Big time!

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 12:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 07-31-2016 1:15 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017