Any comment W_Fortenberry?

Hi Culverin,Hope you are well.I only have a few minutes so I cannot respond in any great detail, bit I would like to comment on a couple of points you raised in this post.First: Could I just say that in my area of research, Syro-Palestinian Archaeology, that there are many conclusions reached without the aid of these instruments and/or techniques you mention. You do not need any instruments in these cases, just a pair of eyes.Sometimes it is the complete absence of evidence, where you would expect there to be some, (at Kadesh-Barnea for example) that enables an archaeologist to come to a conclusion.Arcaheologists also have an added confidence in dating techiniques nowadays because so many different techniques often yield the same results, or within an accepted 'window' of error.I would argue that, if an archaeologist is 'placing his faith in something' then it is in tried and trusted methods. The results presented by archaeologists are open to everyone's scrutiny, and these results can be falsified, but until someone falsifies a conclusion then the original stands.A good example was the one I cited in regard to Bryant Wood's rejection of Kathleen Kenyon's dating of the destruction of Jericho. Kenyon's results are available to everyone, Wood examined these and then rejected them based on his own carbon dating results. However, once the error in calibration was noticed at the British Museum, Wood's thesis was rejected.The dating techniques used nowadays are very reliable, and the fact that different techniques consistently give the same dates are testimony to this. I think you mean 'fallible' here, or are you being facetious?Anyway, the implication is the same. I think what might be the problem is that you are citing cases from a very long time ago. I think that Piltdown man was exposed about 50 years ago, and remember it was scientists who uncovered this, not some creationist avenger.But since the 1970's dating techniques and archaeological methodology has come a very long way. I am afraid that the errors touted by certain creationists/inerrantists are simply wishful thinking. In many cases, it is all they have to support their stance.Brian.

Look at Bill Cooper's work. Reputable?..... Probably not, by modern standards where you would need to have a PHD in plumbing to qualify as a reputable janitor. (No distrespect to the janitorial profession intended).And with reference to my quote of Genesis Chapter 6.... your point is well taken but perhaps my meaning was misconstrued. I was trying to point out that the Bible isn't silent about the Patriarchs and their ages for what might be obvious reasons to us today. I am sorry for my obvious cynical and sarcastic tone.
Perhaps there were other reasons for the way that the history was recorded. It would be prudent for any Bible believer to acknowledge that Moses did not sit and compile the first five books from memory, he must have had some form of written/enscribed record (e.g. cuniform). Those recording these early records, probably would have stuck to the facts and what was probably relevent to them at the time. How do we put ourselves in their shoes?
It surprises me that nothing was mentioned by you in this instance of the fact that these "men who were of old" were the product of "the sons of God". Most Bible believers would see that as a direct reference to the angels as is portrayed in Job and elsewhere. Would God have allowed the angels to procreate with humans? How would I ever be able to convince you of these appeals to the supernatural if you look and understand with eyes and thinking that is entrenched in what I can only descibe as the reality we see today? I do not blame you or judge you for this, it is only my personal observation.I have spent a good long time in conversations like these, and unfortunately they don't really go anywhere but around in circles.I usually like to ask my friends the following questions.... I realize that I should probably open some new threads but consider if you like....1. Why do you think that we as Christians try so hard to convince the unbeliever of the truth (albeit our own belief)of what is written in the Bible?
2. Conversely, why do you think that unbelievers will debate so strongly against it?
3. What are the motives of both sides to these debates?------------------
Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Dear Brian,I was being facetious. Again, my sarcasm has gotten the better of me.Your response is well noted and your two major points come near and dear to my heart.With all due respect to your scholarship, dating methods have not changed in their basic assumptions. Radio-metric dating still has to stand on the presupposition that decay has been constant over the years and has not been affected by external forces. Selectively choosing samples of rock to draw conclusions on dates that are in excess of millions of years is woefully optimistic. I think you are looking at methods used for younger ages though. Carbon dating is an awsome methodology, but is fundamentaly flawed. that has not changed. We still have to depend on methods that track the age of artifacts over periods of time that exceed our current lifetimes. the science continues to try to perfect these methods but at each turn, something new comes to light to show that previous dates were wrong. I do not stand by any of these methods and therefore render myself obsolete in this debate.

quote:

---

"Arcaheologists also have an added confidence in dating techiniques nowadays because so many different techniques often yield the same results, or within an accepted 'window' of error.

---

Often is not every time and an accepted 'window' of error is just another way to shake hands and agree that we are close to what we expect it should be. "Accepted windows of error" have been the dating game's motto from the start.Concerning the lack of evidence for things that we are looking for (e.g. The Exodus)..... you may be right.To break away from the wretched discussions of dating methods and books like "Bones Of Contention" or "Tornado In a Junkyard" have you ever seen the evidence of the Exodus presented that supposedly exists in Saudi Arabia?
The whole track laid out with the bitter springs, the seventy palms oasis, the tombs, the golden calf altar and Jabal-Al-Lawz?
Perhaps we have not found the evidence we so desperately need because we are looking in the wrong place? That might go for Kadesh-Barnea as well.------------------
Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

I have looked at Bill Cooper's work (it's on line at Lambert Dolphin's site).And no, I do not consider it reputable - for reasons which have nothing to do with his qualifications. You see I happen to have a translation of one of the works he used as a source - Snorri Sturlusson's Prose Edda. Now the Edda is probably as reliable as any of the sources Cooper uses - yet he completely leaves out Sescef's ancestors as they appear in the Edda, as well as the fact that these ancestors supposedly lived after the Flood.Now leaving out important information - that happens to completely contradict his assertions - without explanation is a little less than honest.As to motives I can only speak of my own. I am concerned primarily with the truth. I am not opposed to the "history" found in the Bible because it is found in the Bible. But neither do I accept it as historically accurate because it is in the Bible.

quote:

---

With all due respect to your scholarship, dating methods have not changed in their basic assumptions. Radio-metric dating still has to stand on the presupposition that decay has been constant over the years and has not been affected by external forces. Selectively choosing samples of rock to draw conclusions on dates that are in excess of millions of years is woefully optimistic. I think you are looking at methods used for younger ages though. Carbon dating is an awsome methodology, but is fundamentaly flawed. that has not changed. We still have to depend on methods that track the age of artifacts over periods of time that exceed our current lifetimes. the science continues to try to perfect these methods but at each turn, something new comes to light to show that previous dates were wrong. I do not stand by any of these methods and therefore render myself obsolete in this debate.

​

**********************************************

​

Often is not every time and an accepted 'window' of error is just another way to shake hands and agree that we are close to what we expect it should be. "Accepted windows of error" have been the dating game's motto from the start.

---

Would you care to join one of the recent threads on radiometric dating? I'm sure you'd find it interesting to learn that many corroborative methods are used with very good results, and that your conspiracy of hand-shaking scientists is a bit fantastical. Do you think that a year of surging flood waters could lay down millions of fine sediment layers with observable cyclicities that match multi-year phenomena like sunspots?
( http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/pflood.htm )

OK.... I'll buy that for a dollar but what I have seen is that references to Snorri Sturlusson's Prose Edda are that it is either mythology or reads like mythology.
So am I to assume that your assertion is that it is a reliable source of historical data in the absolute? Or is it not?Or is it simply a case that Bill Cooper's use of the Prose Edda is to show that there is some link, regardless of the fact that the details of either the Bible or the Edda may be wrong?I doubt that Bill Cooper is trying to show that the Edda supports the Bible's Table Of Nations absolutely. I am sure he would agree wit your comments as well (I do not know this for certain however). I would imagine that his work is based first and foremost on the presumption that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and that other literary documents that may have an appeal to folklore, mythology or legend are spawned from it. It is simply to show that there is a tie somewhere.
Unfortunately for those that consider the Bible to be absolute truth, secular historians do not see this as the proper way to go about casting history in stone.
I was well aware that your response would be something to the effect of that which it was. I respect it completely. I would even agree with your comments at face value.
However my reasons for thinking that the truth is closer to what he is putting forward than to the alternative, is that there is a higher degree of plausibility in his suggestions (for me) than there is in the alternative theories put forward to our existence on this earth. Either way, we are digging into a past that does not like to be easily discovered.
Simply stated, we have a handful of old texts/manuscripts/papyrii some dating back for thousands of years or more and the substance of the Bible is in there along with it all. I simply place faith in the Bible because it has a system of prophecy and fulfillment that backs it up (again, in my opinion). Much of this is debated but never conclusively. If I choose to reject the call to faith in the Lord Jesus I will not waste time trying to figure out why. I will live for today and not care for this debate anymore. It is painful to stand on what you believe is the truth and reach for those who do not, because you believe (whether wrong or right) that their souls are in mortal danger. I choose to believe and stay in the debate..... not for my own sake..... but for people like you."Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time." ~ Colossians 4:5Remember that I believe that this isn't my fight, it is God's. I do not want glory. God's Will Be Done.------------------
Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

And it what way does that distinguish it from the Book of Genesis? Or Joshua?

In the specific case of Seskef's ancestry I would say that neither the Edda, nor the other documents Cooper refers to is reliable - I beleive that Seskef is a legendary figure with no known ancestry. This view is supported by other stories which have Seskef found, as a child, in a shield flaoting in the sea.. However Cooper's whole argument (in this section) depends on the idea that there is a pagan tradition identifying Sescef with Japeth.Now the Edda is largely an attempt to preserve the pagan historical traditions - and this particular section appears in the prologue which is relatively free of myth. It DOES include the Biblical flood and it is absolutely clear that Seskef lived many generations later. So Snorri Sturlusson, although a Christian, does NOT make this link and explicitly denies it.But Bill Cooper does not mention this. He just insists that the documents he has must be entirely accurate and does not address this point at all. He completely ignores it, cutting off the genealogical information from the Edda at Seskef.The most plausible explanation for the data in this section is that the few sources which do identify Seskef with Japeth simply picked this way of fitting Seskef into the Biblical narrative. All the sources which make this identification are Christian.I can see no reason why you would consider Cooper's work more plausible than the alternative other than a bias in favour of Cooper's conclusions. The fact that Cooper clearly avoids discussing contrary evidence in this case in itself indicates that relying on Cooper alone will not lead to a reliable conclusion.If the "ancient manuscripts" have nothing better than a few similar names, not even adequately discussed (Why not consider the fact that Iapetus is one of the - many - uncles of Zeus, and it was Zeus whom the Romans identified with Jupiter ? That it was Iapetus' granddaughter, Pyrrha, who survived the Greek flood myth ?)I am familiar with the claims about biblical prophecy, but I have never encountered anyone who could give me a really convincing example. Even the best examples have more of an appearance of wishful thinking then prdiction while one common example - Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre requires creative interpretation to avoid admitting that it was a failure.

Are you sure you understand the point I was making.I think you are asking "IN what way does the fact that Snorri Sturlusson's Prose Edda reads like mythology, distinguish it from the Book of Genesis or Joshua?"I.E. that Genesis or Joshua could be construed as mythology?I was actually pointing out that it doesn't differ. Bill Cooper's work tries to show how what is commonly called mythology, actually ties into what is presented in the Bible. Even if you believe that it is all mythology (the Bible included), the trends, themes, ideals and in this case.... the geneologies, all show similariites of origin.

I will not argue with your scholarship.
If any tie to mythology by those that seek to put forward a theory of geneologies, has a decidedly Christian Spin on it, I can only say that this is because the argument is based on the premise that the Bible is absolutely correct.Personaly, I care too much about those that are (Biblically speaking) lost to pretend that I have to play games by standards and rules of critical thinking.
Those that do not start with the premise that the Bible is accurate when seeking to find the truth about the Bible, will probably never get past the supernatural elements and will always have issues. I can't do anything about this. There is no way to naturally explain the events in the Bible. They are purposefully designed to be a stumbling block to those that cannot or will not seek God in the spirit.Concerning prophecy.... I suggest looking to those that discuss the coming of the Messiah. However, I am persuaded PaulK that this is something you have already done.
If secular history corroborates the existence of Jesus (some say it does, and others quite obviously debate) and we choose to believe that all that was written of him in the New Testament is right, then in his person, he fulfilled numerous prophecies.Each taken individually, can be doubted/debated/dismissed quite easily if there is a desire to find a reason not to believe.However, taken in its entirety, you have the fulfillment of prophecy in a supernatural and miraculous way that demands investigation.Whether we choose to look at the "evidence" and see the purpose for humanity and the provision for a relationship with God, depends on whether we are seeking God or our own justification not to seek God.I submit that those who do not see the answers in the Bible are not looking for the Truth, but are looking for reasons to justify their own motives not to believe. A bold and dogmatic statement which I could not dispute. This is why the Bible states that Satan is a deceiver. He will have humankind running around in circles chasing rabbits forever. He will do anything to keep us from finding the real truth and making a stand on it.Again I suggest to you that I have no desire to see you aquiesce to my preference. There is no glory for me in this. I am interested in issues of the heart, not issues of theories and postulations. It is all I can do to serve God the way he has asked me to, for the salvation he has given me. Jesus didn't just idly say "live a good life and there is a chance that you will get into heaven." He made bold statements like:"..... I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - John 14:6"..... I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live" - John 11:25------------------
Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Well it seems that you endorse the claims of Cooper and the like because they support what you already believe. But if their posiiton rests on conclusions decided on in advance then you cannot then turn around and claim that their work supports your case - that would be a circular argument.So far as the Messianic prophecies go those that I have seen are mostly reinterpreted - some not intended as prophecies at all. The most clear messianic prophecies have not been fulfilled.But the most amazing thing is your idea that those who actually do look for the truth instead of following the dogma you have - for whatever reason chosen to follow - are not looking for the truth. You even admit that you follow emotions rather than facts. If you want to go along that path then you have no right to suggest that others are not interested in the truth or even "Truth" (whatever that may be).

Yes and no. Yes it would appear that it is a circular argument and no, I do not claim that their work supports my "case". If my words led you to believe that, then the fault is mine, I am sorry. I think that the "claims of Cooper and the like" are interesting but I place no value in their work from a purely theological point of view. I was merely suggesting that there are alternative perspectives on how history has been recorded and that even if there are some references to Biblical Geneologies, then I see how the Bible may have affected humankind through the ages.
My "case" is not one that can stand on the precepts of man because it defies logic to stand on something that is not entirely explainable in systematic, 'logical', human terms.
I probably should have made it clear that I do not believe that the Bible needs to be defended or have its "case" put forward. Unfortunately when trying to testify of God's Grace, we find ourselves as Christians, being drawn into the thought processes of regular human thinking. Instead we should not be so concerned about trying to defend something that is not ours to defend.... if we [Christians] truly believe that the Bible is what we say it is.
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." - Isaiah 40:8
In fact, much of what permeates the entire message of the Bible is just that. In other words, there will be those that find "Truth" in its pages because they give up on trying to explain existence in their own terms and there are those that will spend their time trying to find a reason not to believe it. Either way, the Bible stands on its own, to be accepted or rejected. I can state this absolutely because the substance of it has been the basis of faith for eons and because the words of the Bible permit us as Christians to do so. One of the most wonderful "Truths" of the Bible as laid out in the parable of the sower and in other messages is that we as Christians are not responsible for the "soil" of other people's hearts. We are only responsible for spreading the Word:
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." - Hebrews 4:12 I am a little unclear as to your comment about being "reinterpreted".
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." - 2Peter 1:20
I do agree that there are Messianic Prophecies that have not been fulfilled, and I am some how convinced that you already know those relate to the return of Christ. The beauty is that Israel stumbled on their Messiah and this allowed salvation to come to the Gentiles. When Christ returns, the Jews will see him as if for the first time, and the Gentiles will see his return.
"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." - Romans 9:33
"Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." - John 4:22
"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" - Ephesians 3:6 Yes I would agree that it seems that way. However, don't shoot the messenger for the message. Or perhaps you feel that my spin on what the Bible speaks about "Truth" is open to debate or interpretation? Somehow, I don't think so. In fact, I think you have long asked yourself many serious questions about what you have found in the Bible. So consider the following that the Bible has to say about "Truth":
"Teach me thy way, O LORD; I will walk in thy truth: unite my heart to fear thy name." - Psalms 86:11
"For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations." - Psalms 100:5
"Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth." - Psalms 119:151
"Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding." - Proverbs 23:23
"But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." - John 3:21
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him." - John 4:23
"Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive" - John 14:17
"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost" - Romans 9:1
"If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus" - Ephesians 4:21
"That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." - 2Thessalonians 2:12
"Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." - 2Timothy 3:7So if I profess to stand on what the Bible says about truth, you can accuse me of a dogmatic belief, but it is not my own personal creation. I didn't just make up an idea of what truth is. I submit to a belief that God has been with us all along and has shown us the way if we choose to follow it."Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" - Galatians 4:16PaulK, Jesus has said to you in Matthew 21:44"...whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."You will either have your heart broken on Christ, or in the end he will crush you anyway..... or that is what the Bible says.

Looking at your posts it is clear that you were attempting to support your position by invoking Cooper's works. Message 25 in particualr - and message 32 certainyl implies that you considered Cooper's scholarship and methodology to reliable, despite your comment in message 36 which states that you expected criticism of Cooper's claim on those grounds.With regard to messianic prophecies if you do not know that the usual "prophecies" have been reinterpreted then I have to question if you have really looked into the matter at all. Don;t you eve know that some of the material put forward as "prophecy" is from Psalms ?In your previous post you insisted that anyone who really looks for the truth - insrtead of assuming that the Bible is It as you do - is not looking for the truth. I can understand why you would want to cast such a slur - your views are clearly not defensible on their own merits - but that does not make it any less unpleasant and mean-spirited. And you want me to accept that ?The "message" was a hypocritical lie. An attempt to run from the truth by casting groundless slurs onn anyone who genuinely looks for the truth. Maybe the Bible does support your "message" - but if so then that is one more count against it.[Added in Edit]
You are not my enemy because you tell the truth. If you are my enemy it is because you are opposed to the truth.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 07-29-2003]

This is a Pauline doctrine. Jesus himself did not extend his gospel to the "Goiim." I know St. Paul says Jesus told him to do it "in a vision." Pish Posh! You deliver unwanted and unwarranted "messages" while hiding behind "the Bible says," as if that somehow gives you, the "messenger," diplomatic immunity.Shame on you Culverin.db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

Which Jesus, apparenly facetiously, called the "law" of the scribes and Pharisees.db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?