How does science disprove the Bible?

quote:

---

YELLING DOES NOT MAKE AN ARGUMENT VALID JOE!

---

That was a 'heading', usually bolder or underlined.

quote:

---

Talk is cheap. Please,explain how it is gibberish when better examined.Also, could you detail how science is dependent upon miracles Joseph?

---

Behind the equations, there is a random. This is the same as magic: the science leaves the scene. I explained my reasoning here, but you do not take it up.

quote:

---

So exactly how does God come about then Joe? Is he something? Was he once nothing? God existing forever is no less a problem that matter always existing as you so erroneously put it. Matter as we know it has not always existed.

---

Whatever the force is, Gd or some similar factor does not effect the premise. The point is, both science and creationism ultimately profess an original cause of magic - all science ceases here. I agree with this - but most here do not admit this factor. The definition of this magic, a word which denotes no explainable original cause at the bottom of everything, is common to both scenarios. One choses a Creator to represent this, the other settles for a random - 'it just happened': what's the difference here, that creationism is targeted as myth - what is random?

quote:

---

Really? Explain how matter changes fundamentally when forces act upon it would you?

---

MC2. Matter is interchangeable with energy - which is a fundamental change.

quote:

---

Man you are so far off the mark as to be coming up behind yourself now. Please tell us where in science it says that energy is matter in an altered state.

---

Your car runs on matter (fossil fuel) converted to energy.

quote:

---

So what is the cause of God Joe?

---

The applicable factors here are thus:Whatever is seen as the original cause of the universe, can be termed the CREATOR. Logic says, the Creator has to be transcendent of his creation: ie, the Creator must be able to perform creation. Transcendent must also include longevity - else you have a situation where every car maker does not survive the making of his car - that is not transcendent; this points to being ageless or not time effected. This is not unreasonable: light is ageless; the universe is billions of years old - many see it as always existing; so a transcendent creator can reasonably be described as ageless. The issue of where God comes from thus becomes mute - and we cannot have a Creator as less than infinite for the same reason of transcending the universe's age: there is hardly a coherent alternative to this. When one asks, what is the alternative? The options are that 'IT JUST HAPPENED; IT WAS ALWAYS THERE. That answer has both a stealth Creator factor, and an infinite factor. Here the only difference is a varied description of the Creator premise, and the differing results are Random or a purposeful, mindful Creator as described in Genesis. If there is any other differences - I'd like to hear it?

quote:

---

And the offspring of each seed is a little different than the one that preceeded it, changing through the millenia and over eons from simple seed to more complex.

---

I see that all changes and complexity can be allocated to the seed. But I don't see those changes from A to Z life forms coming from amoeba millions of years ago. All the graduations allocated to cross-specie as per darwin appear only on academic levels - with qualifications which cannot be verified or identified as can the seed impacts. Here, it is not conclusive that Genesis is wrong; it may be that cross-specie is wrong. There is no reason to make bold declarations of one being right and the other absolutely wrong or myth: there is no conclusive answer here to justify such allegations.

quote:

---

I really do not know what is meant by singularity here so I am stumped on how to respond. Perhaps you would be good enough to clarify hmmm?

---

Yes, I understand your confusion here, it is justified. The absence of a singularity has resulted in allocating it a different thing from what it was originally meant to be: that everything can be reduced to one common, base matter particle which cannot be reduced or divided any further. This was saught to find a unified force; once quarks were tauted as the smalles, indivisable - but proved very wrong. Because no singularity was found, there is now a different scientific description of it. However, I am referring to the fact there is no single common entity from which all things in the universe evolved from - thus the duality factor applies, and the reason I agree with Genesis' duality factor. IOW, nothing happens with just one particle: it requires another impacting force to make the static into dynamic.The above has a big impact on the BBT, which has now extended itself to parallel and multi universes: this is already an inclining towards Genesis' duality premise - because of the lack of a single entity which can account for the BBT. IOW, the universe could not have begun with one singular entity - it would require at least a set of factors (minimum two/a duality) to make anything happen. This can be a particle and an impacting force, or any other combination of two impacting and interacting factors. Further, I see it as logical that an intergrated system signifies a transcendent force hovering, thereby negating the random premise.

quote:

---

Since light is the result of energy levels shifting in the orbits of electrons of atoms then this is pretty much dead in the water my lad.

---

This is the usual negating reason given here. It ignores what makes levels shift and critical orbits happen - from its original static form. I have not a correct answer to this, but there is no question that light displays transcendent factors of the energy behind it: light's velosity appears greater than the energy levels said to cause it - this contradicts the premise that a created entity cannot be transcend its creator cause. The energy may be cause excitation to the protons, which is not light per se, only the component which makes light visible. It is possible that the essence of light can be precedent and independent of energy: because the energy required to cause and sustain the universe appears inadequate, even considering self-accumulating and self-generating energy (explained as a discrepensy factor).

quote:

---

Maths validity:
That the OT contains literally 100s of 1000s of numbers (dates, distances, dobs & dod's)

​

Should not be too hard to give an example then eh?

---

I did. Check again.

quote:

---

That The Ten Commandments are declared as occuring on a 'SATURDAY', and this corresponds with every other number and date in the OT and its 3000 year diarised calendar, down to the 'DAY' - is a showcase of unequalled math. We could not perform this feat today for a 3000 year period.

​

Please Do show the math will you?

---

There is great math in the example sited above.

quote:

---

Historical Validity.
We are disputing the OT historicity's accuracy with minutae examples, while disregarding that it is 99% correct - and that the error of some instances can be esewhere from the OT. The fact is, we have historical data here which is largely authentic and vindicated - and that most of this historical info is not available elsewhere - not for 3000 years of other, independent recordings, untill archeology arrived!

​

LArgely authenticated AND vindicated you say. Again please show us will you?

---

Eg: King David - a 3000 year historical figure: Page Not Found - U C G S P

quote:

---

All of Joshua is but folk tales. There was no Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua.

---

My reading of it says the OT is the most true, correct and honest document in existence - even compared with any other writings in its own spacetime, or 2000 years later with Hellenism, Romanism, Cristianity and Islam: all these include miracles - but all do NOT include the same historical veracity. Whether some miracles listed are percieved or illusionary is not the issue here - these are pervasive for the period, and should not be singled out as the overiding portrayal - else we will have no historical data to refer to. What is evident is it is presented in an exacting and advanced literature way ahead of its time and the current world at large, with an attention to detail and historical descriptions not seen anywhere else.While miracles are listed and not accountable, the name of who Joshua married (a canaanite), and the descriptions of that event's cultures, traditions, diets and beliefs, as well as the cities and kings - are accurate and largely verified, as is the fact this land was ruled by the Israelites till 586 bce, with records of judges, kings and historical events displayed in periodial spaces of books 100 years apart. The battle conducted by Deborah, for example, in the follow-up to Joshua, also gives credence to the report this war lasted 150 years, and culminated when King David was finally able to conquer the Philistines at Gaza - one of the many invading peoples in this area: it is very credible this war would have lasted a long time. Prior to Deborah, figures such as Samson had battles with the Philistines, but was not successful in dispelling them - the historical descriptions here have been verified, including that the philistines introduced iron and formidable iron weaponry which no nation could match, and that this peoples worshipped a diety called Dagon, and built a huge underground city at gaza, which included a temple and statue of dagon. The Philistine nation is not mentioned again after David vanquished it.The invasion by babylon in 586 bce and the exile there, is not a questionable issue - and this history is known only by the Israelite writings. There is a reason why this is the world's most believed document, despite a continuous battle with its writers and adherents to assume its heritage by the peoples and nations in its area: why would this area's peoples aspire so it if there were doubts of its veracity? These writings have become a measuring rod for archeologists and scholars almost exclusively.Where can we find a historical description with follow-up writings for 2000 years, aligning with every sector of its texts, and backed by other adversarial nations in different languages, and by follow-up historical relics - and not a single disputation from any of its surrounding nations - name one of equivalence elsewhere - select any period you like in geo-history? Check the historical writings of Greece, Persia, Egypt, the Assyrians, the Babylonians - or even the NT and Quran, and far away eastern writings - all of these include miracles even 2000 years later (even upto the Quran writings)- there is no historical comparison - no historical names, places or dates are verifiable in those writings. We cannot even confirm the birthdate of Jesus today, or verify a single gospel writings as contemporary for centures from its asserted dates - yet 2 billion people accept it as historical. This is not the case with the OT writings. We know that 250 years after Joshua, King David established Jerusalem after finally conquering the Philistines, and that his son built a temple there 2950 years ago.The world would hardly know of canaan and its surrounds but for these writings, which have been vindicated to an extent not seen elsewhere. To say that 'ALL' is folk tales says more of its sayer than anything else. Your opinion here has no relevence. Let's hope you don't read science the same way?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Further Males were not created first! If anything from a modern biological perspective males can be redundant. Females of many organism forgo the male such as whiptail lizard. Males are expendable females are primary.

---

Read the text more carefully, as you would a science doument, it is just as exacting. Genesis does not say the male came first, nor does your assertion the female came first have any credence. Genesis says both male and female were one 'originally' - or that one life form contained both genders at inception: how else can you derive a male or female offshoot - from 'it just happened': what happened to empirical science here? Genesis also says the first dual-gendered entity was able to separate as male or femele: there is no alternative to this described process.When genesis says Adam was referred to first, it must be understood here adam signifies a dual-gendered human - not a male; thereafter Eve represents a female or counter gender when separated. 'Adam' is both a generic human, and a Pronoun later - when the text is properly read; you have not factored in the verse, 'MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM' (a dual-gendered life form).

quote:

---

No, I am saying they the Genesis account does not match up with the physical evidence.

​

I really doubt you have objective and rationally "looked for proof that Genesis is false".

---

But your example is not correct, displaying only a less than adequate comprehension of its texts.

quote:

---

jar:

​

All of the evidence shows that the Conquest of Canaan never happened as described in Joshua.

​

The Armana Tablets prove it.

​

Archeology proves it.

---

Armana does the reverse. So does archeology:BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: THE BIBLE VS THE QURAN (KORAN)AN HISTORICAL COMPARISONBYJAY, A WEBSITE STUDY BIBLE'S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE [B] THE BIBLE'S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:(1900=Abraham, 1700=Joseph, 1447=Moses, 1000=David)The documentary evidence for the reliability of the Bible has been an area of research which has been increasing rapidly over the last few decades. But this hasn't always been so. The assumption by many former archaeologists was that the Old Testament was written not in the tenth to fourteenth centuries B.C. by the authors described within its text, but by later Jewish historians during the much later second to sixth century B.C., and that the stories were then redacted back onto the great prophets such as Moses and David, etc... Yet, with the enormous quantity of data which has been uncovered and is continuing to be uncovered, as well as the new forensic research methods being employed to study them, what we are now finding is that many of these preconceived notions of authorship are simply no longer valid.For instance:(1) THE LAWS OF HAMMURBIThe skeptics contended that the Pentateuch could not have been written by Moses, because there was no evidence of any writing that early. Then the Black Stele was found with the detailed laws of Hammurabi which were written 300 years before Moses, and in the same region.(2) THE DEAD SEA SCROLLSThere was much doubt as to the reliability of the Old Testament documents, since the oldest manuscript in our possession was the Massoretic Text, written in 916 A.D. How, the skeptics asked, can we depend on a set of writings whose earliest manuscripts are so recent? Then came the amazing discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls written around 125 B.C. These scrolls show us that outside of minute copying errors it is identical to the Massoretic Text and yet it predates it by over 1,000 years! We have further corroboration in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew text, translated around 150-200 B.C.Yet to please the skeptics, the best documentary evidence for the reliability of the Biblical text must come from documents external to the Biblical text themselves. There has always been doubt concerning the stories of Abraham and the Patriarchs found in the books attributed to Moses, the Pentateuch. The skeptics maintained that there is no method of ascertaining their reliability since we have no corroboration from external secular accounts. This has all changed; for instance:(3) DISCOVERIES AT NUZU, MARI AND ASSYRIAN, HITTITE, SUMERIAN AND ESHUNNA CODESDiscoveries from excavations at Nuzu, Mari and Assyrian, Hittite, Sumerian and Eshunna Codes point out that Hebrew poetry, Mosaic legislation as well as the Hebrew social customs all fit the period and region of the patriarchs.(4) INSCRIPTIONS OF HITTITE CIVILIZATIONAccording to the historians there were no Hittites at the time of Abraham, thus the historicity of the Biblical accounts describing them was questionable. Now we know from inscriptions of that period that there were 1,200 years of Hittite civilization, much of it corresponding with the Patriarchal period.(5) HORITES DISCOVEREDHistorians also told us that no such people as the Horites existed. It is these people whom we find mentioned in the genealogy of Esau in Genesis 36:20. Yet now they have been discovered as a group of warriors also living in Mesopotamia during the Patriarchal period.(6) SIXTH CENTURY EAST INDIA INSCRIPTIONThe account of Daniel, according to the sceptical historians, must have been written in the second century and not the sixth century B.C. because of all the precise historical detail found in its content. Yet now the sixth century's East India Inscription corresponds with the Daniel 4:30 account of Nebuchadnezzar's building, proving that the author of Daniel must have been an eye-witness from that period. Either way it is amazing.The strongest case for extra-Biblical corroboration of the Patriarchal period is found in four sets of tablets which have been and are continuing to be uncovered from that area of the world. They demonstrate that the Biblical account is indeed historically reliable. Let's briefly look at all four sets of tablets.(7) ARMANA TABLETS*Armana tablets: (from Egypt) mention the Habiru or Apiru in Hebrew, which was first applied to Abraham in Genesis 14:13.(8) ELBA TABLETS*Ebla tablets: 17,000 tablets from Tell Mardikh (Northern Syria), dating from 2300 B.C., shows us that a thousand years before Moses, laws, customs and events were recorded in writing in that part of the world, and that the judicial proceedings and case laws were very similar to the Deuteronomy law code (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:22-30 codes on punishment for sex offenses). One tablet mentions and lists the five cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar in the exact sequence which we find in Genesis 14:8! Until these tablets were uncovered the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah had always been in doubt by historians.(9) MARI TABLETS*Mari tablets: (from the Euphrates) mentions king Arriyuk, or Arioch of Genesis 14, and lists the towns of Nahor and Harran (from Genesis 24:10), as well as the names Benjamin and Habiru.(10) NUZI TABLETS*Nuzi tablets: (from Iraq) speaks about a number of customs which we find in the Pentateuch, such as:a) a barren wife giving a handmaiden to her husband (i.e. Hagar)b) a bride chosen for the son by the father (i.e. Rebekah)c) a dowry paid to the father-in-law (i.e. Jacob)d) work done to pay a dowry (i.e. Jacob)e) the unchanging oral will of a father (i.e. Isaac)f) a father giving his daughter a slave-girl (i.e. Leah, Rachel)g) the sentence of death for stealing a cult gods (i.e. Jacob).Because of these extra-Biblical discoveries many of the historians are now changing their position. Thus Joseph Free states: "New discoveries now show us that a host of supposed [Biblical] errors and contradictions are not errors at all: such as, that Sargon existed and lived in a palatial dwelling 12 miles north of Ninevah, that the Hittites were a significant people, that the concept of a sevenfold lamp existed in the early Iron Age, that a significant city given in the record of David's empire lies far to the north, and that Belshazzar existed and ruled over Babylon."While documentary evidence for the Bible in the form of secular inscriptions and tablets not only corroborates the existence of some of the oldest Biblical traditions, similar and more recent documentary evidence (such as the Doctrina Iacobi, and the Armenian Chronicler) eradicates some of the more cherished Islamic traditions, that Islam was a uniquely Arab creation, and that Mecca, the supposed centre for Islam, has little historicity whatsoever before or during the time of Muhammad.We look forward to further documentary discoveries coming to light, as they continue to substantiate and underline the Biblical record, while simultaneously putting doubt to the record of the Qur'an. Let's now look at the archaeological evidence for both the Bible and the Qur'an:Contd.

quote:

---

anastasia

​

The Bible contains myth, legend, records, allegory, metaphor, and poetry.
Some stories may have more basis in reality, others less.

---

There are unaccountable mircales - presented as such. But I have not encountered any historical items (aside from unprovable miracles) - as myth, legend, allegory or metaphoric: whatever is portrayed as historical appears so. None here have pointed to a single item ouside what is described as a miracle, as being confirmed as dis-historical. What we see is a dismal reading of texts, and an obsession to single out the OT - when this is the most reliable document in existence - by period of time, volume of works and by verifiability of content measurements.Perhaps 2000 years from today, Israel's return in '48 will be described as a miracle - depending on the mode of reporting and understanding - but none can dispute the historical factors when and how Israel returned. Historicity is not negated by embellishments.

quote:

---

jar:

​

I'm sorry but your authority is simply full of shit. The Armana tablets mention Habiru but that has nothing to do with Hebrews. It is a generic term used much like the term gypsy for people from all over the area that were mainly gangsters for hire. The term Hebrew does not appear in any of the Armana Tablets and the term Habiru or Apiru does not appear in Genesis 14:13.
Further, in the Armana Tablets the Habiru are not a conquering army but rather mercenaries available for hire by either side.

---

The term habiru is both a generic usage of the region, identified with the exact spacetime of the Hebrews - and that they were a wondering peoples; as well as a reference of the hebrews which identifies with it. The difference in pronounciation is due to differing languages, while the alphabetic consonants are the same; the hebrew was alphabetic and the other writings were not. The references of a lawless peoples is either directed at the area generically, or else is a standard mode of disdain by the ancient egyptians towards the hebrews - which is easilly evidenced as an historical tradition of dispute and disdain: ancient egypt was notorious for erasing any negative references and in one tablet mentions destroying Israel - which is clearly false. You have selected one item while disregarding the entirety, as well as condoned the traditional discrpencies of egyptian writings against a long historical thread of far more verifiable Hebrew writings spanning 2000 years. This renders your scientific depictions as faulty as your historical understandings.However, this singular and limited variation, or contrived variation, does not negate a host of other factors which clearly evidence that the Hebrews were in canaan and in Egypt: the armana tablets are 1 of a parcel of some 60 other documents, and in its entirety fully negates your use of BS here. The operative question is that one variance does not negate 100s, and so you have to identify the premise you are wrong, and what this means in terms of the Israelites in Canaan for a period of 1000 years - until the invasion of Babylon - which was over-turned 70 years later, and then prevailed until the destruction by Rome in 70 CE?The Name ”Hebrew’ in Archaeology and in Scripturehttp://www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary/hebrews.htmlIn the ancient Biblical world of the Ancient Near East there are constant references in texts to persons known as SA.GAZ (in cuneiform), as Hapiru/Habiru in Mesopotamia and as ”prw in Egypt ( the ” is a hard H and the w is a plural ending). While the SA.GAZ are not necessarily specifically Hapiru/Habiru (for they are never to our knowledge treated as equivalent in the lists of ancient lexicographers) they are often identified with them. Thus the terms are not synonymous but the SA.GAZ can be Hapiru in certain circumstances.The ”prw are identified with the Hapiru in the Amarna letters from the king of Jerusalem and with the SA.GAZ by other correspondents. We are not, however, to think of these Hapiru/Habiru/”prw as a specific race or nation, but rather it appears to be a name for stateless peoples as they come into contact with the major civilisations, and can mean different things in different contexts as it is a useful way of describing people with no other identity. They are witnessed to from the third millennium BC down to the tenth century BC.The SA.GAZ indicates two cuneiform signs giving no recognised meaning. The term is found in Sumerian literature but has no meaning in Sumerian. It is equated in literature with the Akkadian habbatu which means a ”brigand’ or ”highway robber’, but is probably derived from the Akkadian word saggasu which means ”aggressor’. The SA.GAZ are therefore seen as fierce and ”lawless’ people, i.e. not obeying the laws of others.In the third dynasty of Ur they are described as ”these unclothed people, who travel in dead silence, who destroy everything, whose menfolk go where they will, --- they establish their tents and their camps --- they spend their time in the countryside without observing the decrees of my king Shulgi’. They are therefore people who live on the edge of society and are a law to themselves.The word also appears in the nineteenth century BC in administrative texts in Southern Mesopotamia where one text calls them the Hapiri. Here they are soldiers with a chief, and receive supplies of food. In a similar text in Susa in Elam they are recorded as having sheep supplied to them as well as to other groups, they and the others being identified as ”soldiers of the West’. They would appear therefore in these cases to be mercenaries.In the sixteenth/fifteenth century BC they are again equated with the Hapiru, but this time more fully, and here they are soldiers, or even quarrymen, under the orders of SA.GAZ leaders. One SA.GAZ from Tapduwa has 15 soldiers under him, a SA.GAZ chief from Sarkuhe has 29, and another has 1,436. They can form separate groupings by themselves. By now therefore the term SA.GAZ equates to Hapiru.Later they are clearly equated with the Hapiru in the Amarna letters where some call them the SA.GAZ while the king of Jerusalem calls them the Hapiru. SA.GAZ is seen as a somewhat pejorative term. They are seen as operative not only in Syria, but also in Phoenicia, near Sumur, Batrun and Byblos, in Upe near Damascus, and further South as far as Jerusalem.Around the fifteenth century BC six hundred SA.GAZ are elsewhere ”given’ to the ”god of the temple’ just as Rameses III will later give the ”prw to the Egyptian temples of the Delta.A century or so later Mursilis II (c.1334-1306 BC), in an arbitration treaty between Duppi-Teshub of Amurru amd Tudhaliya of Carchemish, recalls that the town of Jaruwatta in the land of Barga had been captured by the king of the Hurrian country and had been given to ”the grandfather of Tette, the SA.GAZ’. Mursilus returns the town to Abiradda whom the SA.GAZ had dispossessed.So they have now become among other things mercenary soldiers or marauding bands of soldiers, and can enjoy a partially settled existence.While in post Old Testament times ”the Hebrew language’ means the language of the Jews, and everyone thus relates the term ”Hebrews’ to the Jews, this is a late identification. In the Old Testament Israelites were Israelites, not Hebrews, except, rarely, when viewed in relation to external peoples. The one possible exception to this is the ”Hebrew servant’, of which more later (Exodus 21.2; Deuteronomy 15.12 compare Jeremiah 34.9, 14).Apart from this latter use, and a single use related to Abram, the term is limited to three sections, two relating to servitude in Egypt and one relating to dealings with the Philistines who were non-Semites. There is one further exception to this and that is the use by Jonah to describe himself to foreign sailors.The description Abram ”the Hebrew’ - in Genesis 14.13 - is contained in a covenant narrative confirming the covenant between Abram and Melchizedek. Abram is called ”Abram the Hebrew’ as a (potential) leader of a military force who is part of a confederation. As Abram was stateless (contrast ”Amre’ who is called ”the Amorite’) this method of identifying him may be seen as of some significance, as it ties in with the use of the terms ”apiru and habiru elsewhere of stateless military leaders. In adminstrative texts in Southern Mesopotamia the SA.GAZ or ”Hapiri’ are independent soldiers under a chief who receive supplies of food, as Abram does in Genesis 14, as are the ”Hapiru’ from texts from Mari (to the West of Babylonia). Melchizedech may well therefore have seen him as an Hapiru.Joseph the Hebrew The next use of the term is in Genesis 39.14, 17; 41.12 where Joseph is called ”an Hebrew’ or a ”Hebrew servant’ by Egyptians. And Joseph himself uses the term when identifying himself to Egyptians when he says ”I was stolen from the land of the Hebrews’ (Genesis 40.15). The ”land of the Hebrews’ is ”the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites’ (Exodus 3.8), a land without political unity.------------------------The 60 TabletsAs it is, the documents are chosen with care and explained with concise text, exemplifying what we know of the several cultures within and against which the dramas of the bible were played out. The introduction is an enlightenment in itself, and one section is outstanding, being a short description and explanation of the scripts in which the ancient texts were written. It de-mystifies a great deal of the obscure notations used to translate ancient scripts into the modern alphabet (eg, how syllabic signs, logograms, determinatives, and phonetic complements work), and explains the terminology used in all serious books in this area.The 60 documents are presented chronologically: eg, the ziggurat at Ur (still there!); clay tablets of Atrahasis, Gilgamesh, Armana letters, and the Cyrus cylinder; stone obelisks, sphinxes, carved walls, stelae, seals and weights; and papyri, ranging from a Thutmosis III war campaign in cursive hieroglyphs to a personal letter in colloquial (koine) Greek from a wife to her husband, dated c.150BC. Certain articles stand out: the four-page summary of the development of the alphabet; the Merneptah stela (earliest mention of the Israelite people); the Moabite Stone mentioning Omri (king of Israel 885-874BC) and his God Yahweh; the Lachish ostracon war report (ink on pottery), with discussion of his use of the name of Yahweh; the Rosetta Stone; the koine Greek papyrus letter of Isias to Hephaestion (a lonely wife asks he husband to come home), the vernacular shedding light on the Greek of the New Testament; and the Codex Sinaiticus.T.C. Mitchell, is Keeper of Western Asiatic Antiquities at the British Museum."
Michael JR Jose, Resident Scholar

quote:

---

anastasia:

​

History plus embellishments is usually called legend. Throw in too many embellishments, and whatever history was there can become unrecognizable. If something has the characteristics of a myth, of a legend, of an allegory, why not just call it thusly?

​

{I distinguish a difference in what we may interpret as figurative language or metaphor, and what was written as such.}

​

My personal belief is that the events of the Bible were based around some historical happening. There is the option that A., stories were made up to explain something observed, or B., something observed gradually moved into the realm of myth. We get a little of both in the Bible, but I can't very well check my belief that some stories were historical with all of those embellishments included.

---

My point is the notion of myth and legend is not applicable to historical items, but only to what is presented in the text as miracles - the latter is easily identifiable in the texts, and is presented as a supernatural occurence - eg: via divine intervention.

quote:

---

Sometimes there are plot devices, sometimes it seems like the authors themselves didn't believe what they'd heard, so they made up some filler. Like with Noah. Don't you think it crossed someone's mind that a world-wide flood story would be pretty stupid, so they quickly added in the animals in their version?

---

The Noah report can also refer to a flood limited to the 'then known world'. Considering the early period of its setting (circa 5,500 years ago - before the pyramids appeared), and that at this time Babylon never knew of the existence of ancient Egypt. It would be inappropriate to read this as relating to the entire planet: its like talking 2000 years ago of Tasmania; thus the appropriate path of comprehension must be selected here. Any other readings would be inappropriate to the generation of its period, and there are clear indications in the texts how the current generation should read this report. The question of animals in the boat likewise requires appropriation: only domestic animals were involved, as per the term 'kosher' being applied in the text. Such appropriations are critical with ancient writings, as theyare in making assumptions of deepspace readings in cosmology and in biology.

quote:

---

iceage

​

This is just too weird. You have no evidence to support this claim other than the Bible and an inspired unique reading Genesis.

---

Most debates of this nature become cyclical with nothing ever being resolved. The prime cause is selective reponsa, and before any issue is resolved either way, it is discarded and another issue is introduced: thus the cyclic result.What should happen, and what is the correct methodology of debate, is not to be selective but contextual to the points debated. Before jumping to another issue, participants of either pursuation should comment on a point discussed: you should express clearly a for or against of items debated on the board. EG: if you make no comment whether the Israelites were in canaan as was debated here - it means you are running away from the issue, or else a silence is you condone it. Am I wrong?

quote:

---

ringo

​

Does the Biblical text - or any "plausible" theory based on it - trump all history, geography and science?

---

Absolutely not. A biblical text must eventually become evidenced by science, history and math - more so than a non-bibllical text. This is because a biblical text is not talking about science and history, but is assuming a stance of 'truth' - while there is no way of determining truth other than those three avenues, plus the application of logic and reasoning. This means the aspect of 'belief' must be set aside in this instant.Equally, one cannot determine a whole picture only by a dot on the page. The same applies to scientific theories which are not backed by surrounding evidences and what is not seen in our midst, or where agreeable alternate premises also apply: science is not vindicated where its positations are limited to academic and lab illustrations.

quote:

---

iceage

​

Over several millennia, *no* revelation or discovery of the nature of the universe or reality has *ever* come from an inspired or literal reading of the bible. It is always after the revelation that the apologist get busy and find ways to make things work out and find "amazing" correlations.

---

Yes, its been a dark period as far as revelations go, and the few ancient ones are elusive and many come with second and third generation reportings which are again far removed from the actual spacetime being described. But maybe there is no requirement to reveal anything at this time? There is a command in the OT, very bold and almost arrogant, which says NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING. When we look around, what new insight did we get the past 3000 years not covered in that document? Which new entity gave the world a single new law not contained in the OT - can you name one? That we discovered the world is not flat - is not a contradiction of what was given or new: the OT does not say the world was flat. Give an example what new enlightenment you think should have been revealed - but was not? It is thus important to weight the scenario evenly - by considering the other side of your assumption. As of today, nothing is disproven - so a more sombre appraoch is correct.

quote:

---

iceage

​

Let me underscore the concept. No scientific discovery ever originated from the Bible. So why consider it to be a scientific document?

---

I dunno what a scientific document is - perhaps a book on science. But one can say, that the OT can be scientifically rationalised. This is not contradicted by miracles - it does happen to also be a theology. The science rationalisation is thus on its historicity. Here, there is a clear basis for science, which is not negated if sectors of science disagrees: it is still a science based premise; eg: the chronological listing of species, that a seed caters to repro, that humans emerged dual-gendered, the first recording of a cencus and contagious deseases, and the oldest and most accurate calendar in existence. Such depictions are normally well outside a theology, and today debated in 'scence' forums!You mentioned gravity as an enlightenment. For sure this is advances in knowledge - and is exactly that: normal, garden variety accumulation of knowledge. Perhaps in the distant future humans will advance to unimaginable levels - like being able to move VIRGO to the left of SCORPIO: this is already catered to and is the real meaning behind GO - HAVE DOMINION OF ALL THE UNIVERSE. Gravity, MC2, Spearical planets, Telescopes, Penicilin and pi are advances of knowledge already anticipated and catered to - this need not cease to express new revelation. From a theological POV, new revelation would relate to what a theology does: new moral & spirtual guidelines. The latter has not occured.

quote:

---

anastasia
That's the problem with your approach - presupposing where the harmony "should" be.

​

The honest scientific approach, as I have said, is to see if there is harmony. Only if the predicted harmony is really there can we conclude that it's "truly inspired by God".

---

The preamble is, without question, the text is aligned with creationism, and that this is an 'intergrated' document. This does not infer any presupposing - it is blatant with no other readings possible.The issue of aligning with science, math and history thus will only be vindicated on this basis - and it has to, and it does. The problem is, not that it does not align with science, but that many view it first as a science in contradiction with creationism, and deem this encumbent. Many do not read it that way.Creationism is not a myth but a legitimate non-disproven premise, and science does not contradict it. Science applies post-creation, as does math and history, and these are not applicable pre-creation, same as geography: what 'lands' will we measure here as evidence? The latter is not factored in. IOW, science, maths and history can only be vindicated post creation - and Genesis does not contradict these faculties of reasoning and evidence, on a post-creation premise.One of the issues here is whether cross-specie or within-specia evolution is correct. Here, genesis is correct: the variance in the two is narrower than realised. Genesis uses the term 'kind' instead of species - which allows a far wider margin of life forms in a grouping than does darwin's species.Consider that 'Everything that creepeth upon the earth', which measures 1000s of species as per darwin, become one sub-sector of a 'kind'; consider that all the animals too are one kind - namely canine, feline, etc does not apply, nor does any prototype of speech endowed humans. Genesis is thus mis-understood: it does not have to fit darwin's mode of categorising, but requires the reverse! We have to view from the lens of what Genesis is saying - the category is much larger when seen as all life forms divided into 5 groups, better four because mammals are a transitory sub-group, and a clear indication that cross-specie within these groups are 'allowed'!Now consider genesis' very logical and intelligent mode of categorising: why would a big picture view allocate speech humans with animals, birds, amoeba and particles in a swamp millions of years ago? The latter does not cater to the fulcrum and unique difference of modern humans, nor do we see ourselves as one of millions of life forms without a unique distinquishing attribute: Genesis is thus far more insightful, and more correct. This does not mean darwin's categories are wrong or not useful, but they do not apply here, and genesis''kind' categories are more applicable in a creationism view: we are not discussing zoology or botany here!The bottom line is, cross-speecies appear condoned by genesis when limited to the categories of 'kind' as per genesis, but not outside it. It is a narrow but critical difference, but it vindicates genesis why we do not see other life forms acquiring speech - a factor which contradicts darwin's adaptation.

quote:

---

kbertsche writes:
If the biblical data does not support a biblical interpretation, the INTERPRETATION must be modified.

​

That's not the point of the thread though. What we're doing here is comparing real-world (scientific) observations and conclusions with the "Biblical data".

---

Modified may be a misplaced requirement here. Better, we consider that at one time, the earth was deemed flat, and this was not a wrong determination at the time. Science is subject to its status at any given time, and numerously altered, eg: Einstein upon Newton. Darwin's cross-species is not a fact - nor evidenced to any satisfactory levels - that is why it is a theory.

quote:

---

anastasia
That's the problem with your approach - presupposing where the harmony "should" be.
The honest scientific approach, as I have said, is to see if there is harmony. Only if the predicted harmony is really there can we conclude that it's "truly inspired by God".

---

I thought I did: did you not say the above in post 261?

Ringo.Sorry, my error. I put anastaia instead of Ringo.