Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for the Biblical Record
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 348 (550334)
03-14-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
03-14-2010 8:35 PM


Re: Existence Of God
Hyroglyphx writes:
You're forgetting one critical element. The causation for what exists -- God. Where is the indisputable evidence of that? Sure, the earth exists. That doesn't prove that God, whatever God is, created it. Therein lies the crux of the situation.
If I may interject for ICANT, perhaps as the thread progresses, some evidences will be aired.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-14-2010 8:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 17 of 348 (550339)
03-14-2010 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
03-14-2010 8:35 PM


Re: For the sake of sanity.
Hyroglyphx writes:
You're forgetting one critical element. The causation for what exists -- God. Where is the indisputable evidence of that? Sure, the earth exists. That doesn't prove that God, whatever God is, created it. Therein lies the crux of the situation.
A perfect example of insufficient evidence. The existence of the universe is only evidence that the universe exists. You've disproved the hypothesis that nothing exists at all, but that's about it. The claim that the Hebrew/Christian deity did the work is no more supported by this evidence than is the claim that Bhraman is the source of all being. I'd even say that Brahman is by far a more likely choice.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-14-2010 8:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 03-15-2010 6:53 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 18 of 348 (550343)
03-14-2010 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Buzsaw
03-14-2010 8:34 PM


Re: Some Evidence Starters
Buzsaw writes:
Some corroborative examples supportive to the divine inspiration of the Biblical record:
1. Archaeological evidence in the Gulf of Aqaba region of Nuweiba beach and sandbar which secularist archaeologists avoid and refuse to verify or refute. The National Geographic, for example has claimed that there is absolutely no evidence of the Biblical Exodus. I watched their so called "Exodus Revealed" program where they cited a traditional Mt Sinai version of the Exodus where the crossing was allegedly near the traditional mountain at the mouth of Aqaba where there was no evidence whatsoever. The ones who produced this which was essentially an undermining of the real Exodus cite where the evidence was repeatedly reminded the viewers that there was no evidence for the Exodus whatsoever, referring to the old traditional cite. They totally ignored the Nuweiba cite where all of the evidence, including the chariot debris, the entrapment terrain, the burnt topped mountain, the NT statement that it was in Arabia and the split rock as well as other evidence.
Thank you, Buz. This is actually the very claim that inspired this thread. I'll leave the other claims on your list for later, but let's look at this one.
This is from World News Daily, not exactly a secular, atheistic God-hating source.
quote:
"All kinds of people are finding coral and calling it chariot parts," says Richard Rives, president of Wyatt Archaeological Research in Tennessee. "It's most likely coral covered with coral. ... Opportunists are combining false things with the true things that are found. These people are making it up as they go to be TV stars."
Robert Wyatt was the man who came up with the Gulf of Aqaba theory in the first place, and even his people don't seem to be very enthusiastic about someone else finding new evidence. And as far as Wyatt's original evidence? This is what we've got.
A picture. Of what could be a wheel, or might be coral. And the original object?
quote:
The hub [found by Wyatt] had the remains of eight spokes radiating outward and was examined by Nassif Mohammed Hassan, director of Antiquities in Cairo. Hassan declared it to be from the 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt, explaining the eight-spoked wheel was used only during that dynasty around 1400 B.C.
Curiously, no one can account for the precise whereabouts of that eight-spoked wheel today, though Hassan is on videotape stating his conclusion regarding authenticity.
So let's examine this a little further. Wyatt may or may not have found a chariot wheel. No physical evidence to support this claim. This supposed wheel may or may not have been in a likely place for the Exodus crossing. Plenty of fundies have good reasons to dispute this claim.
But even setting aside questions regarding the validity of this evidence, what does finding a chariot wheel in some body of water actually prove? It proves that a chariot wheel fell in the water! That's it. I personally can think of at least a few other ways that such a thing could have happened. Or are the only people who've ever lost wheels in the Red Sea area people who were miraculously drowned while out chasing Jews?
Summation:
Claim = YWHW led the Hebrew people out of Egypt after devastating the Egyptians with multiple plagues. YWHW subsequently saved his children from pursuit by creating a magical pathway through the sea for the Hebrews to dash through and then letting all the water back in to drown Pharaoh and all his army.
Evidence against = No record of such an event in Egyptian history. No physical evidence of 40 years wandering in the wilderness by any sizable group of Jews. And a Hebrew language, that strangely enough, is utterly devoid of significant Egyptian influence, which would be been impossible had the Hebrews actually spent any time at all in captivity in Egypt. (Slaves may change the language of their masters, but they never fail to learn it.)
Evidence for = a photograph of an underwater object that resembles a wheel.
Funny how creationists/fundies dismiss the results of 150 years worth of scientific research in evolution, and yet find this sort of stuff so convincing.
I find this to be a good example of the fundie mindset regarding evidence.
quote:
The majority of archaeologists today do not have enough faith in the Bible as the accurate word of God. The majority of archaeologists do not even believe in the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, according to Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review magazine. They are skeptical of the biblical account, perhaps because of a lack of archaeological evidence in the Sinai Peninsula and a lack of faith. We cannot look to these men to tell us where or if the exodus took place.
So real professional archaeologists, who actually deal with real evidence of real events, have nothing to say about made up stuff for which there is no evidence. Therefore they are not to be trusted.
Right.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 03-14-2010 8:34 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2010 10:26 AM ZenMonkey has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 19 of 348 (550347)
03-15-2010 12:12 AM


Evidence?
We don't need to examine all the minute details, when there is an elephant in the room.
And that elephant is the story of a global flood, which biblical scholars place at about 4,350 years ago.
The evidence to support such a flood is nil, while the evidence which contradicts that flood is enormous.
Believe what you want, but that flood story is a myth.
And that is one major problem for those who believe the bible is inerrant. Of course, they refuse to see or accept any evidence to the contrary, so...

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

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 20 of 348 (550355)
03-15-2010 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
03-14-2010 8:35 PM


Re: For the sake of sanity.
ICANT's digression is off-topic. Please do not reply. --Admin
Hi Hyro,
Hyroglyphx writes:
You're forgetting one critical element. The causation for what exists -- God. Where is the indisputable evidence of that? Sure, the earth exists. That doesn't prove that God, whatever God is, created it. Therein lies the crux of the situation.
Where is the indisputable verifiable evidence it happened any other way?
Since God claims to be everything that is when He says "I AM"
He would have the ability and the material to do the job.
Whatever created the heavens and the earth had to have the ability and the material.
Since our universe is the only isolated system in existence as I have been told several times there is nothing outside of it. Therefore matter and energy cannot be created in it.
Therefore whatever created the heaven and the earth would be God. Making the statement in Genesis 1:1 a fact.
It doesn't make any difference what or who created the universe whether it was the God I believe in or the pea sized God that I have been told had the entire universe in it. Either one had to be the existence of everything that exist today.
God Bless,
Edited by Admin, : Moderator request.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-14-2010 8:35 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Admin, posted 03-15-2010 9:23 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 9:38 AM ICANT has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 21 of 348 (550357)
03-15-2010 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Buzsaw
03-14-2010 8:34 PM


Re: Some Evidence Starters
quote:
I see PaulK has already touched on a couple, but that's about all PaulK ever does is touch on, or perhaps kick the thorns, glibly alleging that there is nothing, no matter how much the evidence, verifiable in the Bible relative to miracle. I've pretty much given up on responding to the same oles from members like PaulK, so I suggest if you want responses from me, allow me the same consideration that you require from me in attempting to refute.
Of course this is not true. In fact in the typical exchange I look at the evidence in more depth than Buzsaw does. And I am ready to do so again. Buz has run away from debate defeated time and time again (remember when your major argument focussed on an invented meaning for "but" Buz ? Remember the time you rewrote the Biblical rule demanding three witnesses just so you could pretend that you could meet it ?)
But let us look at the evidence:
1) In fact no serious evidence has been produced that the supposed remains came from chariots or ancient Egypt at all. I've asked for this evidence more than once and Buz seems unable to provide any,
As for the other evidences, the "terrain" evidence relies on assuming the literal truth of the story, while virtually all modern archaeologists would agree that the numbers were greatly exaggerated (and the few exceptions would base their beliefs on the assumption of the literal truth of the story - not archaeological evidence). And there seems no good reason to believe that the rest of the story is any more accurate - neither archaeology nor history have found a good fit for the story and even those who believe that it is largely true argue over when it - and Joshua's conquest occurred. (We should also note that Wyatt and Moeller's preferred dating requires a major rewrite of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty - and one that is contradicted by evidence that may easily be found).
On the other hand, the "burnt top mountain" is not burnt. It is simply topped with darker rock, and would have had that appearance long before the Exodus supposedly happened. This evidence assumes that the story is inaccurate and exaggerated.
THe NT statement has also been looked at and seems to be simply a misinterpretation, mistaking modern Saudi Arabia for the "Arabia" of the ancient writers.
The split rock is just a split rock. How rare are split rocks ? Is there any more significant evidence at that site to link it to the Exodus ?
2) The alleged lack of transitional fossils is an old creationist canard and one that has been repeatedly refuted here.
3) Is just a subjective opinion. There is in fact no clear evidence of design as such outside of human - and maybe some animal - activity.
4) Ezekiel 35-39 appears to be a revenge fantasy referring to ancient peoples which Buz interprets according to his own murderous fantasies. We must remember that Ezekiel wrote during the Exile and very likely had return from Babylon in mind.
While Israel has made major efforts in irrigation it is questionable whether even this aspect of Ezekiel's prophecy can be said to be fulfilled in any significant way. Human hard work - aided by modern technology - is not divine intervention.
As was shown in past discussion the Edomites are gone, a people lost to history and most likely absorbed into the Jewish population. Ezekiel's "prophecy" did not predict that they would covet "two kingdoms" it predicted punishment for them because they had coveted the two kingdoms (Israel and Judah). Buz's reading makes nonsense of the prophecy.
Ezekiel 37 requires the return of the Lost Tribes of Israel and the reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy. Neither has occurred, therefore it is hard to see how it can be considered "evidence".
Ezekiel 38 names ancient nations. And indeed, I have asked how modern Ethiopia (Ethiopia named as one of the nations) could be said to be a significant threat to Israel. Buz came up empty.
5) The interpretation of Isaiah 52 is questionable, and there is a case that it refers to the people of Israel rather than a person. And while it refers to oppression under Egypt and Assyria it does not even explicitly refer to the Babylonian Exile.
6) We will note that Buz is careful to avoid the parallel accounts of this discourse in Mark and Matthew. That's because the only bit he really cares about is found only in Luke (and there are reasons to think that the author of Luke - or his source - changed the account to make it better fit events that had already occurred). THe version found in Mark and Matthew has other problems for Buz, too. However even Luke indicates that the exile and return will happen in the span of a generation. Comparing Luke with Matthew and Mark places the Tribulation - which Buz thinks has yet to pass - BEFORE the exile.
7) THis can hardly be seen as evidence, even if it were entirely true (ideas that do not violate the 1LoT are hardly uncommon !) However, Buz's view in fact makes the 1LoT moot. An infinite energy source (which Buz assumes) is equivalent to creation of energy. Thus this "compatibility" is merely a technicality.
8) Buz makes use of the infinite source of energy to make the 2LoT likewise moot. This this may be rejected for the same reasons as point 7).
9) This is selective indeed. Christianity is found in poor countries as well as rich ones. Historically non-Christian nations have indeed done well - and better than many contemporary Christian nations. Post-Roman Britain, Christian though it was, fell quickly to pagans from Germany. And of course, we know that in the Middle Ages the Muslim states surpassed the Christians of Western Europe in culture and learning - and it was the learning of the Muslim nations that helped fie the Renaissance, which lead to the current ascendance of European civilisation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 03-14-2010 8:34 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2010 6:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 22 of 348 (550370)
03-15-2010 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ICANT
03-15-2010 2:13 AM


Re: For the sake of sanity.
Hi ICANT,
The opening post excludes the trivial line of argument that you began in Message 7 (see Message 1, the paragraph that begins "Second...") and that you have already abandoned to digress even further. Please cease participation in this thread. If you'd like to discuss the existence of God please propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics. Thanks.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2010 2:13 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 348 (550377)
03-15-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ICANT
03-15-2010 2:13 AM


Re: For the sake of sanity.
Please do not reply to this message in this thread because it is off-topic, a reply to another message that was off-topic. If someone proposes a thread to discuss the existence of God or why the existence of the universe is evidence of God then I will promote it as quickly as I can. --Admin
Where is the indisputable verifiable evidence it happened any other way?
If you make the assertion, it is customary to back it up with evidence and not answer a question with a question. You gave a tautological response, so I am asking you to back that up. I already know that you cannot, but I am trying to get you to think about your own tautology.
Since God claims to be everything that is when He says "I AM"
He would have the ability and the material to do the job.
You are basing that off of a belief from a book. Just because the book alleges he said it, it not only doesn't mean that God necessarily did it, but it also doesn't even mean that he said it.
You therefore have to find independent evidence to corroborate it, not saying, "God did it because he said he did it." That's a tautology.
Whatever created the heavens and the earth had to have the ability and the material.
Had to have? In accordance with what whimsical and arbitrary rule?
Since our universe is the only isolated system in existence as I have been told several times there is nothing outside of it. Therefore matter and energy cannot be created in it.
1. We don't know if this is the only isolated system. It is a gigantic universe, of which know almost nothing about in the grand scheme of things.
2. Even supposing some form of supernatural being created the universe, who is to say that it was the Judeo-Christian God? The Qu'ran makes similar declarations, the Vedas make similar declarations, Norse religions make similar declarations. It could also be a supernatural being we know nothing about. There are incalculable theories would could pull out of thin air because they can neither be proven nor disproven.
Therefore whatever created the heaven and the earth would be God. Making the statement in Genesis 1:1 a fact.
Do you understand what "fact" means? You are creating an arbitrary rule that anything that does not conform to your beliefs, or anything we don't know with 100% empirical certainty, automatically defaults to your position. That's not how reality works.
It doesn't make any difference what or who created the universe whether it was the God I believe in or the pea sized God that I have been told had the entire universe in it. Either one had to be the existence of everything that exist today.
No, not necessarily. This universe had a beginning, in accordance with all known observation. It is reasonable to say that something must have existed prior to the creation of the universe, because nothing in the known universe comes about without some cause precipitating the event.
We also know that this universe is bound by certain physical laws. However, the possibility exists that the beginning of this universe was created out of the death of another universe, of which could have had an entirely different set of physical laws.
Sure, it points to an infinite series of regressions that merely delay the ultimate First Cause, but we already do that because no one knows for sure. That, in and of itself, is my point though. You don't know, I don't know, no one knows with certainty. We may never know the full scope of the truth. You are welcome to theorize whatever you'd like, but you need to understand that people will challenge you on that belief and probe for inconsistencies.
Edited by Admin, : Add moderator request.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 03-15-2010 2:13 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 348 (550379)
03-15-2010 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by ZenMonkey
03-14-2010 10:57 PM


Re: Some Evidence Starters
Hi Zen Monkey. LOL.
1) Where did you get your photo of the alleged wheel? I suggest that the reader/viewer use the World Daily News link which you cited to see a better photo of the one you put up. Yours does not depict the protruding axle.
2) Obviously World Daily News is a highly biased non-objective source of information on this.
A) They failed to report the major scientific research and photography done at this site by Swedish marine biologist Lennart Moller who sailed his scientific marine research equipped ocean craft into the region and used his underwater photography equipment to photograph the region,
B) The World Daily report cited just one of the numerous formations, some of which were better specimens of chariot like wheel and axle.
C) The World Daily report failed to cite the corroborating evidence in the region and the Biblical record compatible description of the topography of the path which the Exodus followed.
E) The World Daily failed to report that such coral formations were not common in the region.
F) World Daily did not mention the same kind of underwater evidence which was found on the Saudi side opposite of Nuweiba Beach. This was done by a woman researcher, if I recall correctly. I'll see if I can get that.
3. Imo, unfortunately, ICR (Institute For Creation Research) who's John Morris Sr has not bought into the Nuweiba site appears to have little interest in researching the site due to their own axe to grind. Morris has made some expeditions into the traditional Sinai Penninsula alleged Mt Sinai, claiming that that is the only viable location of the Biblical account, in spite of the fact that the NT of the Bible states that Mt Sinai is in Arabia.
I have great regard for much of the work of ICR, but all I can figure out of this is that they don't want to debunk all of their own literature and position on this. They appear to have some of the same non-objective attitude that secularist folks like National Geographic have.
I haven't yet put my mind into bringing up images in my messages, but I'll see if I can get up a link or two with some better info than World Daily has produced on this. There's a lot more to this than WD News has admitted to, whether of ignorance or purposefully.
I have Lennart Moller's excellent EXODUS VIDEO and his book THE EXODUS STORY. I first got interested in this account way back in the 1980s or so when I met Ron Wyatt and attended his lecture and slide show of his 17 expeditions into the Ararat Mountain area relative to Noah's Ark and into this Nuweiba Beach area.
More on this later.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-14-2010 10:57 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2010 10:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 26 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-15-2010 1:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 25 of 348 (550380)
03-15-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
03-15-2010 10:26 AM


Present the evidence
You keep claiming evidence but don't point to any actual evidence.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2010 10:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 26 of 348 (550416)
03-15-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
03-15-2010 10:26 AM


Re: Some Evidence Starters
Hi Buz! Thanks for your reply.
I note that much of your response deals with things that WND failed to report. If you have information regarding this missing evidence that would substantiate your claims, please bring it forth. I would never claim WND to be an unimpeachable source. For the record, I picked them under the assumption that they would be more sympathetic to your views. There are plenty of skeptical (or objective, if you like) sources of information I could have used, but I didn't want to be accused of only looking at "anti-Biblical" sources.
But more importantly, you're so far failing to address what I think is the real point of my argument. Here it is again.
quote:
But even setting aside questions regarding the validity of this evidence, what does finding a chariot wheel in some body of water actually prove? It proves that a chariot wheel fell in the water! That's it. I personally can think of at least a few other ways that such a thing could have happened. Or are the only people who've ever lost wheels in the Red Sea area people who were miraculously drowned while out chasing Jews?
Wheel in the water does not equal pillar of fire at night.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2010 10:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2010 1:35 PM ZenMonkey has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 27 of 348 (550417)
03-15-2010 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ZenMonkey
03-15-2010 1:28 PM


Re: Some Evidence Starters
You are being much too generous in assuming that it is a chariot wheel. If it is a wheel at all, how do we know it is not from the 20th century or the 19th ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-15-2010 1:28 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-15-2010 1:47 PM PaulK has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 28 of 348 (550422)
03-15-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
03-15-2010 1:35 PM


Re: Some Evidence Starters
You're right, we have no idea what this is a picture of. Since the alleged wheel in question is apparently lost and can't be re-examined, the photographic evidence will have to do. And the photographs seem inconclusive at best. However, if there's any additional documentation of artifacts that can be dated and whose provenance can be determined, I'm very willing to consider such. Let's see what Buz comes up with.
Regardless, wheels or no wheels, Buz is still ignoring the substantial question of my reply. Once again:
quote:
But even setting aside questions regarding the validity of this evidence, what does finding a chariot wheel in some body of water actually prove? It proves that a chariot wheel fell in the water! That's it. I personally can think of at least a few other ways that such a thing could have happened. Or are the only people who've ever lost wheels in the Red Sea area people who were miraculously drowned while out chasing Jews?
By the way, thanks for taking the time to address the rest of Buz's list. I concur with your rebuttal.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2010 1:35 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 03-15-2010 5:35 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 348 (550464)
03-15-2010 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ZenMonkey
03-15-2010 1:47 PM


Re: Some Evidence Starters
Zen Monkey writes:
You're right, we have no idea what this is a picture of. Since the alleged wheel in question is apparently lost and can't be re-examined, the photographic evidence will have to do. And the photographs seem inconclusive at best. However, if there's any additional documentation of artifacts that can be dated and whose provenance can be determined, I'm very willing to consider such. Let's see what Buz comes up with.
Thanks for being patient, Zen. It's hit and miss with the computer in my busy life.
I suggest you take about half an hour and watch this video from the Wyatt site. Towards the end of it several alleged coral encased wheels will be shown, but one really should view the whole thing so as to see why the late Ron Wyatt, Moller and others consider it to be scientific evidence. There are other short interviews with Moller by various hosts available on other web sites so as to help understand why he, the scientist spent $$, time at some risk to do the research. One of those interviews is and interesting one of Moller with Israel's Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu.
Red Sea Crossing

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-15-2010 1:47 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Huntard, posted 03-15-2010 7:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 30 of 348 (550473)
03-15-2010 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ZenMonkey
03-14-2010 12:28 AM


Hi Zen,
great topic.
ZenMonkey writes:
Claims to Biblical accuracy have to meet both criteria, just like any other factual claim does. For one, you can't use the Bible to corraborate other claims in the Bible, just like I can't use my own diary to support my claim that I smoked herb with Abbie Hoffman at Woodstock. Me agreeing with myself doesn't prove anything.
the only problem with this is that the bible wasnt written by one person. It was written by 40 different individuals over a period of 1600 years
these writings were then collected together and when compared, they proved to corroborate each other....even though some lived several hundreds of years apart. The canon is based on those writings that are in harmony and complementary of each other. They were also only put into the canon if the history they contained was accurate.
So you cant look at the bible as a novel.
ZenMonkey writes:
So I'd like some specifics. What factual claims are being made about the Bible for which someone has independent evidence that isn't trivial?
The prophecies of the bible prove it to be true. It was actually when prophecy was fulfilled that the isrealites knew who the true prophets of God were and so these prophets were held in high esteem and their writings preserved.
The archeological evidence that has been discovered has added weight to the fact that the bible was recording the events of real places and real people. The kings of the nations it mentions have been confirmed by archeology, the customs of the various nations has been confirmed and even the building work and landmarks mentioned in the bible have been discovered by archeology.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-14-2010 12:28 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 03-15-2010 6:36 PM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024