Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,417 Year: 6,674/9,624 Month: 14/238 Week: 14/22 Day: 5/9 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   archaeology and evolution
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4438 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 31 of 96 (574576)
08-16-2010 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by archaeologist
08-16-2010 5:43 PM


the issue is quite different and one would expect that the enemies of the disciples would have written and preserved their opposition IF what the disciples said was untrue BUT since it was in jerusalem, there were ROMAN guards on watch, and so on...EVERYONE KNEW about the event and knew it was true.
Hearsay, since none of this was written until decades after the fact. Most early Christians were illiterate, these stories were passed by word of mouth. The reason the Romans & the Pharisees never wrote of the incident is that it never happened. Take modern times for instance. Sightings of Big Foot cause all types of people to make statements for and against the sighting. Humans have been intrigued by the unknown for millenia so if an eve t such as the resurrection had occurred it would be big news throughout Egypt, Canaan & Mesopotamia whether it was believed or not.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:43 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 96 (574590)
08-16-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by archaeologist
08-16-2010 5:45 PM


how do you thinkwe know about it?
We don't know about it. That's why you were obliged to make it up.
This is why there are no written records supporting your fantasies.
This is why you can produce no written records supporting your fantasies.
Which leads us to the interesting question of where you got this nonsense from in the first place.
along with writtenrecords
Which you are unable to produce.
we also have the actual toilets, houses with hot and cold running water
And you claim this is evidence for the knowledge of the germ theory of disease?
The Elizabethans had flush toilets. This wasn't because they knew about germs, it's because they knew that shit smells bad.
yet not one piece of evidence for evolution.
Natural selection according to Lucretius:
And in the ages after monsters died,
Perforce there perished many a stock, unable
By propagation to forge a progeny.
For whatsoever creatures thou beholdest
Breathing the breath of life, the same have been
Even from their earliest age preserved alive
By cunning, or by valour, or at least
By speed of foot or wing ...
Lucretius, On The Nature of Things, Book V
Here's Aristotle on the evolutionary ideas of Empedocles and others:
Why then should it not be the same with the parts in nature, e.g. that our teeth should come up of necessity-the front teeth sharp, fitted for tearing, the molars broad and useful for grinding down the food-since they did not arise for this end, but it was merely a coincident result; and so with all other parts in which we suppose that there is purpose? Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish, as Empedocles says ...
Aristotle, Physics II 8 (note that Aristotle himself did not hold this view, but it had sufficient currency that he was obliged to mention it)
There you have it --- random variation and natural selection.
Incidentally, you notice how these are real quotations of actual things that people in the ancient world really wrote down? Rather than stuff you've made up?
the ancient world does not support modern secular science in the realm of evolution.
Or nuclear physics.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:45 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 7:37 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 33 of 96 (574594)
08-16-2010 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by archaeologist
08-16-2010 5:07 AM


Dragons
Hi not-a-real-archaeologist,
which is why some myths have flying, fire breathing dragons, not that there were such a creature but that the stories got embellished so the warrior looked braver.
Yeah, I agree. Fire-breathing dragons? Ridiculous.
And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
Revelation 16:13
Everyone knows that dragons breathe frog-devils.
You are aware that the Old Testament mentions dragons quite a bit, right? Are you saying that the OT has been "embellished"?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:07 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 7:35 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 96 (574644)
08-17-2010 4:56 AM


Given that we only see such a short piece of history during our lives, it doesn’t surprise me that nobody noticed anything like evolution happening.
it isn't evolution so try again.
You’re either overstating this or intentionally slandering the scholars who don’t believe that Jesus was a historical figure, because, although they are a minority
and you are wrong. that is all this comment is worth.
If a contemporary source of the OT was found that did dispute the OT record, would you take this as evidence that the OT is false
thats how little you seem to know about the OT and the discoveries that have beenmade. the silver scrolls date to the 6th-7th centuiry BC and they are exactly like the modern day correct translations. no change in 2,400 years. the DSS have shown how accurate the modern correct versions are today and these scrolls date back to the 2nd century BC approx. forgotten the exact centuries, could be older.
You have been provided all the information needed to refute the nonsense of a Biblical Flood. Why do you continue posting falsehoods?
you have been given all the information you need to use to repent fromyour sins and return to the truth, why do you keep mocking God and Christ? the flood happened.
For fuck's sake, hooah212002, this may be free-for-all but that doesn't make this kind of behaviour okay. You should be ashamed of yourself.
thank you but i ignored him.
Archaeologist may be unable to offer any better than he's already giving.
yet i have not insulted nor treated anybody badly. your asujmptions about what i have said or done are you assumptions only because you ,none of you, have clarified what i have actually said. i have yet to post an insult and i should know, i am the one writing and thinking about what i write.
the american ploicy of how it is perceived is wrong for that leads to assumption and existentialism which means the truth is lost because some nut job decided an innocent sentence was an insult.
it is how the author intended the words to mean for they are HIS/HER words.
judging form your answers, you really do not want a discussion with christians, you just want discussion that tells you what you want to hear.
when you all get honest let me know.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by caffeine, posted 08-17-2010 6:33 AM archaeologist has replied
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 08-17-2010 8:10 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 5190 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 35 of 96 (574648)
08-17-2010 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by archaeologist
08-16-2010 5:43 PM


JUC writes:
And there is no record from the soldiers either that it didn't rain pineapples, that the earth didn't turn into Dijon mustard, that people didn't start sneezing kangeroos.
archeologist writes:
and why would they write about fantasy things? the disciples were going around telling others that their savior rose from the dead. to the romans and the pharisees, this was a group that could rally the people to rebel or cause them to lose their power and control.
the issue is quite different and one would expect that the enemies of the disciples would have written and preserved their opposition IF what the disciples said was untrue BUT since it was in jerusalem, there were ROMAN guards on watch, and so on...EVERYONE KNEW about the event and knew it was true.
It is commonly accepted that the Gospels were not written until several decades after Jesus died.
So it wasn't exactly as if the story of the resurection was on CNN or in the papers the next day!
If there really were any soldiers guarding Jesus' tomb (why would the Romans bother to have soliders guarding the tomb of a crucified Jew anyway?), the chances of those particular soldiers being remotely interested in some other Jews flapping about saying Jesus has risen from the dead, the chances of them understanding what the locals were saying, the chances of them even being aware of what was going on in other parts of the city, the chances of them being literate enough to write down their own thoughts, and the chances of any scribblings of theirs surviving to the present day, are astonishingly remote.
Furthermore, if they were going to write down anything at all, it would be the incredible experience of seeing someone rise from the dead and some angels roll back the stone that sealed his tomb.
What is incredible, if the resurection and other miracles were true, is that NOBODY wrote down anything at all about these events until several DECADES later!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:43 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 7:33 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 50 by thingamabob, posted 08-17-2010 9:28 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 36 of 96 (574650)
08-17-2010 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by archaeologist
08-17-2010 4:56 AM


and you are wrong (regarding the fact that some reputable scholars doubt the existence of Jesus) that is all this comment is worth.
Any comment, even an ignorant one, is worth more than that. It’s worth a demonstration of why it’s wrong, otherwise we can never get anywhere in discussion. For example, in order to demonstrate that your claim that no reputable scholar doubts Jesus’ existence is wrong, I can point to an example of a scholar that doubts Jesus’ existence. Thomas L. Thompson, until last year, was professor of Theology at the University of Copenhagen. He believes that the Jesus story was never meant to be a report of something that really happened, but rather that it’s a myth that teaches us important lessons about salvation — a parable, if you will. He also thinks this would have been clearly understood by people at the time, but was misinterpreted by subsequent generations.
thats how little you seem to know about the OT and the discoveries that have beenmade. the silver scrolls date to the 6th-7th centuiry BC and they are exactly like the modern day correct translations. no change in 2,400 years. the DSS have shown how accurate the modern correct versions are today and these scrolls date back to the 2nd century BC approx. forgotten the exact centuries, could be older.
Having never heard of the silver scrolls, I dutifully went and looked them up. It turns out that they contain, not a complete account of the Bible identical to modern translations, but two verses from one book — Deuteronomy — containing a priestly blessing. This, in the King James’ translation, is the sum total of their contents:
quote:
The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
So, assuming the dating of the scrolls is accurate, all that has been established here is that the Bible contains a general-sounding prayer which had been about since at least the 7th century AD. In no sense does this amount to evidence of the historical accuracy of the Bible, nor evidence for the antiquity of any of the other writings contained in the Bible.
The Dead Sea Scrolls o not date from earlier than the second century BC, usually being dated to between 70 and 150 BC. Oddly enough, the scholars who’ve studied these scrolls have very different interpretations than you do about whether or not they support the idea that the Old Testament has remained unchanging through the years. The Oxford Companion to Archaeology has this to sy (from wikipedia):
quote:
While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 4:56 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 7:19 AM caffeine has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 96 (574654)
08-17-2010 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by caffeine
08-17-2010 6:33 AM


but two verses from one book — Deuteronomy — containing a priestly blessing. This, in the King James’ translation, is the sum total of their contents:
it is still the same and it is the book of Numbers {andi knew that there was only the priestly blessing but still 2400 years and no changes.
While excavating a burial tomb near Jerusalem in 1979, Gabriel Barkay uncovered the oldest known copy of Old Testament scripture. The priestly blessing, recorded in Numbers 6:24-26, was discovered on two small silver scrolls dated to the 7th century B.C.
Silver Scrolls - Crystalinks
The Dead Sea Scrolls o not date from earlier than the second century BC, usually being dated to between 70 and 150 BC.
you really shouldn't question me on these things:
In sum, the general scholarly view today places the Qumran Scrolls roughly between 200BC and 70AD, with a small portion of the texts possibly stretching back to the 3rd century BC...
{The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, pg. 14} and remember i said i wasn't sure.
It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100
some scholars may think this but they do not understand anything about the Bible and wouldn't know. plus like i said before, scholars do not practice deiscernment and do not take into account all the false teachers who tried to change the Bible to fit their views and accept all mss. regardless of this fact, causing them no end of problems.
from wikipedia):
people did not like it when i used conservipedia, butit was handy. i do not like it when people use wikipedia. that is one of the worst references anyone could use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by caffeine, posted 08-17-2010 6:33 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Huntard, posted 08-17-2010 7:34 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 44 by caffeine, posted 08-17-2010 7:50 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 49 by Theodoric, posted 08-17-2010 9:21 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 96 (574657)
08-17-2010 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-17-2010 5:21 AM


It is commonly accepted that the Gospels were not written until several decades after Jesus died.
no that is not true though many minimalists and secular scholars think that. read pages 33-35 of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. in those pages he is letting Dr. Blomberg speak about the dating of the writings of the NT. I willparaphrase a bit--evenwith the gospels late dated from the 70's -90's that is still within eye witness range. yet acts is part two of a two part series, and it ends with Paul still alive thus that puts the date of that book inn about 62 with luke much earlier-40s or 50's --within7-20 years of the crucifixion and possibly mark and matthew no later than the 60's as well if not earlier, if mark was the so-called source for the other two synoptic gospels.
NOW compare to Alexander's biography written by Arrian and Plutarch, that come sin at more than 400 years after his death. quite a difference.---
but it doesn't matter when they were written, the disciples and believers were preaching Jesus' life, death and ressurrection right after the last of those three thus all the eye witnesses were still alive and knew what transpired. if the disciples were lying, then christianity would not have made it to the 2nd century WHEN all the opposition to the Bible and christians started to take hold. {after all the eye witnesses were dead}
(why would the Romans bother to have soliders guarding the tomb of a crucified Jew anyway?),
the pharisees and Sadduccees asked for the guard.
the chances of those particular soldiers being remotely interested in some other Jews flapping about saying Jesus has risen from the dead, the chances of them understanding what the locals were saying, the chances of them even being aware of what was going on in other parts of the city, the chances of them being literate enough to write down their own thoughts, and the chances of any scribblings of theirs surviving to the present day, are astonishingly remote.
you do not get it nor do i think you want to. first off the romans would have and did report what happened and they were given their orders, even though those orders meant they would face death for falling asleep on guard., second, it isn't remote for all it would take would be one or two to write that it didn't happen and it would be published because other people would want to stop tthe lie (if it were a lie) but since it was the truth--no reports, no contradictions of the disciples and we have Jesuss, his life and death and ressurrection as true.
What is incredible, if the resurection and other miracles were true, is that NOBODY wrote down anything at all about these events until several DECADES later!
JUC writes:
And there is no record from the soldiers either that it didn't rain pineapples, that the earth didn't turn into Dijon mustard, that people didn't start sneezing kangeroos.
archeologist writes:
and why would they write about fantasy things? the disciples were going around telling others that their savior rose from the dead. to the romans and the pharisees, this was a group that could rally the people to rebel or cause them to lose their power and control.
the issue is quite different and one would expect that the enemies of the disciples would have written and preserved their opposition IF what the disciples said was untrue BUT since it was in jerusalem, there were ROMAN guards on watch, and so on...EVERYONE KNEW about the event and knew it was true.
It is commonly accepted that the Gospels were not written until several decades after Jesus died.
So it wasn't exactly as if the story of the resurection was on CNN or in the papers the next day!
If there really were any soldiers guarding Jesus' tomb (why would the Romans bother to have soliders guarding the tomb of a crucified Jew anyway?), the chances of those particular soldiers being remotely interested in some other Jews flapping about saying Jesus has risen from the dead, the chances of them understanding what the locals were saying, the chances of them even being aware of what was going on in other parts of the city, the chances of them being literate enough to write down their own thoughts, and the chances of any scribblings of theirs surviving to the present day, are astonishingly remote.
Furthermore, if they were going to write down anything at all, it would be the incredible experience of seeing someone rise from the dead and some angels roll back the stone that sealed his tomb.
What is incredible, if the resurection and other miracles were true, is that NOBODY wrote down anything at all about these events until several DECADES later!
you all think you think logically but you don't. with all the eye witnesses still alive, there was no need for the disciples to write it down but as the church grew, the need for a written record grew. it is not hard to see why the delay and it was not decades later, you would be lucky if it were 2.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-17-2010 5:21 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Huntard, posted 08-17-2010 7:46 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 48 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-17-2010 9:21 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2544 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 39 of 96 (574658)
08-17-2010 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by archaeologist
08-17-2010 7:19 AM


archaeologist writes:
some scholars may think this but they do not understand anything about the Bible and wouldn't know.
Of course this is not true, they are the ones that are right, and you, wantintg to lead people away from god, are the one that is wrong.
plus like i said before, scholars do not practice deiscernment and do not take into account all the false teachers who tried to change the Bible to fit their views and accept all mss.
They do, it is you who are a false teacher, who twists the bible to fit his view. How dare you lead people astray!
people did not like it when i used conservipedia, butit was handy.
That's becasue people know conservipedia lies. A lot. God doesn't like liars.
i do not like it when people use wikipedia.
That's because you want to lead people astray from the truth of god. Sinner!
that is one of the worst references anyone could use.
It is for sinners who like to hide the truth of god from people. For honest true believers however, wikipedia reveals the greatness of the lord. Which obviously, you want people to go without, so as to sin and keep sinning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 7:19 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 96 (574659)
08-17-2010 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Granny Magda
08-16-2010 7:57 PM


Re: Dragons
insults gets you no reply except this note.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Granny Magda, posted 08-16-2010 7:57 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Granny Magda, posted 08-17-2010 9:03 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 96 (574660)
08-17-2010 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
08-16-2010 7:39 PM


you simply apply your own meaning to history whether it is inaccurate or very inaccurate. people in the ancient days were not dumb andknew what caused disease, unfortunately, the dark ages left many europeans without this knowledge and they suffered from the plague.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-16-2010 7:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Huntard, posted 08-17-2010 7:48 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-17-2010 7:54 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2544 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 42 of 96 (574663)
08-17-2010 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by archaeologist
08-17-2010 7:33 AM


archaeologist writes:
no that is not true though many minimalists and secular scholars think that.
Yes it is, as you would admit if you weren't doing satan's work. Heretic!
read pages 33-35 of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.
Lee Strobel is working for satan and lies. Burn in righteous fire!
NOW compare to Alexander's biography written by Arrian and Plutarch, that come sin at more than 400 years after his death. quite a difference.
What has Alexander got anything to with this? Heathen!
but it doesn't matter when they were written, the disciples and believers were preaching Jesus' life, death and ressurrection right after the last of those three thus all the eye witnesses were still alive and knew what transpired.
These "disciples" were telling a parable, as god has revealed. Don;t lead people into the lake of fire!
if the disciples were lying, then christianity would not have made it to the 2nd century WHEN all the opposition to the Bible and christians started to take hold. {after all the eye witnesses were dead}
THey weren't lying, they were telling a story. Which you would admit if you were not hell bent on corrupting peoples souls.
you do not get it nor do i think you want to.
It is you who does not want to get it, you like sinning to much!
first off the romans would have and did report what happened and they were given their orders, even though those orders meant they would face death for falling asleep on guard., second, it isn't remote for all it would take would be one or two to write that it didn't happen and it would be published because other people would want to stop tthe lie (if it were a lie) but since it was the truth--no reports, no contradictions of the disciples and we have Jesuss, his life and death and ressurrection as true.
True believers, that want people to see the glory of god know that the stories are just stories. People like you however, who want people to suffer for an eternity, deny this obvious truth.
you all think you think logically but you don't.
We do, it is you who doesn't. You know you don't, which is even worse. But because you like to sin so much, and a re doing satan's work, you keep doing it anyway.
with all the eye witnesses still alive, there was no need for the disciples to write it down but as the church grew, the need for a written record grew.
True believers know there never were any eyewitneses, as the stories were made up.
it is not hard to see why the delay and it was not decades later, you would be lucky if it were 2
True believers know it was at least 4 decades later. But sinners like you like to obfuscate that fact, because you want to keep people from the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 7:33 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2544 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 43 of 96 (574664)
08-17-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by archaeologist
08-17-2010 7:37 AM


archaeologist writes:
you simply apply your own meaning to history whether it is inaccurate or very inaccurate.
As do you. It's just that you want to lead people away from god.
people in the ancient days were not dumb andknew what caused disease,
Yes, demons. Or if you mean something else, evidence please.
unfortunately, the dark ages left many europeans without this knowledge and they suffered from the plague.
They also thought it were demons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 7:37 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 44 of 96 (574665)
08-17-2010 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by archaeologist
08-17-2010 7:19 AM


it is still the same and it is the book of Numbers {andi knew that there was only the priestly blessing but still 2400 years and no changes.
yes, Numbers sorry. My mistake. My point was simply that it was a prayer. The fact that a single prayer survived a few hundred years and worked its way into the Old Testament tells us nothing about how old or unchanging the rest of the Bible is.
In sum, the general scholarly view today places the Qumran Scrolls roughly between 200BC and 70AD, with a small portion of the texts possibly stretching back to the 3rd century BC...
Looking into this in a little more detail, it seems to be more complicated than that. Carbon dating of various scrolls suggests the oldest may date back as far as 400 BC, while the youngest could be as recent as 600 AD.
some scholars may think this but they do not understand anything about the Bible and wouldn't know. plus like i said before, scholars do not practice deiscernment and do not take into account all the false teachers who tried to change the Bible to fit their views and accept all mss. regardless of this fact, causing them no end of problems.
So, whilst you concede the undeniable fact that lots of different versions of Bible writings exist, this doesn't matter as these should all be considered the fabrications of false teachers. And we know which version is correct because.....
people did not like it when i used conservipedia, butit was handy. i do not like it when people use wikipedia. that is one of the worst references anyone could use.
Well, regardless of our opinions on the relative merits of wikipedia and conservapedia, I was actually quoting the Oxford Companion to Archaeology. The mention of wikipedia was just to be clear where I got the quote from, in case it turns out to have been mangled in some way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 7:19 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 96 (574666)
08-17-2010 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by archaeologist
08-17-2010 7:37 AM


you simply apply your own meaning to history whether it is inaccurate or very inaccurate. people in the ancient days were not dumb andknew what caused disease, unfortunately, the dark ages left many europeans without this knowledge and they suffered from the plague.
So, you're still not going to produce any documentary evidence that supports your claims?
I guess that's because there isn't any.
But in that case it is stupid and hypocritical of you to complain that I "simply apply [my] own meaning to history", when you are simply making up your own history.
You have claimed that there are written records substantiating your fantasies. I would tell you to put up or shut up, except that being a creationist you have a third option, which is to continue to drivel out falsehoods without ever providing a shred of a shard of a scrap of a scintilla of substantiating evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by archaeologist, posted 08-17-2010 7:37 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024