archaeology and evolution

Hi Archaeologist!Could you please explain how you reconcile this statement: With this one: Thanks!--Percy

Hi pretend-archaeologist, Where did I insult you? I can assure you, should I choose to insult you, it will be rather more obvious than that.Is it because I called you out on your pretence of being an archaeologist? Because you're fooling no-one with that. You are no archaeologist. Care to dispute that? If so, please provide us with a summary of your professional qualifications and some details of your recent work.That aside, I am still keen to hear your reasoning on why you should be so keen to ridicule stories of dragons, when the Bible itself talks of dragons. If you want to answer it that is. If you prefer, you could always keep on dodging the question.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

And if the vast majority of those around at the time did not agree there was any resurrection, or at least did not witness anything, they wouldn't bother to write anything down as long as they were still alive in order to contradict a few people they probably regarded as somewhat eccentric.A soldier given the lowly job of guarding a grave would not be thinking, "We'd better write down something to contradict what these nutters are saying, because in twenty or thirty years time when most of us are dead these rumours might still be going round and someone might write them down as if they were true, and in 2000 years time people might still believe it."And the soldiers would definitely not have written anything down in the extremely likely event that they never existed.

You truly are as uneducated as you act aren't you. Heck I bet you don't even have a Bob Jones degree.Let me spell it out for you. Conservapedia just spout nonsense. They do not refer to original documents. If you knew anything about research you would see that caffeine referenced info from The Oxford Companion to Archaeology that was in the wiki article.There is even a footnote for this.

quote:

---

^ Fagan, Brian M., and Charlotte Beck, The Oxford Companion to Archeology, entry on the "Dead sea scrolls", Oxford University Press, 1996

---

Funny how you selective quoted from you source on the dead sea scrolls. Here is the complete sentence.

quote:

---

In sum, the general scholarly view today places the Qumran Scrolls roughly between 200BCE and 70CE, with a small portion of the texts possibly stretching back to the 3rd century BCE and the bulk of the extant material dating to the first century BCE, i.e. late Hasmonaean, early Herodian in the jargon of palaeographers.

---

Complete Dead Sea Scrolls
I see you even changed the authors BCE and CE to BC and AD. How cute.

---

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

Was Josephus a myth?He did write about those events.thing,

1) No, he didn't. Or it's very dubious at best.
2) That was, as JUC said, DECADES later.

It is pretty debatable whether or not it was Josephus who wrote about it. Many say that it was a later addition to his work by someone else: a forgery.Edited by hooah212002, : grammar

---

Leaving aside the fact that the Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery or interpolation, something that you may wish to debate, it is absolutely indisputable that Josephus was born around 37 AD (after the date usually assigned to the crucifixion) and that the Antiquities of the Jews was written in the thirteenth year of Domitian, i.e. 93/94 AD.So even if Josephus did write the Testimonium Flavianum, which he didn't, Jumped Up Chimpanzee would still be correct in saying that it was several decades later.

Or in laymen's terms 60 years after the supposed date.

---

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

"A man hears what he wants to hear and he disregards the rest." S & GThere is a profound lesson in this thread somewhere. What does it show us about how we communicate?16 tonnes of logic will not open the vault that is Archies mind. We need the 2 oz key.

Wow, I hadn't heard that the entire work was a forgery. I thought it was just the jesus bits.

---

The Testimonium Flavianum is the longer of the two "Jesus bits" in the Antiquities of the Jews, it isn't a separate work.

The "Testimonium Flavianum" is just a portion of The Antiquities of the Jews.This is it.

quote:

---

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

---

Earl Doherty has a fantastic analysis of Josephus and the interpolations.
Josephus UnboundEdited by Theodoric, : Subtitle added

---

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

Right you are. Thanks for the correction. I admittedly haven't read it, but briefly perused it and have only heard of the Testimonium Flavianum being referenced, not the entire work.

---

It's always a sign of a good day when you learn something so early, even when it comes at the expense of looking like a buffoon.

---