Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Independent Historical Corroboration for Biblical Events
Steve
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 212 (116671)
06-19-2004 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by jar
06-19-2004 11:34 AM


Re: Myth?
What are these characters that you speak of. Name them.
And what are the traits of fiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by jar, posted 06-19-2004 11:34 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by jar, posted 06-19-2004 12:06 PM Steve has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 168 of 212 (116672)
06-19-2004 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Steve
06-19-2004 11:52 AM


Re: Myth?
certainly. There are Anthropomorphic critters, supernatural beings, a story line, sudden creations, and even a love interest for the purient.
But the point is not whether it is called, myth, fiction, fable, saga, tale or story.
The point is that there are enough historic events named in the bible that simply did not happen, did not happen as stated or did not happen when stated, that the Bible can not be relied on as a historical reference.
That does not mean there is no historical value to the Bible. It does mean though that those instances where it is obviously wrong (for example the Creation (insert your prefered term) or the flood, or the tale of Noah and the Ark must be discounted.
It means that the timelines, when seemingly wrong (Jerico) must be questioned.
It means that the events that are totally uncorroborated like the Exodus story must be set aside as only tales until some additional information is found that might provide independant confirmation.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Steve, posted 06-19-2004 11:52 AM Steve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Steve, posted 06-19-2004 11:13 PM jar has replied

  
Steve
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 212 (116774)
06-19-2004 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by jar
06-19-2004 12:06 PM


Re: Myth?
Creations: Should the book of Genesis be taken literally? - ChristianAnswers.Net
How should Christians interpret Genesis 1-11? - ChristianAnswers.Net
GENESIS, HISTORY OR PARABLE? Does God expect us to read Genesis 1-11 as a record of authentic historical fact, or is this simply a collection of parable-like stories? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Noah: Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Catastrophe! and the Genesis Flood Questions-and-Answers - Creation SuperLibrary at ChristianAnswers.Net
I not sure what your contention with exodus or jericho is, but if you would, please explain to me. As far as the creation account and noah are concerned, there pretty much secure in extra-biblical scientific data.
For example, most mountain tops are made up of sediment, which is evidence that they were once under water. Read the above links. They'll explain better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by jar, posted 06-19-2004 12:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by jar, posted 06-19-2004 11:50 PM Steve has not replied
 Message 171 by sidelined, posted 06-19-2004 11:56 PM Steve has not replied
 Message 172 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-20-2004 2:18 AM Steve has not replied
 Message 173 by JonF, posted 06-20-2004 9:28 AM Steve has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 170 of 212 (116787)
06-19-2004 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Steve
06-19-2004 11:13 PM


You won't get very far
pointing towards the folk over at AIG. There is little there that most folk here haven't read and laughed about.
But there is no evidence there of a world wide flood. And as to how sediment gets from below sea level to the tops of the highest mountains, you'll have a VERY hard time convincing someone who's been through a couple earthquakes that it is not from the mountains being shoved up.
There is a whole thread, several in fact, dealing with the Exodus myth. TThere is even a section on the flood myth so wander over there.
But there is no evidence at AIG. And so far, no one has brought any information to support either the flood or the silly Noah story, but feel free to give it a try in the appropriate thread or forum.
But back on topic, I repeat, there are just to many historical incidents in the Bible that are simply wrong to place any trust in it without lots of outside corroboration.
If you can provide some, we wouold all like to see it.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Steve, posted 06-19-2004 11:13 PM Steve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-22-2004 5:20 PM jar has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 171 of 212 (116790)
06-19-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Steve
06-19-2004 11:13 PM


Re: Myth?
steve
For example, most mountain tops are made up of sediment, which is evidence that they were once under water. Read the above links. They'll explain better
Concerning the flood.An excerpt/" A growing number of scientists believe that geological evidence indicates our world has undergone a catastrophic flood."
Concerning creations. An excerpt/"Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events, the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full meaning"
A word of advice when you are faced with phrases such as these subject them to probing questions.What scientists,their area of expertise ,their evidence?
How do you arrive at a generalization of the bible that is obviously already assumed. In this case the bible having no meaning without the chapters of genesis being correct?And where,ourside the bible, do you find corroboration?
It is easy to bring up the websites it is another thing to debate the pros and cons of their claims.Always remember that people are not necessarily going to provide you with the other side of the coin as a check of the veracity or value of any statements they may make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Steve, posted 06-19-2004 11:13 PM Steve has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 172 of 212 (116814)
06-20-2004 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Steve
06-19-2004 11:13 PM


Re: Myth?
Steve, I've read your linked articles, and they contain no referenced extra-biblical scientific evidence for the real problems with the stories.
For example, one of the articles goes into great detail counting all of the different species and whether or not they would survive a flood, at least mentioning which scientist they got their numbers from...
When it comes time to explain how the animals got on the ark, or how they were taken care of by only eight people, the writers resort to lines like "Some have suggested this may have involved the origin of animal migratory instincts or, at least, an intensification of it." and "It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened."
Of course, the article also discusses the use of BABY DINOSAURS instead of adults to conserve space on the ark. If you can find any "extra-biblical scientific data" for dinosaurs and humans cohabitating the planet I would like to see it...
First of all, these are ridiculous suppositions at best. Secondly, to reiterate what some said above, you need to ask yourself, who are the some in "some have suggested" or when "it has been said" who said it. Without references and some sort of evidence or studies, this is beyond meaningless.
And by the way, the links you list for extra-biblical evidence for the creation story - they split the evidence into two sections: "INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE BOOK OF GENESIS" and "EVIDENCE FROM THE REST OF THE BIBLE." I wouldn't use that again as "extra-biblical scientific data", since it is not extra-biblical, and certainly not scientific.
Though, as AIG says, "Scientists agree that legends are almost always based on facts, not just pure imagination."
"Almost always", eh....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Steve, posted 06-19-2004 11:13 PM Steve has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 173 of 212 (116852)
06-20-2004 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Steve
06-19-2004 11:13 PM


Re: Myth?
For example, most mountain tops are made up of sediment, which is evidence that they were once under water.
Yes, but it is not evidence that they were under water at the same time or in the recent past. In fact, since the transformation from sediment to sedimentary rock takes time, it is evidence that they were under water long before Man came on the scene.
When we consider the rest of the evidence, it is blindingly obvious that there was no global flood. That's why the great Christian geologists of the late eigthteenth and early nineteenths century reluctantly abandoned the idea of a global flood; even before Darwin, even before radioisotope dating, the evidence was unmistakably clear. And they were too honest to lie to themselves and the world by claiming otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Steve, posted 06-19-2004 11:13 PM Steve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Steve, posted 06-20-2004 11:31 PM JonF has not replied

  
Steve
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 212 (116949)
06-20-2004 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by JonF
06-20-2004 9:28 AM


Re: Myth?
Okay, since you all seem to want specific scientific names and data, give me yours.
What is this "blindingly" obvious evidence. What is this "evidence" that states that the flood was not global? Give me specifics since you demand them yourself.
I want to know the scientists, their backgrounds, their specific research, who funded it, their beliefs, and links or bibliographies so I can hold the actual articles in my hands.
How about you try to prove to me what you believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by JonF, posted 06-20-2004 9:28 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 06-20-2004 11:36 PM Steve has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 175 of 212 (116950)
06-20-2004 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Steve
06-20-2004 11:31 PM


Re: Myth?
Steve
Do you really not understand? You do not Prove a negative. The proof that the flood never happened is that there is NO EVIDENCE THAT IT DID HAPPEN.
The way it works is that if you make and assertion such as "There was a world-wide flood" you MUST present evidence that it did happen.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Steve, posted 06-20-2004 11:31 PM Steve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 12:10 AM jar has replied

  
Steve
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 212 (116958)
06-21-2004 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by jar
06-20-2004 11:36 PM


Re: Myth?
the transformation from sediment to sedimentary rock takes time
prove this. this is what I'm talking about. you all are making statements like this without any corroboration. so where is it? show it to me.
why do you want more evidence that the flood happened?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 06-20-2004 11:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 06-21-2004 12:14 AM Steve has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 177 of 212 (116960)
06-21-2004 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Steve
06-21-2004 12:10 AM


Re: Myth?
You are right. The change from sediment to sedimentary rock takes time. It has taken millions of years. What's to prove. There has been thousands of millions of years for it to happen.
You ask...
why do you want more evidence that the flood happened?
and the answer is that so far you have provided NO evidence.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 12:10 AM Steve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 12:23 AM jar has not replied

  
Steve
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 212 (116966)
06-21-2004 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by jar
06-21-2004 12:14 AM


Re: Myth?
ICR | The Institute for Creation Research
Okay, maybe I have to bring my speach pattern down a few notches:
What is the scientific evidence, the data, that says it takes millions of years for rock to turn into sediment? If what I'm asking is not clear, than maybe I thought to highly of this forum upon discovery.
Anyway, your job now is to provide me with your evidence for making such statments. And check the website above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 06-21-2004 12:14 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 12:25 AM Steve has not replied
 Message 190 by JonF, posted 06-22-2004 9:41 AM Steve has not replied

  
Steve
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 212 (116967)
06-21-2004 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Steve
06-21-2004 12:23 AM


Re: Myth?
Oh yeah, so your answers for why do you want more evidence is that I have provided no evidence?
Just think and read that for awhile until it sinks in and then get back to me, okay?
You want more, because I've provided none....hmmmm. So why do you want any at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 12:23 AM Steve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 06-21-2004 12:38 AM Steve has not replied
 Message 181 by NosyNed, posted 06-21-2004 1:11 AM Steve has not replied
 Message 182 by almeyda, posted 06-21-2004 3:33 AM Steve has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 180 of 212 (116973)
06-21-2004 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Steve
06-21-2004 12:25 AM


Re: Myth?
Steve
You made an assertion. The assertion is that there was a global flood. That is simply an assertion until you can present something to support the assertion.
When you have some evidence that there was a flood, bring it here. Then we can go on.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 12:25 AM Steve has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 181 of 212 (116991)
06-21-2004 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Steve
06-21-2004 12:25 AM


another problem
You need to show some evidence for the flood. You also need to explain the evidence that strongly suggests it did not happen.
Go to this topic and explain the fossil ordering.
Fossil sorting for simple
No one has managed that yet. Maybe you can.
Just to help you catch up I'll summarize the issue:
The fossil order (nothing to do with absolute dates but that can be added in later) is not one of a chaotic flood, it is not one resuting on body size, density, speed or intelligence. It is not what one that results from [i]andy[/b] of the crazy suggestions that the creationists make to explain it.
It covers both animals and plants.
You have to explain the whole darn thing. It was this evidence that convinced creationists two centuries ago that the flood could NOT be responsible for the earth's geology. The flood did not happen.
You should NOT respond here. Take it to that thread.
Note that ignoring this, as so many others have done, strongly suggests that you have no argument that can stand up.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-21-2004 12:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Steve, posted 06-21-2004 12:25 AM Steve 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