|
0 registered members (),
715
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69201
06/04/06 11:08
06/04/06 11:08
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
@Irish: If I understand right, your basic problem with science goes along this line: "Science doesn't know the cause for phenomenon X. My religion knows the cause for X: it's a god. My religion obviously gives an answer where science has none. Thus I don't understand why scientists are so narrow minded that they are not content with god as the cause for X and are still looking for another cause." Science began at the state of knowing nothing. The cause for everything was "a god". If we had left it at that, we'd still live on trees. The beginning of science was the very thing you're complaining about: Not accepting "a god" for an answer anymore, and looking further. With the development of science, we've found more and more theories that explained natural phenomena without the need for "a god" or a supernatural force. Still, there's a lot in nature - like the trigger for the Big Bang, or the beginning of time (if it had a beginning) - that science has not yet theories for. There are only the hypotheses that I mentioned above. The spontaenous Vacuum Polarization can certainly not have caused the Big Bang - in that you're right. Currently, there are lots of hypotheses in what could have caused our universe or many other universes. Here's one of them: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=...r=1&catID=2You see that even those speculations are a lot more sophisticated than the trivial "a god caused it". You and your fellow sectarians seem to feel a desparate need for attacking any scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe or the evolution in order to defend your god's last resorts. But this fight is doomed to fail - in fact it has already failed. And it's unnecessary anyway. You've given the answer yourself: Your god is out of the universe and out of time and space. He has no resorts in nature anymore. If you accept that our world is not governed by supernatural forces, you can still believe in your god, outside the universe, an abstract ethics or creative principle or whatever you want. And you've then made the step from a superstitious religion to a modern religion.
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: jcl]
#69202
06/04/06 18:59
06/04/06 18:59
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
"Science doesn't know the cause for phenomenon X. My religion knows the cause for X: it's a god. My religion obviously gives an answer where science has none. Thus I don't understand why scientists are so narrow minded that they are not content with god as the cause for X and are still looking for another cause."
No, my problem is that they've turned science into absolute idiocy.
Science used to deal with only the observed, and if something couldn't be directly observed, its effects at least had to be directly observable. If science went beyond that, at least it would be admitted, and they wouldn't shove conjecture down our throats as fact.
Radiation and red shift does not automatically mean the big bang is fact. The big bang is just an idea based off of these two observations. Nowhere in science does the big bang automatically replace God. If I assume that God created the universe generally the way we see it now, then I could make the exact same observations, and come to the wrong conclusion that it started with a big bang. Don't get me wrong, I don't think its wrong to hypothesize an alternative, but just because its been hypothesized doesn't mean it should then automatically turn into fact.
Furthermore, there are far too many problems with the big bang theory, despite that the problems are never brought up, and the big bang is still discussed as fact.
The big bang requires cosmic evolution in order to acheive the state that its at right now. Yet this is in an even more dire state than biological evolution because we never even see cosmic reproduction. So should I just accept that it happens on faith? I don't get what the difference between your faith and my faith is. Except that yours doesn't offend you with a god.
Furthermore, scientists are finally willing to admit that there was something before the big bang. In other words, they've finally caved to the objections that theists have made for years. The Big Bang cannot occur out of nowhere. So this more primordial state of the universe, where did that come from? Furthermore, if this pre-universe is an assumption based on an assumption, why don't you or other scientists admit that?
You haven't given certain alternatives to God. You've simply given possible alternatives to God. Why should I abandon God when you don't even know for sure what happened. And the fact is the only reason you're sure it happened that way, is because you know God didn't do it. You can't allow for God anywhere in the picture.
Quote:
Science began at the state of knowing nothing. The cause for everything was "a god". If we had left it at that, we'd still live on trees. The beginning of science was the very thing you're complaining about: Not accepting "a god" for an answer anymore, and looking further.
That's the problem of science then, because even early followers of God (like way way back in the day...shortly after we believe the earth was created) knew better.
From what I can see, your argument sounds like this. "Some idiots a long time ago thought that there was a giant hand in the sky that moved the sun, but now we know better. Since then, we've made a lot of really great, unverifiable guesses to a lot of other things. So eventually we can make some educated guesses based on other guesses to eventually lead us to a possible cause that excludes God. In which case we'll know for sure it happened that way."
Quote:
Your god is out of the universe and out of time and space. He has no resorts in nature anymore.
His existence is, but how does that mean He can't make Himself a part of the universe.
Basically atheists have the monopoly on what unverifiable, and wildly imaginative (though mathematically correct) guesses can be made about the universe. But that doesn't mean they're 100% correct. I think what offends people like you so much is that unlike the other namby pamby religions who tickle scientific egos by caving in, we point out that the fact of the matter is you don't know for sure. And you never will. There are some answers science cannot definitively know. And it never will know. You can call guesses factual all you want, but it doesn't change anything.
Furthermore, if all scientists were theists, we would probably admit that the more we look at the universe, the more it looks like there's a creator.
The problem isn't that science has replaced God for all the answers, its that it doesn't have all the answers but we're constantly told it does. Scientists are trying to push science beyond its limits, because it appears the ultimate goal isn't discovery (if it was then they wouldn't care about something they'll never know for sure anyway), but to replace God with nature.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/04/06 19:00.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69203
06/05/06 00:22
06/05/06 00:22
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Furthermore, if all scientists were theists, we would probably admit that the more we look at the universe, the more it looks like there's a creator.
Yes, this would fit your view nicely I guess, but if it's so obvious and possible to derive from the scientific research that a creator would be likely, then why don't the scientist believe in God?  Unlike you think, science isn't about finding proof to disprove your belief.
Infact if scientists would find proof that makes the existance of a God likely, then I probably would believe it. (Don't worry, the evidence should be very solid off course.  )
No offense, but I think your argument about 'if all scientists were theists' is in plain error. Yes, they start with a different point of view, however the lack of evidence in favor of a God as they would discover would make it hard for them to hold on to that belief. Infact the lack of evidence for any of the biblical socalled historical events will make them doubt the bible and probably even simply declare it as definately not historical, although filosophical interesting, since archaeological evidence proves it's not historical.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69204
06/05/06 01:01
06/05/06 01:01
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Yes, this would fit your view nicely I guess, but if it's so obvious and possible to derive from the scientific research that a creator would be likely, then why don't the scientist believe in God? Unlike you think, science isn't about finding proof to disprove your belief.
Science largely ignores God as a cause. That's great, until you start guessing how the universe and life came into existence. Its actually quite entertaining to watch scientists try and replace God for the origin of life, because they obviously must understand nothing about thermodynamics. Its also funny to watch them try and replace God for the origin of the universe. However, it starts becoming rather detrimental when their unverifiable guesses are paraded around as truth. Aren't religionists supposed to be idiots for believing something that can't be proved? The big bang effects our natural universe in no way, and we can't recreate it, or any of its effects on our universe in the lab. But it must be true, because red shift is possibly caused by space expansion. And there is no reason to think that this could have to do with something other than the big bang.
I'm not saying its wrong to believe the big bang is right, I'm just saying there isn't conclusive evidence that it is right, and in fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, why should I take their word on something that supposedly happened billions of years ago, when they won't even admit that life can't start on its own (which supposedly happened only a fraction of the time ago). I also find it hard to believe any age they tack on anything. The age of the earth has doubled on average every twenty years. Yet every time they come up with a new age, we're told it IS the age, not that its the assumed age. Because if they admit that they're making assumptions, then people won't fall for it. Furthermore, if they were wrong for each and every other age that they've given for the earth, why are they suddenly right now? Why should I believe them? The self-correcting nature of science argument doesn't work, because we were told these ages were fact. There was no guessing involved. That's my point.
Furthermore, with the current model of the big bang, they assume that stars came into existence at roughly the same time as the universe. Even according to them, this isn't possible. But I'm just supposed to take it on faith that they're right about everything? As soon as science left the realm of the directly, or even indirectly observable, its become a joke. I for one don't find the joke very funny, however.
Quote:
Yes, they start with a different point of view, however the lack of evidence in favor of a God as they would discover would make it hard for them to hold on to that belief.
According to this logic, I could say that the lack of evidence in favor of naturalism is what makes it hard for atheist scientists to stay atheists. Does that make sense? I think you'll agree that it doesn't, but that's because you missed my point. My point was that, you're sitting here taking these imaginative stories at face value, when these stories not only wouldn't exist if scientists were theists, but they would be radically different. In which case, it would be very difficult to believe that there is no God. In fact, the evidence for God is right there, but you never hear about it. I'm not about to scream conspiracy, but scientists are so dead set on showing how the universe could exist without God (and life), that they won't admit that there is no other alternative. We've made absolutely NO headway into discovering how life could have started without a designer. In fact, we've done the opposite, and we've figured out that its impossible for it to start without some creative power. Yet we're told as a fact that it didn't. Does this not bother you in any way? Doesn't it bother you that even the most basic understanding of thermodynamics shows why life cannot start on its own? If it takes a creator to make life, then maybe all of our assumptions about a lack of creator anywhere else are wrong. But that's exactly the problem. That will never be admitted to.
Quote:
since archaeological evidence proves it's not historical.
What evidence was this again?
Quote:
Infact if scientists would find proof that makes the existance of a God likely, then I probably would believe it. (Don't worry, the evidence should be very solid off course. )
Good. I want to discuss this further, because I've seen this come up in other atheist-theist discussions. What could scientists find in this universe that would convince you God exists? I don't think there's a single thing that could happen in this universe that you couldn't rationalize.
But I don't want to assume you're lying. Tell me what could happen within the natural realm (in other words something that isn't physically impossible like a square-circle) that would convince you. In other words, something we can comprehend.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/05/06 01:07.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69205
06/05/06 14:22
06/05/06 14:22
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
@Irish: Generally I have the impression that while at the beginning of this thread you attempted to give "scientific arguments" for your creationist faith, you're now attacking science in general. Or am I wrong here? Quote:
ts actually quite entertaining to watch scientists try and replace God for the origin of life, because they obviously must understand nothing about thermodynamics.
I've heard of many gods, but never of a thermodynamics god. Would you mind to elaborate?
Quote:
I'm not saying its wrong to believe the big bang is right, I'm just saying there isn't conclusive evidence that it is right, and in fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Such as?
Quote:
Furthermore, with the current model of the big bang, they assume that stars came into existence at roughly the same time as the universe. Even according to them, this isn't possible.
Indeed. Thus there's obviously something wrong with your information about the "current Big Bang model", wouldn't you agree?
I won't go into this now because it only makes sense when you at least know a little tiny bit about the Big Bang. There are many web sites where you can learn about the Big Bang and when stars came into existence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
If you have questions or don't understand something, just ask here.
Quote:
My point was that, you're sitting here taking these imaginative stories at face value, when these stories not only wouldn't exist if scientists were theists, but they would be radically different.
Many scientists are theists. Your problem is obviously not that they are not theists, but that they are not superstitious.
You're permanently talking about God, but what you really seem to mean is not God, but the supernatural events or miracles into which your sect believes.
Stop hijacking God for your purposes. Or else I'll start pointing out why God is an evolutionist  .
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: jcl]
#69206
06/05/06 16:24
06/05/06 16:24
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Quote:
since archaeological evidence proves it's not historical.
What evidence was this again?
Quote:
Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology, William G. Dever writes:
Until about a generation ago Biblical achaeologists spoke confidently about William Foxwell Albright's "archaeological revolution". It would assuredly enhance our understanding and appreciation of the Bible and its timeless message-which was thought to be absolutely essential to our cherished Western culture condition. The Bible and the "Christian West," as formerly conceived, are fighting for their lives. Not only has modern archaeology not helped to confirm the earlier tradition, it appears to some to be part of the process to undermind it. This is a not-so-well kept secret among professional archaeologists.
The failure of the "archaeological revolution" means tryng to occupy the beleagured middle ground, neither extreme skeptics or naive credulists. The clock cannot be turned back to the time when archaeology allegedly "proved the Bible." Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the "larger than life" portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence. There was no military conquest of Canaan, and many, if not most, of the Isrealites throughout the Monarchy were polytheists. Monotheism may have been an ideal of Bible writers. Archaeology cannot not decide what the supposed events described in the Bible mean. That decision is left up to each individual. Archaeology cannot decide this question; it can only sharpen our focus.[4](Dever, 2006)
You see, some tend to believe biblical archaeology proves certain historical aspects of the Bible, but all that it has been able to do is make certain controversial claims.
Finding for example a city mentioned in the bible is one thing, however more than once it has turned out to be very different than described in the bible. Both in size, local importance and development. Most archaeology rather disproves the bible as being historical, but that's something most biblical archaeologists don't like to admit,
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69207
06/05/06 17:30
06/05/06 17:30
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
|
PHeMoX, Both you and the author of that article (at least from the quote you provide) show your ignorance of the Bible in this regard. There are vast assumptions being made that are simply not correct. I will try to briefly explain. Quote:
many, if not most, of the Isrealites throughout the Monarchy were polytheists.
This one statement shows that the author of these words does not know the Bible at all. The Bible itself shows the Israelites were polytheists. This was one of the main problems the prophets and other biblical writers were dealing with within Israel. God gave them a law to have no other gods before him. Despite this, the Israelites, from the very beginning, continued to worship a variety of gods including the Canannite gods of Molech and Baal (which were really the same god under different name). The Bible nowhere declares that the Israelites, as a nation, were monotheistic ... quite the opposite. As a result, archaeologically I would expect to find an abundance of evidence that demonstrates the polytheism of ancient Israel. In fact, this is what we find.
Quote:
There was no military conquest of Canaan
Upon what archaeological evidence do they base this? Both the ancient city of Jericho and the ancient city of AI have been found. Both are in a state of destruction and both date from the approx. time frame of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. The conquest was never truly completed and, as a result, many (if not most) of the Canaanites, Philistines and other peoples remained in the land of Israel throughout the entire monarchy period. As a result, there was always a presence of these peoples. This is what we would expect to find archaeologically from a reading of the Bible and this is what is found in fact.
Oh! And I am not just speaking these things from the top of my head. For the last 4.5 years I had lived in Israel and visited many of these sites, seen them with my own eyes, touched them with my own hands and, on occassion, even spoken with experts in the field concerning these places.
Quote:
Finding for example a city mentioned in the bible is one thing, however more than once it has turned out to be very different than described in the bible. Both in size, local importance and development.
Can you give an example of this? Normally the Bible does not mention the size of a city (i.e. so many cubits or so many days journey to cross, etc). For example, it states simply that Jericho was a wall city. Not much more information is given. There are a few exceptions (such as Ninevah), but they are very rare.
In each case where the Bible mentions the importance of a place it was, indeed, important during that time. I cannot think of one instance where this would not be the case. For example, there is no denying that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel and then, after the nation split, of the southern kingdom of Judah. There is no denying that Babylon was the capital of the Babylonian empire. The importance given to cities in the Bible is fact, not because the Bible says so, but because they were indeed places of significance.
Rarely does the Bible even speak of the development of a city or even a people in any way. Mainly very simple and matter-of-fact statements are made such as a people group having "chariots of iron" and the like.
What I want to point out here is that you have made a claim and yet it seems that you have nothing to back up your statement. You claim the Bible makes statements about cities, their sizes, their importance and their development and then indicate the inaccuracy of the Bible in these areas. And, yet, the Bible rarely, if ever, makes any claims along these lines. In this case, it would seem, that the burdon of proof is upon you to show us these contradictions.
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69208
06/05/06 17:42
06/05/06 17:42
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Finding for example a city mentioned in the bible is one thing, however more than once it has turned out to be very different than described in the bible. Both in size, local importance and development.
You would think things change, considering we're looking at ruins, whereas the writer was probably talking about a city in its existence, we're looking at something that has had time to change, etc. Cities weren't around only for the instance they were written about in the bible.
Quote:
Most archaeology rather disproves the bible as being historical, but that's something most biblical archaeologists don't like to admit
I can't argue this, I simply don't have any knowledge whatsoever of archaeology. I will assume that biblical archaeologists would have an equally convincing argument. I don't know. I'll have to look it up I suppose.
Quote:
Generally I have the impression that while at the beginning of this thread you attempted to give "scientific arguments" for your creationist faith, you're now attacking science in general. Or am I wrong here?
No I'm not. I just don't think that the evidence is as conclusive as you'd like me to believe. In fact, its pretty easy to see. Random news clippings about them being wrong about the distance of objects by 100s of millions of lightyears, etc. The age of the earth doubling every 20 years, the age of the universe growing and shrinking, and yet being absolutely certain about the age each and every time.
Quote:
Such as?
I'll let you argue with these three guys, because there's no point in me being unable to state nearly as well what these guys say. I admit I haven't read all of it, but from what I've seen they aren't convinced whatsoever, and even compare big bang believers to young earth creationists.
Quote:
Indeed. Thus there's obviously something wrong with your information about the "current Big Bang model", wouldn't you agree?
Well, then scientists are misleading the press. It wasn't directly stated that stars were in existence at about the same time as the universe, but the oldest known celestial body is about as old as the universe, which leaves no room for stellar evolution.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69209
06/05/06 17:51
06/05/06 17:51
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
I will admit that I can't say much about the big bang. I'm probably not going to click that link anytime soon to learn, just yet. My main problem with the big bang, is that if scientists can be so wrong about what we can observe day in and day out (biology/evolution) how are they possibly going to understand the entire universe from out of our little corner? I'm sure there are a lot of interesting reasons to believe the big bang. I just think there are also a lot of different ways to read the universe. The most simple one being red shift. Many skeptics of the big bang say that red shift has more to do with distance. Of course, then this begs the question of why things can be blue shifted. But then I don't wholly agree with how they decide the amount of red shift in the first place. I don't know. Frankly, cosmology changes so often that its hard to even criticise. edit: Also God isn't the God of thermodynamics, he's the God who created thermodynamics. Which, coincidentally, predicts that life will never start on its own. If you want a lesson in thermodynamics, just ask.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/05/06 18:29.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: cause
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69210
06/06/06 00:10
06/06/06 00:10
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
". . . the archaeological evidence in Jerusalem for the famous building projects of Solomon is nonexistent. Nineteenth and early twentieth century
excavations around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem failed to identify even a trace of Solomon's fabled Temple or palace complex." ["The Bible Unearthed",
Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Slberman; Touchstone pub., New York, 2002]
I can quote many many many of these kind of examples ...
Quote:
The reality is, there was no enslavement or Exodus AS the Bible claims, it MAY have happened on a much smaller scale, but the Biblical accounts of
these events are either exaggerated or fantasy.
Quote:
I (personally) was singularly underwhelmed by the pictures of the alleged "cities" presented in Gray's website.
They look suspiciously similar to the formations, claimed by some to be cities, which are found on Mars and the moon.
In addition to the fact that it takes a great deal of imagination (and overlay drawings) to see anything other than natural geologic processes in the formations, there is a distinct lack of buried finds (both cemeteries and occupational debris) that would, presumably, not have been "turned to ash".
You should be aware that any discoveries connected with Ron Wyatt are suspect in the extreme.
Even the Christian "Answers In Genesis" refuses to be affiliated with him, as the following excerpt from one of their sites (linked below) shows:
[AIG] "(Ron) Wyatt claimed to have found just about every conceivable artifact of importance to the Bible. The real Red Sea crossing site, with chariot
wheels; the Ark of the Covenant underneath the actual site of the Crucifixion, replete with the dried blood of Christ (complete with a misunderstanding by
this fraudster of the nature of human genetics) . . . and the chromosomes, it was alleged, were seen to be still dividing! Not surprisingly, the lab that was
said to have confirmed all this is mysteriously unavailable for comment. O, yes, and the real Sodom and Gomorrah, the site of Korah's earthquake, Noah's
grave, Noah's wife's grave (with millions in treasure which some rascal promptly stole) even the fence from Noah's farm, no less. To cap it off, he claimed to have the actual tablets of the Law (bound with golden links, no less) in his garage, as it were. And this is only the beginning of such amazing claims; nearly
100 in all! Not surprisingly, even after his death, none of these treasures has ever been produced."
"He (Ron Wyatt) said that he prayed at the (Noah's) Ark site once, and God caused the ground to tear apart via an earthquake so that he, Wyatt, could see
the petrified ship's timbers. Then it closed again. . . . If one discovers, as we did, . . . that there is a trail of repeated falsehood after falsehood,
public lie upon public lie, the hypothesis (that Ron Wyatt is) a godly, spiritual, latter-day prophet [or credible archaeologist {my insertion}] is easily discredited"
Remember, the above quotation is not from some "biblical minimalist" but from the Christian "Answers In Genesis" organization.
About Saul, David and Solomon;
Quote:
What is it in the archaeological record that makes you think that these three rulers were real people? DO you not find it suspect that the only piece
of 'evidence' that we have for any of these three rulers is the very ambiguous Tel Dan Stele. Wouldn't you expect to find, if the biblical tales are true
regarding these three people, more than this one vague reference?
The Tel Dan Stele is more likely to be a reference to a place or a temple and is not a clear cut reference to King David.
And that's all it is, a reference. And it's not nearly as clear as you hope.
About the Moabite Stele;
Quote:
To my understanding, this is not actually correct. It is line 31 in which Lemaire claims to have discovered the "house of David" inscription. Line 12 reads (from right to left):
s?aw hdwd lara ta m?m b?aw bamlw ?mkl tyr rqh
Which is translated as:
. . . hqr (the town) tyr (belonged) l'kmc (to Kemosh) v'l'mab(and to Moab). vacb(and I brought) mcm (thence) at (direct object indicator) aral (either altar, or, Aral, i.e. Oriel) dwdh (of his beloved, or, his beloved) [some also say chieftain] va?s (and I dragged) . . .
. . . the town belonged to Kamosh and to Moab. And I brought thence the altar-hearth of his Beloved, and I dragged
Or possibly:
. . . the town belonged to Kemosh and to Moab. And I brought thence Aral (Oriel), his beloved (or possibly governor), and I dragged . . .
Line 31 is badly damaged and possibly reads (from right to left):
?a? ?qw? ?b hb b?y nnrwjw xrah nax? ta t(rl yd
For which Lemaire has translated:
"[. . .] the sheep of the land. And the house of David dwelt in Horonen."
Don't ask me how though because I cannot see it. Apparently Lemaire has re-defined some of the characters.
W. F. Albright has: "[. . .] of the land. And as for Hauronen, there dwelt in it [. . . and]"
Owww, well, no 'house of david' apparently ... (a different theory says it reads 'his David', which could indicate a place, but never a person, because
personal suffixes are not used in personal names in Semitic writings. However most agree Lemaire simply has made stuff up. )
About a type of floor plan which alledgedly proves Israelites have been around;
Quote:
The most striking aspect of the house is that the floor plan is identical to the Israelite "four-room house" of the later Iron Age in Palestine
(Holladay 1992a).
At one time the 'four-roomed' house was taken as being purely an Israelite construction. However, your author shows ignorance of the latest research when he
fails to inform his readers that 'four-roomed' houses have been discovered all over syria-palestine, it is no longer taken as evidence of Israelite
settlement.
This settlement type is not unique to Israelites, so this poses a problem. It has become a rather weak argument.
An archaeological professor about websites in general and about this topic in specific: (note the text in italics are not his words.)
Quote:
Without identifying inscriptions, we will never know for sure if the earlier people were Israelites. Contemporary references to Jacob's 12 sons
have not been found.
Ok, he says that we will never know for sure if the earlier people were Israelites, so we will just say that they are because it supports our pet theory, to
hell with decent evidence, circumstantial will do for us as long as we can support our fairytale in some way, oh and since our audience are uninformed
desparate people they will swallow any garbage we present them with.
You need ot be a bit more critical of your sources, pro-Christian 'biblical archaeology' websites, are ALL full of unsuported assertions, poor research and,
in some cases, blatant lies.
Same archaeologist about a biblical contridiction;
Quote:
Well if one verse is wrong and the other right then the one that is wrong is proven wrong, hence there is an error in the Bible.
Let's break it down. 1 Kings 61: arrives at date of around 1440 BCE, then Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Israelites built the cities of Rameses and Pithom.
There was no Pharaoh called Rameses until c. 1304 BCE, thus the 1 Kings reference is in error.
However, if the 1 Kings reference is correct, then the Israelite would be settled in Canaan from about one hundred years before there ever was a pharaoh
called Rameses.
One of these references is incorrect, therefore the Bible is an erroneous document. This is just a very small problem with the primary history, we haven't
even looked at specific archaeological evidence, and we havent even looked at the different verions of these myths in different versions of the Hebrew
Bible.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
