Archaeology and the Bible

[falcon9]

"According to some experts, an ancient branch of the Nile flowed into a coastal lagoon then known as the Lake of Tanis, (just south of the Mediterranean Sea)."

That's a simulation of hypothesized six-foot lake depth, not a much deeper Red Sea, (or Aqaba inlet).  Once again, stretching the 'evidence' so thinly it's more like a redvine licorice than a Red Sea.

And you presume to know more than "scientific experts" now? 

Well, I can at least tell the difference between a six-foot deep lake and the Red Sea, miles away.  Of course, that doesn't take a scientific expert, (as opposed to conflating a shallow lake with a deeper sea which might take a stretch of the imagination, even for a religious adherent).

[falcon9]

You omitted this part, from that same article; "The study suggests that the splitting is due to the injection of underground magma (molten rock) into the rift rather than earthquakes happening on tectonic faults", (rather than some dude trained by the Aegyptian priesthood raising a stick and "parting the seas").  Also, the same article states the geologic process, (if that acounts for any "parting"), would have lasted for weeks, not moments.  Even an Aegyptian army missing a few chariot wheels wouldn't need weeks to catch a bunch of hebrews fleeing on foot.

Popcorn stale, got any more Junior Mints?

I didn't "omit" anything, the beginning of the site source says "excerpt".  

Yep, that's what "excerpt" means; a selected portion.  That's alright, I included another excerpt which indicates not only would such a hypothesis be accounted for by a geological, (rather than a proposed theological), process but, that such a process would've taken at least weeks.  So, you'd go along with the Aegyptian army waiting around for weeks for this event to occur, maybe having a barbeque and beers, (the Aegyptians invented beer), with hebrew migrants?  Yeah, that could happen.

[JediJohnnie]

Of course,it's the same tired objection."It must be a biased source!"

[JediJohnnie]

Ummmm... This is a book that has a guy who was born to a "virgin" mother. This same guy disappears for 29 years. He comes back walks on water, dies, comes back to life and THIS is what they are inspecting to determine if the bible is true?

Oh yea, a guy lived in a whale too

So I guess you know it all,right?

http://www.ycaol.com/swallowed.htm

[falcon9]

Of course,it's the same tired objection."It must be a biased source!"

Given that the sources were the same tired religiously-biased ones, you expected a different response?  Evenso, some of the individual contentions were challenged based upon attempts to stretch the archeological finds to fit a religious hypothesis.  You expected that to go unchallenged too? Any hypothesis or theory which cannot stand up to even minimal scruntiny is a weak hypothesis or theory.

Also, there's this excerpt:

"Biblical artifacts, faked or enhanced with inscriptions, play on peoples' religious beliefs."
-- http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/hoaxes/intro.html

[gaylasue]

I believe in the Holy Bible and all of its contents. 

[falcon9]

I believe in the Holy Bible and all of its contents. 

That would be a belief an inerrant 'bible', which version?  What's your opinion concerning discrepencies between such an 'inerrent bible' and what little has been uncovered by even religiously-backed archeological expeditions?

[Falconer02]

So I guess you know it all,right?

In this instance, he does.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/n/newjonah.htm

The definitive research into this story has been done by Edward B. Davis, a professor at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania.
He was curious to try to document the story since it was so often repeated in Christian literature and had even found its way into several Bible commentaries. His research is summarized in an article in 'The American Scientific Affiliation', published in 1991.

Davis not only scoured newspaper files, original documents and libraries, but spent time in England tracking down some of the sources.
He verified, for example, that there really had been a vessel named the 'Star of the East' and that its captain was a man named J.B. Killam.
He followed the trail of the great British engineer, Sir Francis Fox, who was so struck with the Bartley story that he included a chapter on it in his autobiography, published in 1924.

The result of Davis's research was that he could not find any credible evidence to support the James Bartley story.
In fact, he found evidence which made the story seem more questionable.
He checked out a report that Bartley had been treated at a London hospital for the effects of the whale's gastric juices on his skin, but could not find any substantiation for it. When he read through the documents about the particular voyage during which the alleged whale incident happened, James Bartley was not listed as a crew member.

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/wildlife/whales/sperm_whale_tales.htm

This is certainly a hoax the like of which seamen traditionally reserve for the gullible. In the nature of such hoaxes it is of course impossible to disprove claimed events in the past. Several factors point in this direction; no source is quoted, merely "browsing through old records". The "well authenticated facts" are given no authenticity.

If a man were swallowed by a whale, he would be entirely without oxygen and the temperature would accelerate heat stress causing him to die very quickly. Even if a sperm whale could swallow a man (see below) a live unharmed one would certainly put up a fight requiring him to be bitten and subdued, possibly (probably) killed in the process.

Of course,it's the same tired objection."It must be a biased source!"

This from the guy who uses some random yacht club webpage for his source of proving magical sea tales. Arrrrrharharharrr!

[sfister65]

That's very interesting. I like reading about archaeology and it's relationship to the bible. I think the bible is a good book and I believe it attempts to teach us history but I think some of the information is from men coming from a certain belief and point of view. Through archaeology and the bible I think we can get some ideal of whay really happened 900 +/- years ago. For the record: I believe in God and Jesus.

[Falconer02]

This video heavily pertains to this thread as it efficiently explains the false claims the religious use to try to make their beliefs more authentic, so I invite the Christians here to respond explaining why their 'evidences' tend to contradict real archaelogy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU

If you don't want to watch, then what is said is archaelogists have been studying many of these M.E sites for a century now, but as soon as Christian arch's come in (some not in the field of arch, all of which usually stay at nearbye Christian resorts), they start conveniently finding things in areas that have been combed for decades. And these things are generally way off the time table of when xtians say they're from. That, and major contradictions pertaining to Jewish laws of the time. 9th commandment, anyone? The amount of intellectual dishonesty is astounding when you mix religion with any field of science.

[SherylsShado]

This video heavily pertains to this thread as it efficiently explains the false claims the religious use to try to make their beliefs more authentic, so I invite the Christians here to respond explaining why their 'evidences' tend to contradict real archaelogy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU

If you don't want to watch, then what is said is archaelogists have been studying many of these M.E sites for a century now, but as soon as Christian arch's come in (some not in the field of arch, all of which usually stay at nearbye Christian resorts), they start conveniently finding things in areas that have been combed for decades. And these things are generally way off the time table of when xtians say they're from. That, and major contradictions pertaining to Jewish laws of the time. 9th commandment, anyone? The amount of intellectual dishonesty is astounding when you mix religion with any field of science.

I plan to check out the video you posted and there's some things in falcon's posts I plan to address probably after this weekend.  I missed too much sleep, slept for 14 hours straight the other day and tho' I feel a little better...still feel not so good.  Might have a possible promotion coming up at work (don't ask me how) and will know in a few days (hopefully) which will mean a "stable schedule" instead of all different shifts (and won't be  getting called in so much) plus insurance included (which is the least they could do since they nearly killed me).   Busy, BUSY weekend coming up and then I should be back here after that...

[falcon9]

... there's some things in falcon's posts I plan to address probably after this weekend.

As always, your dispute of my reasoning is patiently awaited.   

I missed too much sleep, slept for 14 hours straight the other day and tho' I feel a little better...still feel not so good. 

Sleep studies appear to indicate that one can never really 'catch up' on lost sleep; one can only start resting anew.  Shift-workers especially try to be awake when others, (or businesses), are And go to work; leaving little time to sleep.  If that's happening, you already realize that you can't be awake all the time, (sometimes, you just have to sleep some when everyone else is awake).   

Might have a possible promotion coming up at work (don't ask me how) and will know in a few days (hopefully) which will mean a "stable schedule" instead of all different shifts (and won't be  getting called in so much) plus insurance included (which is the least they could do since they nearly killed me).   Busy, BUSY weekend coming up and then I should be back here after that...

I understand about shift differentials, (I worked second shifts for 13 years and never saw a sunrise that whole time).  Going to one stable shift schedule ought to help with the sleep deprivation some.  The other benefits will do you good too, (even if you'd planned on attributing them to 'prayers', you may want to let that be your lil' secret here).

[SherylsShado]

falcon9 had wondered why I had started this thread...it was for 2 reasons.  One is because while mainstream media will lead one to believe that science, archaeology and the Bible can't possibly go together... when what actually the Bible says has archaeology finding the evidence, and scientists saying they can see how certain Biblical events could have happened.   One only has to use their search bar (something FC pays you to do btw with the FC toolbar) and do their own research.

The second was because of the multiple posts where falcon9 responded wanting some "substantial evidence" when I relied on the Bible as a source.  The Bible was not written to be intended to be a work of science.  It's purpose isn't to describe the workings of the physical world.   The Bible was written to explain spiritual principles ( the nature of mankind, the nature of God, and how people can have a personal relationship with God.)   Still, when the Bible describes the physical world, it is accurate.  

"The Bible, written mostly by a bunch of sheep herders, makes a number of scientific claims that are remarkably correct - even though many were not even confirmed to be correct until within the last 100 years".
---Rich Deem

The Bible is ridiculous to those who are perishing, sorry to say.  (1 Cor. 1:18)



 

[falcon9]

falcon9 had wondered why I had started this thread...it was for 2 reasons.  One is because while mainstream media will lead one to believe that science, archaeology and the Bible can't possibly go together... when what actually the Bible says has archaeology finding the evidence, and scientists saying they can see how certain Biblical events could have happened.   One only has to use their search bar (something FC pays you to do btw with the FC toolbar) and do their own research.

That's further from being accurate than your previous contentions.  First, because "archeology" is not a monolithic group and any implicit suggestion that it is, ("...the Bible says has archaeology finding the evidence..."), leaves a false impression of that.  A few _theological_ and amateur archeologists of religious persuasions found stuff which they dubiously attributed to 'biblical events'.  One can also use the search function to find as many non-religious archeological expeditions whose findings do not corroborate the 'biblical' accounts.

The second was because of the multiple posts where falcon9 responded wanting some "substantial evidence" when I relied on the Bible as a source.  The Bible was not written to be intended to be a work of science.  It's purpose isn't to describe the workings of the physical world.   The Bible was written to explain spiritual principles ( the nature of mankind, the nature of God, and how people can have a personal relationship with God.)   Still, when the Bible describes the physical world, it is accurate.

While there are numerous historical inaccuracies, both in religious and nominally-secular records of past events, the various versions of 'the bible' contain far too many of these to be relied upon as a valid source, (whether for historical events or, "spiritual" ones), since that requires 'faith' rather than hard evidence.  There is no such evidence that the preferred source is 'the inspired word of god', (and this excludes 'faith' from being considered as evidence).

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

[Falconer02]

One is because while mainstream media will lead one to believe that science, archaeology and the Bible can't possibly go together... when what actually the Bible says has archaeology finding the evidence, and scientists saying they can see how certain Biblical events could have happened.   One only has to use their search bar (something FC pays you to do btw with the FC toolbar) and do their own research.

Quite the opposite actually-- considering that US media is all about getting views and sustaining popularity coupled with America being riddled with uneducated people who constantly bathe in Christian mythology, the media loves attempting to couple religious magic with history. However science (archaeology focused in on this thread) has always shown that religious mythology is faulty, unreliable, or non-existent when looked into. Saying otherwise would be completely dishonest as it shows that one refuses to do any unbiased research.