Archeology has never disproved a Biblical point

[paximperium]

You may be interested is checking out some info on this website. http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=0

Well that's a great site that shows that dishonesty of Christian apologists and that Campbell doesn't know evidence or archeology even if it dropped on his head.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I demand equal consideration for Stork Theory Front-Loaded Waterfowl!!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1483749f9f8a38efe1.gif[/qimg]

Love the sign.

 

[Nogbad]

You may be interested is checking out some info on this website. http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=0

LOL so that is where DOC gets some of his arguments from.

How did the authors of the Bible know that the stars were uncountable, that the earth was round and hangs on nothing? Were they taking lucky guesses? I don't think so. Their flawless accuracy rules that out.

I really can't be doing with that Erich Von Daniken prose style no matter who is writing it or the subject matter. It just screams "I'll make it fit come hell or high water".

 

[MikeSun5]

"I'll make it fit come hell or high water".

hahaa ! Like a fat person with expensive clothes.

 

[truethat]

I'd encourage your friend to find a copy of John Romer's book "Testament" and read it. It's pretty sympathetic to Christian belief, while being quite clear that archaeology doesn't support the Bible.

Thanks for that. Sounds interesting.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Unbroken thriving civilisations when there should have been a flood leaving a handful of people up a hill in Turkey.

Speaking of Turkey. I had a guy claim to me once that the Hittites were a supposedly legendary people that archeologists thought couldn't possibly have existed since they were mentioned in the Bible, but once Hattusas was discovered they had egg all over their faces. I pointed out to him that we could have verified the existance of the Hittites without ever discovering any archaeological sites once we cracked the code for Egyptian heiroglyphics. Rameses II's monuments have several mentions of them.

Also Michael Wood has a mention in In Search of the Trojan War about correspondance between three great kings - Pharoah, a king of Acheawa and the Hittites.

Archeology has never disproved a Wizard of Oz point
Archeology has never disproved a Harry Potter point
Archeology has never disproved a Gone with the Wind point

this isn't even fun anymore...

And it wasn't a very good point from the very beginning.

We know that Kansas, little girls, tonados, lions and scarecrows exist. The question is whether any of the supernatural/paranormal claims in the books exist.

A better response would be to note something like the fact that Schliemann used the Iliad to help pin down the location of Troy, but that doesn't mean Achilles was invulnerable save his heel after being dipped in the river Styx.

 

[TX50]

A better response would be to note something like the fact that Schliemann used the Iliad to help pin down the location of Troy, but that doesn't mean Achilles was invulnerable save his heel after being dipped in the river Styx.

Except Schliemann didn't identify the location of Troy using Homer (or
anything else). It was Charles MacLaren, and Frank Calvert was the first to
start excavating on the mound in 1865. Schliemann's stories should all be
taken with a large pinch of salt.

The Hittite tablets also document correspondence with a prince "Alaksandus"
of "Wilion". There's an exciting possibility that he's the real person that the
character of Paris (a.k.a. Alexandros) of Ilion in the Iliad is based on.

You could perhaps say that the city of Troy existed and that there's slight
evidence for some of the characters (or at least their names) too, but it
doesn't mean that the story in the Iliad is literally true. Again this leaves
aside the fact that the story is now known to be a patchwork of stuff from
different times and places. On reflection it's maybe better to leave the Homer
analogy well alone.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Even assuming the opening was a mile wide, there's no way possible that 600,000 people of all ages, carrying all their possessions and herds and flocks of animals could outrun people on chariots that were in their sight. That is, even if the pathway is a mile wide, it's absolutely not credible that they could make a passage like this in a matter of hours ... I think we can safely say this story is disproven by comparative experimental archeology--even allowing for the miracle of the parting of the waters.

Are we arguing against the Bible here, or the Cecil B de Mille movie? I think the current consensus is that the waters parted due to normal tidal conditions, allowing the Israelites passage, but when the Egyptian army took the same path later (possibly weeks later), the tide came in again and they were destroyed.

IIRC, the sudden flooding is entirely possible in that part of the world. Whether there's archaeological - or indeed any - evidence that it actually happened is another matter entirely...

 

[MG1962]

Are we arguing against the Bible here, or the Cecil B de Mille movie? I think the current consensus is that the waters parted due to normal tidal conditions, allowing the Israelites passage, but when the Egyptian army took the same path later (possibly weeks later), the tide came in again and they were destroyed.

IIRC, the sudden flooding is entirely possible in that part of the world. Whether there's archaeological - or indeed any - evidence that it actually happened is another matter entirely...

The story presents an interesting problem, trying to work out which elements are real and what is purely embelishment. The Red Sea for instance is wrong for a number of reasons, but the existence of a number of tidal marshs in the surrounding areas leads to some intriguing possibilities.

Recently on the History Chanel there was a series about ancient battles. One of those interviewed, worked at a University in Israel, made an interesting observation. During the crossing of the sea, the Bible makes specific mention of an east wind blowing.

His contention was that Moses with a small force, was being persued by heavy chariot elements of the army. During the night Moses lite a huge fire to blind Egyptian scouts, then withdrew across the tidal marsh, which due to the east wind had dried faster than normal. In the morning, once the army realised what had happened, attempt to follow up and predictably got caught in the boggy ground.

The army could have gone north to get around the obstacle, but doing so created a three or four day delay, giving Moses plenty of time to melt into the desert.

If one accepts the story above, you can see why it is not recorded in Eygptian history, it was simply too small a blip. You can also see how over time it became embellished into this huge exodus of hundreds of thousand people.

 

[Ladewig]

You may be interested is checking out some info on this website. http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=0

And once again we see why you are the very worst person to proselytize on this website. Your lack of understanding of the rules of logic and the rules of evidence is highlighted by your citing a ridiculous website.

The skeptic says: “Come on, Charlie, You’re referring to the words of Jesus IN the Bible to prove the Bible. You’re guilty of circular reasoning. You’re quoting the Bible to prove the Bible!” Ahhh, but as I pointed out earlier, the Bible is not one book. It is a collection of 66 books written by different authors. So when I quote Jesus' words to substantiate what Moses or other authors wrote I am not involved in circular reasoning at all. Instead, I am quoting altogether independent sources that happen to be bound together between two covers of the same book.

THis assertion is so ridiculous that no comment is necessary

Jesus affirmed at least six things that were true about the Bible.

A. Without Error. In John 17:17, Jesus said in His prayer to His Father… “Thy word is [What? Full of contradictions, and errors? No.] truth.”

except for the glaring contradictions.

B. Historically Reliable. Jesus affirmed as historically true some of the most disputed passages of the Old Testament, including... --the story of Jonah in the whale (in Matt. 12:40) --the destruction of the world by a flood in the days of Noah (in Matt.24:37-39) --and others (see p. 5-60, Dan Story, Defending Your Faith, and Geisler, p. 559, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1).

Riiiiiight, we know that the flood story is true because Jesus said it was true. Kathy, that is not evidence that the world was flooded 4000 years ago, that is evidence that Jesus was at best speaking symbolically or at worst simply wrong.

C. Divinely Authoritative. Over and over, jesus said to Satan, “It is written...it is written...it is written...” (Matt. 4:4-10).

This one is the most laughable of the lot. "The Bible is true because Jesus said, 'it is written.'" Surely, Kathy, even you must see that this argument is nonsense from top to bottom.

D. Scientifically Accurate. For example, when He taught on marriage He referred to the literal creation of Adam and Eve (in Matt. 19:4-5)

The universe is 14+ billion years old. The earth is 4+ billion years old. If you are willing to learn, Kathy, I can easily supply the evidence supporting those scientific facts.

E. Infallible (Dependable, or Unbreakable). In John 10:35 Jesus said, “The Scripture cannot be broken.”

How can a book that contradicts itself be considered infallible.

F. Indestructible. In Matthew 5:18 Jesus said, “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.” If Jesus was a prophet of God, as even the Qur’an teaches, or even if He was a good teacher (as so many are willing to believe today), it would be wise for us to take His Word on the matter, and He taught that the Bible is a historically reliable, divinely authoritative, scientifically accurate, dependable, error free, indestructible Book.

I am willing to concede this point because I have no idea what it means for a book to be indestructible.

. . . . . . . . .

There is no shame in admitting that you are not the right person to try to convert us. Leave and send someone else or stay and open your mind. Anything else is pride on your part.

 

[Ladewig]

Are we arguing against the Bible here, or the Cecil B de Mille movie? I think the current consensus is that the waters parted due to normal tidal conditions, allowing the Israelites passage, but when the Egyptian army took the same path later (possibly weeks later), the tide came in again and they were destroyed.

I have to disagree. Folks like Kathy, and presumably the fellow mentioned in the opening post, believe in a literal interpretation of the King James version of the Bible. While current consensus might believe that there is a more mundane explanation, the fundies believe that Exodus 14:9 (But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.) means the waters were parted in such a way that there was a wall on each side.

 

[Ladewig]

Even assuming the opening was a mile wide, there's no way possible that 600,000 people of all ages, carrying all their possessions and herds and flocks of animals could outrun people on chariots that were in their sight. That is, even if the pathway is a mile wide, it's absolutely not credible that they could make a passage like this in a matter of hours.

It should in fact take months.

It could have been very near the most northern part so that it was only a few miles across. The bible does say that the wheels of the chariots got stuck in the mud, so I guess it is possible that the folks were able to walk away from the pursuing Egyptians. Exodus also mentions a pillar of smoke and darkness that the Lord used to slow the Egyptians down.

That being said, I'll concede the point.

 

[TheAnachronism]

You may be interested is checking out some info on this website. http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=0

And you may be interested in checking out Job 13:7:

"Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him?"​

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Love the sign.

It's from a line of t-shirts sold here.

 

[Alareth]

You may be interested is checking out some info on this website. http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=0

Do you have some sort of pay-per-click deal running with that website?

Have you not noticed that the general concensus here is that the information there is laughable at best?

Continued spamming of that link isn't going to give the content any more validity.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It could have been very near the most northern part so that it was only a few miles across. The bible does say that the wheels of the chariots got stuck in the mud, so I guess it is possible that the folks were able to walk away from the pursuing Egyptians. Exodus also mentions a pillar of smoke and darkness that the Lord used to slow the Egyptians down.

I'm trying to imagine a kind of mud that would allow passage of 600,000 men, women and children and all their possessions and great herds and flocks of animals but would mire chariot wheels. And the Egyptians couldn't dismount and outrun this gigantic throng on foot?

For the record, God supposedly led the Israelites (in front of their column) as a column of smoke in the day and fire at night, and it specifies that the ground was dry (not muddy).

Here's the pertinent passage:

21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22 and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.

23 The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh's horses and chariots and horsemen followed them into the sea. 24 During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion. 25 He made the wheels of their chariots come off so that they had difficulty driving.

At any rate, 600,000 people with all their possessions and great herds and flocks of animals don't cross any point (even if it's as wide as you like) overnight.

I wish I could find the examples I've read of historical armies making crossings. The time it takes is many orders of magnitude longer than the overnight description we get in Exodus (weeks and months rather than hours). Even accounting for "a wall of water on their right and on their left" being the description of a passage much wider than a modern bridge, I'd still take the modern examples as experimental archeological proof that what is claimed in Exodus is disproven.

 

[Ladewig]

I'm trying to imagine a kind of mud that would allow passage of 600,000 men, women and children and all their possessions and great herds and flocks of animals but would mire chariot wheels. And the Egyptians couldn't dismount and outrun this gigantic throng on foot?

For the record, God supposedly led the Israelites (in front of their column) as a column of smoke in the day and fire at night, and it specifies that the ground was dry (not muddy).

Here's the pertinent passage: Exodus 14:21-25

but if you back up a few verses, you see that God was blinding the Egyptians:

And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:
And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.

.

At any rate, 600,000 people with all their possessions and great herds and flocks of animals don't cross any point (even if it's as wide as you like) overnight.

I can see that they couldn't cross at the widest point (some 200 miles), but why couldn't they cross at the very northern most tip (approximately 6 miles)?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can see that they couldn't cross at the widest point (some 200 miles), but why couldn't they cross at the very northern most tip (approximately 6 miles)?

600,000 people with all their possessions and great herds and flocks couldn't cross even one single point (of no distance) overnight.

I ran a half marathon just over a week ago. We had 15,000 athletes running on pavement. From my position in the the starting queue, it took over 13 minutes before I got to the starting line. Now imagine 600,000 people--families, children, old and infirm, carrying or trundling a bunch of provisions and possessions and great herds of cattle and flocks of sheep. They couldn't possibly cross a given point in a matter of hours even if they were "walking" 100 abreast.

 

[Ladewig]

600,000 people with all their possessions and great herds and flocks couldn't cross even one single point (of no distance) overnight.

I ran a half marathon just over a week ago. We had 15,000 athletes running on pavement. From my position in the the starting queue, it took over 13 minutes before I got to the starting line. Now imagine 600,000 people--families, children, old and infirm, carrying or trundling a bunch of provisions and possessions and great herds of cattle and flocks of sheep. They couldn't possibly cross a given point in a matter of hours even if they were "walking" 100 abreast.

But what if they were walking 20,000 abreast?

 

[Monster Machine]

But what if they were walking 20,000 abreast?

I just did a little math. If it's flawed, then it's because I'm not a mathematician.

*Let's say they had 1 mile of clear ground (with water on the left and the right).
*If we assume 1 person needs 3 feet across to move comfortably, there would only be 1,760 people abreast.
*To move 600,000 people ONLY (no animals, etc.) means there would be 341 rows of people.
*If the average person walked 4 miles an hour, and it was a 4 mile stretch to walk, there would only be 7040 people on the river bed at any given time.
*For rudimentary purposes (again, I am no mathematician) let's assume every hour 7,040 people cross to the other side.

It would take well over 85 hours for 600,000 people to cross 1 mile wide by 4 miles long.

Monster