It has demonstrated how badly we have failed in our educational system in that critical thought appears to not be in Arch's intellectual armamentarium.
If only it were just him, Ed. Unfortunately, that type breeds like locusts.
Noah's Flood...
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
If only it were just him, Ed. Unfortunately, that type breeds like locusts.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Guest
not yet, i decided to give minimalist an answer on his questions, something you all never do, and i see all the detractors coming out of the woodwork like roaches, patting themselves and science on the back when you haven't done anything.Shhhhhhhhhhh! I think he's gone.
anyways, mini, the story takes place in Luke 7:1-8, the centurion is not named and i seemed to have parphrased quite liberally, yet the centurion built the community a synagauge and took care of the jews of that town.
essan, we were having a good discussion but i believe we were interrupted and never got back on track.
for the rest of you, why do you not think that science cannot answer all your questions? because you seek to elevate science beyond its authority and scope. if you read allthe quotes i posted from the bookj Origins, you will see the limitations of science and how far it is allowed to go in its investigation.
it is not allowed togo further than supporting faith. as for the flood, i doubt if i can get you the actual cargo manifest but it wouldn't matter, you wouldn't accept it anyways, so when you are ready to be honest with yourselves, come talk to me.
-
Guest
since you did not meet the challenge i have a simple question for you to try and answer honestly, without scientific mumbo jumbo. i forgot i had something from schoch's book, 'voices of the rocks' to mention so after the question i will post a long quote to help you in deciphering your answer:
At what depth do you expect to find any evidence for Noah's Flood?
on pages 54 & 55:
"Most of the archaeological material from the predynastic period of Egypt comes not from the river's cultivated floodplain but from habitation sites and cemeteries, like the Giza plateau, that lie at the edge of the desert or along the southern edge of the nile delta and sit at some elevation above the lower lying flats. Very little archaeological excavation work has been carried out in the delta itself or inthe valley, andfor good reason: exteme difficulty. In the days vefore the nile was dammed, the river's reglar flooding deposited an average of one milimeter of alluvial soil eachyear across the delta and the rest of the river's flood plain. These deposits added up. In the past 10,000 years, the span between the traditional beginning of the neolithic period and today, the nile delta and valley have been progressively buried under 8 meters, or a little more than 26 ft., of deposited soil. Removing an overburden of that depth poses great technical difficulty. As a rule, archaeologists like their ruins better exposed, closer tothe surface; it helps to know where tobegin digging.
To complicate matters, the bed of the nile in its lower reaches has shifted over the millenia, so that what is riverbank now may have been underwater at various times thousands of years in the past. Additionally, much of what was inhabitable coastline in egypt several millenia ago now lies underwater. the retreat of the last ice age launched not only heavy rains of the nabtian pluval, but also raised sea levels profoundly and quickly. beginning around 8000 b.c., the mediterranean rose an estimated 200 or more ft., burying beneath its waters any villages, cities or religious sites used by the dwellers on what used to be the coastline."
{obviously heis referring tothe flood but calls it the ice age instead.}
so taking this into account, please honestly answer the question i posed above. if the water buried evidence up to and maybe over 200 feet; how deep will we have to dig to get the evidence you want? [since you don't accept the other evidence presented]
At what depth do you expect to find any evidence for Noah's Flood?
on pages 54 & 55:
"Most of the archaeological material from the predynastic period of Egypt comes not from the river's cultivated floodplain but from habitation sites and cemeteries, like the Giza plateau, that lie at the edge of the desert or along the southern edge of the nile delta and sit at some elevation above the lower lying flats. Very little archaeological excavation work has been carried out in the delta itself or inthe valley, andfor good reason: exteme difficulty. In the days vefore the nile was dammed, the river's reglar flooding deposited an average of one milimeter of alluvial soil eachyear across the delta and the rest of the river's flood plain. These deposits added up. In the past 10,000 years, the span between the traditional beginning of the neolithic period and today, the nile delta and valley have been progressively buried under 8 meters, or a little more than 26 ft., of deposited soil. Removing an overburden of that depth poses great technical difficulty. As a rule, archaeologists like their ruins better exposed, closer tothe surface; it helps to know where tobegin digging.
To complicate matters, the bed of the nile in its lower reaches has shifted over the millenia, so that what is riverbank now may have been underwater at various times thousands of years in the past. Additionally, much of what was inhabitable coastline in egypt several millenia ago now lies underwater. the retreat of the last ice age launched not only heavy rains of the nabtian pluval, but also raised sea levels profoundly and quickly. beginning around 8000 b.c., the mediterranean rose an estimated 200 or more ft., burying beneath its waters any villages, cities or religious sites used by the dwellers on what used to be the coastline."
{obviously heis referring tothe flood but calls it the ice age instead.}
so taking this into account, please honestly answer the question i posed above. if the water buried evidence up to and maybe over 200 feet; how deep will we have to dig to get the evidence you want? [since you don't accept the other evidence presented]
-
Guest
We will pray for you. . . .Leona Conner wrote:mea culpa
Looks around for a virgin to sacrifice. . . .
Oh, someone remind Our Fundi that the author of that passage--called Lk--admits to not being a witness in his own gospel.
He loses.
Again.
In the rain.
ed:
Not . . . that there is anything wrong with that. . . .
--J.D.
-
Frank Harrist
No, arch, he's not talking about the flood. The waters from the last glacial melt or end of the ice age are still with us now. They never receded like the bible claims the flood did. They are still there. That's why most of the very early north american archaeology is lost as it is still underwater. As for your question, and I'm not being sarcastic or facetious here, I don't know what layer anyone else would expect to find the evidence, but I wouldn't expect to find it at all. If I did find it I wouldn't ignore it or cover it up, but I wouldn't be looking for it. That's the way real archaeology works. You don't go into it with ideas you wish to have confirmed. You do go into it with a plan and some idea of what type of thing you may be looking for or you expect to find, but you don't have a theory and just look for things to prove it. You go where the information takes you. No pre-concieved notions or agendas. (Ideally at least). the retreat of the last ice age launched not only heavy rains of the nabtian pluval, but also raised sea levels profoundly and quickly. beginning around 8000 b.c., the mediterranean rose an estimated 200 or more ft., burying beneath its waters any villages, cities or religious sites used by the dwellers on what used to be the coastline."
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
yet the centurion built the community a synagauge and took care of the jews of that town.
Do you know how effin' ridiculous that sounds?
Roman soldiers built roads, aqueducts, theaters, forums (fori?) in Roman colonial towns. The notion of them a) building a synagogue for a bunch of Jews...OR Jews even using a synagogue built by Romans is absurd! Recall that the priests went bird shit when Herod wanted to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and he was at least a convert.
Second....you obviously know nothing about Judaism...in spite of your divinity degree where you obviously majored in christian b.s. Prior to the destruction of the Temple (70 AD) the WHOLE POINT of the OT whining about high places and such was that ALL WORSHIP was to be done IN THE TEMPLE where ole Yahweh....or at least his priests....wanted it done so they could make a few shekels off the deal. The concept of a synagogue (or even the need for it) began when the Romans levelled the temple to make a parking lot for the new amphitheater in Jerusalem...okay, a bit of a stretch, but it clearly demonstrates that Luke was written well after the Great REvolt when synagogues were common among displaced Jews.
From Wikipedia:
Third: The tale is set in or near Capernaum which was a small town near Galilee and thus well within the kingdom of Herod Antipas who remained tetrarch until his exile in 39 AD.Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leaders at the end of the Second Temple era, promulgated the idea of creating individual houses of worship in whatever locale Jews found themselves. This contributed to the concept of "portable Judaism," which was part of what contributed to the saving of the Jewish people by maintaining a unique identity and way of worship, according to many historians. Thus, even now, whenever any group of ten men comes together, they form a minyan, and are eligible to conduct public prayer services, usually in a synagogue.
The Romans did not station their legions within the territories of client kings. The legions were stationed in militarily sensitive areas and in the M/E that meant Syria where they kept a watchful eye on the invasion route from Parthia under the direct command of the Governor of Syria. Like all Roman governors of this time period, the man in question would be an ex-consul; a member of the senatorial class who had completed the cursus honorum, not some schmucky prefect, like Pilate, from the equestrian order. Herod Antipas, like Herod the Great would have been expected to maintain order and the Romans would only have interfered if and when he could not do so.
Since you will insist that Pontius Pilate was prefect of Judea (with his HQ in Caesaria...not Capernaum!) and we know that Pilate returned to Rome in 36 AD it is safe to assume that Antipas was still merrily ruling the north when he departed.
All of these historical anachronisms tell me that Luke wrote his particular piece of fiction at a time long after the Great Revolt and at a time when Jews no longer had a temple at which to worship and in which the Romans had clamped an iron presence over the land.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
-
Guest
Frank, i appreciate your thoughts but i am going to disagree with you as what you call the ice age, i have another category for that event. he may credit the ice age for the rise in waters but he really is describing the results of noah's flood.No, arch, he's not talking about the flood. The waters from the last glacial melt or end of the ice age are still with us now. They never receded like the bible claims the flood did. They are still there
i understand this and ideally thatis the case (i didn't realize you were so idealistic) but that isn't the issue i amtrying to get at. my point is, you all ask me to provide proof beyond a shadow of doubt and i used schoch's observations to ask you where i should find it and at what depth should i have to dig for toget it for you.As for your question, and I'm not being sarcastic or facetious here, I don't know what layer anyone else would expect to find the evidence, but I wouldn't expect to find it at all. If I did find it I wouldn't ignore it or cover it up, but I wouldn't be looking for it. That's the way real archaeology works. You don't go into it with ideas you wish to have confirmed
you all ask the unrealistic or the almost impossible when you want something from a believer yet when you are asked questions or challenge, you do everything in your power to avoid facing what has been asked of you.
so again, given those observations, where do you expect to find the prrof you seek? at what depth do you think you should stop digging?
i am not even going to get into that with you, obviously your history learning is at odds with the truth (as usual) . you forget that roman guards were guarding the tomb entrance, you forget that roman guards carried out the execution and you forget that romans were everywhere there so either you are misleading in your post or you are just wrong.Do you know how effin' ridiculous that sounds
-
Guest
-
Guest
-
Guest