archeology vs theology

[marduk]

for that to be true you would have to provide a direct link between these discoveries and proof that they wouldn't have been discovered without evidence from the bible. Fact of the matter is that almost every discovery was made by people who weren't religious to any degree at all and who didn't rely on the bible as a history book. the only notable one who did was Sir Leonard Woolley who soon lost his faith after digging the real truth up at Ur

the fact that the Bible claims Ur was of the Chaldees is the biggest clue you have G.V.
it proves that the bible contains no divine ancient geographical knowledge
just the contemporary knowledge of whichever Hebrew scribe was writing it down and even that to a very poor quality
The Bible at no time mentions the land of Sumer or any of the kings of Akkad or Sumer except in some instances where they are encoded as angels in the apocryphical book of Enoch
If the Bible was the word of god as is claimed for instance he might have known that it doesnt take 40 years to cross 800 miles of desert (exodus) and its impossible to get to Nineveh from the coast which is 800 miles away in 24 hours.(jonah)
you also might question why most of the bible is set in Mesopotamia when the promised land is supposed to be Canaan
or why for instance Biblical characters appear in Sumerian king lists or why Biblical words such as Eden and Adam are also wholly sumerian and only loan words in Hebrew
as i say you might also question....
but you won't will you
you have faith
Amen if it works for you
it doesnt for me


by the same standards that you are holding up the bible War of the Worlds written by H.G. Wells proves that the planet was invaded by martians in tripods during the Victorian era
after all both earth and mars do exist
the difference is the geographical knowledge in WOTW is actually perfect and not second hand guesswork

[Guest]

Ur of Kaldis, he was a son of Arphaxad, the first "Chaldean."

As more and more discoveries come-in, they always corroborate the Biblical record, and that would be one whale of a coincidence.

[marduk]

The Chaldean influence was felt in Babylonian politics. Several 9th and 8th century BC Babylonian kings were of Chaldean origin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldea

Ur was one of the first village settlements founded (circa 4000 BC) by the so-called Ubaidian inhabitants of Sumer. Before 2800 BC, Ur became one of the most prosperous Sumerian city-states. According to ancient records, Ur had three dynasties of rulers who, at various times, extended their control over all of Sumer. The founder of the 1st Dynasty of Ur was the conqueror and temple builder Mesanepada (reigned about 2670 BC),

http://ragz-international.com/ur.htm

so what you are saying basically is that God when he was dictating the Bible to Moses was completely unaware of the fact that Ur existed 3100 years before the chaldeans came along
and you think thats some form of corroborating
the only thing it corroborates Jim is that God was not omnipotent

[Guest]

It says some kings of 900 B.C. were of Chaldean origin, so?

[marduk]

so it completely neglects to mention that they were about the last group in a long line stretching back 3000 years

[Guest]

About a thousand years, and it doesn't say there weren't others before 900 B.C., that's what "origin" means, generation, genesis, origin.

[marduk]

so you're saying now that because the Bible totally fails to mention the real history of the city of Ur it was somehow responsible for its discovery
i'm not sure thats a very strong argument Jim

[Guest]

Marduk-
You're an arsehole. You always have been an arsehole, you always will be an arsehole.
Michelle/Frank-
PLEASE ban me.