So what does that prove. Back then the Philistines built temples with pillars six feet apart. WOW! In an area of the world famous for earthquakes, how does that prove that they were destroyed by a single man
told ya.
Now we are on our own
if that is what you want to believe, then you are on your own.
You God really could care less about humanity as a whole, if you believe otherwise try looking out your window.
God cares but He gave people freedom to choose, you have to choose to follow Him if you want help. if you don't choose well then you have other options yet God is there waiting
But it stops there. It created everything needed for evolution to happend.
that makes no sense whatsoever, if you have children do you just sit there and watch them struggle or do you get involved? if they ignore your advice and direction do you stop caring for them even when they accuse you of not caring?
take a look at the whole picture before you accuse God of anything.
here are a couple samples of archaeological pieces that i canuse but i am sure that someone will try to discredit them:
1. from w. h. albright--"there can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of old testament tradition...discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details..."
2. the story of samson pulling down a philistine temple---judges 16:29-30
"makes for a great story some might say but is there any factual archaeological evidence to substantiate the likelihood of such an event? yes. two philistine temples have been uncovered by archaeologists. bith temples share an interesting design--- the roof was supported by two central pillars. the pillars were made of wood and rested on stone support bases about six feet apart..."
(both quotes taken from "the collapse of evolution" by scott m. huse pg. 125-126)
now if you don't believe in samson or the Bible then you are going to do what you can to discredit this find.
First off, it's William F(oxwell) Albright...not William H. and he is one of the worst examples of a bible-thumper who went out to the Holy Land in the early 20th century with the bible in one hand and a shovel in the other determined to 'prove' the bible true. Of course, in his mind he did because he used the bible to date every rock coming out of the ground which provides a nice circular reasoning for bible chronology. Nonetheless, his early theories have been exploded by modern science. Oh, but I forget.....you reject anything which disproves your little book. Too bad.
As for the Philistines, this is a prime example of biblical grasping at straws. Yes, there were Philistines (and they surely built temples!) and they remained a distinct entity in Canaan until the late 8th century when they were overrun by the Assyrians....who also overran Israel. While there may have been some skirmishing between Philistines, Israelites and Judahites the archaeological record shows that none of these cultures were able or willing to inflict any serious defeats on the others. BUt what is archaeology and history compared to the fables in your bible, eh arch?
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.
As for the Philistines, this is a prime example of biblical grasping at straws
not really,it is the deniers attempt to ignore the link of evidence. they forget to apply the rules to the Bible that they apply toother works.
but again you have proved my point. archaeology is subjective and it all boils down to what you want to believe or accept not what is true. the same goes for finkelstein and dever, they are not willing to accept the evidence so they date it to a time to fit what they want to believe.
the evidence is there it all depends on if you will accept it or not
Ok, so if one thing in the bible is proven by archaeology to be true then that means the whole thing is true and accurate? Nah, no way. I'll be the first to admit that some things in the bible did happen and are accurately dated and described, but that don't mean the whole thing is true. The same goes for any other book. It's just a book written by fallible men.
Ok, so if one thing in the bible is proven by archaeology to be true then that means the whole thing is true and accurate?
That is exactly what he is trying to say. The fact that there were Philistines means everything in the bible has to be true. It is as asinine a concept as one can imagine....they kind of reasoning I expect from George W Bush!
I did notice that arch wasn't so quick to latch onto the Philistines when they figured in one of the Exodus story's great discrepancies.....
Since the Philistines were not in Canaan until sometime after 1155 how could 'god' have warned the Israelites to avoid the land of the Philistines when they were escaping Egypt centuries earlier.
I imagine arch will deny that there ever were Philistines at that point.
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.
the evidence is there it all depends on if you will accept it or not
You have NO evidence. You have faith. It is not the same thing.
Science has the evidence and you are forced to deny it in order to salvage some semblance of credibility for your fairy tales.
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.
Just because there actually were Philistines and they had temples, does not prove that those same temples were destroyed by a single man or even a lot of men.
I'm not accusing God of anything except that if he does have anything to do with our day to day existence, he still plays favorites. I keep hearing that God loves us, maybe so but there's alot of people in this world he just plain doesn't like. If he doesn't like you, it makes no difference what kind of person you are, you're screwed. I know, been there done that.
does not prove that those same temples were destroyed by a single man or even a lot of men.
The Philistines were conquered by Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria around 735 BC and then Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylon absorbed them. If one man did destroy their temples it was Tiggy....not some long-haired bible-based strongman.
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.
In the last quarter century or so, archaeologists have seen one settled assumption after another concerning who the ancient Israelites were and where they came from proved false. Rather than a band of invaders who fought their way into the Holy Land, the Israelites are now thought to have been an 'indigenous culture that developed west of the Jordan River around 1200 B.C. Abraham, Isaac, and the other patriarchs appear to have been spliced together out of various pieces of local lore.
The Davidic Empire, which archaeologists once thought as incontrovertible as the Roman, is now seen as an invention of Jerusalem-based priests in the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. who were eager to burnish their national history. The religion we call Judaism does not reach well back into the second millennium B.C. but appears to be, at most, a product of the mid-first.
This is not to say that individual elements of the story are not older. But Jewish monotheism, the sole and exclusive worship of an ancient Semitic god known as Yahweh, did not fully coalesce until the period between the Assyrian conquest of the northern Jewish kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. and the Babylonian conquest of the southern kingdom of Judah in 586.
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.
Ok, so if one thing in the bible is proven by archaeology to be true then that means the whole thing is true and accurate
if part of it is, all of it has to be or it isn't the Word of God and there is no hope and you reduce God to have the ability to sin which would theninvalidate the whole work.
by taking the position that the Bible was writtenby men and not God means that the bible is reduced to a mere work of fallibility and none of the contents can be counted on as fact. thus rendering all hope for man non-existent and can be ignored.
being able to now ignore the Bible means that man can live any way they please without guilt or fear of judgment. nice argurment to do as one pleases but wrong.
Just because there actually were Philistines and they had temples, does not prove that those same temples were destroyed by a single man or even a lot of men.
what it proves is that the Bible was accurate in its description of the philistine temples which means if it is accurate there, it is accurate in everything else.
minimalist is just ignored as he is relying on generic archaeologists who subjectivekly date historical events to fit their beliefs.
[quote]by taking the position that the Bible was writtenby men and not God means that the bible is reduced to a mere work of fallibility and none of the contents can be counted on as fact. [/quote]
You have finally spoken the truth. The Bible was written by men and therefore is not infallible.
You have finally spoken the truth. The Bible was written by men and therefore is not infallible.
that is where you are wrong. what do archaeologists have to gain--freedom from the coming judgment if they say the bible isn't true which means they won't have to worry about sin. they have all the moivation in the world to place the wrong dates and the wrong conclusions to the Biblical accounts--or so they think.
if part of it is, all of it has to be or it isn't the Word of God
Now you're getting it, son.
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.
The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.
However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.
• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.
• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.
• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.
• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
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.
• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
...when all them pope guys decided what stories should make up the bible.