The Tower of Babel

clubs_stink · Post by **clubs_stink** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:00 pm

A few words on biblical archeology....

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/fauxark/

"Noah's Ark. The Ark of the Covenant. The Garden of Eden. Sodom and Gomorrah. The Exodus. The Lost Tomb of Jesus. All have been "found" in the last 10 years, including one within the past six months. The discoverers: a former SWAT team member; an investigator of ghosts, telepathy, and parapsychology; a filmmaker who calls himself "The Naked Archeologist"; and others, none of whom has any professional training in archeology.

We are living in a time of exciting discoveries in biblical archeology. We are also living in a time of widespread biblical fraud, dubious science, and crackpot theorizing. Some of the highest-profile discoveries of the past several years are shadowed by accusations of forgery, such as the James Ossuary, which may or may not be the burial box of Jesus' brother, as well as other supposed Bible-era findings such as the Jehoash Tablet and a small ivory pomegranate said to be from the time of Solomon. Every year "scientific" expeditions embark to look for Noah's Ark, raising untold amounts of money from gullible believers who eagerly listen to tales spun by sincere amateurs or rapacious con men; it is not always easy to tell the two apart. "

Pretty good article about the subject.

Then there is THIS

http://www.asor.org/seal.article.html

in response to THIS

http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2007/10/sea ... zebel.html

these people just need to stop..if their so called FAITH is actually faith based why are they so set on PROVING it.
(considering the definition of faith...)

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:28 pm

clubs_stink wrote:..if their so called FAITH is actually faith based why are they so set on PROVING it.
(considering the definition of faith...)

I find this statement quite profound, Clubs.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:31 pm

if their so called FAITH is actually faith based why are they so set on PROVING it.

As I learned from Arch, Clubs, they are terrified that science will disprove their "faith." People like Arch simply cannot deal with that scenario.

When one points out a contradiction in the text, they deny there is a contradiction.

When archaeology finds evidence that Jerusalem, rather than being a grand capital of an empire was instead a shitty little village, they accuse the archaeologists of having an agenda.

They always have an answer but they are still terrified.

Perhaps they do not really believe their "answers?"

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:33 pm

Forum Monk wrote:
clubs_stink wrote:..if their so called FAITH is actually faith based why are they so set on PROVING it.
(considering the definition of faith...)
I find this statement quite profound, Clubs.

Indeed! Can I use that?

clubs_stink · Post by **clubs_stink** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:04 pm

Frank Harrist wrote:
Forum Monk wrote:
clubs_stink wrote:..if their so called FAITH is actually faith based why are they so set on PROVING it.
(considering the definition of faith...)
I find this statement quite profound, Clubs.
Indeed! Can I use that?

OF course, anything to further the cause, use away.

Post by **MichelleH** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:19 pm

Hey Frank!

Glad to see you back, can you stay awhile this time?

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:21 pm

Yep I'm back. I got the hookup now. DSL is fast and reliable. Barring any unforeseen circumstances arising I should be here to stay.

Post by **MichelleH** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:54 pm

Frank Harrist wrote:Yep I'm back. I got the hookup now. DSL is fast and reliable. Barring any unforeseen circumstances arising I should be here to stay.

About damn time!

clubs_stink · Post by **clubs_stink** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:13 pm

Can't make out exactly what this guy is claiming, but...

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm

this guy does a good job.
http://www.godvsthebible.com/chapter03.htm

Please note on the second link the reference to the tower of babel and how that story could NOT be true based on verses in Genesis alone

That alone will set Arch's blood to boiling.

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:25 pm

I’ll play Devils Advocate (is that the right term to use when you are defending the Bible?) here and point out the account in Genesis where the people who wanted to build a tower to “reach the heavens” were not “believers in the True God.”

A lot of the “Old Testament” or “Hebrew Scriptures” have to be understood as an attempt to explain some pretty deep metaphysical things to an audience that was mostly desert sheep herders.

That is a tough assignment.

BTW, is this the first account of pyramid building?
Flatlanders wanting to get close to heaven, but not wanting to leave there good life on the plains and go to the mountains, so they built their own mountain?

Rudolph Hucker · Post by **Rudolph Hucker** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:06 am

clubs_stink wrote:A few words on biblical archeology....
...
these people just need to stop..if their so called FAITH is actually faith based why are they so set on PROVING it.
(considering the definition of faith...)

Great thought CS - is it stealable?

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:00 am

clubs_stink wrote:Can't make out exactly what this guy is claiming, but...

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/geocentr.htm

this guy does a good job.
http://www.godvsthebible.com/chapter03.htm

Please note on the second link the reference to the tower of babel and how that story could NOT be true based on verses in Genesis alone

That alone will set Arch's blood to boiling.

The problem with both of these references and thousands like them is they are misrepresentations. Geocentrism was the science of the early peoples up until the end of the greek empire and it found its way into the interpetation of scripture even as many still attempt to interpret poetic language in the most literal terms and apply modern science to a collection of religious writings. Its a mistake and it leads to major egg on the face when the science eventually changes as it always does.

The second reference is no better, applying literal interpretation to discredit the scripture but too stupid to realize that most hebrews and christians do not interpret the scripture in the way he is claiming they should based on his interpretation of the words.

These kinds of things do not discredit religion and they serve no purpose. Your statement about faith and science was true. They don't mix as they both deal with separate aspects of life.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:29 am

I think the point, Monk, is that you are basically correct: These verses represent the thinking of primitive people about the world around them.

The problem is that modern adherents (some...not all) claim these verses were given to them directly by 'god'.....who one would think would have known better than to leave them with such erroneous information.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:33 am

Forum Monk wrote:Since the extant ruins of Ziggurats have been dated and/or associated with a king and since we have lists of the known and even mythical kings of Akkad/Sumer both before and after the deluge; who then is the king of the tower of Babel?

Has that Sumerian Kings List been verified, Monk? The last one I saw was put together by a certain Stevie (the one you mentioned earlier, I think) and I'm not sure if it stands up.

Ishtar · Post by **Ishtar** » Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:37 am

Forum Monk wrote:
The problem with both of these references and thousands like them is they are misrepresentations. Geocentrism was the science of the early peoples up until the end of the greek empire and it found its way into the interpetation of scripture even as many still attempt to interpret poetic language in the most literal terms and apply modern science to a collection of religious writings. Its a mistake and it leads to major egg on the face when the science eventually changes as it always does.

I agree. In my experience, most of what's written in the Bible is metaphorical.

kbs2244 wrote:
A lot of the “Old Testament” or “Hebrew Scriptures” have to be understood as an attempt to explain some pretty deep metaphysical things to an audience that was mostly desert sheep herders.

....and that the desert sheep herders of that time, and their spiritual leaders, were much more in touch with the "pretty deep metaphysical things" than anyone around today.