Current Biblical Archaeology

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:50 am

in answer to your medical question--people died under doctor's care in the 1800's and people die under doctor's care even now. it is not the science but the people applying the science that is the problem.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:03 am

Want to compare death rates for the 1800's and now?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:29 pm

Want to compare death rates for the 1800's and now?

doi care? your argument is inane and shows that you cannot come upwith anything that intelligently presents your side. you are just another bully who has nothing with which to stand upon except his size.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:02 pm

How do you know that I'm not 4 feet 7 inches tall?

So I guess the lengthening of human life expectancy is just magic and has nothing to do with those scientific improvements that you deny?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:10 am

So I guess the lengthening of human life expectancy is just magic and has nothing to do with those scientific improvements that you deny

the lengthing of the life expectancy is marginal in comparison to the amount of time science has had to improve it.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:47 am

Children born today in the developed world have a life expectancy of about 100, which is twice as long as it was around 1800. That's not bad.
Better than praying to non-existant deities ever did.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:48 pm

Children born today in the developed world have a life expectancy of about 100, which is twice as long as it was around 1800. That's not bad

according to a news cast, only 55,000 people made it to 100+ in 2005. that is very marginal and not enough to build hopes upon, considering that america has 300,000,000 million people approx. not very good odds.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:46 pm

What part of "children born today" are you having the most trouble understanding?

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 11:02 pm

To return to the finds of modern archaeology:

Finkelstein recounts a series of places that the wandering Israelites of the Exodus were supposed to have resided or who resisted them and in each case finds that at the point in history when the story had to have been set there was simply nothing there. He concludes the section with this typical observation:

According to the bible when the children of Israel moved along the Transjordanian Plateau they met and confronted resistance not only in Moab but also from the full-fledged states of Edom and Ammon. Yet we now know that the plateau of Transjordan was very sparsely inhabited in the Late Bronze Age. In fact, most parts of this region, including Edom, which is mentioned as a state ruled by a king in the biblical narrative, were not even inhabited by a sedentary population at that time. To put it simply, archaeology has shown that there were no kings of Edom there for the Israelites to meet.

Finkelstein concludes....to the inevitable outrage of the arch's of the world...

The pattern should have become clear by now. Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods - after the Kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 01, 2006 12:21 am

What part of "children born today" are you having the most trouble understanding?

none. i think that the 100 year life span gaurantee on your part is just a pipe dream as no one will be here in a hundred years.

To return to the finds of modern archaeology

all based upon an arbitrary dating system. according to some minor research, if the dates were placed correctly in history, it all comes in line with the Bible.

but i will have to wait for the delivery of a couple books before i can expound on that thought. what you posted is all opinion and interpretation and that doesn't mean that he is right, it is only HIS view and not the right one at that.

then you have to consider why are these people spending so much time and money on research if the Bible is false. Why would they care if people believe the Bible even if it isn't true? If the Bible was false, then it would take very little to prove it and people would drop it and go search for another answer.

It stands to reason that why people get so hot under the collar concerning the Bible is that it is true and they just can't accept that fact because they do not want to use faith but something more palitable to their intellect.

since we have archaelogical proof to support the Bible, despite minimalists rants and his postings of his favorites, it stands to reason that finkelstein is wrong and they only stand a chance if they continually discredit anything that disagrees with them. minimalist has that down to an art form..

as i posted earlier and probably in another topic, u.s. news and world report carried a very good article on snakes that actually had legs and or feet. ii believe it was called "snakes didn't always slither" so obviously finkelstein is way off in his interpretation for we are coming up with support for the Biblical record all the time and it is not always in the religious sector we find these things.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 01, 2006 9:58 am

ii believe it was called "snakes didn't always slither" so obviously finkelstein is way off in his interpretation for we are coming up with support for the Biblical record

You really need to stop smoking that stuff. It's probably illegal in your country.

So, let me understand this. YOU, (of all people) are citing evolutionary evidence that snakes EVOLVED into slimey, slithering creatures ( best represented as used-car salesmen, lawyers, and bible-thumping conmen) in the remote (greater than 150 million years ago) past to prove that events which happened perhaps 2500 years ago are true? YOU have a vestigial tail bone from when your evolutionary ancestors used to climb in trees. Are you sure you want to head down this slippery slope?

I'll take Finkelstein's (and many other real scientists) version over your bible nonsense which is held together by desperate and disparate hopes rather than any scientific evidence.

I'd love to meet you. When is visiting day at that asylum they keep you in?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon May 01, 2006 11:21 am

I'm sure that Archs' reference to the serpent is regarding the garden of Eden story when the serpent was made to crawl on his belly forever. The rest of us only have to do that when we come in late at night.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 01, 2006 11:26 am

LOL.

I know what his reference is. I'm just vastly amused that he is relying on 'evolutionary science' to make a point.

When flaming creationists embrace evolution that is the definition of "strange bedfellows."

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 01, 2006 1:30 pm

I know what his reference is. I'm just vastly amused that he is relying on 'evolutionary science' to make a point.

not relying on evolutionary science. it is another example of how non-religious researchers find the evidence God has left and attributed it to something else.

the proof is there, it all depends on what you want to believe. the Bible is supported whether you accept it or not and whether you like it or not.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon May 01, 2006 1:32 pm

find the evidence God has left and attributed it to something else.

Now god is an evolutionist? For someone still living you seem to know him quite well!

You continue this line of thought and your fellow creationist bible thumpers will beat you soundly about the head and shoulders.