Archaeologica.org

True, although it gets hard to separate the 'legend' from the 'person' at times. We are separated from Geroge Washington by about 200 years but legends of him cutting down the cherry tree or throwing a dollar across the Potomac have been circulating for generations. Thus, a person can be real and some of his deeds fictitious, such as Washington. Or a total invention of fiction, like Joshua. Does it matter if Abraham was or wasn't a real person? Not really because so much of the rest of the story has been disproven that it is no longer relevant.

Arch, if your god won't allow the ark to be found because it would remove the need for faith, why would he allow Abraham's cave, or anything biblical for that matter, to be found?

we will get enough evidence to strengthen faith not destroy it.

We have a claim that the Cave of Machpelah is the cave

my mistake, yes the wording in my post shuld be changed especially since very few people are allowed to go in it. as to the bones of adam and eve being buried there, i would highly doubt it since the flood wrecked havoc upon the earth and destroyed so much of the pre-flood civilization.

also there would be no way of determining the identity of pre-flood skeletens.

More than three thousand years after Abraham, some Christians
claimed to have found the bones of the Patriarchs at a time when the
sale of religious relics was big business

i would like to know how they identified the bones as the patriarchs.

archaeologist wrote:

Arch, if your god won't allow the ark to be found because it would remove the need for faith, why would he allow Abraham's cave, or anything biblical for that matter, to be found?

we will get enough evidence to strengthen faith not destroy it.

We have a claim that the Cave of Machpelah is the cave

my mistake, yes the wording in my post shuld be changed especially since very few people are allowed to go in it. as to the bones of adam and eve being buried there, i would highly doubt it since the flood wrecked havoc upon the earth and destroyed so much of the pre-flood civilization.

also there would be no way of determining the identity of pre-flood skeletens.

More than three thousand years after Abraham, some Christians
claimed to have found the bones of the Patriarchs at a time when the
sale of religious relics was big business

i would like to know how they identified the bones as the patriarchs.

Adam and Eve are definitely mythical, there were no 2 original people.

It would appear that the bones weren't identified but proclaimed. They were found in a spot that had already been proclaimed to be Abraham's cave, so what else could they be?

Of course, we only have the word of thsoe monks that there were any bones.

archaeologist wrote:

Arch, if your god won't allow the ark to be found because it would remove the need for faith, why would he allow Abraham's cave, or anything biblical for that matter, to be found?

we will get enough evidence to strengthen faith not destroy it.

I very firmly believe that, like the ark, this cave would eliminate the need for faith. Since I believe it, it must be true. Prove that it isn't true.

I very firmly believe that, like the ark, this cave would eliminate the need for faith.

i could end up agreeing with you on this point because believers know that the evil one is out to destroy faith and believers, faith does need to be strenghtened but only to the point where it benefits the believer and allows them to continue in their chosen path.

I agree. It leads me to believe that these biblical archaeologists that operate with an agenda of proving this or that point of the bible to shore up their own weak faith are actually being deceived by Satan.

believers know that the evil one is out to destroy faith and believers

George W. Bush?

It leads me to believe that these biblical archaeologists that operate with an agenda of proving this or that point of the bible to shore up their own weak faith are actually being deceived by Satan.

believe what you want, though i would say that many that go there with an agenda do so without God. but they go there to shore up their faith and donot investigate thoroughly.

George W. Bush

what can i say, the republicans wanted him and they picked a man who would allow them to operate without restraint. i do not agree with bush jr. and it is sad to see him in action, there is a man who could never have been elected dog catcher but he had the right pedigree which could be used to regain power in america.

again i challenge you to construct a concise, logical defense of your position but the one problem you face is you cannot be certain that the evidence for a local flood is not also evidence for a global one.

i have presented material and resources ( both religious and non-religious) that give evidence for a global one yet i have seen nothing from your side except empty words and a failure to come to the plate.

let's see if you can do it sans personal attacks, declatory statements, rhetoric, and disbelief. using both religious and non-religious sources as i have done...

There are floods and then there are floods. I happen to think that there is much validity to Hancock's basic premise that mankind was hammered by rising sea waters at the end of the last ice age and that such times are reflected in the mythology which comes down to us FROM THAT TIME.

That time being 10-12,000 years ago and the water came from melting ice. Not 4,000 years ago with the water coming from rain brought about by some pissed-off deity with a psychiatric problem. The evidence for such floods would indeed be located on the continental shelf...not up on Mount Ararat.

archaeologist wrote:again i challenge you to construct a concise, logical defense of your position but the one problem you face is you cannot be certain that the evidence for a local flood is not also evidence for a global one.

i have presented material and resources ( both religious and non-religious) that give evidence for a global one yet i have seen nothing from your side except empty words and a failure to come to the plate.

let's see if you can do it sans personal attacks, declatory statements, rhetoric, and disbelief. using both religious and non-religious sources as i have done...

I have pointed you towards plenty of evidence that there could have been no global flood. You rejected it. It wasn't empy words, declaratory statements, or disbelief. And you didn't bring up concrete arguments based on contemporary science against the points in Mark Isaak's paper.

I have pointed you towards plenty of evidence that there could have been no global flood.

You can lead a horse's ass to water, but you can't make him drink, Doug.

I've tried.

Not 4,000 years ago with the water coming from rain brought about by some pissed-off deity with a psychiatric problem.

now come on Doug
he clearly stated that it was right for him to do so because they were keeping him up at night
”The noise of mankind has become too much,
I am losing sleep over their racket. “ Enlil
Insomnia is far more often caused by a normal medical problem than a psychiatric one such as too much caffeine or seasonally affective disorder association. But in this case its the racket caused by the all too human neighbours and as such a job for the legal authorities of which "the god of the deluge" was the highest ranking member and so quite rightly acted correctly in the cause of law and order and keeping the peace
so your claim is unfairly stated without the diagnosis statement of a qualified psychiatrist.

It wasn't empy words, declaratory statements, or disbelief. And you didn't bring up concrete arguments based on contemporary science against the points in Mark Isaak's paper.

if you did, my apologies.

i wil lgo back and check for that.

archaeologist wrote:again i challenge you to construct a concise, logical defense of your position but the one problem you face is you cannot be certain that the evidence for a local flood is not also evidence for a global one.

The problem is that you interpret evidence for local floods as evidence for a global flood. Even when the evidence clearly points to these floods having occurred due to natural processes we see today, and for them having taken place at different times.

Indeed, by your rationale, the Mississippi flood of 1993 and the Mozambique flood of 2000 are evidence of one global flood.

Why shoud we provide evidence to prove something which didn't happen didin't happen? That is the resort of those who know they've already lost the argument. The onus is on you to provide evidence which can only be interpreted in terms of a global flood. Your failure to do so speaks volumes.