Archaeologica.org

why is it whenever i ask for the opposing side to present proof of their position,just like they ask of me, they fall silent? seems to be a habit with them.

Because you never listen when we do?

archaeologist wrote:why is it whenever i ask for the opposing side to present proof of their position,just like they ask of me, they fall silent? seems to be a habit with them.

anyways, here is a point that they can mull over and comment on; again taken from 'Before the Flood' by Ian Wilson pg. 167

"Noah...was the first to plant the vine. Gen. 9:20

Many modern interpreters of wine history suggest that Georgia has yielded the earliest evidence of winemaking in the world" McGovern et al, 'The Origins and Ancient History of Wine Making'"

If your stupid bible said he was the first NASCAR driver, you'd believe that too.

Minimalist wrote:

archaeologist wrote:why is it whenever i ask for the opposing side to present proof of their position,just like they ask of me, they fall silent? seems to be a habit with them.

anyways, here is a point that they can mull over and comment on; again taken from 'Before the Flood' by Ian Wilson pg. 167

"Noah...was the first to plant the vine. Gen. 9:20

Many modern interpreters of wine history suggest that Georgia has yielded the earliest evidence of winemaking in the world" McGovern et al, 'The Origins and Ancient History of Wine Making'"

If your stupid bible said he was the first NASCAR driver, you'd believe that too.

min -

thanks for the intelligence. wasn't you. i'm just not going to bang my head onto somebody's cleverly positioned rock just because its there.

as i sd. this is about discourse, exchange.

bye


john

If your stupid bible said he was the first NASCAR driver, you'd believe that too.

well you know that Genesis mentions the first car race don't you (i forget the verse this is found in) Mose and Aaron dragged their 'rods' across the desert.

archaeologist wrote:

If your stupid bible said he was the first NASCAR driver, you'd believe that too.

well you know that Genesis mentions the first car race don't you (i forget the verse this is found in) Mose and Aaron dragged their 'rods' across the desert.

They should have invented underwear.

so no takers on the discussion of Noah's post-flood occupation?

archaeologist wrote:

But if there was, it was breached earlier than Ian Wilson thinks. And it was the Black Sea which would have poured into the Med .....

back it up in the same manner you demand of me.

http://www.mines.edu/academic/geology/f ... iFlood.pdf

As I said, more research needs to be done. But if the reduced sea levels of the last glacial resulted in a shallow land bridge across the Bosphorus, this flood may well have breached it - giving rise to the greek legend reported in Wilson's book.

(Don't forget, I said If there was. I'm not saying for certain that such a breach did happen)

The real question, is how does evidence for lower sea levels equate to evidence of a global flood covering all the world's land surface?

who is using lower sea levels as an argument for a global flood? i haven't yet.

You're citing evidence of submerged structures in coastal regions as evidence for a global flood. Otherwise, apart from massive sedimentary deposits forming mountains thousands of feet high - which common sense and basic knowledge of geological processes, says didn't form in a few weeks - you have no evidence whatsoever.

You have as yet to provide any evidence that can not be better explained by known geological processes.

(At a constant rate of 1" an hour

we don't know the rate.

No, I was just using that as an example. In comparison, the hightest 24 hour rainfall in the UK was about 11 inches - so we're talking twice as much rain, falling every day for 40 years.

To achieve such a rise in a much shorter time would necessitate rain falling so heavy that it would literally crush the ark in seconds .....

Obvioulsy the Bible reports the fountains of the deep opening too - so it wasn't just rain. But even so - if we're assuming water covered all thre world's mountains, the rate of rise would be physically impossible within the time frame stated.

Logically, we're talking about a much smaller event.

Although, of course, one of the Bibilical versions of the Flood actually says the water rose only fifteen cubits. And given that what is commonly translated as 'earth' can also mean 'land' then a more reasonable explanation does lend itself to those who are so inclined

archaeologist wrote:so no takers on the discussion of Noah's post-flood occupation?

Although the Bible states that Noah planted a vineyard, that doesn't mean he was the first to do so

However, you're right that the earliest known wine has been discovered in neolithic ceramaic jars from Shulaveri, Georgia. These have been dated to approx 6,000BC

But if the reduced sea levels of the last glacial resulted in a shallow land bridge across the Bosphorus, this flood may well have breached it

it (not the glacial flood but the breach) is a possibility that could have taken place with Noah's flood thus the reason i use it. itis not perposterous to have the black sea a fresh water lake in pre-flood days.

i don't reject that type of discovery nor that type of research for the Bible doesn't give us exact details of the geography of the world at that time. but when you attribute it to an ice age or a glacier then i have problems with it.

In comparison, the hightest 24 hour rainfall in the UK was about 11 inches - so we're talking twice as much rain, falling every day for 40 years.

i think you mean 'days ' not 'years'. this year during the raining season, we were getting far more than that per hour for several hours on end, off the top of my head it was about 110-120 millimeters per hour, so it is possible to achieve such a high rate of rainfall. you should have seen it come down and i had to drive in it.

But even so - if we're assuming water covered all thre world's mountains, the rate of rise would be physically impossible within the time frame stated.

but again, we do not know the exact geography at that time so there is still a possibility of the highest mountains being covered.

one of the Bibilical versions of the Flood actually says the water rose only fifteen cubits

that was above the peaks i believe. Gen. 7:18-21

You're citing evidence of submerged structures in coastal regions as evidence for a global flood

i don't think we will find submerged ruins inland so coastal areas is what we have to deal with. inland, we may never be able to dig deep enough to satisfy skepticism.

you have no evidence whatsoever.

but i also cite hapgood's reporting in his book, 'the pathof the pole' along with rehwinkel's discussions in his book 'the flood' which do provide further evidence for a global flood. it is best to read those works as here i cannot do them justice nor provide the context needed.

archaeologist wrote:

one of the Bibilical versions of the Flood actually says the water rose only fifteen cubits

that was above the peaks i believe. Gen. 7:18-21

The sentence is ambiguous and could be interpreted either way.

but i also cite hapgood's reporting in his book, 'the pathof the pole' along with rehwinkel's discussions in his book 'the flood' which do provide further evidence for a global flood. it is best to read those works as here i cannot do them justice nor provide the context needed.

I don't know Rehwinkls's book; but I do have Hapgood's However, it contains no evidence that I can see for a global flood.

Really, it's all down to intepretation.

However, you are forced to either interpret evidence in support of your theory or else reject the evidence. Because your theory - that a Global Flood occurred exactly as described in the Bible - cannot be altered in any way.

Whereas my scientific approach means any theory I subscribe to can change according to any new evidence that emerges. Indeed, whilst I currently beileve there a sequence of Glacials, if new evidence overturns this then I can happily change my stance accordingly.

As far as the Black Sea Flood goes, I believe that it may have been seperated from the Mediterranean for some periods of time, and that the Altai Flood may have breached any landbridge. But it doesn't really matter to me either way

The Biblical Flood I believe to be much altered from its original form - as shown by the fact that two different version have been combined in the Book of Genesis (The Yahwist version and the Priestly version). This in my opinion makes it likely that in it's original form it was different from both of the versions we have today. Now I know you don;t accept the opinions of Christian and Jewish Bible experts and would argue that there is only one, contridictiry, account of the Flood. But agains, that's your choice of interpretation - I prefer to defer to the opinions of those who have studied the original texts and no far more about them than I do.

All of which means that I do not have to take anything in the story too literally and can readily interpret it as a localised event that covered all of the 'land' as far as Noah could see ....

I have stated before that I think parts of the bible are true and reliable reports of historic events. But as a whole it is an unreliable research tool. This, in part, is true of almost everything ever written by man. (And arch the bible was written and compiled by men, I think god would have written it in the stars or on the side of a mountain in some grandiose manner which everyone could see and which left no doubt about who wrote it) There are errors in every book. Science is full of errors which scientists are constantly striving to correct. The bible is full of errors which biblical scholars are trying to align with reality. This "all is true or nothing is true, but all is definitely true" way of thinking is illogical and frankly un-intelligent. If biblical scholars couls just accept that the bible means well but isn't completely reliable as a history book then they'd be a lot better off. It's not all black and white. There are shades of gray. There is a need for compromise. I would say that the writers of the bible believed it to be true.....maybe with a few exxagerations and embellishments for the "glory of god". It infuriates and frustrates me that people think the bible is the absolute truth and the final word on everything. There is no such thing produced by humans. It was based on oral histories and there is no way that can be 100% reliable. All these books ya'll keep quoting from have errors in them. They didn't intentionally put them in there it's just that sometimes in the few years since it was published new facts have been unearthed. Just think how many new facts have been unearthed since the bible was first compiled. Arch, if you even read this at all, read it again and try to see the logic and sense of what I'm saying. I'm not trying to convert you. I'm just trying to show the untenability (is that a word?) of the position you take when you defend the bible and claim it to be absolutely true.

If biblical scholars couls just accept that the bible means well but isn't completely reliable as a history book then they'd be a lot better off.

Many do exactly that, Frank, but the fundamentalists consider them heretics.

Any attempt to see scripture as allegory gets those people bashed by the fanatics.

What Arch doesn't seem to understand is that the dogma of the Bible, out of principle, rules as absolute master. As long as he goes along with that, he will never see outside the blinders he wears. Even many Jewish scholars today do not take the O.T. as literal as Arch.

Leona Conner wrote:What Arch doesn't seem to understand is that the dogma of the Bible, out of principle, rules as absolute master. As long as he goes along with that, he will never see outside the blinders he wears. Even many Jewish scholars today do not take the O.T. as literal as Arch.

And the Orthodox Jews hate them for it.

I've been thinking.....what if we did manage to convince Arch that the bible and everything he believes in is wrong? What if we did cause him to lose his faith? I couldn't live with that, because I know how it feels and he'd be despondent and depressed and have nothing to live for. I'm not being sarcastic here. I mean I know it will never happen, because arch is very devout in his beliefs. I don't want to be responsible for making someone lose the faith that they have built their life around. Sure he's arrogant and pious, but he's a human being and I don't believe in hurting people needlessly. I guess I'm thinking too much. I know it'll never happen anyway. If it makes him happy to believe, if it eases his mind that's fine as long as he ain't pushing it on me. That works both ways too. So I won't push my beliefs on anyone else.