|
|
Post by ken on Jan 27, 2014 14:07:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 27, 2014 14:50:47 GMT -6
Time will tell--it's still under study. Or it won't. How much more evidence do you think we'll get about a 3000 year dead tribal chieftan? |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 27, 2014 15:54:03 GMT -6
Addressing the unspoken point of the original thread, no one doubts that the biblical legends arose out of a historical and geographical context.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 27, 2014 18:38:37 GMT -6
The only thing this proves is that the ancient Israelites had kosher and nonkosher wines, anything beyond that is pure speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Jan 27, 2014 20:31:28 GMT -6
Then I suppose we can say the same from every archaeological discovery. Or is the fact that things continue to be found bother the both of you?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 27, 2014 20:56:58 GMT -6
Then I suppose we can say the same from every archaeological discovery. Or is the fact that things continue to be found bother the both of you? It doesn't bother me. It's the stupid comments made concerning these discoveries, mostly by Christians, that bother me. I hope they find a stone with the inscription, "Solomon lived here". It still wouldn't help confirm your beliefs. It's the jump from archaeology to voodoo that makes Evangelical Christians look like idiots. And you wonder why atheists are winning. Duh, look who we're competing against. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 27, 2014 21:05:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 27, 2014 21:06:33 GMT -6
Then I suppose we can say the same from every archaeological discovery. Or is the fact that things continue to be found bother the both of you? Why would it? I'm pro-knowledge. If anything is annoying, it is your smug insinuations that this proves your pack of legends. It doesn't. It can't. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 27, 2014 21:12:38 GMT -6
Then I suppose we can say the same from every archaeological discovery. Or is the fact that things continue to be found bother the both of you? Why would it? I'm pro-knowledge. If anything is annoying, it is your smug insinuations that this proves your pack of legends. It doesn't. It can't. I'm pro-knowledge - I like that. |
|
|
|
Post by ken on Jan 27, 2014 21:27:18 GMT -6
Then I suppose we can say the same from every archaeological discovery. Or is the fact that things continue to be found bother the both of you? Why would it? I'm pro-knowledge. If anything is annoying, it is your smug insinuations that this proves your pack of legends. It doesn't. It can't. It certainly does keeps stacking up. Yesterday's fables are becoming more real as discoveries are made. Besides, these discoveries are also pro-knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 27, 2014 21:58:00 GMT -6
Why would it? I'm pro-knowledge. If anything is annoying, it is your smug insinuations that this proves your pack of legends. It doesn't. It can't. It certainly does keeps stacking up. Yesterday's fables are becoming more real as discoveries are made. But I think "smug" is just another show of how these discoveries confirming the Bible is what is irritating. But that is just my viewpoint. Besides, these discoveries are also pro-knowledge. How do you jump from Solomon to superstition? If Muslims can prove that Mohammad existed, does that confirm their legends and superstitions? The only thing these archaeological discoveries confirm is that you are a fool. |
|
|
|
Post by ken on Jan 27, 2014 22:18:47 GMT -6
It certainly does keeps stacking up. Yesterday's fables are becoming more real as discoveries are made. But I think "smug" is just another show of how these discoveries confirming the Bible is what is irritating. But that is just my viewpoint. Besides, these discoveries are also pro-knowledge. How do you jump from Solomon to superstition? If Muslims can prove that Mohammad existed, does that confirm their legends and superstitions? The only thing these archaeological discoveries confirm is that you are a fool. Back to your attack--but I have grown accustomed to your intolerance. To follow your rule of thumb, does all your positions of archaeology on evolution make you a fool too? See how illogical your statement is? I prefer to accept science. For an example: The Mystery of Joshua’s Ai Solved? The location of the city of Ai mentioned in Joshua 7-8 has long been a matter of mystery and controversy. Excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir have uncovered topography, fortifications and pottery that strongly suggest this site as a candidate for the enigmatic city that the Biblical narrative recounts as having been conquered by Joshua’s army. digs.bib-arch.org/digs/khirbet-el-maqatir.aspIf true... what a bonanza to confirm the invasion by Joshua. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 27, 2014 22:41:03 GMT -6
How do you jump from Solomon to superstition? If Muslims can prove that Mohammad existed, does that confirm their legends and superstitions? The only thing these archaeological discoveries confirm is that you are a fool. Back to your attack--but I have grown accustomed to your intolerance. To follow your rule of thumb, does all your positions of archaeology on evolution make you a fool too? See how illogical your statement is? I prefer to accept science. For an example: The Mystery of Joshua’s Ai Solved? The location of the city of Ai mentioned in Joshua 7-8 has long been a matter of mystery and controversy. Excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir have uncovered topography, fortifications and pottery that strongly suggest this site as a candidate for the enigmatic city that the Biblical narrative recounts as having been conquered by Joshua’s army. digs.bib-arch.org/digs/khirbet-el-maqatir.aspIf true... what a bonanza to confirm the invasion by Joshua. I'm not surprised by the discovery. One thing does puzzle me, the entire Ai/Joshua story mentions "the Lord" stating this and that. How does the Ai discovery confirm "the Lord" saying anything. You see, that's the part that will forever escape your grasp, the part that unites superstition and science, the part that makes you a winner. Be carefull with your answer, you just might make Kermit Gosnell look like a saint compared to your god. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 27, 2014 22:56:12 GMT -6
It certainly does keeps stacking up. Yesterday's fables are becoming more real as discoveries are made. But I think "smug" is just another show of how these discoveries confirming the Bible is what is irritating. But that is just my viewpoint. Besides, these discoveries are also pro-knowledge. How do you jump from Solomon to superstition? If Muslims can prove that Mohammad existed, does that confirm their legends and superstitions? The only thing these archaeological discoveries confirm is that you are a fool. That's about the best possible comparison, Steve. Mohammed's existence is a given. Why does this not prove that Gabriel spoke the Qu'ran to him? |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 27, 2014 23:23:28 GMT -6
How do you jump from Solomon to superstition? If Muslims can prove that Mohammad existed, does that confirm their legends and superstitions? The only thing these archaeological discoveries confirm is that you are a fool. That's about the best possible comparison, Steve. Mohammed's existence is a given. Why does this not prove that Gabriel spoke the Qu'ran to him? We won't get an answer to that question. The funny part is that he suspects these archaeological discoveries bother us. |
|
