|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 7, 2014 18:42:49 GMT -6
Ken,
How about commenting on this scientific discovery which exposes literal Bible interpretations to a bit of doubt.
btw, no comment on the round ark article I posted last week?
Finding Israel's first camels: Archaeologists pinpoint the date when domesticated camels arrived in Israel |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 8, 2014 8:29:31 GMT -6
I guess science only works when you can bend its results over backwards to validate your most lame biblical theories. When science directly contradicts your theories, it's lying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 8, 2014 9:08:50 GMT -6
Choose your anachronism. Isaac encounters the Philistines in Palestine, well over 1000 years before they arrived there. Joshua conquers several cities that were built hundreds of years after his death. Two possibilities here:
1. Time warps.
2. The narratives about the Biblical Patriarchs were written well after 1000 BCE, and the authors assumed that the local geography and politics had always been similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Feb 11, 2014 22:45:21 GMT -6
The assumption that things were still pretty much as they'd always been may not explain a number of biblical anachronisms so much as their having been used for dramatic impact because of familiarity to the writer's contemporaries.
For instance, Shakespeare (aka Oxford) has Romans cheering from the chimney pots as conquering hero Julius Caesar enters into Rome. Chimney pots were 16th-17th c. London, not BCE Rome. But, Shakespeare knew this little detail would enable Londoners to feel the crowds' fervor vicariously, because they themselves jockeyed for the best vantage point from which to welcome home victorious military heroes, which was climbing up to the chimney pots.
Yet another likely indication that biblical sagas were intended as myths.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Feb 13, 2014 12:00:40 GMT -6
Just a pure guess on my part. First off the OT does not interpret the way the Jews interpret the Torah and Tanakh. Without the oral torah the interpretations are very incomplete. In addition I find the Jews more willing to state a lot in the Torah is Metaphor and not fact. (I moderate a Jewish Forum HERE) The issues seem to be the result of the advent of Christianity and the need to do some reverse engineering to make the OT be the precursor of the NT. Just my wild guess. but probably with as little verification as anybody else. |
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 17, 2014 6:29:35 GMT -6
"Archaeologists have established that camels were probably domesticated in the Arabian Peninsula for use as pack animals sometime towards the end of the 2nd millennium BCE." (emphasis mine) If you look carefully, you would see that he dated the bones found. He, most likely, dated those bones correctly. But to say he found the oldest domesticated bones is to say he has all the bones that can be found. And I will make no more bones about this subject.  |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 17, 2014 7:41:45 GMT -6
"Archaeologists have established that camels were probably domesticated Arabian Peninsula for use as pack animals sometime towards the end of the 2nd millennium BCE." (emphasis mine) If you look carefully, you would see that he dated the bones found. He, most likely, dated those bones correctly. But to say he found the oldest domesticated bones is to say he has all the bones that can be found. And I will make no more bones about this subject. That depends on how many bones they have found and the strata and locations they've excavated that indicate human occupation. I hope your not suggesting that earlier camels were resurrected and miraculously transported to heaven. |
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 17, 2014 17:24:38 GMT -6
"Archaeologists have established that camels were probably domesticated Arabian Peninsula for use as pack animals sometime towards the end of the 2nd millennium BCE." (emphasis mine) If you look carefully, you would see that he dated the bones found. He, most likely, dated those bones correctly. But to say he found the oldest domesticated bones is to say he has all the bones that can be found. And I will make no more bones about this subject. That depends on how many bones they have found and the strata and locations they've excavated that indicate human occupation. I hope your not suggesting that earlier camels were resurrected and miraculously transported to heaven. very scientific, Steve. |
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Feb 17, 2014 18:37:46 GMT -6
< yawn > Why am I hardly surprised that Ken is holding out for science "to correct itself" by finding an ossuary labeled "Joshua's Camel"?
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 17, 2014 19:34:05 GMT -6
< yawn > Why am I hardly surprised that Ken is holding out for science "to correct itself" by finding an ossuary labeled "Joshua's Camel"? Besides just ignoring particulars... Are you suggesting that the science that reviews bones never makes a mistake? Do have a good night's rest... you sound tired.  |
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Feb 17, 2014 20:06:11 GMT -6
Next time I make such a reference, Ken, I'll be sure to label it "JOKE ALERT!"
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 18, 2014 8:17:41 GMT -6
That depends on how many bones they have found and the strata and locations they've excavated that indicate human occupation. I hope your not suggesting that earlier camels were resurrected and miraculously transported to heaven. very scientific, Steve. What do you mean? |
|
