the earth

Eon said:
Only if you take their word for it that they were there.

And it's not written by people who were there, it's written by people who supposedly studied with people who were there. The Apostles were mostly illiterate - how could they have written?

Saul, of course, is the exception, having been a Pharisee.
Click to expand...

First off. Go back and check your history.
Luke was A doctor and educated, Matthew was a tax collector and educated. In fact, Jews were very literate. (Not trying to be rascist) It was required that all children would learn how to read. The Apostles were not illeterate.
 
Not trying to be argumentative, but Acts 4:13
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men...
Click to expand...

I've read most of Strobel's books. There are MANY problems with them. I'll give you some critiques if you're interested, but they're on an atheist web site, just so you know
Click to expand...

Did you read the case for Christ with a bias mindset, going in thinking something like "Let's see how many things I can find wrong with his thinking/conclusion"
I am interested in the critiques you mention, and I'll keep in mind it's an atheist site.
 
I'm certain that Peter and a couple of his brothers were fishermen. If you're telling me that there were a couple of other educated ones, then fair enough, but certainly not ALL of them were literate.

And please. History is not a good word for what you find in the bible. As Pen and Teller famously said
"In fact it's fair to say that the bible contains equal amounts of history, science and... ...pizza."
Click to expand...
 
Eon said:
I'm certain that Peter and a couple of his brothers were fishermen. If you're telling me that there were a couple of other educated ones, then fair enough, but certainly not ALL of them were literate.
Click to expand...

Luke was a doctor I believe
 
DarthDapor said:
Actually a written acount of people who were there, compared to a test of salt in the sea seems a lot more believable to me!
Click to expand...

Uh, not exactly.

What was this account written on? How do you know it's accurate?

Too bad you can't date it, because of all those flawed techniques. :rolleyes:
 
Goose62 said:
Did you read the case for Christ with a bias mindset, going in thinking something like "Let's see how many things I can find wrong with his thinking/conclusion"
I am interested in the critiques you mention, and I'll keep in mind it's an atheist site.
Click to expand...

Nope, I read it in an objective light. What's the point in reading it if you're not going to be objective?

Now...just wondering, can you say the same?

Here are a few, if you want more, I'm sure you can google a ton:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.html#strobel
 
Eon said:
I'm certain that Peter and a couple of his brothers were fishermen. If you're telling me that there were a couple of other educated ones, then fair enough, but certainly not ALL of them were literate.
Click to expand...

Actually, they were unlearned, they knew how to read and write but never went beyond that. Jewish tradition dictated that ALL jewish men were to become literate. All jewish people went to school as children. They had to learn to read the Torah as well as be able to write it. Am I saying that Peter, John, Mark and the rest were extremely learned men? No. They were litereate and able to write down what they saw.

Also, Paul (Or Saul if you prefer) Used scribes many times rather than writing himself.


And please. History is not a good word for what you find in the bible. As Pen and Teller famously said
Click to expand...

Honestly? Many facts from the New testement of the Bible are backed up with otehr documentation from the same time period. If only my laptop had not crashed, I would still have the links to the places.... :( Anyway, The Bible can be proven historically. If you look. Using the word History merely describes what happened in the past.

And honestly? I do not care what Pen and teller say about History... :p
 
the_great_eskimo_pie said:
Honestly? Many facts from the New testement of the Bible are backed up with otehr documentation from the same time period. If only my laptop had not crashed, I would still have the links to the places.... :( Anyway, The Bible can be proven historically. If you look. Using the word History merely describes what happened in the past.

And honestly? I do not care what Pen and teller say about History... :p
Click to expand...

I would love to see some archaeological evidence for the story of the Exodus.

That should be easy, right?

Millions of Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years.

Go ahead, I'll wait.
 
I want them to drain the sea of Reeds and find Pharoah's lost Army.

Or the slave quarters where the Israelites were building things for the Egyptians. Actually, I'd settle for a single Jewish burial dating to that time in Egypt.
 
Eon said:
I want them to drain the sea of Reeds and find Pharoah's lost Army.

Or the slave quarters where the Israelites were building things for the Egyptians. Actually, I'd settle for a single Jewish burial dating to that time in Egypt.
Click to expand...


Alright first off, Even if you drained the sea of reeds, you would be very lucky if you found anything from Pharoah's army. over 2,000 years of decay would have eaten most everything away. See if you know anything about human anatomy, or materials in general, you would know that the bodies would ahve become "fish food," The weapons would have eitehr rusted away, or sunk below the dirt/sand/silt at the bottom of the sea, making it much more difficult to find.

Also, It would be rather unlikely that you would find any homes dating back that far... It was typical of the times that when someone left, their home was taken apart and its peices used to build other homes or to add on to other homes.

As far as the Jewish burial listing goes....Well I don't have an answer to that one. I would have to talk to the local Rabbi and find out. (When I have the time...)

Also, I hope you don't think that the Jews built the pyramids..... :p
 
Dark Virtue said:
I would love to see some archaeological evidence for the story of the Exodus.

That should be easy, right?

Millions of Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years.

Go ahead, I'll wait.
Click to expand...


First off. I never said that I could back up everything in the Old Testement. I said NEW testement. The old testment? Well You would have to talk to someone who is really into history. I do know that there are Egyptian hyroglyphs that "describe" things about the Isrealites. I also know that there are history's about the way the Isrealites took Canaan. ( I am also not referring to the Bible. Other manuscriptshave been found by various peoples.)

And this is according to my History Prof who has a PH.D in History. I can get the names of the peoples and books if you like.
THe desert wandering? Well how can you expect there to be evidence when the sand that is there now may not even be the same as it was then? The Earth is constantly renewing itself.

See my post to Eon about the Hyroglyphics. (I have no idea if I spelled that correctly... ) There is proof.
 
You will not see the entire of an Army comprised of thousands of men, horses, camels, chariots and so on just plain disappear because they sank into a swamp.

You especially won't see a Pharoah left to rot in a shallow swamp without some attempt to find the body. Remember that they thought that the body contained essential elements of the soul and spirit that needed recovering in order for a successful transition to the afterlife?

I've read that some scholars believe they've proved the existence of Israelites in Egypt at about the right time. Mind you, it involves shifting the 19th dynasty to the 13th dynasty. It also involves some VERY sketchy archaelogical evidence that could point at a multitude of events.

It also doesn't explain how over 600,000 israelites supposedly walked through the desert without leaving a single verifiable trace of passage.
 
I didn't ask for you to explain EVERYTHING in the OT, just one story.

As far as I know, there is supporting or corroborating evidence for the Exodus.

So if you have proof to the contrary, I'd be very interested.
 
Eon said:
You will not see the entire of an Army comprised of thousands of men, horses, camels, chariots and so on just plain disappear because they sank into a swamp.

You especially won't see a Pharoah left to rot in a shallow swamp without some attempt to find the body. Remember that they thought that the body contained essential elements of the soul and spirit that needed recovering in order for a successful transition to the afterlife?

I've read that some scholars believe they've proved the existence of Israelites in Egypt at about the right time. Mind you, it involves shifting the 19th dynasty to the 13th dynasty. It also involves some VERY sketchy archaelogical evidence that could point at a multitude of events.

It also doesn't explain how over 600,000 israelites supposedly walked through the desert without leaving a single verifiable trace of passage.
Click to expand...


Alright, where does it ever say that Pharoah went into the sea with his men? According to the manuscripts I have seen. Pharoah did not perish with his army in the red sea. His army was destroyed though.

Also, I don't have all the answers. If I did, I would be a millionaire like Dr. Phil. :p
 
Yeah besides I heard that divers hov actually recovered items from Pharoah's lost army. Not sure where I heard it, but as DV once said: "A quick google search should clear this up."
 
DarthDapor said:
Yeah besides I heard that divers hov actually recovered items from Pharoah's lost army. Not sure where I heard it, but as DV once said: "A quick google search should clear this up."
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, you may actually want to take that advice to heart.

I did a quick google and found the article you referred to. Here are some of the more interesting bits:

"All kinds of people are finding coral and calling it chariot parts," says Richard Rives, president of Wyatt Archaeological Research in Tennessee. "It's most likely coral covered with coral. ... Opportunists are combining false things with the true things that are found. These people are making it up as they go to be TV stars."

When Mary Nell went diving with Ron, she says it was very easy to assume (wrongly) that every item on the flat bottom had historical significance.

"[At first] I thought everything was a chariot wheel!" Mrs. Wyatt exclaimed, noting how difficult it is for the untrained eye to distinguish an artifact from a piece of coral.
Click to expand...

You are also dwelling under the assumption that the "Red Sea" is the correct translation. Many biblical scholars believe the correct translation is the "Sea of Reeds", which is a much different body of water.
 
Dark Virtue said:
Should I open my mouth wider so you can shove more words into them?

As I've said before (but obviously not loud enough to get your attention) is that while our dating techniques work to a less than desireable degree, they aren't perfect. I've asked, but you've refused to answer a very important question: if you disagree with these dating methods, what do you suggest we do? Guess? Ignore dating whatsoever? Without using these flawed dating techniques, how will we ever learn new ones?

These techniques are as good as we can get at this present time.
Click to expand...

Until there is evidence that the conditions during formation can be verified accuratly, I will continue to do what I have done in the past, that is I will put no reliance on the results. As for the other part of we, which would not include me, do as you would like to do. If its good enough for you, well then, its good enough for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top