FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-04-2006, 06:07 PM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch
If the bible is written on false premise, why are archaeological facts true?
I'm sure I'm not the first one to dogpile on this person, but what the heck....

The Illiad and the Odyssey are correct on archaeological facts. Therefore the Greek myths of gods and heroes must be true. Right?

The Gylfaginning is correct on archaeological facts. Therefore the Norse myths must be true. Right?

The Koran is correct on archaeological facts. Therefore the Koran must be true. Right?

Make up your mind - you can't have it both ways.

And of course, that doesn't even count all the archaeological mistakes in the bible.

Quote:
Why is the bible used by Archaeologists to find things in the earth?
It isn't.

Quote:
Seems like a lot of work, to put a book of fiction in circulation of the earth, that men are willing to die for.
People are willing to die for a lot of things. In case you hadn't noticed, people are crashing airplanes into buildings and blowing themselves up for things they are willing to die for. Does that mean that their beliefs are correct?

It must mean that, based upon your "analysis". Remember: you can't have it both ways.

Peeve: I really wish Christians would think this stuff through, before making claims with such obvious holes in them.
Sauron is offline  
Old 06-04-2006, 06:12 PM   #12
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron
Peeve: I really wish Christians would think this stuff through, before making claims with such obvious holes in them.
As a Christian, I agree.
Haran is offline  
Old 06-04-2006, 11:53 PM   #13
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yummyfur
70-75% of the surface of the earth is coverd by water. But it is a very shallow covering compared to the total thickenss of the earth. There is about 337 cubic miles of water on earth, so it only makes up .04% of the earth's mass. Ergo the earth is only .04% water. Since Oxygen is one of main elemental constituents of the earth, and there is also enough Hydrogen to explain easily how such a small amount of water was created by the earth's formation, no need for some half assed crazy comet theory.
How did oxygen form again? While plants were learning to use Oxygen themselves and then create oxygen as well, all by chance mind you.
Patriarch Verlch is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 06:23 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch
How did oxygen form again? While plants were learning to use Oxygen themselves and then create oxygen as well, all by chance mind you.
Sheesh, why don't you go and find out? It's not difficult! They presumably have libraries in Portland, and you obviously have Internet access.

But why do you keep posting creationist BS when your arguments regarding the Bible go off the rails?

This is NOT the Evolution/Creation forum.

You have derailed your own thread. Is this an admission of the failure of your argument?
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 06:39 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch
How did oxygen form again? While plants were learning to use Oxygen themselves and then create oxygen as well, all by chance mind you.
<sigh>

Another argument from incredulity based on lack of education. Is somebody keeping score on this?
Kosh is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 07:15 AM   #16
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North West usa
Posts: 10,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch
Here are some interesting physical examples of physical truth in the bible. Why then would the bible not be accurate on the spiritual side of it?
So the gods of Sumeria are true because there are 4,500 year old kings lists that include Gilgamesh? Gilgamesh is part of that earliest famous tale of massive flooding, which we have clay tablets containing the tale, and are a thousand years older than anything we have of the Hebrews. Shall we praise Nammu, Utu, and Enki now? Did Ziusudra ride out that flood vice Noah; after all the tale was written down over a thousand years earlier?

Quote:
There have been examples of the House of David, cities of Jericho and facts that its walls fell away from city and not inward.
"At the southern end of the City of David, south of the Old City of Jerusalem, there are two monumental tunnel tombs which many scholars believe are the tombs of David and Solomon. Unfortunately, they were damaged by later quarrying, so no identifying inscriptions have survived. In the same area are many Iron Age tombs, possibly those of other kings of Judah."

Notice the bolded words above from your site? There's allot of religious faith, in those archeological views. Many more archeological teams have gone to Jericho, and not agreed that the walls fell outward. If you want to believe in archeologists, why would you not go with the vast majority of professional ones?

Quote:
If the bible is written on false premise, why are archaeological facts true? Why is the bible used by Archaeologists to find things in the earth? Seems like a lot of work, to put a book of fiction in circulation of the earth,
Parts of the Hebrew canon are indeed 2500+ years old, why would an archologist not reference it? We once thought Troy and Jason (of the Jason and the Golden fleece) were just tales. Archeology has discovered that Troy and Jason's family appear to be real. Are the stories now fully factual? Why not?

Quote:
that men are willing to die for.
Praise Allah…your point?
funinspace is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 07:28 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

The off-topic E/C stuff can go here: For the attention of Patriarch Verlch
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 09:17 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch
How did oxygen form again? While plants were learning to use Oxygen themselves and then create oxygen as well, all by chance mind you.
I think someone failed high school chemestry.
Paul2 is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 10:26 PM   #19
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless
Sheesh, why don't you go and find out? It's not difficult! They presumably have libraries in Portland, and you obviously have Internet access.

But why do you keep posting creationist BS when your arguments regarding the Bible go off the rails?

This is NOT the Evolution/Creation forum.

You have derailed your own thread. Is this an admission of the failure of your argument?
No hardly.
Patriarch Verlch is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 10:28 PM   #20
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul2
I think someone failed high school chemestry.
I think you've failed to test your theory, is it possible for oxygen producing bugs to sponatinously arrive, much like the primordial soup.

It's not a hard question, since you fellas seem to know everything about everything, perhaps you could explain it better, your beleifs that is.
Patriarch Verlch is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:58 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.