Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 08-08-2009, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lugubert

The way I read, you say that the Qur'an mentions that some? humans are born by apes. I have tried to find a similar statement, but failed. Please explain what you mean, and from which verse you get that impression.

The Jericho question has been discussed at length. There should be threads around here, but I have no time to search thoroughly enough. The way I remember them, it has all too obviously several times been proved that the OT narrative doesn't fit archaeologists' finds, on Jericho or most any other OT story.

It's logically impossible to prove a negative, and it's up to you, claiming the positive, to provide positive proof. You constantly fail.

Here, of course, I agree with you, The NT is as empty of facts as is the OT.

I have noticed an assumption that an issue is resolved if it has been battered around previously on this site. The Jericho issue is very much alive even though you have discussed it before.

If you want me to doubt the consensus of the experts, you are going to have to give me some reason to do so

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Writing and archiving was on papyrus at this time. Find me a document from that time that enjoys more support than the NT.

The Book of Han.

J-D · 08-08-2009, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

1. Archaeology does not depend on names. Archaeologists frequently investigate societies and cultures for which there are no written records at all.

2. As I have previously pointed out to you, the fact that a text contains a large number of names is no evidence of historical accuracy. The works of Tolkien, for example, are full of names, but they have no historical significance whatsoever.

3. The names you mention--Sihon, Og, and Jebusite--are all uncorroborated by archaeological evidence. They do not appear anywhere independently of the Hebrew Bible.

4. You have failed to meet the challenge of listing details from the text (of the Biblical account of the Exodus) which align with independent evidence.You have not explained why you think any of the statements I mentioned as examples is not false.You can say it as often as you like, but you have still shown nothing to back it up.Is your point that Christianity is false? Of course it's false. All religions are false.I just did, two of them, but apparently you didn't notice. You don't seem to pay much attention to what I post.

So then there were guards at the tomb of Jesus.

If you're asking me, I don't know.

spin · 08-08-2009, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

So then there were guards at the tomb of Jesus.

If you're asking me, I don't know.

That's what the text says, and that's just as we know that there was a guard over the one ring.

spin

IamJoseph · 08-08-2009, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I have noticed an assumption that an issue is resolved if it has been battered around previously on this site. The Jericho issue is very much alive even though you have discussed it before.
.

I don't propose to re-ignite this dscussion, just to show what I referred to as the Archeologist who denied the Jericho report has been overturned and put into dispute by her error. Her sole dating error also ignored a host of surrounding historical evidences mentioned in the Hebrew writings. Her premise the cty was destroyed by Egypt includes no evidences from Egypt or anywhere else - and based solely on her eronous dating techniques.

Quote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i2/jericho.asp
Thomas A. Holland, who was editor and co-author of Kenyon’s excavation reports, summarized the apparent results as follows:

‘Kenyon concluded, with reference to the military conquest theory and the LB [Late Bronze Age] walls, that there was no archaeological data to support the thesis that the town had been surrounded by a wall at the end of LB I [ca. 1400 B.C.].’2

However, a careful examination of the archaeological evidence collected throughout this century leads to quite another conclusion.

Fortifications of Jericho
Before the Israelites entered the promised land, Moses told them that they were now about to cross the Jordan river, to dispossess nations which were greater and stronger than themselves, with large cities having walls that reached, as it were, to the sky (Deuteronomy 9:1). The meticulous work of Kenyon showed that Jericho was indeed heavily fortified and that it had been burned by fire. Unfortunately, she misdated her finds, resulting in what seemed to be a discrepancy between the discoveries of archaeology and the Bible. She concluded that the Bronze Age city of Jericho was destroyed about 1550 B.C. by the Egyptians. An in-depth analysis of the evidence, however, reveals that the destruction took place around 1400 B.C. (end of the Late Bronze I period), exactly when the Bible says the conquest occurred.3

sschlichter · 08-08-2009, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you're asking me, I don't know.

That's what the text says, and that's just as we know that there was a guard over the one ring.

spin

sschlichter · 08-08-2009, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I have noticed an assumption that an issue is resolved if it has been battered around previously on this site. The Jericho issue is very much alive even though you have discussed it before.

If you want me to doubt the consensus of the experts, you are going to have to give me some reason to do so

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Writing and archiving was on papyrus at this time. Find me a document from that time that enjoys more support than the NT.

The Book of Han.

I guess I should have been more specific. You left the Roman Empire. but, anyway...

Since I do not know what the book of Han is, can you tell me how many copies exist and what gap exists between the copies and the original.

It looks like a history of 200BC+ written in 111AD. This is already in a different ball park from the NT, even if the original existed.

If you have an example under the same conditions of the NT, it would be more telling. (Roman Empire, papyrus)

Doug Shaver · 08-08-2009, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Find me a document from that time that enjoys more support than the NT.

In this context, what do you mean by "support"?

sschlichter · 08-08-2009, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Find me a document from that time that enjoys more support than the NT.

In this context, what do you mean by "support"?

If I suggested someone changed the book of Han since it was originally written, what means would you have to prove I was wrong.

sschlichter · 08-08-2009, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you're asking me, I don't know.

That's what the text says, and that's just as we know that there was a guard over the one ring.

spin

I was at Jericho this year, but I have never been to Mordor.

Toto · 08-08-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

...
I don't propose to re-ignite this dscussion, just to show what I referred to as the Archeologist who denied the Jericho report has been overturned and put into dispute by her error. Her sole dating error also ignored a host of surrounding historical evidences mentioned in the Hebrew writings. Her premise the cty was destroyed by Egypt includes no evidences from Egypt or anywhere else - and based solely on her eronous dating techniques.
...

Quote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i2/jericho.asp
...

IamJ: please do not bother quoting answersingenesis.org here. It is not a credible site. It is also run by Christians who have persecuted Jews for the last 17 centuries, more or less. How can you associate with these people?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.