Bible vs. Science

Lightwizard wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Unless you can provide something other than your suppostion, you have proven no more or less than I have.

Nope, you were the one who rebuttled with no links and no evidence. Do your own homework.

There was also no links and no evidence for your original proposal. Since this is going in circles and is not a real significant item, I will not waste any more time on it.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Oh, the idiocies floating around the internet about evolution and written. no doubt, by church clerics are they're not even good reading. They don't even illicit a laugh even though they are so absurd, someone has to be smokin' some good weed to believe them.

f this wasn't so stupid, it would qualify for quote of the week.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Incidentally, the few captives in a war were punished by the Pharaoh and assigned to masters but their freedoms make our slavery of the blacks brought in from Africa even more reprehensible. These "slaves" (there's even an obscurity in the ancient Egyptian language of a word for slave). These servents were paid by their "masters," and given a freedom virtually the same as the general citizenry. Real slavery, again, was endorsed by your Old Testament Hebrew god and was most definitely indentured servitude which was encourage for the lifetime of the slave.

It seems that I referrenced this same information that slaves were not the same as we know slaves and that they were paid. You threw that info away in your rebuttal. Now you say it is true?????? Your backsliding is wearing thin.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

... Years ago the world thought Babylon was myth until the city was dug up in the desert ...

Oh, bullshit. There's hardly a city of antiquity with a longer, stronger, unbroken written history both of its own and as referenced in other cultures, more catalogued archaeologic evidence, and just plain all-around provenance than Babylon. You've been called on that particular lie before, yet whether through ignorance or conscious duplicity, you continue to forward the ludicrous absurdity, leading the sentient to no other conclusion but that you are abysmally ignorant, incredibly gullible, intententionally dishonest, or some combination thereof. By your continuation of the presenting of that particular bit of silly misinformation you destroy any credibility and worthyness of notice you might ever have had; whether you are a fraud or are the dupe of frauds is at once irrelevant and immaterial in light of the fact you present, endorse, and perpetuate blatant fraud.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Look, none of this changes the fact that no slaves ever built hte pyramids, right? Which kinda goes against what the Bible states, doesn't it?

No. The Bible doesn't say that.

0 Replies

The bible makes no mention of pyramids.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

RexRed wrote:
... Years ago the world thought Babylon was myth until the city was dug up in the desert ...

Oh, bullshit. There's hardly a city of antiquity with a longer, stronger, unbroken written history both of its own and as referenced in other cultures, more catalogued archaeologic evidence, and just plain all-around provenance than Babylon. You've been called on that particular lie before, yet whether through ignorance or conscious duplicity, you continue to forward the ludicrous absurdity, leading the sentient to no other conclusion but that you are abysmally ignorant, incredibly gullible, intententionally dishonest, or some combination thereof. By your continuation of the presenting of that particular bit of silly misinformation you destroy any credibility and worthyness of notice you might ever have had; whether you are a fraud or are the dupe of frauds is at once irrelevant and immaterial in light of the fact you present, endorse, and perpetuate blatant fraud.

There is Jericho, Troy and many others that were also lost..

Jericho is a town in the West Bank, near the Jordan River. Jericho has a population of approximately 19,000. It is believed to be the oldest continuously inhabited settlement in the world.

Comment:
All that you say would hold some credence had Babylon, the actual city, and their language not been "lost"...

When an actual city is lost that leaves it open for the almighty infallible "science" to call the Bible a book of myths, and that is exactly what the Bible doubters took the opportunity to do. They took the absence of the actual cities mentioned in the Bible to use at their advantage to say the Bible was a myth. To degrade the historicity of the Bible for all to witness. Atheism needs to be held accountable for the persecution it has launched in the name of "truth" in the past against the Bible.

When there was not an actual "city" for scientists to study, even science begins to openly doubt the authenticity of the Biblical words of antiquities.

Science needs proof don't they? Well they got their proof when the Iraqis were noticed selling broken old broken tablets with an unknown language to tourists that they had uncovered in a big mound in the desert.

That big mound turned out to be Babylon.

Yet the Greek "Atlantis", still as of yet, has NEVER been found. Though many in science highly doubted the Bible's "myth" of Babylon (an actual city) they gave preferential treatment to the Greeks, "Atlantis". They in the past openly glorified Atlantis and magnified it above Babylon as the only possibly factual mythological city that actually existed of the two. People claiming to be scientific have for years penned (and are still at it today) many convincing books that have no scientific grounds whatsoever except for a few lines in some ancient Greek myth.. Where is the actual city? It is "Atlantis" week AGAIN on the science channel... It is true there is much more evidence in history to substantiate Babylon over Atlantis but, THAT WOULD NOT HAVE FIT THE ATHEIST'S AGENDA. The Christians were persecuted by atheists over Atlantis versus Babylon...

Every day unbiased science is amazed how, continually and historically the Bible proves itself to be true.

Even the Greek myths have shed some new glimpses of truth in the last few years as to the battles and the territories mentioned in their fanciful myths may have actually been based in real historical truth. Much of the symbology is related to things like trade/commerce and ideological clashes. Yet the history is often factual.

0 Replies

Excerpt:
The tremendous wealth and power of this city, along with its monumental size and appearance, were certainly considered a Biblical myth, that is, until its foundations were unearthed and its riches substantiated during the 19th century. Archaeologists stood in awe as their discoveries revealed that certain stories in the Bible were an actual situation that had happened in time.

http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaHistory_of_Babylonia.htm

I reposted this excerpt for those who did not read it the first time.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Again, no historic proof, not a shred, that the Exodus ever occured. First gross error made by many clerics, and Cecil B DeMille ( ) was that Moses parted the Red Sea. It was the Reed Sea, a shallow body of water in the Delta Region of the Nile.

Get the cobwebs out of your brains.

This was why the pharaoh was so reluctant to let the wonderful SLAVES go! And the Pyramids... well they all built themselves! Out of the bountiful money of the Egyptian treasury. How nice. You have all this evidence yourself? Egypt never had wars and never had to deal with unruly populations of varying ethnic unrest? According to the Bible Egypt certainly DID changed their tune when it came to enslaving the Hebrew people.

You are just saying the exact opposite of what the Bible says.

That makes your assumption sinister at best.

Some Egyptian slaves were executed and buried with their owners "to accompany them into the afterlife"...

Now how is that for a life of servitude?

Profiles: Slave Trade

INTRODUCTION

Slavery has existed in various forms throughout most of recorded history, and Africa has not been an exception. From ancient Egypt to the European invasions to even as late as the 20th century, Africa has had a particularly long and harrowing history of slavery. Although the transatlantic slave trade is prominent in the history books, slavery existed and sometimes flourished in Africa long before. In fact, slavery was practiced all over Africa: in many areas there were large-scale slave societies, while in others there were slave-owning societies

In ancient Egypt and Nubia slavery existed but it was not a dominant fixture. Slavery in Egypt took many forms; from household and pastoral (for farming), to military. Household slaves would often be integrated to varying degrees with the families of their owners, so that boys would be raised to the status of adopted sons and women as concubines or wives who gave birth to heirs. Egyptian slaves were also known to have been executed to accompany their deceased owners into the afterlife. There was later an increase in slavery with the enslavement of the Hebrews in pharaoh Egypt.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002739/AfricaSite/lmslaveryintro.htm

And of course, Wikipedia today can't be trusted either, only when it proves a contrary point.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

RexRed wrote:
... Years ago the world thought Babylon was myth until the city was dug up in the desert ...

Oh, bullshit. There's hardly a city of antiquity with a longer, stronger, unbroken written history both of its own and as referenced in other cultures, more catalogued archaeologic evidence, and just plain all-around provenance than Babylon. You've been called on that particular lie before, yet whether through ignorance or conscious duplicity, you continue to forward the ludicrous absurdity, leading the sentient to no other conclusion but that you are abysmally ignorant, incredibly gullible, intententionally dishonest, or some combination thereof. By your continuation of the presenting of that particular bit of silly misinformation you destroy any credibility and worthyness of notice you might ever have had; whether you are a fraud or are the dupe of frauds is at once irrelevant and immaterial in light of the fact you present, endorse, and perpetuate blatant fraud.

Which makes it all the more preposterous for Isaiah to predict it's complete and utter downfall.

0 Replies

http://touregypt.net/featurestories/slaves.htm

Excerpt:
In effect, almost anyone under the authority of an absolute ruler such as a pharaoh might in some degree be considered a slave.

Comment:
So the whole country was considered slaves, so how much more were non citizens considered slaves?

Another excerpt:
For ancient Egypt, a better, or at least more precise definition of a slave might be a "person owned by a master,

Comment: Well, duh...

Twisted linguistics...

0 Replies

Rex, you gotta get better sources. Babylon's existence, location, wealth, power, and influence has not been questioned by any legitimate scholar of history for around 6 millenia.

Neo, you might have a point were Isaiah to have mentioned anything indicative of Alexander and/or Seleucia.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Rex, you gotta get better sources. Babylon's existence, location, wealth, power, and influence has not been questioned by any legitimate scholar of history for around 6 millenia.

Neo, you might have a point were Isaiah to have mentioned anything indicative of Alexander and/or Seleucia.

I refer only to Babylon's current condition which may not have been forseen even in the first century. I say nothing of the fact that he mentioned Cyrus because of the (spurious) allegation that he wrote after the fact. Had he mentioned Alexander or Seleucia (entities identified without name by Daniel) someone would surely object out of need to obfuscate clear prophecy.

No, the only objection I would entertain would be that of coincidence. At that point I would begin listing other coincidental proofs. Really, the Bible is proved, not by intellectual nitpicking but by application.

0 Replies

I submit, Neo, that objective scholarship reveals Isaiah was written not by one author at one particular time but rather by a minimum of three, over a period of centuries encompassing events purportedly prophesied, and that Daniel's "fulfilled prophesies" are no such thing, but rather were written after the fact, in the 2nd Century BCE, framed as to appear to be prophesies. You might as well forget about trying to use Josephus as provenance; as a Jew, he naturally would have knowledge of and respect for the Jewish Canon, which by the time of his education and subsequent later writings had been solidly established and generally accepted.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I submit, Neo, that objective scholarship reveals Isaiah was written not by one author at one particular time but rather by a minimum of three, over a period of centuries encompassing events purportedly prophesied, and that Daniel's "fulfilled prophesies" are no such thing, but rather were written after the fact, in the 2nd Century BCE, framed as to appear to be prophesies. You might as well forget about trying to use Josephus as provenance; as a Jew, he naturally would have knowledge of and respect for the Jewish Canon, which by the time of his education and subsequent later writings had been solidly established and generally accepted.

Yeah Neo. Don't you try to cite anyone who supports your view.

We know they're biased because they support your view.

Good job, timber, O Circular One.

------------------------------------

So remember you cannot use as a source any person with any religious beliefs in a religious discussion because they are obviously biased.

The only accepted source discussing religious matters would be an atheist because he would be 'objective'.

So if you can find an atheist supporting your view, Neo...........

..........that is, the atheist must draw conclusions which are diametrically opposed to what he himself believes, well THEN you can use him as a source.

Go find that atheist that says what he believes is wrong. Go on now, git with it.

0 Replies

rl, when it comes to arguments, the one thing you've got is an army of straw men.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I submit, Neo, that objective scholarship reveals Isaiah was written not by one author at one particular time but rather by a minimum of three, over a period of centuries encompassing events purportedly prophesied, and that Daniel's "fulfilled prophesies" are no such thing, but rather were written after the fact, in the 2nd Century BCE, framed as to appear to be prophesies. You might as well forget about trying to use Josephus as provenance; as a Jew, he naturally would have knowledge of and respect for the Jewish Canon, which by the time of his education and subsequent later writings had been solidly established and generally accepted.

Which is why I have proffered only the fulfilment of Isaiah post 2nd century B.C.E. I threw in Daniel's prophecy regarding Alexander and Seleucia only because the fulfilment of that prophecy is ongoing. Besides, you said it first.

0 Replies

http://www.theserenedragon.net/Tales/babylon-sirrush.html

Was first found painted on the walls and is depicted on the Ishtar Gate of Babylon discovered (which it guarded) in 1899.

Comment:
Why would something need to be "discovered" if it was always known where it was?

http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ikvot/mystery-babylon-whats-the-mystery

Excerpt:
For years scholars, believing Babylon to have been destroyed long ago,

But during the Gulf War they discovered that ancient Babylon had never been destroyed in the way the Bible describes.

This is just an interesting link that proves many Bible stories are rooted in real places.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a005.html

Comment: Babylon needed to be rediscovered because it was thought that the city no longer existed.

Modern archaeology did not find Babylon by doing a search for it. Babylon found them when the Iraqis were selling tablets from a big mound in the desert.

Many of the tablets were being sold to tourists. Once the market was saturated with them archaeologists (German in this case) began to notice them. They could not even decipher the language which had been completely lost.

The Rosetta stone unlocked the language to them.

I read a book nearly twenty years ago that I cannot even find a mention of it on the internet.

It was written by an archaeologist not a theist.
It was a rather interesting book entitled "written in (or on) stone"

I forget the author too.

But the book focused only on the manner of writing on stone and detailed the process of baking stone in the sun or in kilns. etc.

This book told of how some in the world actually thought of Babylon as mythological until the stones showed up and made the world rethink the many wild speculations that were being preached concerning Babylon. Most of these were slams by atheists and rationalists against the integrity and accuracy of the Bible's historicity

Many lumped Babylon and the multitude of other undiscovered cities mentioned only in the Bible with Atlantis. They had to eat crow when the city was actually discovered. Their books and essays became worthless when Babylon emerged in the desert. Today atheists are in denial that they ever doubted Babylon's existence

http://home.byu.net/vll/isaiah/doctrine/Babylon-IS304-hdt1pg.pdf

Excerpt:
As the gospel restoration began in the early 1800's, the actual location of Babylon was unknown. She was eventually discovered and excavated by German archeologists in the late 1800's.

0 Replies

Rex, you keep asserting that atheists and rationalists believed Babylon was a myth but I cannot find any supporting evidence for this view. I have done multiple queries on Google and looked through several pages of each result set. Not a single web page talked about atheists or rationalists believing Babylon was a myth. Nor did any book named "Written in Stone" turn up in my searches. Please provide evidence to justify your claim or stop claiming it.

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

Rex, you keep asserting that atheists and rationalists believed Babylon was a myth but I cannot find any supporting evidence for this view.

You want evidence? There it is, right over there next to the unicorn.

0 Replies

Bible vs. Science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know