Gervin Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 What about the early Jews? There is no direct evidence for the history described in book of exodus, genesis, joshua. No direct evidence for the history described in Joshua? I would say that Joshua as history is convincingly proven wrong (although Hazor and Lachish were destroyed in the period of focus). Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible wasn't written or abridged by a prophet-historian. So the field work attests or denies and usually leaves the door ever so slightly open, subject to changing degrees of focus and discovery. That's a part of context.
Gervin Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Hume proved in the 17th century that you could not deduce moral and religious statements from objectively observable data. Philosophy 101. Never been disproved.There's nothing more to talk about here.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problemWell, Kierkegaard agreed with Hume (and more). One was a Christian and one didn't believe in God. Funny how that works.
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) No direct evidence for the history described in Joshua? I would say that Joshua as history is convincingly proven wrong (although Hazor and Lachish were destroyed in the period of focus). Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible wasn't written or abridged by a prophet-historian. There is no conclusive evidence that King David had an empire, let alone a huge powerful empire. There is no direct evidence for the history described in the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus. I am going to quote a website that critics my church, I do not agree with the website, but it is true that there is no conclusive evidence. ...archeological evidence provides inadequate support for the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites and the genocide that they, according to their own account, allegedly practiced on the previous inhabitants.Archaeological evidence does not establish that the destructions of Jericho, Hazor, and Gibeon were the work of invaders, let alone the same invaders (the Israelites).In fact, at site after site, firm negatives face the cities and walls Joshua supposedly stormed. Archaeology reveals that Jericho's walls were flattened centuries before Joshua came along! Biblical historian Robin Fox writes, "After 1320 BC there may have been a fair-sized village, but nothing like a city or an impregnable wall. After 1300 the place was not settled at all; on the usual dating of the Exodus and Conquest (circa 1250 - 1230 BC), the Israelites would not even have needed to blow a trumpet to take the site by storm."[3]Similarly, a fortunate find in 1973 dated the ruin of Lachish (see Joshua 10:32) conclusively to the reign of Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses III (circa 1194 - 1163 BC), far too late for a conquest by Joshua. Several other sites in Palestine, named in the books of Joshua and Judges, either show no signs of walled urban settlement during Joshua's time, or they show no signs of a single wave of common destruction.[4]So much for the declaration, at the end of the chapter, that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Here's a short list of some other historical events in the Bible that should be supported by archaeological evidence, but aren'tThere are no Egyptian records of the events of the Exodus, had they happened as described in the Bible. The confrontation with the Israelites, the natural disasters, the pursuit of the Israelites, and the drowning of the Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea are all events that could not have escaped the notice of any Egyptian chronicler.Joshua's telling the Sun to stop moving across the sky (Joshua 10:12-14) should be recorded in numerous existing chronicles; it would have happened around 1240 BC, when there were scribes at work not only in Egypt and Mesopotamia, but also in ancient Turkey and Crete.In the Book of Jonah, we find that Jonah got the people of the Assyrian capital of Nineveh to repent of their sins. This remarkable event is not confirmed anywhere else in the Bible, nor in the chronicles and libraries of Nineveh or any neighboring city.The massacre of baby boys ordered by Herod (Matthew 2) is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, or by any outside historians, some of whom describe Herod in great detail.The Star of Bethlehem (Matthew 2) is also mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, and historical evidence contradicts the generally accepted birthdate for Jesus as 4 BC. We know from Roman history that Halley's comet appeared over Rome in 12 BC when the famous commander Marcus Agrippa died, and Chinese astronomical records allege a comet appearing at that time, which might explain a moving, not fixed, star guiding the Wise Men to Bethlehem. It's likely that Matthew's story isn't history but rather was constructed from messianic prophecies, and the Wise Men were added as another legend.How could Jesus (according to Luke) be born at a time when a census was ordered by Caesar Augustus, when Quirinius governed Syria and Herod ruled the Jews? Historical evidence says that Herod's rule ended in 4 BC and the census did not occur until 6 AD when Quirinius was governing Syria Edited February 28, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible wasn't written or abridged by a prophet-historian Guess what We do not find Book of Mormon names in Maya inscriptions for two reasons. First, few inscriptions are contemporary with the Book of Mormon. Second, they come from cities that are not considered by Latter-day Saint scholars to have been Nephite. If the vast majority of names refer to the kings and queens of a particular location and that location is not Nephite, we have little hope of finding a reference to a Nephite name there. Now how do you respond to post 102? Edited February 28, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker
mfbukowski Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible wasn't written or abridged by a prophet-historian. There's the problem right there.
mfbukowski Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Well, Kierkegaard agreed with Hume (and more). One was a Christian and one didn't believe in God. Funny how that works.Virtually everyone agreed with Hume regardless of being Christian or not. THAT's the way logic works. Even Christians can be logical. 3
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 how so? It seems you can't respond, what a double standard!
mfbukowski Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) It seems you can't respond, what a double standard!It seems that he is not following the various arguments. He's a bright guy- that's not the problem, maybe he just doesn't want to see their validity. Being Christian has nothing to do with understanding Hume's logic and being able to debate it with reason, but he won't or can't. He also does not seem to know much about what scholars actually have found concerning biblical authorship and what a total mess it is. I mean even that great scholarly journal wikipedia presents a clear understanding of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible When one understands the true origins of what has been defined as "scripture"- by men in various councils- the alleged "problems" of the Book of Abraham melt away into the dust. Scripture is what you individually want to accept as inspired. That is ultimately the bottom line. And that is what makes our position so strong. EV's typically attack us for accepting the "burning in the bosom" as evidence of scripture not realizing what a weak position theirs really is. And then believing that because the Bible names "real" place names- therefore it is the "Word of God"- in the face of not even knowing who half the authors were or their motivations- their position becomes ridiculous. They don't usually even HAVE the argument that "testimonies are real" and so they have no logical basis whatsoever to argue for scriptural authenticity as being theologically the "word of God". Upon final analysis- they indeed HAVE testimonies and take it all on faith, just as much as we do, because their rational arguments just aren't. So really we have nothing to criticize them for- they believe for the same reasons we do! But it is a pity that they usually do not understand that at all. They think their "arguments" make their position more "rational" but really they do not have a leg to stand on from a "rational" perspective. Edited March 1, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 The other inconsistency in their position is also obvious in that they accept what is believed to be scientific "archaeology" as evidence for the Bible while denying scientific evidence for everything else, like the Fall and the Flood, the age of the earth, etc. And then they ignore the scholarly literature about Biblical authorship while affirming alleged archaeological evidence like place names etc. Go figure.
Gervin Posted March 15, 2015 Posted March 15, 2015 Hello? "Hello. This is Gervin. I'm sorry I can't come to the thread right now, but if you'll leave your name and question, I'll be glad to get back to you as soon as I'm able. Thanks, and have a great day." 1
bcuzbcuz Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Maybe it's just the nature of philosophy. Philosophy is ALWAYS "just made up" but it changes the world and the way we see it. So does science, really. The where and when of scientific discoveries have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they are "true". Water boiled at 212 degrees F in 8749 BCE and does today. It boils at that temperature in Jerusalem, Cairo, and Peoria and always has.No, you are, in fact, incorrect. Water will boil at 100* C in those three places.....but will only START boiling at 100* C in Cairo. In Peoria, it will start boiling around 99 degrees. In Jerusalem it will boil at around 94 degrees celsius. (What these temperatures are in F you´ll have to calculate yourself) But you are correct that these boiling temperatures would be the same, regardless of the date. (Although there will be no record of people boiling water in Peoria in 8749 BCE )
mfbukowski Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) ..you are correct that these boiling temperatures would be the same, regardless of the dateThanks. It's especially hard for temperatures to be correct before they were even invented though, but I don't think you could handle that idea. Of course you do not realize that the Gumplick of teflopin is 375892 Quid. That is an eternal truth that has not been discovered yet, at least not on this planet. Edited March 17, 2015 by mfbukowski
bcuzbcuz Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Thanks. It's especially hard for temperatures to be correct before they were even invented though, but I don't think you could handle that idea. Of course you do not realize that the Gumplick of teflopin is 375892 Quid. That is an eternal truth that has not been discovered yet, at least not on this planet.The answer is 42. 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 "Hello. This is Gervin. I'm sorry I can't come to the thread right now, but if you'll leave your name and question, I'll be glad to get back to you as soon as I'm able. Thanks, and have a great day." That is why I though, are you afraid to debate me?
Gervin Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) That is why I though, are you afraid to debate me? Yes, I'm afraid to debate you. Edited March 21, 2015 by Gervin 2
mfbukowski Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 The answer is 42.You forgot to carry the 1. Neener neener.
Vance Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) No, you are, in fact, incorrect. Water will boil at 100* C in those three places.....but will only START boiling at 100* C in Cairo. In Peoria, it will start boiling around 99 degrees. In Jerusalem it will boil at around 94 degrees celsius. (What these temperatures are in F you´ll have to calculate yourself) But you are correct that these boiling temperatures would be the same, regardless of the date. (Although there will be no record of people boiling water in Peoria in 8749 BCE )The boiling point of water is a function of both temperature and pressure. But then again, temperature is defined by the freezing point and boiling point of water at sea level pressure. So. Around and around we go. So, if the pressure is lower than at sea level, like say any altitude above sea level, then the boiling temperature of water is reduced. If pressure is reduce enough, water will boil at room temperature. THAT is why you should NEVER leave your space ship WITHOUT your space suit. The water in you body will boil, which by all accounts, would adversely affect your health. If we assume that the atmospheric pressure at sea level has not changed over time, then we can also assume that the boiling temperature of water has not change over time. Do we really know that these types of scientific assumptions are valid. No. Even scientists must have faith. Edited March 23, 2015 by Vance
strappinglad Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) I have recently come upon an ancient tablet which shows the temperature scale of liquid water as understood in Peoria at around 8000 BCE . I have translated into English for those unfamiliar with the original. Holy Smokes Yeeouch Very very hot Very hot Hot Quite warm Warm Warmish Bland Cool Cold Very Cold Icy Cryminitly Note : scientist believe it ran on a logarithmic scale similar to the bel scale from 0 to 14 Edited March 23, 2015 by strappinglad 2
mfbukowski Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I have recently come upon an ancient tablet which shows the temperature scale of liquid water as understood in Peoria at around 8000 BCE . I have translated into English for those unfamiliar with the original.Holy SmokesYeeouchVery very hotVery hotHotQuite warmWarmWarmishBlandCoolColdVery ColdIcyCryminitlyNote : scientist believe it ran on a logarithmic scale similar to the bel scale from 0 to 14firesteamlay down too sweaty to worksweaty like runningsweatygoodput on robetwo robeswater stops3 robesetc. That reminds of that old group Three Dog Night!
Ahab Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 For those who may have missed it, Ed posted earlier in this thread.
Recommended Posts