FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


JESUS' burial site found!!! - Not resurrected!?





LovE-RicH
Quote:

Please read the rules concerning the use of quote tags for pasted material



From: TIME MAGAZINE

Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.

In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.

Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.
Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.

There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God.

But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.

Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. News about the film, which will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain's Channel 4, Canada's Vision, and Israel's Channel 8, has been a hot blog topic in the Middle East. Here in the Holy Land, Biblical Archeology is a dangerous profession. This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics. Stay tuned.
--Tim McGirk/Jerusalem
Soulfire
1) Add Quote Tags
2) Add an opinion

Yeah, it's been told before - do you honestly think some eccentric man's unfounded claims are going to "sink" Christianity?
Indi
I heard this from a friend a couple days ago, and we were both pretty drunk at the time so I thought he was kidding me. ^_^; But there it is! On Time's website! What a world. ^_^;

Seriously dude, this is belongs in the same category of news as all that Anna Nicole Smith crap - it's not so much about Christianity as it is about the declining mental health of a major Hollywood director. Just when I started thinking he had good judgement for walking away from T3 he does this! Or hey maybe he's not crazy and he took a page from Dan Brown's book, and he's tryin to cash in on the Christians in the most exploitive way possible?

Alright, enough making fun of Jimbo, let's consider the facts of the claim.

First problem - contemporary historians don't really have any "facts" about Jesus that Cameron can compare his "evidence" to. We aren't even sure that Jesus even existed, let alone what his family structure might have been like and who he might be buried with. We don't know where he lived or where he might be buried, if he's buried at all. Most Christians and some Muslims believe he ascended, other Muslims don't - some think he lived to a ripe old age in India. Who's right, if any? No one can say. Until some theory can be reasonably determined to be factual, Cameron would basically be using one unproven theory to prove another unproven theory. Go Jimmy.

When I first read this, I almost busted something internally laughing: "film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests..." What the hell? ^_^; What are they gonna use as the baseline DNA, the shroud of Turin? ^_^;

Then Indi pointed out to me that what it might mean is that Jim used the DNA of the bodies in the crypt to determine their family relations - to prove that "Jesua" is actually the father of "Judah", and one of the "Mary"s is his mother. Possible, but pointless. Those are common names, and just cause the family structure seems the same doesn't mean that it's THE Jesus and Mary.

But that's assuming that he can even get DNA off 2000 year old bodies. ^_^; These aren't embalmed and mummified Egyptian corpses, these are from the neighborhood of Jerusalem. They oiled em, wrapped em, and stuck em in a tomb in Middle Eastern climates. There's nothing left but dusty bones. DNA from where?

Honestly man, if I was a Christian, I wouldn't even give this dude any attention - but you just know that millions of Christians are gonna line the dude's pockets just because they want to see what he said. It's unfortunate really, and it's just gonna encourage the next wag to cash in on Christian insecurity. I'd suggest not payin for it and just downloading it... but a good Christian shouldn't be doin that. ^_^; Oh well. ^_^;
The Conspirator
They said they used DNA evidence to prove that it was Jesus tomb? Thats imposable we don't even have a sample of DNA that belongs to or some one related too Jesus and the chance that DNA would survive 2000 years is very, very small.

And as the article said Jesus family did not have the money for such a tomb and the names where common then, there.
doeshereallyloveme
heh heh - I love that bit too! We used hi-tech DNA analysis to prove that it is Jesus and His family. In other words, they have found a Jewish family with a guy called Jesus in it, and Mary. If you've got a family with an Elizabeth and Philip in it, does that mean you're royal? Jesus was incredibly common a name.

I'm sure the Jews at the time would have pointed out to the world that Jesus' body was physically on the earth after his supposed resurrection. Why did they neglect to expose the hoax?

Simple: because they couldn't.
LovE-RicH
doeshereallyloveme wrote:
heh heh - I love that bit too! We used hi-tech DNA analysis to prove that it is Jesus and His family. In other words, they have found a Jewish family with a guy called Jesus in it, and Mary. If you've got a family with an Elizabeth and Philip in it, does that mean you're royal? Jesus was incredibly common a name.

I'm sure the Jews at the time would have pointed out to the world that Jesus' body was physically on the earth after his supposed resurrection. Why did they neglect to expose the hoax?

Simple: because they couldn't.


Check the video clips, Jacobivici also says that the names were common then, but than says why all of a sudden they started taking the graves seriously: Video clips

Claims about Jesus’ ‘lost tomb’ stir up tempest
Reconstructing the tomb of Christ
The Lost Tomb of Christ - on Discovery Channel
The Lost Tomb of Jesus - official site --> TRAILER FOR THE DOCUMENTARY!
jwellsy
The documentary will be on the Discovery channel.
It should be interesting.
My cable system lists it starting March 4th at 8pm for 2hours.

The argument that Jesus was too poor to afford such burials
doesn't hold any water at all.
He had thousands (if not 10's of thousands) of followers.
Raising money and favors would not have been a problem.

The DNA samples may verify the family structure of the remains.
To not perform a DNA study would be negligent.

They did several statistical analysis on the probability of the
clustering of these particular names being congregated in one tomb.

I'm surprised the Catholic church has not already purchased the boxes
and not filed them away in the Vatican vaults.


The implication that Muslims may be correct in saying that
'Jesus was only a prophet'
is staggering.

Christians would have to start looking for a new Tablet.
People will never believe it no matter what kind of evidence is found.
That is the fundamental definition of belief.


On another note,
the History channel on March 2nd is having a show called
'In the footsteps of Jesus: The Lost Youth of Jesus'
That's another issue that people don't talk about.

A great way to find out when it's on in your area is to use http://www.titantv.com .
It's a great free TV listing service for your pc.
Sign up for a free account there, then do a search for 'Jesus'
you'll have a list of every show for the next 2 weeks that references Jesus.
I keep one of my browser tabs dedicated for TitanTV.
Tiger
I'm sure that the documentary will be well put together and interesting to watch. The problem is that there are just too many suppositions and theories. Of course, I haven't seen the documentary yet, so it's a good idea to discuss this further after seeing it.

But still, there are just too many questions and it's unlikely we'll get conclusive answer anytime soon.

As for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre - it was allegedly built on the site of Jesus exection (death) and burial in 335. This 'fact' was supposedly established by Constantine's the Great's mother and was based on tradition.

For one thing it's extremely unlikely Jesus was buried there, since the Romans didn't bury crimanls at the spot of their execution as far as we know. What about Joseph of Arimathea, a welathy man and member of the Sanhedrin who took the body of Jesus away for burial in his own tomb?

There are just too many questions and too few answers, more so now after 2000 years. Not to mention the fact that it's not in the interests of certain religious groups for people to know the real truth.
stone1343
This won't sink Christianity. Look how they deny evolution today. If a piece of information (notice I didn't call it a "fact") stands against what they believe, they'll just ignore it. The faithful will go on believing.

Some may actually use this as proof of a historical Jesus, even if the theology doesn't match.

On the other extreme, you have people who don't even believe in a historical Jesus. Even if you really can decipher the scratches to be sure it says "Jesus son of Joseph" (in all seriousness, how well do we know Aramaic, and could it actually mean "Jesus's son, Joseph"?), it doesn't mean we have the biblical Jesus.

I think at best, all we have here is a box that belonged to somebody named Jesus.

I seem to remember a story a few years ago about archaeologists who were excited because they claimed to have found the biblical wedding where Jesus turned water into wine. All it really turned out to have been, at best, was a wedding from about Jesus' time. But there would have been tons of weddings, how can anyone have the audacity to claim to have found THE wedding?
jwellsy
I want to know how they got the bodies into those little boxes.
If they only put bones in the boxes, what happened to the rest of the flesh?
Citizen Kane
I think James Cameron is a clever man. Making money in an obscure way, taunting at the mysteries of life...

His pockets are large already ($$$), now they will even grow larger.

What would Jesus think of this?
Aredon
jwellsy wrote:

The DNA samples may verify the family structure of the remains.
To not perform a DNA study would be negligent.

Yeah, so you prove its a family, once again what proof do you have that it holds the remains of the christ described in ANY religion? There is nothing to compare it with so DNA is void. Basicaly, you found a tomb, proved it was a family. Aside from that if it was his family what happened to the slew of brothers he had, there should have been well over 10 bodies in that tomb if its going to fit the story they are trying to tie it to. Prove to me it was christ himself in that tomb and I'll listen.
HereticMonkey
1)
stone1343 wrote:
This won't sink Christianity. Look how they deny evolution today. If a piece of information (notice I didn't call it a "fact") stands against what they believe, they'll just ignore it. The faithful will go on believing.

You may want to consider that the anti-evolution stance is pretty much limited to a minority of Christians before ascribing it to ALL Christians...

2) The tomb had apparently been found in 1996 and discredited then...Further Info. Thought it was interesting, but...Poor Cameron...

HM
Moonspider
jwellsy wrote:

I'm surprised the Catholic church has not already purchased the boxes
and not filed them away in the Vatican vaults.


I'm not. No one takes this claim seriously. It is very poor academics and science.

Respectfully,
M
ainieas
Wasn't there quite a furor over finding the gospel of Judas sometime back. Did it make any difference to anyone?
LovE-RicH
Here's an interesting clip on the subject from FOX NEWS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-j1Z-pWNv0
Aredon
heh, interesting and fox news in the same setence.
divinitywolf
ha thats quite funny!
yeah you know what i think? I think that the tomb of jesus is that of some random bloke called jesus because i dont belive jesus actually existed or if he did he was just someone going around helping people, not the son of god or miracle maker.
Whats the point in delving into the past. Maybe some things are best left alone. If you think about it finding out whether jesus is actually jesus will cause more bad than good. Many debates, people getting angry and riots, protests.
I say Leave The Past Alone! The Planets probably gonna die soon anyway so what does it matter.
Jinx
I saw the special Sunday night, and it was interesting. I wouldn't say it was 100% convincing, as all of the evedence was circumstantial, based on the odds of finding a family group containing exactly that configuration of names. But they were only able to obtain DNA samples from two of the ossuaries (Jesus and Mariamne), and because it was mitochondrial DNA they were only able to prove that the two sets of remains were not related maternaly (not brother/sister or mother/son), and becauase they were found in a family tomb, but not maternally related, they assume that they must have been married (but what if one of them was adopted into the family?)
Also, they use the fact the Mariamne is a very rare form of Mary, and that it was the form used for Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Philip, as the only evidence that the bones from that ossuary were Mary Magdelen's.

The bones from the ossuaries were reburied in an unmarked location after thier discovery in 1980 according to Jewish tradition, so it would be impossible to do any further DNA testing to check for other family relationships.

The documentary also mentioned that the ossuarry of Simon bar Judah has been found (under a monestary on the Mount of Olives I believe), suggesting that the Vatican wasn't litterally built on the 'rock'. (Simon was nicknamed 'Rock' /Petros/Peter by Jesus, who said that 'Simon bar Jonah, you are the rock upon which my church will be built.' (or words to that effect).
Jinx
jwellsy wrote:
I want to know how they got the bodies into those little boxes.
If they only put bones in the boxes, what happened to the rest of the flesh?


The bodies would have been laid out in 'burial niches' which are basically stone shelves in the wall. They would lie there and decompose until only bones were left. When space was needed for the next burial, the dry bones would be transfered in to an ossuary and stored in a small side tunnel, so that the shelf could be used for the next family member.

Stone ossuaries like the ones in the documentary were only used for a period of about a hundred years right around the time of Jesus.
jwellsy
Jinx, Thanks for posting that.
The show did a pretty good job of explaining that.
I think that would have been horribly gross.
I can understand why that custom only lasted about 100 years.

Then again,
tombstones as we know them today
have only been widely used for a little over 100 years.
There are very few grave markers from before 1900.
And, I can't remember ever seeing one dated prior to 1800.

I wonder how long wood was used as grave markers.
It's interesting how trial and error can influence cultural norms.
Jinx
Actually, while the stone ossuarys were only used for a short time, the practice of moving bones to make room for the more recently deceased was pretty widespread.
In Hamlet, the "Alas poor Yorrick" scene (if I remember correctly) took place because Hamlet was visiting the graveyard when Yorrick's bones were being dis-intered to be moved to a charnel house.
That was the practice in England and Europe, especially in the more heavily populated areas, because burial space was hard to come by.
I recall seeing a documentary years ago that talked about the practice of painting skulls before they were placed in the charnel house (which was basically a large mausoleum where bones were stacked).
I'm not sure if this still goes on today, or not.
jwellsy
I think your right. It probably does still go on today in different forms.
In Paris the cemetery plots are mainly rented
then the remains have to be moved.
I wanted to see the Catacombs in Paris a couple of years ago.
But they were closed on the day went there.

Still, that would have to be one of the worst jobs on the planet
exhuming human remains.
arowphin
1. They have absolutely no DNA "evidence"!

2. They where extremely common names!

3. There are over 400 historically supported sights of Jesus, after His Resurrection.

4. This same guy claimed to have found the skull of Jesus, back a few years ago, which was disproven as this "discovery" soon will be. So any claims he makes can not be trusted!

5. Question: Why would the early Christians have died and suffered persecution for a god they knew was dead? Answer: They didn't! Who would die for a lie? Would you? Of course you wouldn't.

6. If Jesus married Marry Magdelene, why would we not have that information in any historical, reliable source? (Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is not a historical, reliable source.)

This claim is historically unsound, wrong, and absolutely does not disprove the Christian Faith. If I were you I would pay no attention to it!
Indi
arowphin wrote:
5. Question: Why would the early Christians have died and suffered persecution for a god they knew was dead? Answer: They didn't! Who would die for a lie? Would you? Of course you wouldn't.

The first Christians who were persecuted and died were not born until after Jesus' alleged death. Besides, if you're going to take the bible as fact, it is stated in the bible that Jesus only appeared to a handful of people - his own disciples mostly - after his very public execution. Therefore most early Christians saw their god die (or got very strong evidence that he did from others who witnessed it), and got only the word of a handful of fanatics that he was resurrected. So even if you buy the bible story, your question still stands.

arowphin wrote:
6. If Jesus married Marry Magdelene, why would we not have that information in any historical, reliable source? (Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is not a historical, reliable source.)

What information do we have of Jesus in any historical, reliable source? If your standards for historical reliability are high enough to exclude Dan Brown, you're on the right track.
HereticMonkey
Indi wrote:

What information do we have of Jesus in any historical, reliable source? If your standards for historical reliability are high enough to exclude Dan Brown, you're on the right track.


In a very obvious attempt to slap down a stupid fight before it happens...

There is no way to prove with 100% certainty whether or not Jesus actually existed. Even using sources that had no interest in Jesus' existence one way or the other, you run into the following two problems:

a) There are no strong direct references to Jesus.
b) There are a large number of indirect references to Jesus.

In essence, his footprints are all over the place, but you just can't find the guy himself...

HM
The Conspirator
arowphin wrote:
1. They have absolutely no DNA "evidence"!

Yes!

Quote:
2. They where extremely common names!

Yes!

Quote:
3. There are over 400 historically supported sights of Jesus, after His Resurrection.

No. There is no historical evidence for Jesus.

[quote]4. This same guy claimed to have found the skull of Jesus, back a few years ago, which was disproven as this "discovery" soon will be. So any claims he makes can not be trusted![/qupte]
I don't think he was involved in the James Ossuary forgery.

Quote:
5. Question: Why would the early Christians have died and suffered persecution for a god they knew was dead? Answer: They didn't! Who would die for a lie? Would you? Of course you wouldn't.

Irrelevant! People are willing to die for anything. And the persecution started long after the supposed death of Jesus.

Quote:
6. If Jesus married Marry Magdelene, why would we not have that information in any historical, reliable source? (Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is not a historical, reliable source.)

Irrelevant! There is no evidence ether way that they were married.
The Conspirator
The Conspirator wrote:
arowphin wrote:
1. They have absolutely no DNA "evidence"!

Yes!

Quote:
2. They where extremely common names!

Yes!

Quote:
3. There are over 400 historically supported sights of Jesus, after His Resurrection.

No. There is no historical evidence for Jesus.

Quote:
4. This same guy claimed to have found the skull of Jesus, back a few years ago, which was disproven as this "discovery" soon will be. So any claims he makes can not be trusted!

I don't think he was involved in the James Ossuary forgery.

Quote:
5. Question: Why would the early Christians have died and suffered persecution for a god they knew was dead? Answer: They didn't! Who would die for a lie? Would you? Of course you wouldn't.

Irrelevant! People are willing to die for anything. And the persecution started long after the supposed death of Jesus.

Quote:
6. If Jesus married Marry Magdelene, why would we not have that information in any historical, reliable source? (Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is not a historical, reliable source.)

Irrelevant! There is no evidence ether way that they were married.
HereticMonkey
[Rolls up paper]

Bad Conspirator! Bad! Just after I tried to spike that debate by compromise, too...

The problem is that a almost every historian has a reference to Jesus. However, Judea was considered such a backwater town that Zeus himself could have manifested, fought an invasion of cyclops, raped the entire population, and flew off on a rainbow cloud, and it would have gotten a minor bulletin. Something like:

Some people tried to invade Judea, but were defeated. Weather: Cloudy.

So...We have a lot of references to Jesus, but none are more in-depth than pointing out that he was a reasonably famous teacher.

If it helps...
HM
arowphin
The Conspirator wrote:
arowphin wrote:

5. Question: Why would the early Christians have died and suffered persecution for a god they knew was dead? Answer: They didn't! Who would die for a lie? Would you? Of course you wouldn't.

Irrelevant! People are willing to die for anything. And the persecution started long after the supposed death of Jesus.


Indi wrote:
The first Christians who were persecuted and died were not born until after Jesus' alleged death. Besides, if you're going to take the bible as fact, it is stated in the bible that Jesus only appeared to a handful of people - his own disciples mostly - after his very public execution. Therefore most early Christians saw their god die (or got very strong evidence that he did from others who witnessed it), and got only the word of a handful of fanatics that he was resurrected. So even if you buy the bible story, your question still stands.


The Christians who were persecuted and died were born "before" and after Jesus Christ's death. All of his disciples, with the exeption of John, were martyred, Paul was martyred, Stephen was martyred, John the Baptist was martyred, and numerous other Christians were martyred, that were born before Jesus Christ's death.
Jesus appeared to over 500 people. 1 Corinthians 15:6 says, "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." so he appeared to more than his disciples and a handful of people - after his public execution. Therefore, most early Christians saw Jesus Christ's death and his resurrection!

The Conspirator wrote:
arowphin wrote:

3. There are over 500 historically supported sights of Jesus, after His Resurrection.

No. There is no historical evidence for Jesus.


Indi wrote:
What information do we have of Jesus in any historical, reliable source? If your standards for historical reliability are high enough to exclude Dan Brown, you're on the right track.


1 Corinthians 15:6 says, "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." The Bible is the most historically, reliabe book on Earth. "Nobody" has ever or will ever find any flaw, or controdictories in it! Look at "ALL" the ancient manuscripts we have! The Biggest Historical Discovery was the discovery of the dead see scrolls, which shows that the story of the Old Testament of the Bible has never ever changed! There is more manuscript evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ than there is of Julius Caesar! Name any other ancient source of antiquity that is more varifiable than the Old or New Testaments of the Bible. No other book is even in it's league.
Check-out the book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Josh McDowell set out to disprove the Bible and ended up becomeing a Christian.

The Conspirator wrote:
arowphin wrote:

4. This same guy claimed to have found the skull of Jesus, back a few years ago, which was disproven as this "discovery" soon will be. So any claims he makes can not be trusted!

I don't think he was involved in the James Ossuary forgery.


I'm sorry, I heard that on the news. They must have got that mixed up.
arowphin
The Conspirator wrote:
arowphin wrote:

5. Question: Why would the early Christians have died and suffered persecution for a god they knew was dead? Answer: They didn't! Who would die for a lie? Would you? Of course you wouldn't.

Irrelevant! People are willing to die for anything. And the persecution started long after the supposed death of Jesus.


Indi wrote:
The first Christians who were persecuted and died were not born until after Jesus' alleged death. Besides, if you're going to take the bible as fact, it is stated in the bible that Jesus only appeared to a handful of people - his own disciples mostly - after his very public execution. Therefore most early Christians saw their god die (or got very strong evidence that he did from others who witnessed it), and got only the word of a handful of fanatics that he was resurrected. So even if you buy the bible story, your question still stands.


The Christians who were persecuted and died were born "before" and after Jesus Christ's death. All of his disciples, with the exeption of John, were martyred, Paul was martyred, Stephen was martyred, John the Baptist was martyred, and numerous other Christians were martyred, that were born before Jesus Christ's death.
Jesus appeared to over 500 people. 1 Corinthians 15:6 says, "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." so he appeared to more than his disciples and a handful of people - after his public execution. Therefore, most early Christians saw Jesus Christ's death and his resurrection!

The Conspirator wrote:
arowphin wrote:

3. There are over 500 historically supported sights of Jesus, after His Resurrection.

No. There is no historical evidence for Jesus.


Indi wrote:
What information do we have of Jesus in any historical, reliable source? If your standards for historical reliability are high enough to exclude Dan Brown, you're on the right track.


1 Corinthians 15:6 says, "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." The Bible is the most historically, reliabe book on Earth. "Nobody" has ever or will ever find any flaw, or controdictories in it! Look at "ALL" the ancient manuscripts we have! The Biggest Historical Discovery was the discovery of the dead see scrolls, which shows that the story of the Old Testament of the Bible has never ever changed! There is more manuscript evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ than there is of Julius Caesar! Name any other ancient source of antiquity that is more varifiable than the Old or New Testaments of the Bible. No other book is even in it's league.
Check-out the book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Josh McDowell set out to disprove the Bible and ended up becomeing a Christian.

The Conspirator wrote:
arowphin wrote:

4. This same guy claimed to have found the skull of Jesus, back a few years ago, which was disproven as this "discovery" soon will be. So any claims he makes can not be trusted!

I don't think he was involved in the James Ossuary forgery.


I'm sorry, I heard that on the news. They must have got that mixed up.
HereticMonkey
arowphin wrote:

1 Corinthians 15:6 says, "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." The Bible is the most historically, reliabe book on Earth. "Nobody" has ever or will ever find any flaw, or controdictories in it! L

Actually, there a re a number of flaws, at least in regards to what we know at this point. But this is another debate I'm trying to avoid...

HM
arowphin
HereticMonkey wrote:
So...We have a lot of references to Jesus, but none are more in-depth than pointing out that he was a reasonably famous teacher.


Dude... read The New Testament of the Bible!
It'll tell you all you need to know about Jesus Christ.
You can't get more in depth than The New Testament of the Bible!
arowphin
HereticMonkey wrote:
Actually, there a re a number of flaws, at least in regards to what we know at this point. But this is another debate I'm trying to avoid...


Name one.
HereticMonkey
[ducks from cover as he looks nervously around for Indi or Conspirator]

Um...I'm running.

HM
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
[ducks from cover as he looks nervously around for Indi or Conspirator]

Um...I'm running.

HM

Oh I'm not sayin nothin. I don't debate stupid people. And this:
arowphin wrote:
The Bible is the most historically, reliabe book on Earth. "Nobody" has ever or will ever find any flaw, or controdictories in it! Look at "ALL" the ancient manuscripts we have! The Biggest Historical Discovery was the discovery of the dead see scrolls, which shows that the story of the Old Testament of the Bible has never ever changed! There is more manuscript evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ than there is of Julius Caesar! Name any other ancient source of antiquity that is more varifiable than the Old or New Testaments of the Bible. No other book is even in it's league.
is a sure sign that this battle isn't worth the ammunition.
HereticMonkey
Indi wrote:

Oh I'm not sayin nothin. I don't debate stupid people.


I feel sort of honored Embarassed ...

HM
The Conspirator
arowphin wrote:

The Christians who were persecuted and died were born "before" and after Jesus Christ's death. All of his disciples, with the exeption of John, were martyred, Paul was martyred, Stephen was martyred, John the Baptist was martyred, and numerous other Christians were martyred, that were born before Jesus Christ's death.


Quote:
1 Corinthians 15:6 says, "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." The Bible is the most historically, reliabe book on Earth. "Nobody" has ever or will ever find any flaw, or controdictories in it! Look at "ALL" the ancient manuscripts we have! The Biggest Historical Discovery was the discovery of the dead see scrolls, which shows that the story of the Old Testament of the Bible has never ever changed! There is more manuscript evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ than there is of Julius Caesar! Name any other ancient source of antiquity that is more varifiable than the Old or New Testaments of the Bible. No other book is even in it's league.
Check-out the book "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Josh McDowell set out to disprove the Bible and ended up becomeing a Christian.


Um, the bible is one of the most contradictory and historical accurate books there is.
Its full of contradictions. There are two contradictory story's of Jesus's birth there are many rule that contradict others.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
And its history is terrible. It gets the beginning of the earth , life and all currant species dead wrong, there no evidence for the events of the Exodus, many people in the bible there is no historical evidence for (king David, Moses), there is no historical records for the existence of Jesus, there is no historical records of any sighting of Jesus after his supposed resurrection, there is no record of the murder of children in Jerusalem's by Heired, there is no historical record of a very bright star in the sky 2000 years ago, there is no record of the sun ever staying still for a day.
HereticMonkey
D'oh. I was so hoping Conspirator was going to attack different parts...

The creation story works from a terrestrial perspective (in other words, the stars, sun and moon being created well after day and night have been created works if you realize that it could have looked that way if the clouds parted). Exodus (including Moses) is one of the most recorded events (at least from Jericho), and King David is a well-known historical figure. Jesus is still debatable (there are plenty of historical records of him, but nothing direct), but the so-called Massacre of Bethelhem is well-documented (to the point that we know that five or six infants were slain), and the celestial event not being recorded is east explain away as destroyed paperwork.

Otherwise...Sure, there are no records of the resurrection and the sun standing still. Oh, and the two different versions of his death works, as well as all the discrepancies re: The Resurrection.

Nice try, though...

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:
D'oh. I was so hoping Conspirator was going to attack different parts...

The creation story works from a terrestrial perspective (in other words, the stars, sun and moon being created well after day and night have been created works if you realize that it could have looked that way if the clouds parted).

What ? I don't follow that. What clouds ? How could a terrestrial perspective alter the facts?
The Conspirator
[quote="HereticMonkey"]D'oh. I was so hoping Conspirator was going to attack different parts...{/quote]
I'm tierd, sleeping probloms. Didn't feel like going into long details.

[quote]The creation story works from a terrestrial perspective (in other words, the stars, sun and moon being created well after day and night have been created works if you realize that it could have looked that way if the clouds parted).[/quot]
Huh?

Quote:
Exodus (including Moses) is one of the most recorded events (at least from Jericho)

Um, no. There is no evidence for the Exodus, theres no written records of the events of Exodus (there would be. they wouldn't have carved it on walls but there would be records. The priests and reality were not the only one in Egypt who knew how to write), thousands of people walking across a desert for 40 years would have left a huge footprint, its not there, and the desert could not support the amount of people in the Exodus, its a desert. There is no mention of Mosses out side the bible ether, as I've said there would have been written records.
There is no historical evidence records outside the bible, no written, no archaeological evidence.

Quote:
and King David is a well-known historical figure.

Well-known. but not historical. There is no evidence outside the bible for his existence.

Quote:
Jesus is still debatable (there are plenty of historical records of him, but nothing direct),

There is no evidence out side the bible for the existence of Jesus. There is no records of the existence of Jesus. If he existed you would expect there to be.

Quote:
but the so-called Massacre of Bethelhem is well-documented (to the point that we know that five or six infants were slain),

No, there is no documentation out side the bible.

If your aware of any records of there outside of the bible, post them.

Quote:
and the celestial event not being recorded is east explain away as destroyed paperwork.

There would be records, not just on one part of the earth but any where writing exists but there is none. Compound that with the contradictory and mutely exclusive story in Luke.

Quote:
Otherwise...Sure, there are no records of the resurrection

Not only is there no evidence, its just not plausible, and I don't mean from a scientific persecutive, I mean, think about it, you had Jesus executed, then you hear that his tomb is found open and his body is gone and that he has been resurrected. Whats the first thing you think? "Oh he was brought back to life" or "Crap. He's escaped!"? The second one of corse then you would have the people who crucified him arrested and interrogated to find out who bribed them and have his friends arrested and interrogated to find him and execute him, again. And that didn't happen, it was not said to have happened.
arowphin
I will try my best to answer these questions.
I have to do some more research, first.
I'm only in eighth grade, so im not an expert on anything, but I know my Bible.

And, I suggest for The Conspirator to do some more research too!
I gave him all the facts, so did HereticMonkey, and he still wont listen!

If you want to find anything in or about The Bible, go to www.crosswalk.com

There's a search engine there to help you find anything in The Bible. The link for the search engine is http://bible.crosswalk.com/
arowphin
HereticMonkey wrote:
D'oh. I was so hoping Conspirator was going to attack different parts...

The creation story works from a terrestrial perspective (in other words, the stars, sun and moon being created well after day and night have been created works if you realize that it could have looked that way if the clouds parted). Exodus (including Moses) is one of the most recorded events (at least from Jericho), and King David is a well-known historical figure. Jesus is still debatable (there are plenty of historical records of him, but nothing direct), but the so-called Massacre of Bethelhem is well-documented (to the point that we know that five or six infants were slain), and the celestial event not being recorded is east explain away as destroyed paperwork.

Otherwise...Sure, there are no records of the resurrection and the sun standing still. Oh, and the two different versions of his death works, as well as all the discrepancies re: The Resurrection.

Nice try, though...

HM


Thanks for helping me out, HereticMonkey!
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
D'oh. I was so hoping Conspirator was going to attack different parts...

The creation story works from a terrestrial perspective (in other words, the stars, sun and moon being created well after day and night have been created works if you realize that it could have looked that way if the clouds parted).

What ? I don't follow that. What clouds ? How could a terrestrial perspective alter the facts?

It doesn't. And he knows that. It's been pointed out to him twice.

Indi in http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-518481.html#518481 wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Absolute crap. Ignoring the fact that it all apparently happened in a matter of days, because apparently it's ok to consider the "days" allegorical but not the rest of it (selective interpretation), the chronology is flawed.

Third "day": oceans and continents are created.
Fourth "day": the stars and sun are created.

Gee...I'm supposed to listen to you, but you don't have to listen to me? How convenient for you...
a) I've said multiple times that they aren't literal days. Again: They aren't literal 24-hr periods of the planet rotating on its axis.
b) Not bad: One event out of order. And it's one that's up to interpretation: The Sun had already been created (the day had already been split into day and night). Then the firmament and then heaven (you needed Earth to spew forth clouds of material to create an atmosphere, and then you can see the stars and sun when the clouds settle down). I see no contradiction...

1.) i explicitly said i was going to accept that assumption, as ridiculous as it is. Note the quotes around the "day"s there?
2.) a] Two "days" wrong out of six. That's lousy stats, man.
b] You have described the formation of Earth wrong. There was a period when the Earth was pretty much a barren rock with the stars clearly visible through a thin atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium - then rainfalls began - then the oceans formed.
c] Your "interpretation" is wrong.

And you weren't satisfied with what i've already proven wrong? Then consider this:
Second "day": waters of Earth are created and separated from Heaven.
Third "day": land is created.

We know this is wrong because the land formed first from coallescing stellar matter as magma, then cooled to a solid crust, then water collected in the dips to form the oceans. In other words, land first, then water. Wrong again.

That's three "day"s out of six wrong. It's getting worse.

But wait, there's more!
Fifth "day": Air and sea creatures are created.
Sixth "day": Land creatures are created (including humans).

But "air creatures" (presumably birds, but even flying bugs evolved from crawling bugs) evolved from land creatures. First came "sea creatures", then some crawled on land, then some of those took flight. Once again, wrong.

Crap on a stick! That's five days out of the six demonstratably wrong! And the only day left is just the separation of "light" from "darkness", which is meaningless drivel in physics anyway. So even that day is questionable and only gets away because it's so vague and non-sensical it can't be discussed without extreme interpretation.

And it was repeated here, when he raised the same ridiculous claim again.

"A terrestrial perspective" indeed. There was no "terrestrial" until long after the stars and the sun were created. At that point it was merely imaginary - which would suggest that when the phrase "terrestrial perspective" is used, iit actually means "imaginary perspective". To that i can't argue. The whole creation story only makes sense from an imaginary perspective.
Bikerman
Indi wrote:
"A terrestrial perspective" indeed. There was no "terrestrial" until long after the stars and the sun were created. At that point it was merely imaginary - which would suggest that when the phrase "terrestrial perspective" is used, iit actually means "imaginary perspective". To that i can't argue. The whole creation story only makes sense from an imaginary perspective.
Ahh...now that makes sense and explains it perfectly. My fault, I forgot my universal translator Wink

C.
HereticMonkey
Bikerman wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
D'oh. I was so hoping Conspirator was going to attack different parts...

The creation story works from a terrestrial perspective (in other words, the stars, sun and moon being created well after day and night have been created works if you realize that it could have looked that way if the clouds parted).

What ? I don't follow that. What clouds ? How could a terrestrial perspective alter the facts?


1) A terrestrial perspective doesn't affect the facts in the least; it merely provides a perspective in which the verses can be interpreted as being true. Note that it was done merely as an intellectual exercise; as any who have read my posts know (I hope), I'm more for reading The Bible not as a literal history, but as metaphorical guidelines. Even when I've argued certain items as historical facts, I've only argued those specific facts as a means of pointing out that The Bible does have some basis in history and is an excellent source of finding things have been lost, but only in the same sense of an allegorical novel that uses history as its backdrop can be used to find things that have been lost.

So...Is that clear as mud or what?

2) The basic timeline would be thus:

The Big Bang would have happened, which threw off the base particles and light (Let there be light). After a few billion years or so, the dust that made up our solar system cooled, with the sun in the center and the planets around it. Eventually, the Earth becomes solid, and rotates (thus separating the Night from Day). Eventually, due to volcanism, the Earth gained an atmosphere, (thus creating a firmament (or atmosphere) that separated the waters above (the clouds that encircled the planet) from the water below (the little standing water). Suffice to say, soon the rains would fall down, covering the earth.

Eventually the oceans would be formed (gathering all of the waters into one place), creating dry land. Also, somewhere in here, the original cyanalgae (sp) formed (thus the plants were introduced; this is the major problem (fruit-bearing plants and grasses were supposed be to be here, but they were still in the chutes)). At the same time, this would eventually clear the skies, allowing the Sun, Moon, and stars to shine through (thus from a terrestrial perspective it would have appeared that the Sun, Moon, and stars would have just been formed).

After that, evolution kicks in. The algae eventually evolves up the chain, from one-celled critters to multi-celled on up, leading to the fish and insects would have been created first (a number of translations have the creatures in the sea, and the creatures in the air, not the fish and the fowl (as per the KJV)). After that, the rest pretty much matches dead on.

There is a problem (the appearance of high-level plants), but it does allow for a lot of the basics, especially assuming that one day is an era, and not a specific 24-hour period.

If it helps...
HM
HereticMonkey
Indi wrote:
It doesn't. And he knows that. It's been pointed out to him twice.

And it's been pointed out twice to you that a literal translation of an allegorical text isn't always the best way to go...


Quote:
We know this is wrong because the land formed first from coallescing stellar matter as magma, then cooled to a solid crust, then water collected in the dips to form the oceans. In other words, land first, then water. Wrong again.

Note, again, that I assumed that the land came first. Otherwise, how could volcanism have formed the clouds which created water which rained down?

Quote:
But wait, there's more!
Fifth "day": Air and sea creatures are created.
Sixth "day": Land creatures are created (including humans).

But "air creatures" (presumably birds, but even flying bugs evolved from crawling bugs) evolved from land creatures. First came "sea creatures", then some crawled on land, then some of those took flight. Once again, wrong.

Actually, insects were in the water first, and were the first to colonize the land. Admittedly, they would have to go land first then fly, but there are no contradictions here; as long as they evolved into fliers, my stance holds. After all, I just require that the insects appear before land animals, and, as they did that, I'm good to go.

Quote:
"A terrestrial perspective" indeed. There was no "terrestrial" until long after the stars and the sun were created. At that point it was merely imaginary - which would suggest that when the phrase "terrestrial perspective" is used, iit actually means "imaginary perspective". To that i can't argue. The whole creation story only makes sense from an imaginary perspective.


1) Note that I'm only looking for a perspective from Earth's surface after it is has formed (specifically, after it has an atmosphere). In that regard, I think I'm doing well.

2) Any perspective is imaginary; I merely chose one that makes my point work. Why pick a third person perspective (ie, outside the system looking in), when I can pick one where it's all happening?

HM
Bikerman
HereticMonkey wrote:

2) The basic timeline would be thus:

The Big Bang would have happened, which threw off the base particles and light (Let there be light). After a few billion years or so, the dust that made up our solar system cooled, with the sun in the center and the planets around it. Eventually, the Earth becomes solid, and rotates (thus separating the Night from Day). Eventually, due to volcanism, the Earth gained an atmosphere, (thus creating a firmament (or atmosphere) that separated the waters above (the clouds that encircled the planet) from the water below (the little standing water). Suffice to say, soon the rains would fall down, covering the earth.

Doesn't work. The earth was never covered in water.
Quote:
Eventually the oceans would be formed (gathering all of the waters into one place), creating dry land. Also, somewhere in here, the original cyanalgae (sp) formed (thus the plants were introduced; this is the major problem (fruit-bearing plants and grasses were supposed be to be here, but they were still in the chutes)). At the same time, this would eventually clear the skies, allowing the Sun, Moon, and stars to shine through (thus from a terrestrial perspective it would have appeared that the Sun, Moon, and stars would have just been formed).
Doesn't work. The skies were never clouded over to that extent since algae are photosynthetic.
Quote:

After that, evolution kicks in. The algae eventually evolves up the chain, from one-celled critters to multi-celled on up, leading to the fish and insects would have been created first (a number of translations have the creatures in the sea, and the creatures in the air, not the fish and the fowl (as per the KJV)). After that, the rest pretty much matches dead on

There is a problem (the appearance of high-level plants), but it does allow for a lot of the basics, especially assuming that one day is an era, and not a specific 24-hour period.

Doesn't work unless you assume an era to have a length which varies hugely being described as a day, and even then the sequencing is still wrong.
HereticMonkey
Bikerman wrote:
Doesn't work. The earth was never covered in water.

Incorrect. There have been long periods when there has been little land. Heck, even today it can be argued better that the Earth is covered in water rather than in dry land, with only 30% of the Earth's surface being dry land. We also know what they effects of having the poles melted because it's part of our geological history.

So a water-covered world isn't that far-fetched, and it's even part of our geological history...

Quote:
Doesn't work. The skies were never clouded over to that extent since algae are photosynthetic.

Again, incorrect on two fronts:
a) Photosynthetic algae don't need direct sunlight to thrive; they need some light, but not as much as you would think. Also, note that I allowed that there would be some light (night and day having been already been established).
b) A number of geologists have theorized that if not for our distance from the sun, the gases spewed into the atmosphere would have been enough to create a greenhouse effect matching Venus. Our distance from the Sun saved us from that as we just didn't reach the critical temperature for it to happen.

Quote:
Doesn't work unless you assume an era to have a length which varies hugely being described as a day, and even then the sequencing is still wrong.

Except that even in screwed-up English we use "day" to mean (among other things) an era of undetermined length, especially as it applies to socio-political constructs; it's not a major stretch to apply them to geological stretches.

Also, specifically, how is the sequencing wrong? I know I simplified it a lot, but the sequencing should be essentially correct...

HM
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Doesn't work. The earth was never covered in water.

Incorrect. There have been long periods when there has been little land. Heck, even today it can be argued better that the Earth is covered in water rather than in dry land, with only 30% of the Earth's surface being dry land. We also know what they effects of having the poles melted because it's part of our geological history.

So a water-covered world isn't that far-fetched, and it's even part of our geological history...

False.

There was no period in the Earth's history when it was even close to being covered by water. There is no current scientific theory of the formation of the Earth that allows for such a possibility.

In fact, it is physically impossible. There is not enough water on Earth to have completely covered it, even including the water frozen in the poles and trapped within the geological strata, and no mechanism by which it may have been possible for enough water to have been lost to account for that. If there was that much water on Earth, where did it come from? Where did it go? There are no scientifically plausible answers to either question.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1010.htm
http://maritime.haifa.ac.il/departm/lessons/ocean/lect03.htm
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/internet/l2.html
(and many, many more available on request)

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
Doesn't work unless you assume an era to have a length which varies hugely being described as a day, and even then the sequencing is still wrong.

Except that even in screwed-up English we use "day" to mean (among other things) an era of undetermined length, especially as it applies to socio-political constructs; it's not a major stretch to apply them to geological stretches.

"Day" has exactly three meanings in English, "screwed-up" or otherwise - four if you want to be technically precise. It means:
1a.) The period of one rotation of the earth.
1b.) Twenty-four hours. (The two are almost but not precisely the same.)
2.) The period during a single rotation of the Earth where the location being discussed was in daylight.
3.) A daily repeating sub-period of a twenty-four hour period. (For example: work day, school day, etc.)

It does not ever refer to a period of undetermined length, and certainly not to one on the order of billions of years.

It can be used metaphorically to refer to the life span of something - for example, you can say "in Jesus' day" - but even in that case the period is quite clearly determined by something (in this case, the time between the birth and death of Jesus). But even that's not applicable in the case of Genesis, because the Genesis story is not talking about the life spans of anything. What, for instance, measures the span of the first "day" in the creation myth? Nothing. The span of the first "day" isn't set by anything, metaphorically or otherwise. Rather, it is written as if the word "day" is supposed to be what is setting the time span. That's just standard reading comprehension in action.

You are making things up to defend your thesis. That is intellectual dishonest of the lowest form. The saddest part is that if you'd actually done any research, you would have found that you didn't have to make that crap about "day" meaning a time period of indeterminate length up.

And no, i'm not going to tell you why. You have just lied about the meaning of the word day because you could not be bothered to do the research. i have no intention of rewarding that kind of dishonesty by doing the research for you.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Also, specifically, how is the sequencing wrong? I know I simplified it a lot, but the sequencing should be essentially correct...

i have pointed out three times how the sequencing is wrong, and you have ignored it every time - or made up "facts" to support your false claims.

If one were to stand at a location that would one day become present day Jerusalem (ignoring the non-constant velocity of the Earth, just pretend a geo-centric universe for now), this is what one would have seen, with comments relating to the Genesis story in red:
  1. Before the big bang, space has no meaning, so there would have been no way to say that you were in the same place (because "place" does not yet exist). But just fake it for the moment and say that you're "inside" the primoridial "thing" that would eventually "bang". What you would have "seen" was pure and complete whiteness more dazzling than anything in our entire universe - in fact, more dazzling than everything in our entire universe put together. The Earth may have been without form and "void", but it was most certainly not dark. Let there be light my ass.

  2. Just after the big bang, as the universe has finally acquired the concepts of space, time and matter ("form" and "void" to use the Genesis terminology), what you would have seen is... the same thing as before. Pure and complete whiteness more dazzling than anything in our entire universe today. It would have been slightly less dazzling and slightly less purely white as the universe clumped into what would become galaxies, but seeing as you're in one of those clumps (what will eventually become the Milky Way galaxy) it's going to be damn bright. Again, let there be light my ass.

  3. The universe gets colder and darker (still following? light first, then darkness) and eventually you can start to make out clumps of light amidst areas of darkness. These are what will become stellar groups, nebulae and the like, and eventually - as they clump still more - individual stars. Of course, you're still inside one of those clumps. So you're still just seeing dazzling light.

  4. The clumps get better and better defined and farther apart, and the background radiates less and less. It's not glowing as much any more, but you're inside a big-ass spinning cloud of dust. All you can see all around you is this cooling dust. Eventually, that dust clumps still further and at the center a ball starts to form. What you get looks like a really big version of Saturn, with a loosely defined glowing ball at the center, and rings of dust on the plane of rotation. What you can see now is still pretty much just dust, but maybe you might be able to make out the sun in one direction - but i won't swear on it. You probably would be able to see the sun, which doesn't come until... what... "day" 4? But i'll grant you that you can't see it yet. For now.

  5. The dust rings then clump and coalesce into asteroid belts. Now, for the first time, you can see the sun and stars, and all around you, millions of asteroids. Now you can definitely see the sun. At this point, it's the first time you have "light" and "dark" in any meanignful sense. So you could say that this is finally the end of the first "day". It certainly can't be the third "day" yet because there is no land, no water, no trees. Yet the sun comes in at the fourth "day". Therefore, the first clear contradiction (assuming you want to write of the light/dark problem, which i would because it's so vague). More contradictions to come.

  6. Over time, the asterioids clump into bigger and bigger balls, and start to sweep their paths clear. Eventually, one particular ball orbiting at about 1 AU comes to our attention. It is just a barren rock that is being continuously bombarded by meteor impacts. It has no atmosphere - at this point it doesn't have the gravity to support one. But as more and more meteors are attracted to it and hit, it gets bigger and bigger. And now you have land - just a barren rock like the Moon or Pluto. No water, so we can't be at the second "day" yet. But we have the land promised in the third "day". Another contradiction.

  7. The asteroid we're "standing" on has now grown to the point where its own gravity is crushing it in on itself, melting its core and forcing it to be roughly circular. During this period, an atmosphere of hydrogen and helium forms because the gravity can support one, but the solar winds keep blowing it off. Still no water. Yes, still no water. It is likely that around this period, a second big-ass asteroid (Theia) that had formed in the same orbit collided with proto-Earth and knocked a chunk off that became the Moon. This would mean that the Moon came before the oceans formed. Which would be yet another contradiction. However, the theory of how the Moon formed is less certain than the ones of how the Earth and Sun formed, so i will not hold you to this contradiction.

  8. It grows more and starts to collapse in itself, becoming volcanically active and forming plates (and thus becoming tectonically active). At this point, the entire surface of the Earth is a sea of volcanoes. The volcanic eruptions start throwing nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour into the air, forming an atmosphere of it. Eventually, the Earth settles down and the surface cools again. As it cools, some of the gases in the atmosphere condense and fall as rain (not all of it is water rain, either). This rain gathers in the potholes and forms... the oceans. Finally, the oceans form... but note that the land was there first. At no point did the oceans cover the lands (although the water levels were much higher than they were now until the poles formed).

  9. In the pools of water that formed, the first complex amino acids start to form, and eventually, proto-life. It's uncertain exactly where this occurred (in undersea volcanic vents, sea foam on rocky beaches or otherwise). Regardless, note that you have the Sun and Moon clear in the sky, but no plant life yet. The atmosphere would not the same makeup as our current atmosphere - it would actually be thinner - but the Sun and Moon would not be obscured by anything. Another contradiction.

  10. Life formed in the oceans. At first, very simple planktons and algea in the waters, but eventually forming the first vertebrates - fish. It is not clear exactly when the first plants took root on land, but at first, the only life was at the water's edges. Most of the land was barren and dusty, rather like Mars. There was no grass. Grass and trees were supposed to have come on the third "day", sea creatures on the fifth. It's not actually clear whether algae took root on the shores before sea creatures, but there sure as hell wasn't any grass or trees. Another contradiction.

  11. The first life started crawling out of the oceans onto the land. As they moved further and further inland, they brought plant life with them. Again grass and trees were supposed to have come on the third "day", land creatures on the sixth. Not so. Another contradiction.

  12. Life gets more evolved and some even take to the air. Land creatures: "day" 6. Air creatures: "day" 5. Another contradiction.

  13. Finally we start getting modern forms of life, including what we would recognize as grass, along with trees and animals resembling modern air, land and sea creatures (which appeared in reverse order). Eventually, people appear. Tons of contradictions here, including when whales appeared and so on. But these are all minor compared to the major contradictions before this.
It's not even close.

Apologists and "Christian scientists" are bending over backwards to make the creation story resemble the actual science (or vice versa, unfortunately), and many of them are screaming loudly that they have. They haven't. Just study the formation of the universe, Sun and/or Earth. Don't believe the bullshit apologetics spout without doing the research yourself - you know they have an agenda that is not just finding out the truth. It just doesn't work. It's not even close.

But you knew that already. You're desparately trying to find an interpretation that allows you to make both work together. Well, so far, no luck.
LovE-RicH
I heard a good idea on another forum on how to scientifically test if this is actually Jesus in there - take any communion wafer and compare the DNA to that of the body!! Idea Smile
Wilio
I tough they later told it was not the christ burial.
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey: The creation myth dose not in any way shape or form represent the big bang, please read it (re read it here). You can pick out single line ans say "it meas this" but if you acutely reed it, it dose not, and that compounded by the fact that it contradicts it self ((Genesis 1:25-27 contredicted by Genesis 2:18-22) (Genesis 1:20-21 cotedicted by Genesis 2:19) (Genesis 1:25-27 contredicted by Genesis 2:18-19)) and the parts that contradicts known historical and scientific data.
HereticMonkey
I hate arguing semantics...

First off: The obvious hedge: Bear in mind the challenge was to find a way for the Genesis Creation myth to actually work out. It's easy t tear apart, but makes for a more interesting challenge to figure out how to make it work...

1) Definitions of "day": I actually found eight.

Quote:

day Pronunciation (d)
n.
1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset.
2.
a. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.
b. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation.
3. Abbr. D One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided.
4. The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business: an eight-hour day; a sale that lasted for three days.
5. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity: a day of rest.
6.
a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long.
b. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day.
7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us.
8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over.

Please note definition #7: "a period of time in history; an era". As such, I'm reasonably comfy stating that, as long as I remember that geologists, cosmologists and pretty much every group of scientists have divided time into convenient eras. Especially as any decent thesaurus has "era" and "day" as synonyms...




Indi wrote:

There was no period in the Earth's history when it was even close to being covered by water. There is no current scientific theory of the formation of the Earth that allows for such a possibility.

In fact, it is physically impossible. There is not enough water on Earth to have completely covered it, even including the water frozen in the poles and trapped within the geological strata, and no mechanism by which it may have been possible for enough water to have been lost to account for that. If there was that much water on Earth, where did it come from? Where did it go? There are no scientifically plausible answers to either question.

a) None of your sources mentions more than that rains fell on the Earth, and that the Earth has gained water from meteorites since then, as well as before. They do not answer the question of how much water actually fell, which is the actual question here.
b) Modern World Map; Map of the Precambrian. Note the amount of water; more importantly, note the amount of landmass underwater.
c) I wasn't trying to show that the Earth was covered by hundreds of miles of water; just that, at some point, it was covered by a few feet. As most of the mountains had yet to be pushed up, and the volcanoes weren't that high (in fact, most of the ancient volcanoes are deep underwater), you wouldn't have needed as much water as you would have needed to do the same today.

Bottom Line: Not questioning that there was less water then than now. Just questioning if you really needed all of that water in order to flood the Earth...

Quote:
You are making things up to defend your thesis. That is intellectual dishonest of the lowest form.

As opposed to tearing a theory down simply because it doesn't square with one's personal beliefs or finding articles that don't truly apply to the situation at hand and present them as doing so?

More to the point, how "intellectually honest" is it to disregard facts simply because they don't mesh with your current line of reasoning, or to present articles that have no actual bearing on the subject? Or how about hiding the facts in a style that obfuscates rather than reveals?

Quote:
You have just lied about the meaning of the word day because you could not be bothered to do the research. i have no intention of rewarding that kind of dishonesty by doing the research for you.

No; I merely used a definition that actually applied to the situation, after exploring a number of options, rather than using only the definitions that are more convenient to my point and allow me to tear down a different perspective.

[quote]
i have pointed out three times how the sequencing is wrong, and you have ignored it every time - or made up "facts" to support your false claims.
Quote:

It wasn't ignored; I had allowed for most of it within my structure. I wasn't trying to provide a complete History of the Universe, as the majority just wasn't relevant; I was just trying to deal with roughly 30 verses and seeing how they squared with the known History of the Universe.

I knew going in that there were some issues that would come up. I didn't expect that the inability to look at things from another perspective would be the problem, or an inability to use basic imagination in order to test the the theory.

The biggest issue I had was attempting to figure out a way to deal with what was obviously a poetic take on things, and see how much truth there was to the situation. I think that, given the constraints I was dealing with, I did reasonably well. There were some problems; not the least of which is that the Sun, Moon, and Stars appeared out of step. Is there a better way to deal with it?

Are you going to give it a shot yourself, or are you going to take the easy way out?

I appreciate that this is a major bone of contention; at the same time, why approach it with raw emotion than logic?

HM
HereticMonkey
The Conspirator wrote:
HereticMonkey: The creation myth dose not in any way shape or form represent the big bang, please read it (re read it here). You can pick out single line ans say "it meas this" but if you acutely reed it, it dose not, and that compounded by the fact that it contradicts it self ((Genesis 1:25-27 contredicted by Genesis 2:18-22) (Genesis 1:20-21 cotedicted by Genesis 2:19) (Genesis 1:25-27 contredicted by Genesis 2:18-19)) and the parts that contradicts known historical and scientific data.


The problem is that any myth can be easily said to have nothing to do with reality. However, that's not interesting and limits enlightenment; it also limits your thinking rather than expanding it.

It's far more interesting to see if you can make it work, and if so, improve your mental flexibility and find enlightenment, even in the failure.

Heh. Satori is found in unexpected places, and rarely where you think it will be...

HM
Indi
HereticMonkey wrote:
I hate arguing semantics...

First off: The obvious hedge: Bear in mind the challenge was to find a way for the Genesis Creation myth to actually work out

Whoa. Stop. Stop right there.

"Challenge"? What "challenge"? You made a statement of fact:
HereticMonkey wrote:
The creation story works from a terrestrial perspective (in other words, the stars, sun and moon being created well after day and night have been created works if you realize that it could have looked that way if the clouds parted).
That is not a "challenge", that is a statement making a claim and presenting as if it were factual truth. There is no "i think" in there. There is no "i believe". It doesn't start with "i am trying to find a way to make". You stated it as fact.

Four times now, at least, i have pointed out that that statement is not true. Others have also pointed this out. Yet you keep making the claim and passing it off as fact. The first time i could accept as ignorance. But you have had this claim shown to be nonsensical over and over again, and you keep trying to pass it off as fact. It is no longer possible to believe that this is accidental, thus you are lying.

The first time you said anything approaching the idea that you knew this was not true and that was merely a game you were playing was here, where you said "Note that it was done merely as an intellectual exercise; as any who have read my posts know (I hope)", which is a poor attempt to weasel out of the hole you dug for yourself. Before that line, you never gave any indication that the statements you made had any uncertainty or speculation in them at all. For example, here you said "The creation story works from a terrestrial perspective", then you added some details, then you moved on. Not even the slightest bit of lip-service paid to the idea that that statement is an opinion or assumption in some silly little game. Not a word. And here: "Worse, the origin of the Universe as per Genesis squares with what we know of the origin of the Universe as per physics." Again, no disclaimers, no nothing. It was a pure and simple statement of fact.

You lied. Plain and simple. And now you're trying to cover your ass by claiming it's some pointless intellectual exercise, and that we should have realized that all along.

Bullshit. Your "obvious hedge" does not absolve you of the sin of intellectual dishonesty.

Furthermore:

HereticMonkey wrote:
Bottom Line: Not questioning that there was less water then than now. Just questioning if you really needed all of that water in order to flood the Earth...

Now you've switched modes after realizing that your nonsense claims don't hold up. Now you're in damage control, trying to salvage something of the situation. You've shifted from defending true claims to saying that you're merely exploring possibilities for your intellectual exercise. The problem is that it's a pretty piss-poor attempt. Because even if it were true that the entire surface of the Earth were covered by even a millimeter of water at the shallowest (your claim of hundreds of miles is absurd - no one would dream of rationally arguing that the water was ever a hundred miles deep, let alone hundreds of them), that doesn't solve the rest of the half-dozen or so contradictions.

On top of that, science already knows that the water levels were once much, much higher than they are now. The numbers i hear quoted are usually in the neighbourhood of 500 m, but i've heard estimates as high as 1 km. Yeah, if the water level was that high, you get a map like the one you showed... but that's not even close to inundating the world. We have mountain peaks today over 8 km - some even close to 9 km!!! And that's billions of years after the great upheavals - which should have created even higher mountains than current plate tectonics. As a matter of fact, some of the mountains in the Bouclier Canadien in the Precambrian era were probably over 12 km high. The further back you go, the more irregularly shaped the Earth becomes, and thus the greater the probability of having high land (your statement about the volcanoes having to "push up" land is nonsense, as is your bizarre justification - that most of the ancient volcanoes are underwater - to which any half-competent statistician would reply "well duh").

So no, there is no reasonable way to argue that the world was once covered by water. None.

(And your objection to my sources is absurd as well. None of them think to mention that there wasn't enough rain to cover the Earth completely? Well none of them think to mention that the Earth wasn't once made entirely out of silicon-dioxide either... because it's a silly thing to assume. There is no way you can justify enough water falling to cover the Earth, or the Earth being smooth enough that a reasonable amount of water can do it. Those are baseless assumptions that have no support.)

HereticMonkey wrote:
Quote:
You are making things up to defend your thesis. That is intellectual dishonest of the lowest form.

As opposed to tearing a theory down simply because it doesn't square with one's personal beliefs or finding articles that don't truly apply to the situation at hand and present them as doing so?

More to the point, how "intellectually honest" is it to disregard facts simply because they don't mesh with your current line of reasoning, or to present articles that have no actual bearing on the subject? Or how about hiding the facts in a style that obfuscates rather than reveals?

Oh, yes, because i've done all of those things somehow by pointing out the widely published scientific data that refutes your outlandish claims.

For the record, i am not tearing your nonsense claim (it doesn't deserve the title of "theory") down because of personal reasons (although i am well aware that you have a track record of accusing people of doing so whenever they point out problems with your fantasies). i am doing it because it was a lie. You lied when you claimed that Genesis squares with current scientific knowlege. It doesn't. You're desparately trying to find a way to make it do so? Fine. Say that. Don't say that it does already because it doesn't. To say that it does is a lie.

You want to believe that Genesis matches the formation of the world? Go nuts. You want to believe something else, like God shat the world out? Have at it. i really don't care what you believe.

But if you try to pass any of that nonsense off as truth, i will object. And if you lie about scientific knowlege, i will object.

Believe whatever you want and shout your beliefs on a mountain top for all i care... but if you don't make it clear that you are stating beliefs and opinions and not facts, then you are a liar, and i will step in and point that out.

HereticMonkey wrote:
I appreciate that this is a major bone of contention; at the same time, why approach it with raw emotion than logic?

Because you did not. You lied. You stated the starting assumption for your silly little game as fact. That is lying. i have no intention of getting in an intellectual debate with someone who is doing something so anti-intellectual as passing off lies and assumptions as solid fact.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Are you going to give it a shot yourself, or are you going to take the easy way out?

Easy way out? Sticking to scientific knowlege and telling the truth are the easy way out now, hm? Fine, i'll take the easy way out.

No, i am not going to give it a shot, for two reasons - the first of which i have already pointed out, that being that you're a liar and i don't debate liars. The second reason i won't bother is because it's a stupid and pointless game. What do we gain from it? Nothing. We won't learn anything more about geology and cosmology, because the point of this silly game is not to find out more about either, but to try and interpret both to fit your random preconceptions. And if we succeed? Then what? We would've showed that the Genesis account can, through lots of intellectual acrobatics, match current science. Whoop-de-do. How does this benefit humanity, aside from making a few religious folk a little less insecure?
The Conspirator
HereticMonkey wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
HereticMonkey: The creation myth dose not in any way shape or form represent the big bang, please read it (re read it here). You can pick out single line ans say "it meas this" but if you acutely reed it, it dose not, and that compounded by the fact that it contradicts it self ((Genesis 1:25-27 contredicted by Genesis 2:18-22) (Genesis 1:20-21 cotedicted by Genesis 2:19) (Genesis 1:25-27 contredicted by Genesis 2:18-19)) and the parts that contradicts known historical and scientific data.


The problem is that any myth can be easily said to have nothing to do with reality. However, that's not interesting and limits enlightenment; it also limits your thinking rather than expanding it.

It's far more interesting to see if you can make it work, and if so, improve your mental flexibility and find enlightenment, even in the failure.

Heh. Satori is found in unexpected places, and rarely where you think it will be...

HM

What? Geneses has no basis in reality. Read it, really read it. I have. Read it, there is no way to make it work. Read it, please read it.
JJGY
This is the commercialism of human beliefs at it's finest. Any one calling themselves a Christian and with access to the Discovery channel probably watched the documentary, and Cameron was smart enough to realize that this would happen. If I tell you your entire belief system is founded on falsehoods, you're going to want to know what my argument is.

This documentary was one of the greatest jokes in the archaeological world since the days of the Egyptian tomb dig sites. There was simply no real evidence behind any of the claims made in this utter waste of airtime. I used to have a respect for the Discovery channel's programming, until stuff like this aired. Rolling Eyes
budiman
The news is not important at all. Why do we have to discuss this?

Some truths are better buried forever.
jwellsy
Other than non specific generalities, feelings and innuendos,
the only specific logical argument against the movie
that I've heard was that the music and recreations/dramatizations
were so well done that they may have unduly influenced the viewer
into believing that it is the tomb of the biblical Jesus.
Indi
jwellsy wrote:
Other than non specific generalities, feelings and innuendos,
the only specific logical argument against the movie
that I've heard was that the music and recreations/dramatizations
were so well done that they may have unduly influenced the viewer
into believing that it is the tomb of the biblical Jesus.

That's not an argument against the movie, it's an argument for it. If J.C. (in this case, Cameron, not the other J.C.) can add enough flash to make such a shaky claim sound plausible, the man deserves an Oscar or something.

Really, if anyone is convinced by the dramatizations it would be more of an argument against them and their intelligence than the movie itself or its claims.
ahmadie
jwellsy wrote:
The implication that Muslims may be correct in saying that
'Jesus was only a prophet' is staggering.

The fact is: In Islam, Jesus is one of perhaps 124,000 messengers or prophets Allah has sent, and one of the 25 listed in the Quran. Jesus is right there in the list with Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Lot, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Moses, Aaron, Ezekiel, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Zechariah, John, three others not cited in the Bible, and Muhammad.

Muslims respect him, but they do not see him as God. Muslims say that they respect the rejected and wounded Jesus Christ. But Muslims do not believe Jesus was resurrected. Muslims do not believe that Jesus died when crucified. Muslims do not believe Jesus was killed on the cross then resurrected. The Holy Quran say: “They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did.” (Quran 4:156) “God lifted him up to His presence. God is Almighty, All-Wise” (Quran 4:157).
LovE-RicH
arowphin wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Actually, there a re a number of flaws, at least in regards to what we know at this point. But this is another debate I'm trying to avoid...


Name one.


Here's something for you, arowphin...

A SMALL COMPILATION OF CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE:
http://tinyurl.com/36hajy

(PS: It's NOT that small.Wink ... Hmmm.... Actually, it's VERY long!)
JJGY
LovE-RicH wrote:
arowphin wrote:
HereticMonkey wrote:
Actually, there a re a number of flaws, at least in regards to what we know at this point. But this is another debate I'm trying to avoid...


Name one.


Here's something for you, arowphin...

A SMALL COMPILATION OF CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE:
http://tinyurl.com/36hajy

(PS: It's NOT that small.Wink ... Hmmm.... Actually, it's VERY long!)


This article is biased beyond all reason. I absolutely refuse to take sides on this argument, but it's such a poorly put together wall of text that it's only with great difficulty that I refrain from jumping to draw my own poorly conceived argument against each and every point it puts on the table. I could not do so however, without losing the defense of neutrality. I will state the grounds for my anger at such bias however:

1. This article makes a direct attack against the validity of a person by the name of Jesus within the first paragraph. Many claim that apart from the bible, there is no record of his life or crucifixion. However, respected historian Josephus and others documented both.

2. The article states numbers of troops as presented in the bible for several separate battles. However, these sets of numbers are commonly taken from conflicting translations of the bible which often hold erroneous details.

3. The article quite clearly states "facts" taken from documents which have no historical validity.

4. Once again, ages of certain people are quoted from conflicting translation, one as obscure as a version used by the original salt lake settlers :s


Please people, debate all you like, but let's keep this within the bounds of logical discussion. Garbage like this is not fact, and it should not be stated as such. I can provide more in depth explanations of my reasoning if that is needed, but any of the contradictions I have made regarding the illegitimacy of the article can be ascertained with a quick google search. [/b][/list]
Moonspider
JJGY wrote:
Garbage like this is not fact, and it should not be stated as such.


Hey, just like Cameron's documentary! Wink

My wife is an archaeologist and we watched it just to pick it apart (as we do a lot of pop archaeology programs).

I liked what one of the archaeologists in the follow-up discussion hosted by Koppel referred to it as: "archaeo-porn."

It's exciting and fun to watch, but deep down you know its wrong.

Respectfully,
M
missdixy
I don't think it's possible to ever be completely sure that as His tomb. After all, his name was a common one.
The Conspirator
Something interesting on the topic.
http://www.uhl.ac/MariameAndMartha/

The discovery channel has really gone down hill. Fortunately we have the National Geographic Channel.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.