Pre-History and God

Johan

Active member
Finn said:
No need for anyone to lose their tempers here.

By the current scientific knowledge, the carbon dating is one our of best arguments when it comes to proving that Earth is older than the Bible cites. I recall the discussion around here though where a theory was given that the great global flood mentioned in the holy book would have thrown off the carbon values.

It's a kind of pathetic theory really, as all the proof it gives for the flood is the words in the Bible. Considering that to give this all any credit one should take the Bible literally, so the scientific value of this theory is nil. Actually, it's easier to scientifically suggest that there never was a flood (at least in the global scale), as the water moving around in the Earth's cycle is nowhere near enough for such a thing to happen.

Actually David Rohl "A Test Of Time" gives some scientific explainations for why this would be true. But I will opt out for another rambling conversation that get's no where
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
However, in another of his works, "Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation" the very same Rohl assumes that the Biblical references to a great flood are merely a description of the flooding of city mounds in the plains of Mesopotamia. And this was written after "A Test Of Time" so there's no telling a new evidence may have changed Rohl's mind about how far the flood reached, quite the other way around.

So typically christian. Let's take out the parts that suit us and leave everything else out...
 
Except that he's easy to dismiss... His published works A Test of Time and Legend set forth Rohl's theories for dating Egyptian kings of the 19th through 25th Dynasties, which would require a major revision of the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt, and less radical revisions of the chronologies of Israel and Mesopotamia. Rohl asserts that these would allow scholars to identify many of the main characters in the Old Testament with people whose names appear in archaeological finds.

In other words, he's trying to twist evidence to make the 'finds' fit his own ology.... He has also been accused of wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts his 'theory'....

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

*Edit.. cross-post with Finn*
 

fortuneandglory

New member
ClintonHammond said:
No source again F&G??
Look, I haven't ever said I support the 7000 year old earth theory. I've only said that Carbon dating cannot always be trusted. And, by the way, i've given two sources, which have been obviously dismissed, because Intergamer thinks them not "credible". So, yes, I have sources.

I was merely making an assertion about obvious shortfalls of Carbon Dating in "certain" cases.

As to my comments about things underwater... I was only making an assertion about things underwater. I was not talking about the flood in the least.

Look to my previous posts for my sources.

Finn said:
So typically christian.

Lets not start throwing generalizations here.
 
Last edited:

Dani

New member
OMG heaven!!!!!

Im a huge history buff and when i finish reading all the posts here in this section ill start posting.

Tis most excellent!!!!
 

Dani

New member
Ill try, but like i said in my newbie intro, im currently addicted to another forum, but that doesnt have an archaeology thread like the one here.
But hey, i can be in 2 places at once :p
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
intergamer said:
I'm pretty sure the great flood wouldn't have thrown the radioactive decay of carbon isotopes ;-o
Now now, let's not beat the sorry misguided beings completely senseless...
 

fortuneandglory

New member
Good god, I never said ANYTHING about the great flood! I'm just making a comment on how sometimes carbon dating can be inaccurate! Take it for what you will, but I'm tired of being insulted! I know how carbon dating works... and I know that it is accurate in quite a few cases. Just not past 50,000 years... get any farther than that, and you're going to get some wacky results.
 
"I've only said that Carbon dating cannot always be trusted."
Nothing can be....

That is why it's important to do and redo, to test and retest theories and hypotheses....

"Look to my previous posts for my sources."
I have... and now I'm asking, "Can you do any better, because those sources are spurious at best."
 

fortuneandglory

New member
Lets define spurious, shall we?

not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.

So, because they come from the perspective of a Christian, instead of a an atheist, (of course atheists are the only objective sources), it's not true?

Excuse me, but I don't think we're being quite objective at all...

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop treating these forums as a way to bastardize Christianity.
 
"because they come from the perspective of a Christian, it's not true?"

Where has ANYONE but you said that????

I could accuse you of exactly the same thing in the opposite direction.... You accept their theories and suppositions as valid because they share your religion, and ONLY because they share your religion.....

Whereas, from my point of view, their religion is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Doc Savage said:
That sounds remarkably close to bigotry, Finn.
You're right, and I apologize.

Even though I can tell from experience that sometimes that kind of behavior is dead on... but not always.

I'm still waiting for someone to counter my little article about why the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, by the way...
 

fortuneandglory

New member
I can see some of your points, where the Bible should not be taken literally, but I cannot counter any of this with fact, at the moment.... so if you'll excuse me from that for a while, i'd appreciate it. In some cases, you are right, because the Bible is not at all literal at points... it speaks sometimes in parables and things that the reader must interpret himself... however, Creation is something that can be taken semi literally for the Christian... you just have to take into account the length of God's day... how long is it for God? However long he pleases... So, therefore, he could have created everything before man, and by then the world was aged... and when he created man, we also do not know how long they were in the Garden... the were in truth Sinless and Eternal... so they could have been in there a pretty long time. This introduces the possiblility of a very old earth, it's just that we're starting the count at the wrong place. As to Noah's Ark, i'm pretty sure there were no Dinosaurs on that boat... but I can't prove anything to that point. There is geological evidence both ways... I'm not gonna argue that point just yet, but I'm in a hurry in any case, I have to get back to class! (Good gosh I love this forum... it makes me think!)
 

Doc Savage

New member
Finn said:
I find this idea of literally taking the bible into account a little obnoxious.
I understand this viewpoint, and used to have it myself. But if it is what it claims it is, all of it must be true.
Finn said:
I'm trying to look the Bible here through the eyes of a historian, and thus disregard even the parts that appear impossible judging by the modern laws of the physics (miracles, etc).
So did Thomas Jefferson.
Finn said:
But what about the part when there was no one getting up a live account?
Adam walked with God in the "cool of the evening" according to Genesis, and I'm sure many things were discussed, including the parts of Creation Adam was absent from.
Finn said:
As the human cognitive thinking has been pretty much the same for the time homo sapiens has roamed on this Earth, it would be easy to say that the missing part where reconstructed by using the most viable scientific theories available.
Said theories are not a constant...the Bible is the "anvil that has worn out many hammers."
Finn said:
So I'm not accusing the writers of the Bible for writing sheer fiction; the Good Book can well be a very accurate historical document that's written after the knowledge and theories possessed on the day.
But the writers declared they were writing absolute truth. Paul writes: Every Scripture is inspired by God...(II Timothy 3:16) In the original Greek, "inspired by God" is literally "God-breathed." To dispute any of it is to call all of it false.
Finn said:
It brings us to an interesting mindplay. What if the Bible was written on this very day? Presuming, of course, that it actually was written based on the facts and theories people knew at the very moment back then.
Again, if we let the Bible define itself ( a good hermeneutical philosophy), it's impossible to take it part without parcel.
Finn said:
If a modern day encyclopaedia and one that's been written fifty years ago possess contradicting information, rare is the mind who trusts the latter one. Now, why can't same be taken into account with the Bible? Possibly because people have been told that the Good Book can't possess misguiding information. And we shouldn't forget that the quarter who most outlines this is the one that wants to keep the religion organized, something Jesus himself found non-favourable.
Jesus found unfavorable those who misinterpreted the Word to bring others into bondage. He saw the Word as a Living thing, God Himself; the Pharisees saw it as a rulebook.
Finn said:
I think the biggest threat to reaccounting the Holy Word using the current knowledge is that it strips people from their faith. I don't think so, as there is no way to scientifically prove there is no God.
I believe as we progress in our scientific endeavors, we'll find more and more that science and the literally-read Bible are completely compatible.
Finn said:
Half a millennia ago a man named Martin Luther made an enormous favor to the world with what he did. Perhaps it would be an opportune time for a modern-day counterpart who'd bring the christianity up to speed with the rest of the world without mutilating its core ideals.
Luther did what the early writers of the New Testament did. He wrested the literal Word from those who twisted it to keep others in bondage. I agree, Finn...it's time the Body of Christ reinvigorated this practice. But it's done when people take it upon themselves to find out what the Bible says for themselves, not what a teacher, pastor, or critical scientist says that it says.
 

fortuneandglory

New member
Churches in themselves, however, although organized, are not a bad thing. A bad thing is when the Congregation does no study on their own... But a church is someplace where you can learn about God, and the Scripture...

The Pastors, or Preachers, are not these controlling megalomaniacs that some make them out to be. They are merely trying to help people understand God's word, and trying to spread it so that more may be saved by Jesus Christ.

It is up to the reciever of this information to research and analyze it on his own, to find his own faith. Those two in combination are pretty powerful.
 
Top