God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[outhouse]

Denver wrote...."

Of the Canaanite origins of these people called proto Israelites, which makes the biblical moses an impossibility.

Sorry 100% substantiated.

the Hebrew Bible in its present, heavily edited form cannot be taken at face value

That means fiction and mythology.


the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt


All bolded is from your link


I have already provided evidence exodus is a myth, which means no biblical moses existed

"the whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical,

'historical fiction,'

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Of the Canaanite origins of these people called proto Israelites, which makes the biblical moses an impossibility.

Sorry 100% substantiated.

the Hebrew Bible in its present, heavily edited form cannot be taken at face value

That means fiction and mythology.


the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt


All bolded is from your link


I have already provided evidence exodus is a myth, which means no biblical moses existed

"the whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical,

'historical fiction,'

100% substantiated position of Denver ...."A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose.

 

[outhouse]

Moses-like

Moses like figure.

NOT the biblical moses that he claims is mythology. Without the exodus you have no biblical moses which is in direct support of my literary creation comment.

 

[outhouse]

where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose.

has nothing to do with monotheism to Yahweh or the moses story

Israelites were polytheist and monotheism was not introduced until kind Josiah after 622BC which the public did not all follow.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Moses like figure.

NOT the biblical moses that he claims is mythology. Without the exodus you have no biblical moses which is in direct support of my literary creation comment.

You said in your post #1319 that you had provided substantiated evidence that Moses did not exist....not about whether Exodus was a real event, but about whether Moses was real... I quote Albright as a scholar who claimed Moses was real, and you replied with a quote from Denver in your post #1338 that you intended as a rebuttal of the existence of Moses as a real person. But now I have shown you that Denver himself actual admits that there may have been a Moses like figure...

So no more strawman obfucation please...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

has nothing to do with monotheism to Yahweh or the moses story

Israelites were polytheist and monotheism was not introduced until kind Josiah after 622BC which the public did not all follow.

Strawman....Obfuscation....

 

[outhouse]

... I quote Albright as a scholar who claimed Moses

How funny your a comic!

You quote a man who rode a wagon to college

 

[outhouse]

Strawman....Obfuscation....

Truth and knowledge.

You don't have to like or accept it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How funny your a comic!

You quote a man who rode a wagon to college

Yeah, he was born about 13 years after Einstein in 1891 and died about 16 years after him.....in 1971..

W.F. Albright, in full William Foxwell Albright (born May 24, 1891, Coquimbo, Chile—died Sept. 19, 1971, Baltimore, Md., U.S.), American biblical archaeologist and Middle Eastern scholar, noted especially for his excavations of biblical sites

You want to make fun of Einstein's work too because of he also produced it in the last century?

 

[outhouse]

Yeah, he was born about 13 years after Einstein in 1891 and died about 16 years after him.....in 1971..

W.F. Albright, in full William Foxwell Albright (born May 24, 1891, Coquimbo, Chile—died Sept. 19, 1971, Baltimore, Md., U.S.), American biblical archaeologist and Middle Eastern scholar, noted especially for his excavations of biblical sites

You want to make fun of Einstein's work too because of he also produced it in the last century?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Albright

In the years since his death, Albright's methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. William Dever claims that "[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology.'"[15]

Biblical scholar Thomas L. Thompson contends that the methods of "biblical archaeology" have also become outmoded: "[Wright and Albright's] historical interpretation can make no claim to be objective, proceeding as it does from a methodology which distorts its data by selectivity which is hardly representative, which ignores the enormous lack of data for the history of the early second millennium, and which wilfully establishes hypotheses on the basis of unexamined biblical texts, to be proven by such (for this period) meaningless mathematical criteria as the 'balance of probability' ..."[16]


I had to post this twice because you obviously had trouble reading it the first time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Truth and knowledge.

You don't have to like or accept it.

God is the absolute truth...all interpretations fall short...for oneness can not be apprehended by the conceptual mind...

 

[Thief]

and we humans can be mistaken about details.....in large quantity....
but I cannot rationalize God....out of the picture.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Albright

In the years since his death, Albright's methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. William Dever claims that "[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology.'"[15]

Biblical scholar Thomas L. Thompson contends that the methods of "biblical archaeology" have also become outmoded: "[Wright and Albright's] historical interpretation can make no claim to be objective, proceeding as it does from a methodology which distorts its data by selectivity which is hardly representative, which ignores the enormous lack of data for the history of the early second millennium, and which wilfully establishes hypotheses on the basis of unexamined biblical texts, to be proven by such (for this period) meaningless mathematical criteria as the 'balance of probability' ..."[16]


I had to post this twice because you obviously had trouble reading it the first time.

You can copy and paste unsubstantiated rhetoric as many times you want...there is nothing in it that proves a Moses type entity did not live at that time...to the contrary, Denver actually admits a Moses type entity may have existed at that time...

 

[outhouse]

God is the absolute truth...

Yawn

 

[BilliardsBall]

Illogical conclusion, plus it is virtually impossible for you to verify your position in any way.

Not at all. Simply Google "issues with radiometric dating" and you can read the statements of scientists (Christian and non-Christian) in this regard.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You didn't answer my question, and all you are doing is projecting that nuclear physicists that actually study these things for a living are really very ignorant people.

Not at all. They are learned people. But do you understand why it takes six years of study? Because it's not just "measure what's there and extrapolate based on time/half-lives." There are QUITE a number of mitigating factors and assumptions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Assumptions which are well-supported by existing evidence.

But much of the evidence is self-supporting/circular.

If we wish to question the dates of Lincoln's presidency, we have documents and historians abounding. If we wish to create a new methodology of dating Earth rocks, we are in serious trouble unless our methods turn out dates that conform to what is considered kosher.

It's like dating a proto-human to two million years when we know carbon dating won't stretch back that far. We look at the rocks nearby where the skeletal remains are found and then date those to two million years. These are relatively unverifiable, untestifiable findings (without a time machine) and then we present white papers where scientists agree the skeletal remains are two million years old because they are found near similar rocks near skeletons also dated to two million years.

I'm trying to keep myself calm and you, but some of what you call science is partly science and partly pseudoscience!

 

[outhouse]

but some of what you call science is partly science and partly pseudoscience!

When he deal with any aspect of what you follow, it is factual pseudoscience.

You don't have a leg to stand on here. Al your doing is refusing Academia and NOT ONCE substantiating any biblical claim academia views as 100% mythology.

 

[metis]

Not at all. Simply Google "issues with radiometric dating" and you can read the statements of scientists (Christian and non-Christian) in this regard.

I checked it out and basically found nothing on the order that you state coming from scientific sources. Yes, there are always going to be some "issues" with dating techniques, but there's really nothing in any way from scientific sources that would cast doubt on the general accuracy of the entire process.

But the same is not true from creationist sources that take some relatively minor "issues" and blow them up to cast doubt on the entire process-- iow, making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Scientists the world over recognize that these techniques are generally accurate, and the only real element that refuses to accept known science are creationists that have an "agenda". Not only is their approach not science, it's not even good theology.

 

[metis]

When he deal with any aspect of what you follow, it is factual pseudoscience.

You don't have a leg to stand on here. Al your doing is refusing Academia and NOT ONCE substantiating any biblical claim academia views as 100% mythology.

Absolutely, and their approach actually has the effect of cheapening their religion. And I experienced this for myself as I grew up as an active congregant in a fundamentalist church. When there are pastors and religious authors that intentionally falsify and misrepresent facts, and at least some of them I'm sure are smart enough to know that's what they're doing, they certainly are not standing on the moral high-ground.

There was a book that a Baptist deacon loaned me going back around 30+ years ago, the name of which was something like "Revolt of the Faithful", and the main gist of the book is that probably most Baptist pastors either lie about evolution or they just do their best to avoid the subject because there's pressure put on them by the conference and the congregation itself to tow the "company line". I saw that happen in my church on another subject back when I was in my early 20's, and the pastor admitted to me when he visited our home that he simply couldn't tell the congregation what he believed or he'd likely get fired.