Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, the Jordan Valley catastrophe happened ca 1650 BC with an airburst over the 'well watered plains of Jordan' as Genesis states.
People up until Roman times would not have called the Jordan Valley the 'well watered plains' but rather the 'salt desert.'
50,000 people are estimated to have died. The cities of the plain were flattened, some torn clean off their foundation.
Genesis says that Abraham was on the West side of the mountain range, and that Lot had moved to Zoar, down south of the Dead Sea.
If any other document had stated this it would be called 'history' and people would seek for its cause. As it's the bible people call it a myth.
There's a lot at stake here - it's why we argue about this rather than the gods on Mt Olympus.

Please quit grasping at straws.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No creator. It just happened. Guess that's magic because there were no 'other' universes, no 'other' Big Bangs, no 'other' dimensions etc..
Hoyle didn't like this 'Big Bang' for one major reason ..

Then Hoyle was wrong. We do not yet know exactly how the universe works and what all surprises like relativity and quantum mechanics are in store for us.

 

[PruePhillip]

Then Hoyle was wrong. W do not yet know exactly how the universe works and what all surprises like relativity and quantum mechanics are in store for us.

To repeat, things like relativity and quantum ARE A PART OF OUR UNIVERSE.

 

[PruePhillip]

Please quit grasping at straws.

Is that what you are doing? Do you have counter-facts?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, the Jordan Valley catastrophe happened ca 1650 BC with an airburst over the 'well watered plains of Jordan' as Genesis states.
People up until Roman times would not have called the Jordan Valley the 'well watered plains' but rather the 'salt desert.'
50,000 people are estimated to have died. The cities of the plain were flattened, some torn clean off their foundation.
Genesis says that Abraham was on the West side of the mountain range, and that Lot had moved to Zoar, down south of the Dead Sea.

I don't know anything about that so I'll refrain from commenting until I read up.

However, how does this change anything about the evidence of reality not being on the side of the stories of exodus? Egypt, the wandering in the desert, the supposed conquest of canaan,... all the evidence tells quite a different story.

There's a lot at stake here

Is there? Such as what?

- it's why we argue about this rather than the gods on Mt Olympus.

Really? I think the only reason we argue about the bible and not the gods on Mt Olympus is only because you happen to be a follower of the bible and not of mt Olympus.

The comment about there being "much at stake" is only true in your mind, with your beliefs.
For me, as it concerns the bible, about as much is at stake as there is for you in context of the gods of mt Olympus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that what you are doing? Do you have counter-facts?

Nope. That is all you. Don't be rude.

 

[PruePhillip]

Rather pointless question. What if we find evidence that Abraham Lincoln hunted vampires?

Well that would be interesting, more interesting indeed if he found them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that would be interesting, more interesting indeed if he found them.

Interesting does not mean true.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't know anything about that so I'll refrain from commenting until I read up.

However, how does this change anything about the evidence of reality not being on the side of the stories of exodus? Egypt, the wandering in the desert, the supposed conquest of canaan,... all the evidence tells quite a different story.



Is there? Such as what?



Really? I think the only reason we argue about the bible and not the gods on Mt Olympus is only because you happen to be a follower of the bible and not of mt Olympus.

The comment about there being "much at stake" is only true in your mind, with your beliefs.
For me, as it concerns the bible, about as much is at stake as there is for you in context of the gods of mt Olympus.

So we can argue about whether Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants. If he didn't, so what?
But if Moses led the 'children of Israel' to the 'Promised Land' then that might suggest there is a God of the bible - and the existential issues that raises.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, no evidence for a wandering Jew called Moses.
But what happens if we FIND some evidence, as we did with the mythic King David?
Well, you will join the chorus of people saying, 'Just because there was a real person called Moses doesn't mean......'
This just happened with the Jordan Valley catastrophe (not recorded in any history document)

Perhaps you should read this: David - Wikipedia. Scholars do not conclude that it refers to any King David. David is a common name and there could have been many other Davids (Bet David).
Similarly there is no archaeological proof about Sodom and Gomorrah (Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia). The Wikipedia article does not talk about any meteorite blast as well. At the moment these are no more than Jewish mythological tales.

Then even if we find some historicity of Abraham, David or Moses, that does not prove anything about God and his interaction with these people.

Ok, the Jordan Valley catastrophe happened ca 1650 BC with an airburst over the 'well watered plains of Jordan' as Genesis states.

For this, kindly read: Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia.
You see, if you want to have it your way, then you must destroy Wikipedia, Google and other such sites, because these sites do not let falsehood live. Better destroy internet, stop publication of such books which go against what is written in Bible. And those who write such material, put them on a stake and burn them.
"Satyam eva jayate, na anritam" (Truth alone wins, not untruth)

 

[PruePhillip]

Nope. That is all you. Don't be rude.

I presented a set of facts, where are your own to counter these?

 

[PruePhillip]

Perhaps you should read this: David - Wikipedia. Scholars do not conclude that it refers to any King David. David is a common name and there could have been many other Davids (Bet David).
Similarly there is no archaeological proof about Sodom and Gomorrah (Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia). The Wikipedia article does not talk about any meteorite blast as well. At the moment these are no more than Jewish mythological tales.

Then even if we find some historicity of Abraham, David or Moses, that does not prove anything about God and his interaction with tehse people.

The archaelogical diggings at Tel el Hammond haven't filtered down to Wiki, apparantly. This site still struggled to admit people were riding camels in the early iron age. Yes, there was a dynasty called the 'House of David' 3,000 years ago. David took the city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I presented a set of facts, where are your own to counter these?

No, you didn't. That was the first problem.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The archaelogical diggings at Tel el Hammond haven't filtered down to Wiki, apparantly. This site still struggled to admit people were riding camels in the early iron age. Yes, there was a dynasty called the 'House of David' 3,000 years ago. David took the city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites.

"The identification of Jebus with Jerusalem has been challenged. Danish biblical scholar Niels Peter Lemche notes that every non-biblical mention of Jerusalem found in the ancient Near East refers to the city with the name of Jerusalem, offering as an example the Amarna letters, which are dated to the 14th century BCE and refer to Jerusalem as Úrusalim. He states that "There is no evidence of Jebus and the Jebusites outside of the Old Testament".
Siege of Jebus - Wikipedia

"Biblical evidence indicates that David's Judah was something less than a full-fledged monarchy: it often calls him negid, meaning "prince" or "chief", rather than melek, meaning "king"; the biblical David sets up none of the complex bureaucracy that a kingdom needs (even his army is made up of volunteers), and his followers are largely related to him and from his small home-area around Hebron.

Of the evidence in question, John Haralson Hayes and James Maxwell Miller wrote in 2006: "If one is not convinced in advance by the biblical profile, then there is nothing in the archaeological evidence itself to suggest that much of consequence was going on in Palestine during the tenth century BCE, and certainly nothing to suggest that Jerusalem was a great political and cultural center." This echoed the 1995 conclusion of Amélie Kuhrt, who noted that "there are no royal inscriptions from the time of the united monarchy (indeed very little written material altogether), and not a single contemporary reference to either David or Solomon," while noting, "against this must be set the evidence for substantial development and growth at several sites, which is plausibly related to the tenth century."
David - Wikipedia

I think you have got the name wrong. Wikipedia does have a page on Tell-el-Hammam. Tell el-Hammam - Wikipedia
"Since 2005, the site has been excavated by a joint project of the unaccredited Trinity Southwest University (Albuquerque, New Mexico) which states that the Bible speaks "with absolute and authority in all matters upon which it touches." and the creationist Veritas International University's College of Archaeology & Biblical History (Santa Ana, California), headed by young earth creationist Steven Collins.
It also talks about air burst claim. Actually, I wonder, how many air burst took place in that area?

Be with your Biblical stories. Don't challenge history, because history hardly has anything that supports your stories.

 

[PruePhillip]

"The identification of Jebus with Jerusalem has been challenged. Danish biblical scholar Niels Peter Lemche notes that every non-biblical mention of Jerusalem found in the ancient Near East refers to the city with the name of Jerusalem, offering as an example the Amarna letters, which are dated to the 14th century BCE and refer to Jerusalem as Úrusalim. He states that "There is no evidence of Jebus and the Jebusites outside of the Old Testament".
Siege of Jebus - Wikipedia

"Biblical evidence indicates that David's Judah was something less than a full-fledged monarchy: it often calls him negid, meaning "prince" or "chief", rather than melek, meaning "king"; the biblical David sets up none of the complex bureaucracy that a kingdom needs (even his army is made up of volunteers), and his followers are largely related to him and from his small home-area around Hebron.

Of the evidence in question, John Haralson Hayes and James Maxwell Miller wrote in 2006: "If one is not convinced in advance by the biblical profile, then there is nothing in the archaeological evidence itself to suggest that much of consequence was going on in Palestine during the tenth century BCE, and certainly nothing to suggest that Jerusalem was a great political and cultural center." This echoed the 1995 conclusion of Amélie Kuhrt, who noted that "there are no royal inscriptions from the time of the united monarchy (indeed very little written material altogether), and not a single contemporary reference to either David or Solomon," while noting, "against this must be set the evidence for substantial development and growth at several sites, which is plausibly related to the tenth century."

I think you have got the name wrong. Wikipedia does have a page on Tell-el-Hammam. Tell el-Hammam - Wikipedia
"Since 2005, the site has been excavated by a joint project of the unaccredited Trinity Southwest University (Albuquerque, New Mexico) which states that the Bible speaks "with absolute and authority in all matters upon which it touches." and the creationist Veritas International University's College of Archaeology & Biblical History (Santa Ana, California), headed by young earth creationist Steven Collins.
It also talks about air burst claim. Actually, I wonder, how many air burst took place in that area?
David - Wikipedia

Be with your Biblical stories. Don't challenge history, because there is nothing in history that supports your stories.

So if archaelogy REFUTES me, it's ok, but if archeology SUPPORTS me then it's suspect science.
Israel was a much more populous place in David's day (ref Timna Valley excavations) and in any case, big or small, David established a monarchical dynasty - a king BTW that many self-important people said never existed "because there's no evidence." Which is bad science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You have not read my post where it describes David's holdings. I further submit:

"In 2007, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman stated that the archaeological evidence shows that Judah was sparsely inhabited and Jerusalem no more than a small village. The evidence suggested that David ruled only as a chieftain over an area which cannot be described as a state or as a kingdom, but more as a chiefdom, much smaller and always overshadowed by the older and more powerful kingdom of Israel to the north. They posited that Israel and Judah were not monotheistic at the time, and that later seventh-century redactors sought to portray a past golden age of a united, monotheistic monarchy in order to serve contemporary needs. They noted a lack of archeological evidence for David's military campaigns and a relative underdevelopment of Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, compared to a more developed and urbanized Samaria, capital of Israel during the 9th century BCE. ..
According to William G. Dever, the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon are reasonably well attested, but "most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom"."
David - Wikipedia

About Solomon:
"Current consensus states that regardless of whether or not a man named Solomon truly reigned as king over the Judean hills in the tenth century BCE, the Biblical descriptions of his apparent empire's lavishness is almost surely an anachronistic exaggeration. ..
According to some archaeologists, Solomon could have only been the monarch or chieftain of Judah, and that the northern kingdom was a separate development. Such positions have been criticized by other archaeologists and scholars, who argue that a united monarchy did exist in the 10th century BC, while agreeing that the biblical account contains exaggerations.
According to Finkelstein and Silberman, authors of The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, at the time of the kingdoms of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was populated by only a few hundred residents or less, which is insufficient for an empire stretching from the Euphrates to Eilath. According to The Bible Unearthed, archaeological evidence suggests that the kingdom of Israel at the time of Solomon was little more than a small city state, and so it is implausible that Solomon received tribute as large as 666 talents of gold per year."
Solomon - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

So if archaelogy REFUTES me, it's ok, but if archeology SUPPORTS me then it's suspect science.
Israel was a much more populous place in David's day (ref Timna Valley excavations) and in any case, big or small, David established a monarchical dynasty - a king BTW that many self-important people said never existed "because there's no evidence." Which is bad science.

But archaeology does not support you. You abuse it and make ad hoc explanations. For example one scientific paper may have found evidence for a meteor strike. I say "may have" because I have not checked out the source yet. If it did not go through peer review then you do not even have that.

In the sciences the findings of one lone paper is never enough to base claims on as if it were a fact. One does not get to do that until after it has been tested and confirmed by others. You have been the one guilty of bad science here. Now I am not sure of these latest claims that you are responding to. I would check to see if there are other findings that support the claims about Jerusalem. If there is only one source I would adopt a "wait and see" position and make sure that I used qualifiers such as "may have" until more evidence came in.

 

[PruePhillip]

But archaeology does not support you. You abuse it and make ad hoc explanations. For example one scientific paper may have found evidence for a meteor strike. I say "may have" because I have not checked out the source yet. If it did not go through peer review then you do not even have that.

In the sciences the findings of one lone paper is never enough to base claims on as if it were a fact. One does not get to do that until after it has been tested and confirmed by others. You have been the one guilty of bad science here. Now I am not sure of these latest claims that you are responding to. I would check to see if there are other findings that support the claims about Jerusalem. If there is only one source I would adopt a "wait and see" position and make sure that I used qualifiers such as "may have" until more evidence came in.

Goes like this:
There's no evidence of any King David, he didn't exist
Ok, so there WAS a King David, but he just ruled over a few tribes
All right, so there were a lot more people back then, but that doesn't make the bible story true - I mean, look at Sodom and Gomarrah fable
Sure, some calamity DID happen to the cities of the Jordan plain, but the bible made a myth out of the event

and on it goes. The real question isn't whether some event happened, but what would it take for you to believe the bible's account? I suggest nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Goes like this:
There's no evidence of any King David, he didn't exist
Ok, so there WAS a King David, but he just ruled over a few tribes
All right, so there were a lot more people back then, but that doesn't make the bible story true - I mean, look at Sodom and Gomarrah fable
Sure, some calamity DID happen to the cities of the Jordan plain, but the bible made a myth out of the event

and on it goes. The real question isn't whether some event happened, but what would it take for you to believe the bible's account? I suggest nothing.

Now you are using strawman arguments. I never heard anyone ever say that there was no King David as has been claimed of Moses and his predecessors. There is quite a bit of evidence against the Moses myth and none for. Meanwhile you are trying to use your strawman argument about King David to justify your false belief that the fact that David was a chieftain at best. And sorry, but Sodom and Gomorrah are still clearly in the mythical category. You have no evidence to the contrary. You really should try to learn what it takes for an observation to be evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

When you come back, kindly tell me as to whom does this refers to? Jesus? Yourself? And how it is relevant? I could not get it.

I probably could tell you what I meant and why I said it other than informational purposes if I knew what post (of yours) I was responding to.