View Single Post

Default 

July 24th, 2007, 18:50
Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Sorry, but the weight of evidence is actually in favor of Biblical archaeology.
There's currently not a single evidence for old testament prior to about 800-600bc. The Bible is very detailed in it's history, events, places etc, and it would have been a piece of cake to favor the bible, but when compared to the actual world it does not start to fit in until after it is believed to be written (around 650bc).

The bible is very important to many people. Not only because they want an afterlife, but also because the idea of a "promised land" which is very important politically. Because of this, for 200 years scientists have spent time down in the desert, examining every page of the bible for things that can be proven. 200 years later, there's zip.
The earliest version of the old testament were written around 650bc and only when you look on the events by the knowledge that it was written 650bc things start to make sense. Most of the villages, places etc that are mentioned within the bible corresponds to that year, not 1-2000 years sooner like in the biblical timeline. This is also true to the supposed scientific level, tools they used, how cities work etc, all corresponds to around 650bc not sooner.

There's plenty of evidence to make the events in the old testament unproven, unlikely and impossible. There are several cathegories of such evidence. The first is the evidence of lack of evidence. The old testament is very detailed in it's supposed history making it very easy to prove. The evidence which you could basicly just go over there and get did not exist. Examples are the drowned army of egyptians. There would be truckload of remains, there are none. Another is remains of 600,000 people in the desert for 40 years. There are none. Egyptians who were actually a huge civilization at the time of Exodus, kept great documentation of everything that was going on. They left no records of a such escape, which they would if supposed 2 million slaves left (which would be a huge blow to the egyptian economy). Some great cities described in the bible left no trace and never existed.

The second evidence is the inconsistency of the timeline of mentioned events and places. For example, the conquest of Aj became a village first several hundred years after the bible claim it was a great city that was conquered. What was previously believed to be Jericho turned out to be remains that was several thousand years older than when it was supposed to be conquered. In fact, at the time it was supposed to be conquered, the place had been abandoned for a long time. Actually the majority of the supposed cities that was conquered was not inhabitated in the time of their supposed conquest. They were in 650bc ofcourse.
The well in Beer Sheva that were supposed to solve an argument with the philistines are according to the bible built 1000 years before the philistines are known to have entered Canaan. Gerar have the same problem, the city is much yonger than when it appears in the bible. Even the great kingdoms described in the bible were just villages at the time they were supposed to be large and great. The ruins that we actually have down there of stuff which is actually mentioned in the bible, were built much later.

Then there are the evidence that makes parts of the bible impossible. The desert that Moses and friends were supposed to walk through was at the time occupied by egyptian forces making a such walk impossible. We have extensive records from them. The area were littered by garrisons and lookout points and they sent letters in which they recorded everyone passing through their area. Even a small group of people would have been mentioned. There are none.
Even worse, throughout the entire time of Exodus, Canaan was an egyptian province that have left a wealth of historical evidence. In fact, in the search for old testament evidence, archaologists have dug up plenty of egyptian ruins. They were the master of the country. Moses had no reason to escape to Canaan to escape the egyptians, because Canaan was egyptian!

Then there are the evidence of Israels real history that speaks a whole different story. The migration from the north (Abraham etc) is widely discarded as well as the Exodus. The people of the area are known to be of a local stock, not from elsewhere. All summoned historical evidence we have today points to a very different story regarding the history of Israel than what you find in the old testament. The earliest Israelites up north were not immigrants, they were nomads who started to build settlements and started to build up an economy through making olive oil. The small settlements eventually grew into a kingdom. Then there are the Jews down south who live up in the high mountains, an area that was very poor. All remains shows that they were polyteistic, worshipping many mountain gods. One very interesting part regarding the southern settlements was that there were no pigbones anywhere. They did have pigs in the highland so there was no reason for this. Juda did not grow into a significant state until around 800bc and with that they became literate. The archaeological and historical evidence start to match the bible around 650bc. This was also the era in which the pagan god Jehova grew into the "one" god.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
The great flood is recounted in the histories of many civilizations for example.
All four canaan civilizations, far older than Juda, have their own mythology that involves the flood (Ugarit, Babylonia, Sumeria and Mesopotamia). This is not surprising since the area around Canaan often floods. Compare this with the the northern tale about Ragnarok that begins with three years of winter. Pagan myths were always about weather.

Talking about which. The Ugarit flood god was called JV. Ring a bell? What if I spell it in hebrew, JHVH? Pure english… Jehova.
The Ugarit flood god was the son of Elohim, and the son of the snake godess who in pure english was called Eve. She was the keeper of the tree of life. Ugarits reason for the flood was that JV fought the evil Ugarit god of Baal.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
There is NO evidence to disprove the book of Genesis
Both geology, biology and archaeology disproved genesis ages ago. In several of our key sciences like chemistry and astronomy it's impossible to use genesis as a base hypothesis anymore.

Instead Genesis have been mapped out to be traditional myth.
Two key discoveries, the discovery of the Gilgamesh Epos 1872 and the stone tablets in Ras Shamra (Ugarit) 1928, have given historians a good insight in the pagan myths that inspired Genesis. Other tales like the babylonian genesis Enma Elish, and the book that covers almost the entire first part of the old testament; the canaan epos "Atrahasis", have helped to complete the picture. The book of Genesis was simply taken from pagan myths around the area. The earliest known version of the tale that inspired Adam and Eve is the sumerian legend of Adapa that is over 5000 years old.

Two fun sidenotes: 1. The egyptian book of the dead that contains the egyptian version of the ten commandments are dated to several thousand years older than the earliest known old testament.
2. Some evidence, including some passages from the old testament itself, suggests that the Juda version of Jehova was a volcano. It's quite hillarious that christians chant protectionspells by summoning an ancient Israelan pagan volcanogod/floodgod.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
while there IS archaeological evidence to prove much of it.
What archaeological evidence would be able to prove Genesis? Genesis is a creation myth that attempts to explain a few things such as the first family and the creation of earth. It's incompatible with geology, archaeology, history, medicine and some other scientific disciplines. The very first bit, the seven days, was inspired by Enuma Elish, a babylonian tale (pagan myth) that is at least 1000 year older than Genesis.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Still, where is your solid, scientific evidence for evolution?
Back in the first years the science of evolution tracked fossils, species and flies. 150 years later evolution have grown into tracking DNA code which is currently used to track families, criminals, parents. We also use evolution to track genes, gentic mutations, flaws, some neurological damages and other stuff.
A child of two parents with brown eyes have brown eyes. A child with two parents with blue eyes have blue eyes. A child with two parents with different eyecolor might end up somewhere inbetween or either color. Same with hair and looks. The human species and our differences like nords having problems with sun, asians cant handle alcohol, africans are resistant to heat etc, it's all genetic and evolution. Evolution is vital to modern medicine, both to eridicate side effects of drugs, to find new cures, to fight harmful bacteria and viruses.

The basics of evolution is what you read in school because when you get into an university there are plenty of sciences in which evolution is the core of that science. Imagine working within electronics without believing in electricity, that's what evolution is to modern science.

Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
Where is the 'missing link', why is it still not happening? You need to examine both sides of the issue with an open mind as I have!!
I actually think you have locked your mind and see the whole thing backwards. Evolution is not a door that needs to be unlocked. Instead it have proven to be the only key that fits the lock. Now 150 years later it opens many doors that previously been locked to us, doors that opened up to discoveries that we take for granted in our everyday lives such as medicine or why not genetic breeding to get new food etc. Evolution were never something that needed to be proven since it's a tool that simply always worked and still does.
Last edited by JemyM; July 25th, 2007 at 09:53.
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#49

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,027
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM