|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 4, 2013 22:24:17 GMT 10
Well? Do you believe the story or not Skippy? Since Dibley has fallen at the first hurdle, namely: sticking to the defined terms ... what say you? I don't believe we ever agreed on your defined terms, earl.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 5, 2013 0:14:52 GMT 10
Earl, How could it mean 24 literal days if the sun, moon, and stars were not even visible until the fourth day? And why do you presume the source of this light our sun? (The stars produce light, they do not create day.) And you make your error tri-fold by assuming the conditions on planet earth were the same then, as they are today.
I ought to remind you that you are still missing the big picture... Physicists have calculated the passage of time from the source of the Big Bang. It agrees with scripture. (7 days)
Now, take your fail and go.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 5, 2013 0:26:55 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 5, 2013 0:44:12 GMT 10
Funny how you only addressed the first part of that post, and neglect the second part, EG
I believe the story, I reject your interpretation of it.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 5, 2013 0:49:53 GMT 10
Funny how you only addressed the first part of that post, EG I love how you always leave room for improvement. I believe the story, I reject your interpretation of it.Then you are an idiot. “If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” I've never seen EG so agitated. It must really piss him off that we won't accept his argument by vehemence.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 5, 2013 2:01:01 GMT 10
Nah, you're really a dingbat. Have fun with your delusions low IQ man. At first assumed your comment was sarcastic, but now I think that you might actually be serious, in which case...my condolences.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 5, 2013 11:37:28 GMT 10
And I detest that you insist on living with both of those deceptions.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 5, 2013 13:37:02 GMT 10
Funny how you only addressed the first part of that post, EG I love how you always leave room for improvement. I believe the story, I reject your interpretation of it.Then you are an idiot. I thought we could have tried to discuss the issue without personal attacks. I was mistaken. So, once again ...
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 6, 2013 0:29:38 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 8, 2013 11:45:01 GMT 10
Your reductionist mindset, I don't accept.
Objective literary critics still follow Aristotle’s dictum: "Give the benefit of the doubt to the document, unless there is clear evidence that it is not what it claims to be."
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 8, 2013 19:06:51 GMT 10
Alleged talking snakes and donkeys should make that decision easy.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 9, 2013 5:18:42 GMT 10
...Incredulity aside, There is much debate whether the passages in question are to be taken literally or figuratively. --Irrelevant. Talking snakes and donkeys are not as miraculous as the odds of life coming about on our planet given the number of cosmological constants for us to exist, or DNA and consciousness arising on its own accord. If a supernatural God exists, a talking snake or donkey is a cakewalk in compared to a solely naturalistic explanation. After all, you DO believe in talking apes. *Pointing out talking animals is only an excuse to opt out of the real conversation.*
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 9, 2013 6:14:31 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 9, 2013 6:26:11 GMT 10
And snakes and donkeys don't talk, one of their predecessors did.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 9, 2013 6:31:03 GMT 10
And snakes and donkeys don't talk, one of their predecessors did. Which snake oil bible basher are your referring to? Btw, if the bible was so accurate, why doesn't it acknowledge evolution?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 9, 2013 6:46:44 GMT 10
Btw, if the bible was so accurate, why doesn't it acknowledge evolution? Well there are few problems with that statement: 1) You are assuming your particular concept of evolution is correct. 2) The Bible is about the God's relation to man, not man's relation to himself. Now let me pose a question to you: If the Bible was so inaccurate then why would archaeologists use it as a reference for deciding where to conduct fieldwork?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 10, 2013 17:39:47 GMT 10
The Bible's Buried Secrets
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Bible's Buried Secrets
Format Documentary
Created by Providence Pictures
Narrated by Liev Schreiber
Country of origin United States
Running time 112 minutes
Broadcast Original channel PBS
Original airing November 18, 2008
The BBC has also produced a short series of same name covering similar themes presented by Francesca Stavrakopoulou.
"The Bible's Buried Secrets" is the title of a NOVA program that stirred controversy even before its first airing on PBS, on November 18, 2008.[1] According to the program's official website: "The film presents the latest archeological scholarship from the Holy Land to explore the beginnings of modern religion and the origins of the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Old Testament. This archeological detective story tackles some of the biggest questions in biblical studies: Where did the ancient Israelites come from? Who wrote the Bible, when, and why? How did the worship of one God—the foundation of modern Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—emerge?"
Contents 1 Contents 2 Featured archaeologists and historians 3 Reviews and reception 4 See also 5 References 6 External links
Contents
The producers surveyed the evidence and take positions that are mainstream among archaeologists and historians, although they continue to raise objections among both Christians who believe in the bible as literal truth and minimalists who assert that the Bible has no historical validation.
The program airs archaeologists' assertions that:[2] On the Origins of IsraelThere is no archaeological evidence to corroborate the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah's flood and Abraham. There is no evidence to support the mass exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, although some now believe that a small group did escape from Egypt; however, they were not Israelites but, rather, Canaanite slaves. On their journey back to Canaan they pass through Midian, where they are inspired by stories of the Shasu's god, Yhw. The Land of Canaan (called the Promised Land in the Hebrew Bible) was not taken over by conquest as described in the Book of Joshua – rather, the Israelites actually might have been Canaanites who migrated into the highlands and created a new identity for themselves. Of the 31 sites the Bible says that Joshua conquered, few showed any signs of war. "Joshua really didn't fight the Battle of Jericho," William G. Dever said. Some events of the Israelite kingdom given in the Book of Kings are more or less accurate as history. On the development of the Hebrew Bible or TanakhThe Bible's first books have been traced back to multiple authors writing over a span of centuries. (See Documentary hypothesis.) The early books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Samuel and Kings, reached almost their present form during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BCE. On the development of monotheism in IsraelThe Israelite religion was not exclusively monotheistic from the beginning as suggested in the Hebrew Bible, rather, the archaeological evidence indicates that, before the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE, the early Israelites were polytheistic and worshipped the local god Yahweh alongside his "wife," a fertility goddess named Asherah. The emergence of monotheism and the belief in the universality of Yahweh was a response to the tragic experience of the Babylonian exile of the Israelites in the 6th century BCE. According to Dever, "It's out of this that comes the reflection that polytheism was our [the Israelites'] downfall."
Featured archaeologists and historians Gabriel Barkay, Amnon Ben-Tor, Manfred Bietak, Elisabetta Boaretto, Joan Branham, Thomas Cahill, Shaye Cohen, Michael Coogan, William G. Dever, Hani Nur El-Din, Avraham Faust, Israel Finkelstein, David Ilan, Lee Levine, Peter Machinist, Jodi Magness, Amihai Mazar, Eilat Mazar, Kyle McCarter, Carol Meyers, Eric Meyers, Donald Redford, Lawrence Stager, Ephraim Stern, Ron Tappy, Andrew Vaughn[disambiguation needed], Sharon Zuckerman
Reviews and reception[edit]
The Biblical Archaeology Review wrote: "The producers have done a magnificent job summarizing over a century of biblical archaeology and biblical scholarship in two hours. The film strikes a balance between the old-fashioned biblical archaeology approach, which tried to prove the Bible’s historicity, and the extreme skepticism of some minimalists, for whom the Bible contains little factual history."[3]
According to Rabbi Wesley Gardenswartz: "Conservative Judaism is fully accepting of the type of scholarship featured in this documentary."[4]
Reverend Kenneth Himes says: "For some, the ideas presented may seem novel or surprising, but this is material that is being discussed in the theology courses found at many Catholic universities."[5]
The conservative American Family Association has issued an online petition urging Congress to cut off federal funding for PBS.[6] "PBS is knowingly choosing to insult and attack Christianity by airing a program that declares the Bible ‘isn't true and a bunch of stories that never happened,’" signers of the petition are encouraged to declare to members of Congress.[7]
Apologetics Press, a young earth creationist organization affiliated with the Churches of Christ, has written a response to this program that is summarised with the concluding paragraph: "... if Christians are to change their minds about the historicity of the events recorded in the Hebrew Bible, a better case, supported by adequate evidence, would have to be made than the one presented in The Bible’s Buried Secrets."[8]
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 11, 2013 11:25:40 GMT 10
Did you actually read that article, slarti; or did you just scan it for buzzwords? (It's obvious to me and anyone else reading this article, that you did the latter.)
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 11, 2013 11:45:39 GMT 10
No, I vaguely remembered the tv show from a few yeas ago and how it upset the bible bashers.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 11, 2013 11:47:28 GMT 10
You do realise that the finger points at your own contribution, Dib? As in, when you posted it, not now.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 11, 2013 12:01:25 GMT 10
No, I vaguely remembered the tv show from a few yeas ago and how it upset the bible bashers. I fail to see how another christian's outrage validates your argument, slarti.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 11, 2013 12:03:59 GMT 10
You do realise that the finger points at your own contribution, Dib? As in, when you posted it, not now. ...Which contained a quote from the individual to whom I was scrutinizing.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 11, 2013 12:12:01 GMT 10
No, I vaguely remembered the tv show from a few yeas ago and how it upset the bible bashers. I fail to see how another christian's outrage validates your argument, slarti. No, it invalidates yours.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 11, 2013 12:13:44 GMT 10
I fail to see how another christian's outrage validates your argument, slarti. No, it invalidates yours. So Christians aren't supposed to be outraged about propaganda?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Dec 11, 2013 12:30:02 GMT 10
As per usual, you miss the point.
|
|