Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

I'm sure that was somewhat relevant in the 1940's.

Yes...it was. Archaelogy and the Bible is still relevant. New discoveries continue to support God's Word.

So I guess if I found a more current archaeologist outlining all the ways in which archaeological data doesn't support the Bible, you would find that just as compelling, right?

Your problem Jose is that you are unwilling to follow the evidence. There are thousands of finds consistent with the Biblical account and not even one proving the Bible wrong.

Re how archaeology continues to prove the Bible accurate the Los Angeles Times reported about this archaeological find...“‘Scholars have said that there wasn’t a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit’ to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. ‘Now, we have found the Pool of Siloam … exactly where John said it was.’ A Gospel that was thought to be ‘pure theology is now shown to be grounded in history,’ he said”

Interesting.... the doubters proven wrong by science/ archaeology, and the Bible proven correct...again.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Yes...it was. Archaelogy and the Bible is still relevant. New discoveries continue to support God's Word.

Archaeology can't support the STORY. You might as well read the Iliad or "Hawaii".

Your problem is that you are unwilling to follow the evidence. There are thousands of finds consistent with the Biblical account and not even one proving the Bible wrong.

Yeah, so? When you get around to the evidence supporting the STORY you will then have something to crow about.

Re how archaeology continues to prove the Bible accurate the Los Angeles Times reported about this archaeological find...“‘Scholars have said that there wasn’t a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit’ to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. ‘Now, we have found the Pool of Siloam … exactly where John said it was.’ A Gospel that was thought to be ‘pure theology is now shown to be grounded in history,’ he said”

Actually, John says absolutely nothing about the location of the pool. The sensationalism of this is misplaced since a "Pool of Siloam" has been known for centuries. We simply now know the location of the original.

Interesting.... the doubters proven wrong by science/ archaeology, and the Bible proven correct...again.

When do you think archaeology will be getting around to providing evidence of the miracles in the bible?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

We notice Fly and Munter have ignored their blatant errors and created another rabbit trail.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Archaeology can't support the STORY. You might as well read the Iliad or "Hawaii".Yeah, so? When you get around to the evidence supporting the STORY you will then have something to crow about.Actually, John says absolutely nothing about the location of the pool. The sensationalism of this is misplaced since a "Pool of Siloam" has been known for centuries. We simply now know the location of the original.When do you think archaeology will be getting around to providing evidence of the miracles in the bible?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Evidence for miracles is only shown to believers. God refuses to be subject to the scientific method . There will come a day , however, when evidence will be plentiful and overflowing . That day will not be a happy one however for most.

 

[6days]

Yes...it was. Archaelogy and the Bible is still relevant. New discoveries continue to support God's Word.

Archaeology can't support the STORY.

We understand why you deny the evidence .
Archaeology has provided thousands of pieces of evidence supporting the Biblical record. 'Scholars' once scoffed at at many of the Old Testament kings and calling it mythology. Archaeology has now shown that at least 40 of the kings really did exist such as Belshazzar, King Darius, and King Cyrus.The Bible was correct. 'Scholars' once scoffed at the Old Testament mention of the Hittite empire. Archaeology has shown it existed. The Bible is always correct.

Your problem is that you are unwilling to follow the evidence. There are thousands of finds consistent with the Biblical account and not even one proving the Bible wrong.

Re how archaeology continues to prove the Bible accurate the Los Angeles Times reported about this archaeological find...“‘Scholars have said that there wasn’t a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit’ to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. ‘Now, we have found the Pool of Siloam … exactly where John said it was.’ A Gospel that was thought to be ‘pure theology is now shown to be grounded in history,’ he said”

Actually, John says absolutely nothing about the location of the pool. The sensationalism of this is misplaced since a "Pool of Siloam" has been known for centuries. We simply now know the location of the original.

You better tell the LA Times your version of history. What they said was correct....Scholars had said "there wasn't a pool".....Archaeologists found it.
The doubters proven wrong by science/ archaeology, and the Bible proven correct...again.

When do you think archaeology will be getting around to providing evidence of the miracles in the bible?

Archaeology is science, Hunter...which you seem not to understand.It is the remains authenticating human activities, events people etc. Archaeology helps confirm the accuracy of the history in the Bible. Archaeology can not provide material evidence of miracles atheists believe in, nor evidence of miracles I believe in. However.....archaeology does help confirm the truth of God's Word.

BTW...although atheist sites may have told you that the location of the pool is not given in the Bible, they are wrong. It is mentioned in Nehemiah and Isaiah.

 

[Silent Hunter]

A for miracles is only shown to believers.[/QUOTE]Only believers get to see miracles? I bet you see them everywhere. You can't get more delusional than that.

God refuses to be subject to the scientific method .

Well, isn't that convenient.

There will come a day , however, when evidence will be plentiful and overflowing . That day will not be a happy one however for most.

:yawn:

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

We understand why you deny the evidence .
Archaeology has provided thousands of pieces of evidence supporting the Biblical record. 'Scholars' once scoffed at at many of the Old Testament kings and calling it mythology. Archaeology has now shown that at least 40 of the kings really did exist such as Belshazzar, King Darius, and King Cyrus.The Bible was correct. 'Scholars' once scoffed at the Old Testament mention of the Hittite empire. Archaeology has shown it existe. The Bible is always correct.

Oh, goodie, I get another, "Yeah, so", moment. You're just not picking up on WHY it doesn't matter. All those kings and archaeologists haven't definitively confirmed the existence of Moses, David, Saul, Solomon, or any of the Judean kings that I'm aware of and they should be easier to find. Archaeologist thought Troy, from the Iliad, didn't exist either until it was discovered in the early 1800's. Does that magically make the story in the Iliad accurate history?

You better tell the LA Times your version of history. What they said was correct....Scholars had said "there wasn't a pool".....Archaeologists found it.
The doubters proven wrong by science/ archaeology, and the Bible proven correct...again.

Really? Is the LA Times your source for history? Scholars AND archaeologists have known for CENTURIES of a "Pool of Siloam ". To accurately know the exact location is just a plus.

Archaeology is science, Hunter...which you seem not to understand.

:liberals: Is it my imagination or is this an ad hominem?

It is the remains authenticating human activities, events people etc.

True, in exactly the same way archaeology helps confirm the accuracy of the Iliad but without the miracles.

Archaeology helps confirm the accuracy of the history in the Bible.

So you keep saying.

Archaeology can not provide material evidence of miracles atheists believe in, nor evidence of miracles I believe in.

I don't believe in miracles so I'm at a loss as to what you've talking about. Paleontology has provided more evidence of evolution than archaeology has the bible. It is the same archaeology that suggests "The Exodus" (among other fabled events) never happened. http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/mos_exodus.html ::think:

However.....archaeology does help confirm the truth of God's Word.

So you keep saying... again.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

“‘Scholars have said that there wasn’t a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit’ to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. ‘Now, we have found the Pool of Siloam … exactly where John said it was.’

BTW...although atheist sites may have told you that the location of the pool is not given in the Bible, they are wrong. It is mentioned in Nehemiah and Isaiah.

If the EXACT location of the biblical pool is found in John, Nehemiah and Isaiah why did it take so long to find it. :liberals::idunno:

I think it is reasonable to call Mr. Charlesworth a liar at most, and a sensationalist at the least... and you are unbelievably gullible.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

If the EXACT location of the biblical pool is found in John, Nehemiah and Isaiah why did it take so long to find it. :liberals::idunno:

Good question... And there are answers. (For ex. Many scholars did not believe the account).
But that is apart from the fact that archaeology continues to confirm the accuracy of God's Word. And, it's apart from the fact you blindly believed atheist info telling you the location was not in scripture.



The former director of the Australian Inst. of Archaeology said "I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.” Dr. Clifford Wilson

 

[Silent Hunter]

Good question... And there are answers. (For ex. Many scholars did not believe the account).

Scholars, BIBLICAL scholars, don't believe everything in the bible? The horror! So, because they didn't believe the pool existed they just threw their collective hands in the air and told archaeologist, "Don't bother looking"? Really? That's your excuse?

But that is apart from the fact that archaeology continues to confirm the accuracy of God's Word.

I suppose you're STILL not going to address The Exodus and continue to mindlessly continue your bland soliloquy, right?

And, it's apart from the fact you blindly believed atheist info telling you the location was not in scripture.

Well, that would be because its not. I checked. Apart from the fact you blindly believe a LA Times article telling you the exact location is told in John. Then you double down by claiming it is in Nehemiah and Isaiah as well. Do you EVER check your facts or do you just blindly accept what creationist web sites say then cut and paste?

The former director of the Australian Inst. of Archaeology said "I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.” Dr. Clifford Wilson

Cut and paste much? You do know that Dr. Wilson is a creationist and has a vested interest in saying this, right?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

All those kings and archaeologists haven't definitively confirmed the existence of Moses, David, Saul, Solomon, or any of the Judean kings that I'm aware of and they should be easier to find.

You sure like to avoid the real evidence...and the opinions af archaeologists who say that archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of scripture.

Archaeologist thought Troy, from the Iliad, didn't exist either until it was discovered in the early 1800's. Does that magically make the story in the Iliad accurate history?

Silly argument again..... Or perhaps you can show numerous archaeologists suggesting archaeology helps confirm the historical accuracy of the Illiad? Your argument is goofy once again.

 

[6days]

I suppose you're STILL not going to address The Exodus and continue to mindlessly continue your bland soliloquy, right?Well, that would be because its not. ...

Archaeology helps confirm the historical accuracy of God's Word. There have been many many things skeptics claimed were mythical in the Bible....which archaeology later helped to confirm, leaving egg on the face of sceptics. Your Exodus claim is no different. Not having found archaeological evidence for many of the people and events in scripture did not prove scripture wrong. It was the skepics proven wrong by evidence.
Your Exodus claim has been in atheist web sites for years.....it's an old and silly argument, yet many still cling to it. There are various ideas, and evidences to be considered in support of Exodus. There are even secular historians and archaeologists now starting to believe Exodus is supported by evidence. http://creation.com/patterns-of-evidence

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries." Dr. Nelson Glueck

 

[Silent Hunter]

You sure like to avoid the real evidence...and the opinions af archaeologists who say that archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of scripture.

Archaeologists haven't definitively confirmed the existence of Moses, David, Saul, Solomon, or any of the Judean kings that I'm aware of and they should be easier to find. Wouldn't that be better confirmation of the historical accuracy of the bible over kings and civilizations having little to nothing to do with bible claims?

It's interesting that whenever "science" (particularly a select group of scientists) "confirms" the bible you're anxious to quote them. But when it comes to a cosmology you disagree with, supported by thousands of scientists, you are eerily silent. :think:

Did The Exodus REALLY happen? http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/mos_exodus.html

Silly argument again..... Or perhaps you can show numerous archaeologists suggesting archaeology helps confirm the historical accuracy of the Illiad? Your argument is goofy once again.

That's not the point but no one is surprised you didn't understand. But then again, you're not really attacking the argument, are you?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

Scholars, BIBLICAL scholars, don't believe everything in the bible? The horror! So, because they didn't believe the pool existed they just threw their collective hands in the air and told archaeologist, "Don't bother looking"? Really? That's your excuse?I suppose you're STILL not going to address The Exodus and continue to mindlessly continue your bland soliloquy, right?Well, that would be because its not. I checked. Apart from the fact you blindly believe a LA Times article telling you the exact location is told in John. Then you double down by claiming it is in Nehemiah and Isaiah as well. Do you EVER check your facts or do you just blindly accept what creationist web sites say then cut and paste?Cut and paste much? You do know that Dr. Wilson is a creationist and has a vested interest in saying this, right?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

You do know that Dr. Wilson is a creationist and has a vested interest in saying this, right?

Haaaaaaa....... Hunter, your 'arguments' are becoming more desperate, and dumber.
Do you apply that same logic to evolutionists? Nope!

We know the reason you attack him, is because you are unable to refute his statement.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Do you EVER check your facts or do you just blindly accept what creationist web sites say then cut and paste?

Archaeology helps confirm the historical accuracy of God's Word. There have been many many things skeptics claimed were mythical in the Bible....which archaeology later helped to confirm, leaving egg on the face of sceptics. Your Exodus claim is no different. Not having found archaeological evidence for many of the people and events in scripture did not prove scripture wrong. It was the skepics proven wrong by evidence.
Your Exodus claim has been in atheist web sites for years.....it's an old and silly argument, yet many still cling to it. There are various ideas, and evidences to be considered in support of Exodus. There are even secular historians and archaeologists now starting to believe Exodus is supported by evidence. http://creation.com/patterns-of-evidence

"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries." Dr. Nelson Glueck

So, that would be, "No", to fact checking and, "Yes", to blindly accept what creationist web sites say then cut and paste. Check.

Not having found archaeological evidence for many of the people and events in scripture did not prove scripture wrong.

So, even when there is no evidence, there ought to be. Check.

And you quote another creationist... sad, just, sad.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

Haaaaaaa....... Hunter, your 'arguments' are becoming more desperate, and dumber.
Do you apply that same logic to evolutionists? Nope!

Same as you. See another post. I note you can't help yourself attacking me, not the argument... again.

We know the reason you attack him, is because you are unable to refute his statement.

I did that already. I refuted you saying the EXACT SAME THING. Must I refute the same nonsense each and every time?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

It's interesting that whenever "science" (particularly a select group of scientists) "confirms" the bible you're anxious to quote them. But when it comes to a cosmology you disagree with, supported by thousands of scientists, you are eerily silent. :think:

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

But when it comes to a cosmology you disagree with, supported by thousands of scientists, you are eerily silent.

We understand why you want to move the goal posts..... And make an argument based on popularity. Cosmology also confirms God's Word in many ways..... But, let's stick to topic of archaeology...Or, are you mow admitting that archaeology helps confirm the accuracy of scripture?

"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." Dr. William F. Albright Like he says....archaeology helps confirm the accuracy of scripture.

 

[6days]

Same as you. See another post. I note you can't help yourself attacking me, not the argument... again.

Big difference..... You did not make an argument. In fact you avoided the argument the archaeologist made and attacked him.
So...yes you were mocked and rightfully so.