Noah's Flood on Mars

[Granite]

It doesn't "verify" it but it does support our claim of the historical accuracy of the Bible which is one of the main things skeptics try to disparage in order to try to disparage the historical figure of Jesus Himself.

I for one have never said the Bible is entirely inaccurate. I have no doubt there's some truth to some of it. The pool, of its own, demonstrates mankind's love of cool water. Beyond that it is window dressing.

 

[allsmiles]

We aren't claiming it "verifies" it but we are claiming that it supports our claim of the historical accuracy of the Bible which is one of the main things skeptics try to disparage in order to try to disparage the historical figure of Jesus Himself.

what granite said. the bible was written in a specific cultural context so it stands to reason it is going to reference historical sites. as for the historical accuracy, yes, that stands to reason, i have never disputed the occasional historical accuracy of the bible. what i'm curious about is exactly why this find is so important, it doesn't support anything necessary for the validity of christianity itself, like granite said, it's proof that men in desert climates like cool water.

 

[Granite]

That said, I dig archeology (no pun intended) and this sort of discovery is way cool in my book. :up:

 

[Jefferson]

i have never disputed the occasional historical accuracy of the bible. (emphasis mine)

That's just the point. If the Bible is only "occasionally" historically accurate then it is not inspired. Skeptics used to jump up and down with glee over the inability of archaeologists to find this pool, holding it up as "proof" that the Bible is not inspired. They're not jumping for joy today.

 

[Granite]

That's just the point. If the Bible is only "occasionally" historically accurate then it is not inspired. Skeptics used to jump up and down with glee over the inability of archaeologists to find this pool, holding it up as "proof" that the Bible is not inspired. They're not jumping for joy today.

But not all skeptics throw the baby out with the bath water: others (the smart ones, as far as I'm concerned) acknowledge some validity to the Bible.

 

[Jefferson]

That said, I dig archeology (no pun intended) and this sort of discovery is way cool in my book. :up:

Why? Every time an archaeologists spade hits the ground, another skeptic loses his faith in his agnosticism.

 

[allsmiles]

That's just the point. If the Bible is only "occasionally" historically accurate then it is not inspired. Skeptics used to jump up and down with glee over the inability of archaeologists to find this pool, holding it up as "proof" that the Bible is not inspired. They're not jumping for joy today.

i'm sorry, but the discovery of the pool of siloam implies nothing that can be used as proof of the validity of the bible. historical accuracy? sure, but skeptics such as myself expect that and aren't surprised by this.

and i never used the historical inaccuracies of the bible as "proof" of it's invalidity.

what i do is ask how the historical accuracy speaks to the validity of the theology.

it doesn't.

 

[Granite]

Why? Every time an archaeologists spade hits the ground, another skeptic loses his faith in his agnosticism.

Not this one. And by the way, Jeff, if you need a bigger brush to paint with, lemme know.

Not every archeological dig is centered in the Middle East and is geared towards "proving" the Bible, Jeff. In fact much that's been discovered sheds a VERY different light on your faith's history...I'd recommend "The Bible Unearthed" as a good place to start. Very readable book.

Is it Friday yet???

 

[Jefferson]

i'm sorry, but the discovery of the pool of siloam implies nothing that can be used as proof of the validity of the bible. historical accuracy? sure, but skeptics such as myself expect that and aren't surprised by this.

and i never used the historical inaccuracies of the bible as "proof" of it's invalidity.

what i do is ask how the historical accuracy speaks to the validity of the theology.

it doesn't.

Every time the Bible makes an historical statement it is taking a risk of being proven fallable and therefore not the Word of God. Therefore every time the Bible makes an historical statement, Christianity bashers cross their fingers in eager anticipation that it will be proven false. So far they have been disappointed every time.

I'm not saying this proves Christianity to be true. What I am saying is that these myriads of opportunities to DISprove Christianity have failed to do so every single time.

 

[fool]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fool

straw men are fun
let me see if I can make one
if I put the population of people on the earth
5,000,000,000
into my calculator and devide by two
as in a world wide coin toss tournament
I come up with the winner having won 33 coin tosses in a row
and what's more amazing is that the person he won the last one against had won 32 in a row!
what are the odds?!?!?
so here's what you can do at home
you and your buddy toss coins by your selves until you have both beat the coin 32 times in a row and the play each other
see how many tries it takes you and let us know
and by the way please ignore the fact that there will be winners
please ignore the fact that the winners prove that it is possible
just cocentrate on the coins flipping


Isn't anyone going to burn my strawman?

 

[fool]

And just as an aside,
What does the pool have to do with a flood on Mars?
There's already a pool thread.
Ninevah started it.

 

[fool]

Come on Bob, I can see you at the bottom of the screen.
I know your seeing this.
Say something.

 

[Rimi]

Fool, maybe he's waiting to engage in intelligent discourse.

 

[Rimi]

Just guessing.

 

[allsmiles]

Every time the Bible makes an historical statement it is taking a risk of being proven fallable and therefore not the Word of God. Therefore every time the Bible makes an historical statement, Christianity bashers cross their fingers in eager anticipation that it will be proven false. So far they have been disappointed every time.

The point remains, historical accuracies or inaccuracies don't speak to the validity of the theology or the existence of christ or his divinity. historical accuracies don't hurt you but conversely they don't help you either, it only makes sense that historical places will be referenced, it doesn't add or take away from arguments for either side.

I'm not saying this proves Christianity to be true. What I am saying is that these myriads of opportunities to DISprove Christianity have failed to do so every single time.

i'm not sure if that's necessarily so.

 

[Jukia]

When someone shows me some credible evidence that there was a world-wide flood abpit 4000 years ago I'll pay particular attention. Until then the accuracy of the Bible with respect to the existence of certain geographic locations is a non-story.

 

[Pepper]

Maybe Noah used to live on mars and the ark was really a spaceship and he left mars and landed on earth and that's why there's no evidence of a worldwide flood because it happened on a different planet...

 

[fool]

Maybe Noah used to live on mars and the ark was really a spaceship and he left mars and landed on earth and that's why there's no evidence of a worldwide flood because it happened on a different planet...

I think you may be on to something there.

 

[allsmiles]

we don't know for a fact, and will never know for a fact so anything is a possibility.

the lack of definitive knowledge makes the sky the limit and gives us the freedom to pretty much make up our belief systems as we go along.

if god exists there's no way it can blame us for not believing in it or believing in something completely different, like no god at all.

 

[Jefferson]

i'm not sure if that's necessarily so.

I'm positive it is so. Please explain why it is not.