Archaeological Evidence
The Governess
behind him that has survived the ravages of time. The initial motivation
for digging up ancient civilizations was the desire for buried treasure.
Today, however, the most modern scientific methods are used to recover and
study the remains of the past in order to achieve a better understanding of
ancient people and their practices. The Middle East is the subject of many
archaeological excavations because of its continuous history.
Let me point out that archaeology without history is meaningless. All that
archaeology can tell us is a sequence of cultural development, not give us
an exact chronology. History gives us the chronology, the events, people
and places.
What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some of
the history contained in the Bible. For instance, two of the cities
mentioned in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, have been for many years
considered mythological.
However, recent excavations at Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site of
Ebla, uncovered about 15,000 tablets. Some of these have been translated,
and mention is made of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Other archaeological verifications include proof that there was a ruler
named Belshazzar; the Hittites not only existed but also had a vast empire;
King Sargon also ruled, and the matters that touch upon history in the Book
of Acts are demonstrably accurate. So far, the findings of archaeology have
verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.
While archaeology can verify history and shed light on various passages of
the Bible, it is beyond the realm of archaeology to prove the Bible is the
Word of God. At present, limited data available, but even with its
limitations this discipline is very helpful in illustrating that many
biblical passages are historically accurate.
One cannot stress enough, the importance of the Bible giving an accurate
historical picture. Christianity is a historical faith which claims that
God has broken into history with many might acts.
Although the miracles recorded in scripture cannot be scientifically tested
or repeated due to their nature, persons, places and events can be
investigated historically. If the biblical writers were incorrect in their
historical picture, serious doubt would then be cast upon their
trustworthiness in areas which couldn't be verified.
Putting it another way, if the authors of Scripture are accurate in their
accounts of the things that transpired, it then follows that they cannot be
ruled out because they happen to mention things out of the ordinary.
Now, let's get on to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
--
goo-to-you-via-the-zoo? Yah.
For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes,
His eternal power and divine nature,
have been clearly seen,
being understood through
what has been made, so that they
are without excuse.
Romans1:20
<^> «( 0 ¿ 0 )» <^> ....Islam
"The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:vJJ19.15781$Kl6.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
are you typing this or cutting and pasting?
The Governess
"<^> «( 0 ¿ 0 )» <^> ....Islam" <nos...@nospamm.com> wrote in message
news:fLJ19.4211$Ru5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Othon
"<^> «( 0 ¿ 0 )» <^> ....Islam" <nos...@nospamm.com> wrote in message
news:fLJ19.4211$Ru5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
>
scholar would write the things he/she wrote. When someone claims biblical
narratives are actual descriptions of historical events, as they happened,
that someone doesn't know what she/he is talking about.
"At present, limited data available, but even with its limitations this
discipline is very helpful in illustrating that many biblical passages are
historically accurate."
>
Ray Fischer
>What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some of
>the history contained in the Bible. For instance, two of the cities
>mentioned in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, have been for many years
>considered mythological.
>
>However, recent excavations at Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site of
>Ebla, uncovered about 15,000 tablets. Some of these have been translated,
>and mention is made of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Cite?
>Other archaeological verifications include proof that there was a ruler
>named Belshazzar; the Hittites not only existed but also had a vast empire;
>King Sargon also ruled, and the matters that touch upon history in the Book
>of Acts are demonstrably accurate. So far, the findings of archaeology have
>verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.
You make a lot of claims without support.
>While archaeology can verify history and shed light on various passages of
>the Bible, it is beyond the realm of archaeology to prove the Bible is the
>Word of God. At present, limited data available, but even with its
>limitations this discipline is very helpful in illustrating that many
>biblical passages are historically accurate.
And many are not
>One cannot stress enough, the importance of the Bible giving an accurate
>historical picture. Christianity is a historical faith which claims that
>God has broken into history with many might acts.
But notice that the Bible is self-contradictory in many places and
known to be wrong in others.
--
Ray Fischer Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth.
rfis...@sonic.net Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about
their business as if nothing had happened. -- Churchill
The Governess
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ai7qp1$33l$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> The Governess <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some
of
> >the history contained in the Bible. For instance, two of the cities
> >mentioned in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, have been for many years
> >considered mythological.
> >
> >However, recent excavations at Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site of
> >Ebla, uncovered about 15,000 tablets. Some of these have been
translated,
> >and mention is made of Sodom and Gomorrah.
>
> Cite?
Free, Joseph. 'Archaeology and Bible History'. Rev. ed. Wheaton, Ill
Scripture Press 1969
Wilson, Clifford. "Ebla Tablets: Secrets of a Forgotten City". San Diego:
Master Books, 1979----'Rock, Relics and Biblical Reliability'. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1977
> >Other archaeological verifications include proof that there was a ruler
> >named Belshazzar; the Hittites not only existed but also had a vast
empire;
> >King Sargon also ruled, and the matters that touch upon history in the
Book
> >of Acts are demonstrably accurate. So far, the findings of archaeology
have
> >verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical
record.
>
> You make a lot of claims without support.
Wiseman, Donald J. and Edwin M. Yamauchi, 'Archaeology and the Bible'.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
> >While archaeology can verify history and shed light on various passages
of
> >the Bible, it is beyond the realm of archaeology to prove the Bible is
the
> >Word of God. At present, limited data available, but even with its
> >limitations this discipline is very helpful in illustrating that many
> >biblical passages are historically accurate.
>
> And many are not
Proof?
> >One cannot stress enough, the importance of the Bible giving an accurate
> >historical picture. Christianity is a historical faith which claims that
> >God has broken into history with many might acts.
>
> But notice that the Bible is self-contradictory in many places and
> known to be wrong in others.
We'll get to that, Ray.
Paradox
good old days, why doesn't he now? you also notice that human technology and
society evolved by leaps and bounds when it wasn't being controlled?
"The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:vJJ19.15781$Kl6.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Paul Anderson
Fischer) wrote:
>The Governess <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some of
>>the history contained in the Bible. For instance, two of the cities
>>mentioned in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, have been for many years
>>considered mythological.
>>
>>However, recent excavations at Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site of
>>Ebla, uncovered about 15,000 tablets. Some of these have been translated,
>>and mention is made of Sodom and Gomorrah.
>
>Cite?
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jan1982/v38-4-bookreview12.htm
The author states explicity that, contrary to earlier announcements
unauthorized by the Italian Expedition, neither Akkad nor Sargon
of Akkad is mentioned in the Ebla texts, that Byblos "most probably
does not appear in the texts," and that documentary evidence for
"presumed connections between the Ebla texts and biblical
characters, stories and episodes is effectively non-existent." The
Ebla texts, he goes on, contain no proof of the historicity of the
biblical patriarchs, no news of a cult of Yahweh at Ebla, no
mention of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and no literary
text with the story of the flood. With these terse statements he
intends to show that the reorganized Italian Expedition "is
morally and scientifically engaged" in evaluating the evidence
from Ebla "from a truly historical point of view." The assurance
is welcome.
>You make a lot of claims without support.
Proof is available. See above.
Othon
>
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:ai7qp1$33l$1...@newbolt.sonic.net...
> > The Governess <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some
> of
> > >the history contained in the Bible. For instance, two of the cities
> > >mentioned in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, have been for many years
> > >considered mythological.
> > >
> > >However, recent excavations at Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site
of
> > >Ebla, uncovered about 15,000 tablets. Some of these have been
> translated,
> > >and mention is made of Sodom and Gomorrah.
> >
> > Cite?
>
> Free, Joseph. 'Archaeology and Bible History'. Rev. ed. Wheaton, Ill
> Scripture Press 1969
First 42 tablets of the ancient city of Ebla also known as the Tel Mardikh
find were discovered in 1974, almost 1,000 more were unearthed in September
1975. Between 1974 and 1976, 16,500 tablets and fragments were unearthed by
a team of Italian archeologists.
>
> Wilson, Clifford. "Ebla Tablets: Secrets of a Forgotten City". San
Diego:
> Master Books, 1979----'Rock, Relics and Biblical Reliability'. Grand
> Rapids: Zondervan, 1977
>
>
>
> > >Other archaeological verifications include proof that there was a ruler
> > >named Belshazzar; the Hittites not only existed but also had a vast
> empire;
> > >King Sargon also ruled, and the matters that touch upon history in the
> Book
> > >of Acts are demonstrably accurate. So far, the findings of archaeology
> have
> > >verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical
> record.
> >
> > You make a lot of claims without support.
>
> Wiseman, Donald J. and Edwin M. Yamauchi, 'Archaeology and the Bible'.
> Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
Some 148 years ago, 1853-1854, an inscription was found in southern Iraq
which mentions Belshazzar as the son of King Nabonidus. In 1850 a German
scholar had written in his commentary on Daniel that Belshazzar was a
figment of the imagination. So what? We are now in year 2002. :-)
Clayton God Schmod
> What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some of
> the history contained in the Bible. For instance, two of the cities
> mentioned in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, have been for many years
> considered mythological.
The biblical version of S & G IS mythological. There may have been real
places upon which the myth was based, but the story in the Bible is as much
fantasy and myth as everything else.
>
> However, recent excavations at Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site of
> Ebla, uncovered about 15,000 tablets. Some of these have been translated,
> and mention is made of Sodom and Gomorrah.
So what...Egypt is mentioned in the Bible too....doesn't change the fact
that the events in Exodus never happened. Just because evidence is found of
the existence of a place at some time in the past, doesn't mean that any
fanciful tale about it is true.
Archaeology has overwhelmingly showed that the Bible is mythology, fluff and
fairy tales. There is so much of the Bible that has been disproved by
archaeology and science, that if you cut all those parts out, what's left
would be in danger of blowing away in a slight breeze.
Mr. Motes
> Putting it another way, if the authors of Scripture are accurate in their
> accounts of the things that transpired, it then follows that they cannot
be
> ruled out because they happen to mention things out of the ordinary.
I looked up into the blue sky and then i flapped my arms and flew.
The sky is blue, so i can fly, right?
I reccomend The Bible Unearthed. It shows how modern archaeology is
demolishing much of the alleged historocity of the Bible.
Mr. Motes
386sx
> <^> «( 0 ¿ 0 )» <^> wrote:
>> are you typing this or cutting and pasting?
I'm afraid Mr. <^> «( 0 ¿ 0 )» <^> has you, Governess.
> I think he/she dreamed it up. No intelligent archeological or biblical
> scholar would write the things he/she wrote.
And you would be right. The words of The Governess were really the words of
Josh McDowell.
http://www.fortclark.org/scripture/bible/Does_Archaeology_prove_Bible.html
> When someone claims biblical narratives are actual descriptions of
> historical events, as they happened, that someone doesn't know what
> she/he is talking about. "At present, limited data available, but even
> with its limitations this discipline is very helpful in illustrating
> that many biblical passages are historically accurate."
>
> Wonder what those passages would be? :-)
--
386
"One serious theological question used to be whether Adam and Eve had belly
buttons. Now you have me wondering if God had a belly button. If he
didn't, they were were not created in his image. And if he did have a belly
button, then what was it for?" -- Richard A. Weatherwax
Thomas P.
No one has ever denied that many of the people and places mentioned in
the Bible actually existed. That does not establish the Bible as
accurate. If it did, "Gone With the Wind" would be an accurate
historical document.
>
>While archaeology can verify history and shed light on various passages of
>the Bible, it is beyond the realm of archaeology to prove the Bible is the
>Word of God. At present, limited data available, but even with its
>limitations this discipline is very helpful in illustrating that many
>biblical passages are historically accurate.
>
>One cannot stress enough, the importance of the Bible giving an accurate
>historical picture.
In that case your argument fails completely.
>Christianity is a historical faith which claims that
>God has broken into history with many might acts.
Unwarranted.
>
>Although the miracles recorded in scripture cannot be scientifically tested
>or repeated due to their nature, persons, places and events can be
>investigated historically. If the biblical writers were incorrect in their
>historical picture, serious doubt would then be cast upon their
>trustworthiness in areas which couldn't be verified.
They were incorrect, but that is not the only reason to doubt.
>
>Putting it another way, if the authors of Scripture are accurate in their
>accounts of the things that transpired, it then follows that they cannot be
>ruled out because they happen to mention things out of the ordinary.
I question your premise, but, even if it were accepted, the Bible is
full of inaccuracies.
Thomas P.
"Men go and come, but earth abides."
*nemo*
news:fLJ19.4211$Ru5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
<snip>
> are you typing this or cutting and pasting?
>
What? no insults? No cussing? You sick or something?
zZiM,AqKSPTN,QEvUVISxW9,DxhXK[R8RN9M3&WRRIp1Z]ArESx
@Y5X&TG,f3EX5SeNIrXLMDLiuAS5TTy*QM,ZO{JWZJU9ATN*IY5
@MQ7ZNh]Y%*UITsSGY&Zi5,AqJ3S9QQLiTJ,Dw;1PmFURZ%T@ES
MSe1XWWPIpXN5FNhB7&PmS]Os*QSD7+
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.att.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
**************************************************
Quotemeister since March 2002
**************************************************
Liz
It would be interesting to discover where the erroneous information used to
show that archaeological finds support the historicity of the Bible
originated. Obviously, it did not come from the archaeologists who are
actually studying these tablets.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many...freely confess that they believe what it makes them
feel good to believe. Evidence doesn't play much of a role.
They are alleviating their fear of randomness by identifying
regularities that are not there. - Murray Gell-Mann
Sebet
news:vJJ19.15781$Kl6.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
that
> archaeology can tell us is a sequence of cultural development, not give us
> an exact chronology. History gives us the chronology, the events, people
> and places.
History frequently depends on archaeology. The two complement each other,
they do not compete.
> What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some of
> the history contained in the Bible. For instance, two of the cities
> mentioned in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, have been for many years
> considered mythological.
>
> However, recent excavations at Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site of
> Ebla, uncovered about 15,000 tablets. Some of these have been translated,
> and mention is made of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The fact of some previous mention of these cities does not make them any
more 'real' than reference to them by a modern Bible. That is not to say
that Sodom and Gomorrah did not exist, only that there is no more 'proof'
after Tel Mardikh than before. When Sodom and Gomorrah are actually found,
then that question will be conclusively answered. Until then, there is
always room for speculation.
Incidentally, the existence of these two cities, if demonstrated, would
'prove' only one thing: that they existed. That they were destroyed might
also be shown. But HOW they were destroyed would like as not still be open
to question even then. Perhaps it was the work of God, or perhaps it was an
earthquake, or even a meteor strike. While these 'natural' explanations
would not discount the possibility of a deliberate 'act of God', they would
still not provide 'proof' that God exists.
> Other archaeological verifications include proof that there was a ruler
> named Belshazzar; the Hittites not only existed but also had a vast
empire;
Of course the Hittites existed. This was never in doubt. As for specific
rulers, no-one has ever claimed that the Bible has no historical relevance -
merely that the accounts of godly goings-on cannot be verified from this
source alone. A book telling a story of fiction, but featuring actual
people and places, is still fictional.
> One cannot stress enough, the importance of the Bible giving an accurate
> historical picture. Christianity is a historical faith which claims that
> God has broken into history with many might acts.
Most of which can be accounted for by other explanations if one wishes to
reject the Biblical ones. But Christianity is a religion of faith, not
proof, and it need not be any other way.
> Although the miracles recorded in scripture cannot be scientifically
tested
> or repeated due to their nature, persons, places and events can be
> investigated historically. If the biblical writers were incorrect in
their
> historical picture, serious doubt would then be cast upon their
> trustworthiness in areas which couldn't be verified.
This argument is invalid. There is nothing to say that a good knowledge of
history (or 'current events' as it might have been then) prevents an author
from embellishing the truth or even introducing entirely fictitious events.
We cannot speak to the authors of the Bible and so have no way of knowing
what their original motivations were for their work.
I mean no offence with this illustration (it is not intended as a
comparison), but look at the range of cheap tabloid newspapers. They might
tell us about real people and real places, but that does not mean their
stories are all entirely true.
> Putting it another way, if the authors of Scripture are accurate in their
> accounts of the things that transpired, it then follows that they cannot
be
> ruled out because they happen to mention things out of the ordinary.
They cannot be ruled out, true. But neither can they assumed to be
accurate.
--
Sebet
Sebet
news:Xns925C2EF1...@130.133.1.4...
> And you would be right. The words of The Governess were really the words
of
> Josh McDowell.
>
> http://www.fortclark.org/scripture/bible/Does_Archaeology_prove_Bible.html
Hmmm. A direct cut-and-paste. A credit would have been appropriate,
Governess.
--
Sebet
Bill Thacker
The Governess <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Archaeology is the study of non-perishable debris, the rubbish man has left
>behind him that has survived the ravages of time.
It is thus perfectly suited to study of the Bible.
Keep this crap out of alt.atheism.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker BAAWA Knight, Atheist #1363 bi...@woods-car.com
Bill's Rail Buggy Page: http://www.woods-car.com
Director of the EAC Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Fast Cars,
and Pornography.
"Be nice to your neighbor. Be hell to his ideas."
Jim Versluys, editor, The Texas Mercury
Pat Winstanley
says...
> > Although the miracles recorded in scripture cannot be scientifically
> tested
> > or repeated due to their nature, persons, places and events can be
> > investigated historically. If the biblical writers were incorrect in
> their
> > historical picture, serious doubt would then be cast upon their
> > trustworthiness in areas which couldn't be verified.
>
> This argument is invalid. There is nothing to say that a good knowledge of
> history (or 'current events' as it might have been then) prevents an author
> from embellishing the truth or even introducing entirely fictitious events.
> We cannot speak to the authors of the Bible and so have no way of knowing
> what their original motivations were for their work.
>
> I mean no offence with this illustration (it is not intended as a
> comparison), but look at the range of cheap tabloid newspapers. They might
> tell us about real people and real places, but that does not mean their
> stories are all entirely true.
>
The point about the 'miracles' is also that in some cases they can
already be shown (scientifically) to be possible (accidentally or
intentionally)... and that same science show how anyone can make the
same thing happen when ever they like. No need for any god in that!
For instance there is a bush in the middle east (acacia family, I
believe) which produces a volatile vapour. This vapour can be ignited by
extreme heat, a spark or whatever and once the vapour has burnt away the
bush is just as whole looking as it was before.
There's your "burning bush" 'miracle'.
Coincidence that it happened to go up on a hot day or from a stray spark
from a fire (and maybe the narrators had never seen this happen before)
and suddenly a perfectly normal, natural event is explained away as an
'act of god'.
On the other hand if there *is* a god and that god wanted to send a sign
then they might have done so by omnipotently making a spark or a hot
spot a ppear just when someone who was required to witness it was near
the bush.
Miracle? Perhaps... but can anyone prove it wasn't just sheer chance
that the conditions happened to be just right in some isolated but of
the desert when some on (rare person in that area) just happened to be
nearby to see it *that* day.
Then again, perhaps this god of the bible really does manipulate things
so that perfectly innocent people die or get sick (rather than it being
more or less random chance that that particular person happened top
catch and succumb to what was going round anyway).
chibiabos
*nemo* <nemo...@yahooNOSPM.com> wrote:
> "<^> «( 0 ¿ 0 )» <^> ....Islam" <nos...@nospamm.com> wrote in message
> news:fLJ19.4211$Ru5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> <snip>
> > are you typing this or cutting and pasting?
> >
> What? no insults? No cussing? You sick or something?
>
> zZiM,AqKSPTN,QEvUVISxW9,DxhXK[R8RN9M3&WRRIp1Z]ArESx
> @Y5X&TG,f3EX5SeNIrXLMDLiuAS5TTy*QM,ZO{JWZJU9ATN*IY5
> @MQ7ZNh]Y%*UITsSGY&Zi5,AqJ3S9QQLiTJ,Dw;1PmFURZ%T@ES
> MSe1XWWPIpXN5FNhB7&PmS]Os*QSD7+
qCl5WVU]ArZNDXTUTjS*K!FIr}](KTmRV7HeT%B}CmE]HmYG,1N
AAmO]7&OYIgPZ7FSvT5PNDwW53K@)*RepSS.4H*NDZBHeZWO;LW
I9@Ix15)VSCUSK7&,yjLX!TB)RfNgLS&M3Tj;@BvNR3WV2{2RVH6
TB@YVOJNDwLXYY5RG]AmP,H:}]IgU7HeMzArKNE)Hm@1RZBvXX&
];2{Z1RUYlU1WArS1IR3NYTOvD@Z3Nw}-,xV3H6PP!)FhCmF!3Ix
NX)BvTY5)90AWIg5}9J97J3JWI]1IxZ7RfUPW@3,#JTmRXCQP@)
ArWQE}Hm3KOvJSTWNXH2{UUUMZLZSvC&R7K13Ix19Rf1TIr}F=M
VUH1!UFKRe
-chib
--
Member of SMASH:
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(email: change out to in)
Don Kresch
<mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> let us all know that:
>Archaeology is the study of non-perishable debris, the rubbish man has left
[snip]
Jericho was proven to be abandoned by the time the Israelites got
there. Ai means "ruins". No Tower of Babel. No Exodus.
There are many problems with biblical archaeology.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, EAC Decryption squad
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
The Governess
comes from several books that I have. One is entitled 'Answers' the other
'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words. This does not however
negate anything posted.
I'm glad to know that you're familiar with Josh Mc Dowell. He's a wonderful
Bible scholar.
"Sebet" <se...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ai8ips$nii$4...@venus.btinternet.com...
The Governess
"Bill Thacker" <w...@cbemi.cb.lucent.com> wrote in message
news:ai8k0i$f...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com...
Pat Winstanley
mountainh...@worldnet.att.net says...
> Subject: Re: Archaeological Evidence
> From: "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.abortion, alt.bible, talk.abortion, alt.religion.christian, alt.atheism
>
> And you would be correct in that. However, I did not cut and paste it. It
> comes from several books that I have. One is entitled 'Answers' the other
> 'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words. This does not however
> negate anything posted.
>
It doesn't need to... what you posted was nonsense, whover wrote it.
Pat Winstanley
> Subject: Re: Archaeological Evidence
> From: "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.abortion, alt.bible, talk.abortion, alt.religion.christian, alt.atheism
>
>
*You* started the thread in talk.abortion. Nobody else.
Mark K. Bilbo
> What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some
> of the history contained in the Bible.
Talk about a blatant lie...
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
to believe in him.
[Woden]
Mark K. Bilbo
> While archaeology can verify history and shed light on various passages
> of the Bible, it is beyond the realm of archaeology to prove the Bible
> is the Word of God. At present, limited data available, but even with
> its limitations this discipline is very helpful in illustrating that
> many biblical passages are historically accurate.
Actually, what archeology has shown is that the bible is more myth than
history.
Trying to use archeology to back up the bible is a joke...
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:30:19 -0700, The Governess wrote:
>
>> What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some
>> of the history contained in the Bible.
>
> Talk about a blatant lie...
Okay, I take that back. I missed the "some" (not enough coffee yet).
But, still, what archeology shows is that the bible is more myth than
history. The exodus is unsupportable, the great "kingdoms" of Israel
can't be found, Moses doesn't have any substance, the Jerico story is
fabricated, etc., etc....
Mark K. Bilbo
> I'm glad to know that you're familiar with Josh Mc Dowell. He's a
> wonderful Bible scholar.
He's not a scholar, his reasoning is sloppy, and he's often just
dishonest.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Sorry, Bill, but some of your posters requested it. Speak to them about
> it.
Hogwash. Can you *name any of these posters who allegedly requested you
break our FAQ?
John Hattan
>And you would be correct in that. However, I did not cut and paste it. It
>comes from several books that I have. One is entitled 'Answers' the other
>'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words. This does not however
>negate anything posted.
But it does make you a plagiarist.
>I'm glad to know that you're familiar with Josh Mc Dowell. He's a wonderful
>Bible scholar.
No he's not. Even he realizes how very dishonest some of his logic is.
He's been personally called to the carpet on many of his statements, and
he simply blows them off.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
The Governess
He is a magna cum laude graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary and a member
of two national honor societies. Author of seven best-selling books. At
last count, he has spoken to more than five million students at universities
in 58 countries.
Care to share your credentials?
"Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message
news:ukg31qq...@corp.supernews.com...
The Governess
"Pat Winstanley" <ng_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.17b21a204...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
I didn't start the thread on abortion where this conversation was born.
Read the threads.
The Governess
said, "I'd like to see this evidence". I was touching on this subject in
another thread in this forum and nobody said squat. It was only when I
began new threads that people took issue with it.
"Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message
news:ukg351h...@corp.supernews.com...
John Hattan
>Not a scholar?
>
>He is a magna cum laude graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary and a member
>of two national honor societies. Author of seven best-selling books. At
>last count, he has spoken to more than five million students at universities
>in 58 countries.
Then why don't you invite him to post in here rather than you just
re-posting his stuff and claiming that they're your arguments?
Michael Painter
> And you would be correct in that. However, I did not cut and paste it.
It
> comes from several books that I have. One is entitled 'Answers' the
other
> 'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words. This does not
however
> negate anything posted.
>
> I'm glad to know that you're familiar with Josh Mc Dowell. He's a
wonderful
> Bible scholar.
>
kicked out of a lot of schools and most of us who have seen it done in such
settings have little respect for the person who does it.
The key to what you posted was the phrase that "some" archeology supports
some of the places mentioned in the bible. For the most part it does not or
vastly expands on what archeology has shown to be the truth. Horatio
Hornblower took place in a fairly large number of incidents that are very
well documented in history and his actions frequently saved the day.
He was loved and respected by most of the men on the ships he commanded.
He was fictional.
Michael Painter
"The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:L7T19.16409$Kl6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
It
> comes from several books that I have. One is entitled 'Answers' the
other
> 'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words. This does not
however
> negate anything posted.
>
> I'm glad to know that you're familiar with Josh Mc Dowell. He's a
wonderful
> Bible scholar.
>
"There are many people who claim to be biblical scholars. I refer to
scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical archeology,
and literary and historical skills to work on the problem, and who meet
discuss and debate their ideas and research with other scholars through
scholarly journals, conferences, etc."
-Friedman "Who wrote the bible.
Does Mc Dowell do this and if so where?
Pat Winstanley
> Subject: Re: Archaeological Evidence
> From: "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.abortion, alt.bible, talk.abortion, alt.religion.christian, alt.atheism
>
>
> "Pat Winstanley" <ng_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.17b21a204...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > In article <ucT19.16413$Kl6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > mountainh...@worldnet.att.net says...
> > > Subject: Re: Archaeological Evidence
> > > From: "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net>
> > > Newsgroups: alt.abortion, alt.bible, talk.abortion,
> alt.religion.christian, alt.atheism
> > >
> > > Sorry, Bill, but some of your posters requested it. Speak to them about
> it.
> > >
> >
> >
> > *You* started the thread in talk.abortion. Nobody else.
>
> I didn't start the thread on abortion where this conversation was born.
>
You started this thread *in* talk.abortion (and have made no attempt
whatsoever despite a whole slew of followups to relate what you are
saying TO abortion).
Try to learn to read, will you.
The Governess
"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:gt3gkugtpdv4o0ab9...@4ax.com...
> "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Not a scholar?
> >
> >He is a magna cum laude graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary and a
member
> >of two national honor societies. Author of seven best-selling books. At
> >last count, he has spoken to more than five million students at
universities
> >in 58 countries.
>
> Then why don't you invite him to post in here rather than you just
> re-posting his stuff and claiming that they're your arguments?
OY, I do hate repeating myself. I never said that they were -my- words,
nor will I say that they are. As far as his arguments being mine, yes, they
are, because I wholheartedly agree. Many people post things from books,
websites, whatever to boost their argument, and there's nothing wrong with
that, if in fact you concur with what you're posting.
Opponents to Christian beliefs tend to split hairs, for obvious reasons. It
gives them something else to focus on rather than face the central issue.
The Governess
> "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >And you would be correct in that. However, I did not cut and paste it.
It
> >comes from several books that I have. One is entitled 'Answers' the
other
> >'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words. This does not
however
> >negate anything posted.
>
> But it does make you a plagiarist.
Only if I were to claim that I wrote it in my own words. Never made that
claim.
The Governess
"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:CpU19.16494$Kl6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I'll see if I can find out for you.
You mentioned languages, which brings this to mind.
386sx
> http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/rdWilson.htm
<xCE09.6469$pg2.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> Don't post websites for me to look at. I haven't the time nor the
> inclination. If you want to discuss this with me, then discuss it, in
> your own words. I haven't quoted scripture to you yet, so oblige me in
> the same fashion.
*yawn*
You are too easy, troll. :-)
--
386
"One serious theological question used to be whether Adam and Eve had belly
buttons. Now you have me wondering if God had a belly button. If he
didn't, they were were not created in his image. And if he did have a belly
button, then what was it for?" -- Richard A. Weatherwax
The Governess
Yes, I started this particular thread, but I didn't start the thread that I
was posting in before about the posts I wanted to make.
Is there some sort of point to all of this? If so, get on with it. Does it
really matter? I won't be starting any more new threads. Is there something
about this you don't get, or do you just like to argue for the sake of
arguing?
Pat Winstanley
Yes... either discuss the abortion/birth question (with reference to
your religious beliefs if necessary) or take talk.abortion off your lazy
crosspost list!
Alex Traxel
What a load of crap. When you post something that you have deliberately cut
and pasted without citing a source, you are taking credit for those words.
The Governess
> The Governess wrote:
>
> > http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/rdWilson.htm
>
> <xCE09.6469$pg2.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
> > Don't post websites for me to look at. I haven't the time nor the
> > inclination. If you want to discuss this with me, then discuss it, in
> > your own words. I haven't quoted scripture to you yet, so oblige me in
> > the same fashion.
>
> *yawn*
>
> You are too easy, troll. :-)
Everyone is a troll to somebody.
386sx
> Everyone is a troll to somebody.
More fallacious assumptions. Only kidding. :-) Have fun, my friend.
Spartakus
> The Governess wrote:
> > Everyone is a troll to somebody.
> More fallacious assumptions. Only kidding. :-) Have fun, my friend.
One man's troll is another man's Delphic Oracle.
Or not.
chiefelf
of wisdom to which I replied:
>Archaeology is the study of non-perishable debris, the rubbish man has left
>behind him that has survived the ravages of time. The initial motivation
>for digging up ancient civilizations was the desire for buried treasure.
>
Dearie,
Plagiarism is stealing.
http://www.fortclark.org/scripture/bible/Does_Archaeology_prove_Bible.html
--
Landis Ragon (dS = dq/T)
Chief Elf in the Toy Factory.
"I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!"
-- Gilbert and Sullivan : "The Mikado"
M is for Malapert
> What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so
Oh dear. I must tell you that I majored in archaeology for the first three
years of my undergraduate career, and very little of what was done "in the
past 100 years or so" is considered worthwhile today - most particularly not
"Bible archaeology".
> is to verify some of
> the history contained in the Bible. For instance, two of the cities
> mentioned in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, have been for many years
> considered mythological.
>
> However, recent excavations at Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site of
> Ebla, uncovered about 15,000 tablets. Some of these have been translated,
> and mention is made of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I'm so sorry to burst your bubble. Tell Mardikh (Ebla) was excavated by
Paolo Matthiae. Here's a review of his book on the subject:
Ebla: An Empire Rediscovered
By Paolo Matthiae
New York, Doubleday, 1981. 237 pp. $14.95.
First published in Italian under the title Ebla Un Impero Ritrovato in 1977,
the English edition, translated by Christopher Holme, adds to the original a
three-page preface on the continued progress of the archaeological
investigation. From it we learn that the first volumes of the "official
final edition" of the texts (Archivi Reali de Ebla. Testi), namely the
administrative texts, are at a well-advanced stage of preparation under the
direction of an International Committee for the Study of Ebla Texts,
appointed by the University of Rome as proposed by the Directorate General
of Antiquities at Damascus. Other new publications it mentions include a
collection of periodical studies (Annali di Ebla) and a special series of
monographs on the syllabary, palaeography, and personal and place names
(Archivi Reali de Ebla. Studi). Not mentioned in this preface are the brief
Studi Eblaiti which began appearing as fascicles in 1979-80 and now comprise
nearly three volumes.
The author states explicity that, contrary to earlier announcements
unauthorized by the Italian Expedition, neither Akkad nor Sargon of Akkad is
mentioned in the Ebla texts, that Byblos "most probably does not appear in
the texts," and that documentary evidence for "presumed connections between
the Ebla texts and biblical characters, stories and episodes is effectively
non-existent." The Ebla texts, he goes on, contain no proof of the
historicity of the biblical patriarchs, no news of a cult of Yahweh at Ebla,
no mention of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and no literary text with
the story of the flood. With these terse statements he intends to show that
the reorganized Italian Expedition "is morally and scientifically engaged"
in evaluating the evidence from Ebla "from a truly historical point of
view." The assurance is welcome.
The great mound of Ebla, Tell Mardikh, situated some 55 km southeast of
Aleppo, east of the Aleppo-Hama road, rises about 50 ft. from the plain and
covers nearly 140 acres. Excavations directed by the then budding
archaeologist Matthiae began there in 1964, but not until ten years later
was widespread interest aroused in the site by the discovery of an archive
consisting of 42 cuneiform tablets. The next year two additional archival
rooms yielded some 15,000 tablets and fragments, and in 1976 another
thousand. These tablets, as he modestly says, guarantee Ebla an important
place in Near Eastern history, and they have accordingly stimulated
scholarly curiosity since their discovery. The sensational claims made about
them in the years immediately following their discovery are now retracted,
and we await their official edition with sustained interest.
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jan1982/v38-4-bookreview12.htm
M is for Malapert
> Typing, why?
Oh dear, oh dear. When you start telling lies it's *really* not a good
sign. Everything you wrote appears word-for-word at
http://www.fortclark.org/scripture/bible/Does_Archaeology_prove_Bible.html
and is "- Exerted [sic] from Josh McDowell, Answers to tough questions:
Skeptics ask about the Christian faith [computer file], electronic ed.,
Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1993 by Josh
McDowell and Don Stewart."
Now, you *might* have sat down and typed all that out instead of just
cutting and pasting it (or whatever other page you were copying from), which
would be a waste of time...but in any case, it's plagiarism.
> "<^> «( 0 ¿ 0 )» <^> ....Islam" <nos...@nospamm.com> wrote in message
> news:fLJ19.4211$Ru5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > are you typing this or cutting and pasting?
Thomas P.
<mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>And you would be correct in that. However, I did not cut and paste it. It
>comes from several books that I have. One is entitled 'Answers' the other
>'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words. This does not however
>negate anything posted.
>
>I'm glad to know that you're familiar with Josh Mc Dowell. He's a wonderful
>Bible scholar.
He is an obvious fraud.
snip
Thomas P.
"Men go and come, but earth abides."
The Governess
"chiefelf" <chie...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b28gku085id1n0m75...@4ax.com...
> "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote 70 lines
> of wisdom to which I replied:
>
> >Archaeology is the study of non-perishable debris, the rubbish man has
left
> >behind him that has survived the ravages of time. The initial motivation
> >for digging up ancient civilizations was the desire for buried treasure.
> >
>
>
> Dearie,
>
> Plagiarism is stealing.
Yes, it is. Did I state somewhere that it wasn't? If so, where?
Robert Stankowic
"The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:xyU19.16508$Kl6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Why, dear Governess, do people like you always think that everybody who
demands proveable arguments (in a scientific sense) is their opponent.
I'd recommend you to spend some years studying formal logic and
meta-mathematics before your next attempt to discuss evidence and to claim
to be in possession of the (absolute) truth..
Sorry, you provoked it.
R.
--
a scientific is searching for a black cat in a dark room.
a philosopher is searching for a black cat in a dark room, which is'nt
there.
a theologist is searching for a black cat in a dark room, which is'nt
there, and claims he catched it.
John Hattan
>"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
>news:gt3gkugtpdv4o0ab9...@4ax.com...
>> "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Not a scholar?
>> >
>> >He is a magna cum laude graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary and a
>member
>> >of two national honor societies. Author of seven best-selling books. At
>> >last count, he has spoken to more than five million students at
>universities
>> >in 58 countries.
>>
>> Then why don't you invite him to post in here rather than you just
>> re-posting his stuff and claiming that they're your arguments?
>
>OY, I do hate repeating myself. I never said that they were -my- words,
>nor will I say that they are. As far as his arguments being mine, yes, they
>are, because I wholheartedly agree. Many people post things from books,
>websites, whatever to boost their argument, and there's nothing wrong with
>that, if in fact you concur with what you're posting.
Unless it's over fair-use limits and is posted without permission of the
author. Then it's plagiarism.
>Opponents to Christian beliefs tend to split hairs, for obvious reasons. It
>gives them something else to focus on rather than face the central issue.
That you're dishonestly posting other peoples' copyrighted material
without their permission?
---
John Hattan
>"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
>news:8e3gku8hpeaf143ms...@4ax.com...
>> "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >And you would be correct in that. However, I did not cut and paste it.
>It
>> >comes from several books that I have. One is entitled 'Answers' the
>other
>> >'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words. This does not
>however
>> >negate anything posted.
>>
>> But it does make you a plagiarist.
>
>Only if I were to claim that I wrote it in my own words. Never made that
>claim.
Then where was the attribution to Josh McDowell in the posts? I don't
recall seeing them.
The Governess
"Thomas P." <ton...@get2spamnet.dk> wrote in message
news:3d4821ee...@nyheder.get2net.dk...
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:12:43 GMT, "The Governess"
> <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >And you would be correct in that. However, I did not cut and paste it.
It
> >comes from several books that I have. One is entitled 'Answers' the
other
> >'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words. This does not
however
> >negate anything posted.
> >
> >I'm glad to know that you're familiar with Josh Mc Dowell. He's a
wonderful
> >Bible scholar.
>
> He is an obvious fraud.
>
I don't suppose personal opinions or biases would have anything to do with
your perception of what's obvious, now would they?
chiefelf
of wisdom to which I replied:
>
>"chiefelf" <chie...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:b28gku085id1n0m75...@4ax.com...
>> "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote 70 lines
>> of wisdom to which I replied:
>>
>> >Archaeology is the study of non-perishable debris, the rubbish man has
>left
>> >behind him that has survived the ravages of time. The initial motivation
>> >for digging up ancient civilizations was the desire for buried treasure.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Dearie,
>>
>> Plagiarism is stealing.
>
>Yes, it is. Did I state somewhere that it wasn't? If so, where?
>
By not clearly indicating that the words weren't your own.
M is for Malapert
> And you would be correct in that. However, I did not cut and paste it.
It
> comes from several books that I have.
That is a lie, and the proof has been posted here. This was copied word for
word from a single source; whether you typed each word or cut and pasted the
whole thing is irrelevant.
> One is entitled 'Answers' the other
> 'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words.
"Plagiarism is using others' ideas and words without clearly acknowledging
the source of that information." --Indiana University instructions to
students, http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/wts/plagiarism.html
> This does not however
> negate anything posted.
It blows a huge, gaping hole in what was left of *your* credibility,
however.
> I'm glad to know that you're familiar with Josh Mc Dowell. He's a
wonderful
> Bible scholar.
Trying to distract attention away from what you did isn't going to work.
The Governess
"Robert Stankowic" <pcdo...@netway.at> wrote in message
news:ai9a5i$41h$1...@newsreader1.netway.at...
Like all atheists and/or evolutionists? You heard it right here folks.
Without a good working knowledge of meta-mathematics and formal logic, you
are not qualified, let alone allowed, to draw knowledge from the work of
scholars, theologians or scientists to make your own choices about what you
choose to believe.
WTG, Robert.
Darren
> Putting it another way, if the authors of Scripture are accurate in their
> accounts of the things that transpired, it then follows that they cannot be
> ruled out because they happen to mention things out of the ordinary.
I just read a novel where the characters spend time in Paris and Zurich. Paris
and Zurich are *real* places, but that does not mean that the *characters* are
real. Get it?
Sheesh.
Darren
The Governess
"M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:%MW19.713717$352.155694@sccrnsc02...
from him. Ya happy now?
"Isn't going to work"? Hmmm, like anything would.
The Governess
> "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote 32 lines
> of wisdom to which I replied:
>
> >
> >"chiefelf" <chie...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:b28gku085id1n0m75...@4ax.com...
> >> "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote 70 lines
> >> of wisdom to which I replied:
> >>
> >> >Archaeology is the study of non-perishable debris, the rubbish man has
> >left
> >> >behind him that has survived the ravages of time. The initial
motivation
> >> >for digging up ancient civilizations was the desire for buried
treasure.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Dearie,
> >>
> >> Plagiarism is stealing.
> >
> >Yes, it is. Did I state somewhere that it wasn't? If so, where?
> >
>
> By not clearly indicating that the words weren't your own.
>
So a non-statement is a statement that plagiarism is not stealing? Peruse
that for a minute.
M is for Malapert
> I used the words of Josh Mc Dowell and didn't specifically say they came
> from him. Ya happy now?
You also said that what you wrote "comes from several books that I have."
It doesn't. It comes word for word from a single source.
The only reason it's important is that all you have here is your
credibility. Believe me, I've learned that lesson through painful
experience.
Libertarius
>
> And you would be correct in that. However, I did not cut and paste it. It
> 'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words. This does not however
> negate anything posted.
>
> Bible scholar.
===He is a fabricator and a deceiver!
But his books do sell, and that's all that matters, right?
Libertarius
====================
Libertarius
>
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 04:30:19 GMT, "The Governess"
> <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <vJJ19.15781$Kl6.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Archaeology is the study of non-perishable debris, the rubbish man has left
> >behind him that has survived the ravages of time. The initial motivation
> >for digging up ancient civilizations was the desire for buried treasure.
> >
> >study the remains of the past in order to achieve a better understanding of
> >ancient people and their practices. The Middle East is the subject of many
> >archaeological excavations because of its continuous history.
> >
> >Let me point out that archaeology without history is meaningless. All that
> >archaeology can tell us is a sequence of cultural development, not give us
> >an exact chronology. History gives us the chronology, the events, people
> >and places.
> >
> >What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some of
> >the history contained in the Bible. For instance, two of the cities
> >mentioned in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, have been for many years
> >considered mythological.
> >
> >However, recent excavations at Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site of
> >Ebla, uncovered about 15,000 tablets. Some of these have been translated,
> >and mention is made of Sodom and Gomorrah.
>
> Georgia. This city cannot be considered mythological, but can be
> proven to have existed for over 150 years.
>
> >
> >Other archaeological verifications include proof that there was a ruler
> >named Belshazzar; the Hittites not only existed but also had a vast empire;
> >King Sargon also ruled, and the matters that touch upon history in the Book
> >of Acts are demonstrably accurate. So far, the findings of archaeology have
> >verified, and in no case disputed, historical points of the biblical record.
>
> It has ben established beyond any doubt there was a war in the US
> during the period 1861 to 1865. The leaders of the period for both
> sides have been established beyond all doubt.
>
> >
> >While archaeology can verify history and shed light on various passages of
> >the Bible, it is beyond the realm of archaeology to prove the Bible is the
> >Word of God. At present, limited data available, but even with its
> >limitations this discipline is very helpful in illustrating that many
> >biblical passages are historically accurate.
>
> These facts prove that documentation which includes mention of the
> city of Atlanta, the Civil War, and some of the people who were
> actually involved is historically true and accurate.
>
> >
> >One cannot stress enough, the importance of the Bible giving an accurate
> >historical picture. Christianity is a historical faith which claims that
> >God has broken into history with many might acts.
> >
> >Although the miracles recorded in scripture cannot be scientifically tested
> >or repeated due to their nature, persons, places and events can be
> >investigated historically. If the biblical writers were incorrect in their
> >historical picture, serious doubt would then be cast upon their
> >trustworthiness in areas which couldn't be verified.
> >
> >Putting it another way, if the authors of Scripture are accurate in their
> >accounts of the things that transpired, it then follows that they cannot be
> >ruled out because they happen to mention things out of the ordinary.
>
> argument every statement made in the book "Gone With The Wind" is an
> accurate and absolutely true account of the persons and events of this
> location and period.
===>Channeled directly from "GOD", of course? -- L.
Infidel
<mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I never stated that they were my words.
>I'm glad to know that you're familiar with Josh Mc Dowell. He's a wonderful
>Bible scholar.
You also never stated that it wasn't. You may now proudly stand next
to Joseph Smith Jr., Charles Taze Russell, and P.D.Q. Bach.
Good research, Sebet. Thank you!
>"Sebet" <se...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:ai8ips$nii$4...@venus.btinternet.com...
>> "386sx" <38...@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns925C2EF1...@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> > And you would be right. The words of The Governess were really the
>> > words of Josh McDowell.
>> >
>> >
>http://www.fortclark.org/scripture/bible/Does_Archaeology_prove_Bible.html
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. A direct cut-and-paste. A credit would have been appropriate,
>> Governess.
>>
>> --
>> Sebet
Infidel
AA #2012
*nemo*
news:310720020534423547%ch...@outreach.com...
<snip>
> qCl5WVU]ArZNDXTUTjS*K!FIr}](KTmRV7HeT%B}CmE]HmYG,1N
> AAmO]7&OYIgPZ7FSvT5PNDwW53K@)*RepSS.4H*NDZBHeZWO;LW
> I9@Ix15)VSCUSK7&,yjLX!TB)RfNgLS&M3Tj;@BvNR3WV2{2RVH6
> TB@YVOJNDwLXYY5RG]AmP,H:}]IgU7HeMzArKNE)Hm@1RZBvXX&
> ];2{Z1RUYlU1WArS1IR3NYTOvD@Z3Nw}-,xV3H6PP!)FhCmF!3Ix
> NX)BvTY5)90AWIg5}9J97J3JWI]1IxZ7RfUPW@3,#JTmRXCQP@)
> ArWQE}Hm3KOvJSTWNXH2{UUUMZLZSvC&R7K13Ix19Rf1TIr}F=M
> VUH1!UFKRe
>
You have a good point sir.
wAxZZWJXGsXQO3IwXNLi&7Y}Hm&{CG1ZT6+TSSL;DmPMIw&QMXX
SFwJ,T,;P!U3,@LEw7TDmRWAStjMH7VX,5WX6{P7J}7SLN]GsXQ
SHmUU3&Ew]KSlLUa,fWP*7SiK,YfDm7W3]YKX7KOj[3R&-yBsiT6
}MN@ROhR,HN]Pm9T);FwWOT,!W5AxC,Ei1L;DP,PNStXXISsJXK
XX.JBsCU37Ei3UOhX7M1T*R1SjOj553!6{H7ST6}MJSk;MVSHmU
URZLK
> -chib
>
> --
> Member of SMASH:
> Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
> (email: change out to in)
>
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.att.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
**************************************************
Quotemeister since March 2002
**************************************************
stoney
<se...@btopenworld.com>, Message ID:
<ai8ips$nii$4...@venus.btinternet.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>"386sx" <38...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns925C2EF1...@130.133.1.4...
>
>> And you would be right. The words of The Governess were really the words
>of
>> Josh McDowell.
>>
>> http://www.fortclark.org/scripture/bible/Does_Archaeology_prove_Bible.html
>
>
>Hmmm. A direct cut-and-paste. A credit would have been appropriate,
>Governess.
Another thieving christian. How boringly common.
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
stoney
Message ID: <c8jfkuk799ho8kjko...@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 05:55:11 GMT, elco...@netzero.net (Paul Anderson),
><3d477677....@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 04:58:09 GMT, rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net (Ray
>>Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>The Governess <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some of
>>>>the history contained in the Bible. For instance, two of the cities
>>>>mentioned in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, have been for many years
>>>>considered mythological.
>>>>
>>>>However, recent excavations at Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site of
>>>>Ebla, uncovered about 15,000 tablets. Some of these have been translated,
>>>>and mention is made of Sodom and Gomorrah.
>>>
>>>Cite?
>>
>>http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jan1982/v38-4-bookreview12.htm
>>
>> The author states explicity that, contrary to earlier announcements
>> unauthorized by the Italian Expedition, neither Akkad nor Sargon
>> of Akkad is mentioned in the Ebla texts, that Byblos "most probably
>> does not appear in the texts," and that documentary evidence for
>> "presumed connections between the Ebla texts and biblical
>> characters, stories and episodes is effectively non-existent." The
>> Ebla texts, he goes on, contain no proof of the historicity of the
>> biblical patriarchs, no news of a cult of Yahweh at Ebla, no
>> mention of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and no literary
>> text with the story of the flood. With these terse statements he
>> intends to show that the reorganized Italian Expedition "is
>> morally and scientifically engaged" in evaluating the evidence
>> from Ebla "from a truly historical point of view." The assurance
>> is welcome.
>>
>>>You make a lot of claims without support.
>>
>>Proof is available. See above.
>
>It would be interesting to discover where the erroneous information used to
>show that archaeological finds support the historicity of the Bible
>originated. Obviously, it did not come from the archaeologists who are
>actually studying these tablets.
The various authors made it up or extrapolated off of out-of-context
and incomplete quote mining?
Libertarius
>
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:30:19 -0700, The Governess wrote:
>
> > What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some
> > of the history contained in the Bible.
>
===>Actually some archaeological findings DID verify that certain
events referred to in the OT did happen. It only proves that,
like some TV movies, some of the OT literature was loosely based
on actual events.
Libertarius
====================
The Governess
Mal, I dare you to challenge me any further on that.
You also said that what you wrote "comes from several books that I have."
It doesn't. It comes word for word from a single source.
"M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:ZlX19.103422$uh7.16726@sccrnsc03...
Would you be willing to stake your reputation (guffaw) on that? C'mon,
Mal, I dare ya to challenge me any further on that.
The Governess
"Libertarius" <THE_TRUTH_THE_WHOLE_TRUTH@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH> wrote in
message news:3D485196.D9C4ABEA@NOTHING_BUT_THE.TRUTH...
And you know this how? Just because you say so? Pffft!
>
> Libertarius
> ====================
Infidel
>What archaeology has done in the past 100 years or so is to verify some of
>the history contained in the Bible. For instance, two of the cities
>mentioned in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, have been for many years
>considered mythological.
First rule on how to lie: Surround the lie with the truth.
Infidel
AA #2012
Libertarius
>
> Not a scholar?
>
> He is a magna cum laude graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary and a member
> of two national honor societies. Author of seven best-selling books. At
> last count, he has spoken to more than five million students at universities
> in 58 countries.
>
===>Uri Geller spoke and performed before many more people than that!
Pat Winstanley
mountainh...@worldnet.att.net says...
> Would you be willing to stake your reputation (guffaw) on that? C'mon,
> Mal, I dare you to challenge me any further on that.
>
> You also said that what you wrote "comes from several books that I have."
> It doesn't. It comes word for word from a single source.
>
So what (single) source did M's posting come from?
Mark K. Bilbo
> Read the threads, Mark. When I said "requested", what I mean, is that
> they said, "I'd like to see this evidence". I was touching on this
> subject in another thread in this forum and nobody said squat. It was
> only when I began new threads that people took issue with it.
Okay. Then here's a just FYI. When you change subjects on Usenet, it's
traditional to have the old subject header in the header of the new
thread. In parens and indicated with a "was:" as in:
New Subject Line (was: Old Subject Line)
So that you don't seem to have "appeared" out of nowhere. Any thread
started without a "Re:" and/or "was:" is assumed by everybody (and many
newsreaders) to be an original post of a previously nonexistant thread.
It's safer to do a follow-up with a "was:" than create a new thread
entirely. You confuse fewer people that way.
I mean, you say "read the threads." Which *ones? My reader is set to
expire everything over 5 days old. That leaves me with 7,387 messages in
alt.atheism (about 1,475 per day). Which threads are "the?"
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
to believe in him.
[Woden]
Christopher A. Lee
The problem with inerrantists, is that you give them a whole slew of
things that _didn't_ happen, or contradictions etc. So they respond
to one or two of them, rationalising the problem to dismiss it instead
of acknowledging the difficulty. Because they "refuted" a fraction of
a percent of them this means they've disproven all the errors.
What they have to do to show inerrancy, is to demonstrate that each
and every single thing in it, actually happened that way. Including
both sides of a contradiction. Which they obviously can't do.
It's pathetic really.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Not a scholar?
>
> He is a magna cum laude graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary and a
> member of two national honor societies.
A *theological seminary? And this is a credential in archeology HOW
exactly?
> Author of seven best-selling
> books. At last count, he has spoken to more than five million students
> at universities in 58 countries.
No more than, say, Stephen King.
> Care to share your credentials?
Um, why are you asking me? You've accepted McD without archeology
credentials. Why should I have them?
Would you accept the reverse? Dawkins is a Ph.D. and holds that belief in
god and religion are "viral" infections of the mind. Trade you straight
up. Meaning, you have to accept the geneticist's remarks about theology
before I'll accept the theologian's remarks about archeology.
The Governess
"Pat Winstanley" <ng_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.17b2755ca...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> In article <DlZ19.16987$Kl6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> mountainh...@worldnet.att.net says...
> > Would you be willing to stake your reputation (guffaw) on that?
C'mon,
> > Mal, I dare you to challenge me any further on that.
> >
> > You also said that what you wrote "comes from several books that I
have."
> > It doesn't. It comes word for word from a single source.
> >
>
> So what (single) source did M's posting come from?
>
She is insinuating that I got the information from somewhere besides the
books I have.
Mark K. Bilbo
> "John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
> news:gt3gkugtpdv4o0ab9...@4ax.com...
>> "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Not a scholar?
>> >
>> >He is a magna cum laude graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary and a
> member
>> >of two national honor societies. Author of seven best-selling books.
>> >At last count, he has spoken to more than five million students at
> universities
>> >in 58 countries.
>>
>> Then why don't you invite him to post in here rather than you just
>> re-posting his stuff and claiming that they're your arguments?
>
> OY, I do hate repeating myself. I never said that they were -my- words,
> nor will I say that they are. As far as his arguments being mine, yes,
> they are, because I wholheartedly agree. Many people post things from
> books, websites, whatever to boost their argument, and there's nothing
> wrong with that, if in fact you concur with what you're posting.
>
> Opponents to Christian beliefs tend to split hairs, for obvious reasons.
> It gives them something else to focus on rather than face the central
> issue.
>
Proponents of christian beliefs often post the words of others, for
obvious reasons. They don't like doing thinking on their own.
(Turn about is fair play)
Actually, your comment is simply wrong headed. There are legitimate
questions on how people online handle the material of others. They often
*just "cut 'n' paste" rather than *cite. There's a very *big difference.
Pat Winstanley
mountainh...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
> "Pat Winstanley" <ng_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.17b2755ca...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > In article <DlZ19.16987$Kl6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > mountainh...@worldnet.att.net says...
> > > Would you be willing to stake your reputation (guffaw) on that?
> C'mon,
> > > Mal, I dare you to challenge me any further on that.
> > >
> > > You also said that what you wrote "comes from several books that I
> have."
> > > It doesn't. It comes word for word from a single source.
> > >
> >
> > So what (single) source did M's posting come from?
> >
>
> She is insinuating that I got the information from somewhere besides the
> books I have.
So? What has that to do with her comment that she compiled what she
wrote from several sources (and named each one)... and nobody appears to
have come back with a single source that they believe she probably
copied instead?
IOW what on earth are you waffling about?
Don Kresch
<mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> let us all know that:
>And you would be correct in that. However, I did not cut and paste it. It
>comes from several books that I have. One is entitled 'Answers' the other
>'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words. This does not however
>negate anything posted.
>
>I'm glad to know that you're familiar with Josh Mc Dowell. He's a wonderful
>Bible scholar.
If by wonderful you mean "proven liar", then you are correct.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, EAC Decryption squad
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Libertarius
===>Good point!
It appear the only literature most biblicists read is the
compilation in the Bible, which they don't consider literature,
and most likely they don't even know what the word "literature"
means. Otherwise why would they make such absurd statements?
Libertarius
====================
Mark K. Bilbo
Well, we are not talking about literate people so, no, they don't know
what "literature" is...
Mark K. Bilbo
> Only if I were to claim that I wrote it in my own words. Never made
> that claim.
No, that's not true. *Failing to attribute is considered plagiarism. To
wit, from dictionary.com (WordNet, Princeton):
"plagiarise - v : take without referencing from someone else's writing or
speech"
What you did *is plagiarism by the dictionary definition. No, you don't
have to make the claim that the words are yours, you only have to *fail
to attribute.
Mark K. Bilbo
> "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:CpU19.16494$Kl6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:L7T19.16409$Kl6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > And you would be correct in that. However, I did not cut and paste
>> > it.
>> It
>> > comes from several books that I have. One is entitled 'Answers' the
>> other
>> > 'Reasons'. I never stated that they were my words. This does not
>> however
>> > negate anything posted.
>> >
>> > I'm glad to know that you're familiar with Josh Mc Dowell. He's a
>> wonderful
>> > Bible scholar.
>> >
>> Here's what a real scholar says about the subject.
>>
>> "There are many people who claim to be biblical scholars. I refer to
>> scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical
> archeology,
>> and literary and historical skills to work on the problem, and who meet
>> discuss and debate their ideas and research with other scholars through
>> scholarly journals, conferences, etc." -Friedman "Who wrote the bible.
>>
>> Does Mc Dowell do this and if so where?
>
> I'll see if I can find out for you.
>
>
In the meantime, are you willing to read the criticisms of McD?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G12A51761
(Alternatively, go to www.infidels.org, click the Library link, click the
Search link, then search on McDowell's name... you'll see *pages of links
to articles written about his so called "scholarship")
Sebet
news:edmgkuoeeugop0762...@4ax.com...
>
> Good research, Sebet. Thank you!
Much as I appreciate the praise, I cannot take the credit for this. It was
in fact 386sx who provided the link.
--
Sebet
Libertarius
===>Don't take my word for it.
Read the reviews by REAL scholars.
He can only fool the willfully ignorant. -- L.
Libertarius
===>Don't take my word for it.
Libertarius
===>That it is, indeed. -- L.
Libertarius
===>That it is, indeed. -- L.
Bigdaddyking
mountainh...@worldnet.att.net says...
> Not a scholar?
>
> He is a magna cum laude graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary and a member
> of two national honor societies. Author of seven best-selling books. At
> last count, he has spoken to more than five million students at universities
> in 58 countries.
>
>
>
>
>
> news:ukg31qq...@corp.supernews.com...
> > On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 08:12:43 -0700, The Governess wrote:
> >
> > > I'm glad to know that you're familiar with Josh Mc Dowell. He's a
> > > wonderful Bible scholar.
> >
> > dishonest.
> > --
> > Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
> > believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
> > existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
> > to believe in him.
> >
> > [Woden]
>
>
>
LOL! It doesn't matter, as long as he didn't go to a "bible college"!
BDK
Tichy
"Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote for his signature line in message
news:ukgq5h1...@corp.supernews.com...
> If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
> believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
> existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
> to believe in him.
>
> [Woden]
>
Assuming that Woden has free will, there is no guarantee that *any* amount
of evidence could coerce belief.
Certainly it is a non sequitur that since God hasn't provided coercive
evidence *yet* (overriding Woden's free will) of his existence means that
there is no reason to believe in him.
This sort of reasoning is commonplace in alt.atheism, and it is worthy of
the derision usually heaped on the quotations discussed in the TQOTM.
Btw, Mark K. Bilbo (who has killfiled me, iirc), why did you put such
nonsense in your signature line?
Cheers,
Tichy
General Director, THEOHIPPIP
Tichy
"Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote in message
news:ukgphs3...@corp.supernews.com...
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:27:00 -0700, The Governess wrote:
>
> > Not a scholar?
> >
> > He is a magna cum laude graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary and a
> > member of two national honor societies.
>
> A *theological seminary? And this is a credential in archeology HOW
> exactly?
"Scholar"="archaelogical scholar"?
<snip>
Mark K. Bilbo
> "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
>>news:gt3gkugtpdv4o0ab9...@4ax.com...
>>> "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Not a scholar?
>>> >
>>> >He is a magna cum laude graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary and a
>>member
>>> >of two national honor societies. Author of seven best-selling books.
>>> > At last count, he has spoken to more than five million students at
>>universities
>>> >in 58 countries.
>>>
>>> Then why don't you invite him to post in here rather than you just
>>> re-posting his stuff and claiming that they're your arguments?
>>
>>OY, I do hate repeating myself. I never said that they were -my- words,
>>nor will I say that they are. As far as his arguments being mine, yes,
>>they are, because I wholheartedly agree. Many people post things from
>>books, websites, whatever to boost their argument, and there's nothing
>>wrong with that, if in fact you concur with what you're posting.
>
> Unless it's over fair-use limits and is posted without permission of the
> author. Then it's plagiarism.
Technically, using it without attribution is *always plagiarism by
definition. Fair-use and permission don't even enter into the picture...
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
Tichy
<snip some stuff apparently written by Josh McDowell>
Okay--I'm blasting some of the atheists on this thread regarding some
comparatively minor points, but I don't want it thought that I mean to
distract from the main topic that you, Governess, have broached.
McDowell is the author of some popular semi-apologetic works. He is a
scholar of sorts, but hardly an expert on either Biblical studies or
archaeology.
His "Evidence" series is badly in need of a thorough revision. Its primary
use at present is to serve as a jumping-off point for further study.
That said, I'm personally delighted that you are interested in apologetics.
I would recommend J. P. Moreland (Reformed tradition) and Peter Kreeft
(Roman Catholic) to you in that vein.
The Christian Research Institute also publishes stuff that may be of
interest to you (though I'm not a big fan of Hank Hannegraf's writing,
myself)
Also, posting as you did without quotation marks or anything else to make it
clear that you were quoting another author is questionable at minimum (and
*is* plagiarism, imo).
I recommend that you avoid that technique in the future. You seem to have a
decent command of words yourself, so I expect that you can express
adequately in written form any argument of which you possess a substantial
understanding.
You might bump around these websites a bit, too:
http://www.tektonics.org/
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
Robert Stankowic
"The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:KaX19.16780$Kl6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Robert Stankowic" <pcdo...@netway.at> wrote in message
> news:ai9a5i$41h$1...@newsreader1.netway.at...
> >
> > "The Governess" <mountainh...@worldnet.att.net> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag
[....
> >
> > Why, dear Governess, do people like you always think that everybody who
> > demands proveable arguments (in a scientific sense) is their opponent.
> >
> > I'd recommend you to spend some years studying formal logic and
> > meta-mathematics before your next attempt to discuss evidence and to
claim
> > to be in possession of the (absolute) truth..
> >
> > Sorry, you provoked it.
> > R.
>
> Like all atheists and/or evolutionists? You heard it right here folks.
Does'nt that sound a little bit like agitaion?
> Without a good working knowledge of meta-mathematics and formal logic, you
> are not qualified, let alone allowed, to draw knowledge from the work of
> scholars, theologians or scientists to make your own choices about what
you
> choose to believe.
Do you _know_ what you are talking about?
You yourself claimed in another thread (Circular Reasoning) to offer a
_proof_, that the bible is god's word _without_ circular reasoning, and
failed. Had you had a sufficient working knowledge of formal logics, (which
is nothing but a tool to verify the correctness of a chain of conclusions),
and had you used that tool to verify your own reasoning before you posted
it, you might have done better.
You are of course free to draw whatever conclusion you like from whatever
text you want, you are as well free to believe or disbelieve anything you
want. So am I. You are even free to offer circular reasoning and to claim it
is'nt circular, and to cite unverified facts and use them in your reasoning.
That's _your_ decision, _my_ decision is whether I accept or reject your
conclusions based on the quality of your reasoning and your premises.
That said, I'd like to point out one more thing:
English is not my first language, therefore I am not certain about the
semantic correctness of the text above, especially "chain of conclusions"
might not be the correct words. If someone knows a better expression, please
feel free to correct me.
--
a scientific is searching for a black cat in a dark room.
a philosopher is searching for a black cat in a dark room, which is'nt
there.
a theologist is searching for a black cat in a dark room, which is'nt
there, and claims he catched it.
Robert Stankowic
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:kq229.55289$s8.11...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote for his signature line in message
> news:ukgq5h1...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
> > believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
> > existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
> > to believe in him.
> >
> > [Woden]
> >
>
> Assuming that Woden has free will, there is no guarantee that *any* amount
> of evidence could coerce belief.
> Certainly it is a non sequitur that since God hasn't provided coercive
> evidence *yet* (overriding Woden's free will) of his existence means that
> there is no reason to believe in him.
What makes you think coercive evidence would override free will?
R.
Woden
"Tichy" <bbanz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kq229.55289$s8.11...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <for...@bout.it> wrote for his signature line in
message
> news:ukgq5h1...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
> > believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
> > existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
> > to believe in him.
> >
> > [Woden]
> >
>
> Assuming that Woden has free will, there is no guarantee that *any*
amount
> of evidence could coerce belief.
However, I wasn't talking about coercion, but rather sufficient real
world objective evidence that is irrefutable and unmistakable. Surely
an all-knowing, all-powerful god could provide that if he wanted me to
believe in him so that I wouldn't have to spend the rest of eternity
suffering in hell. Since he hasn't done so, I can only conclude that 1)
he isn't omnipotent and really can't manipulate nature to generate such
evidence or 2) he isn't omniscient and can't figure out what would
evidence would be irrefutable or 3) he really isn't a loving god and is
really an evil bastard who wants to see people suffer in hell, or 4)
he's just so much bullshit from people who believe in ancient myths. Of
course, there is always the standard xian refrain of "god works in
mysterious ways" which as we all know is bullshitese for "god doesn't
do shit and we keep having to find excuses to cover his sorry ass".
> Certainly it is a non sequitur that since God hasn't provided coercive
> evidence *yet* (overriding Woden's free will) of his existence means
that
> there is no reason to believe in him.
I guess he's welcome to try coercive means, but then that would refute
the "loving" nature of this god as we are regularly reminded by many
xians. Not to mention that it would be indicative of incompetence on
his part by not being able to provide real evidence that leads to the
rational belief in such a god.
>
> This sort of reasoning is commonplace in alt.atheism, and it is worthy
of
> the derision usually heaped on the quotations discussed in the TQOTM.
>
> Btw, Mark K. Bilbo (who has killfiled me, iirc), why did you put such
> nonsense in your signature line?
>
> Cheers,
> Tichy
> General Director, THEOHIPPIP
>
>
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing.