[Jesus Loves You] More Biblical proof discovered by archaeologists

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

From Fox News:

https://www.foxnews.com/science/city-gate-from-time-of-king-david-discovered-israel

A dig related to Biblical history and King David.

--
Rick C. Hodgin
`

[Mr Flibble]

On 21/06/2019 19:58, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> From Fox News:
>
> https://www.foxnews.com/science/city-gate-from-time-of-king-david-discovered-israel
>
> A dig related to Biblical history and King David.

I see no "Biblical proof". Digging something up from the time when King
David supposedly existed is not in and of itself proof that King David
actually existed. The lineage of the Biblical King David can be traced all
the way back to Adam and as we know Adam never existed (humans evolved,
fact) it follows that the Biblical King David also never existed. There
may have been an individual going by the moniker of "King David" at some
point in history but that would be a different individual to the Biblical
King David. And, of course, the same applies to the Biblical Jesus Christ
who also never actually existed.

/Flibble

--
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into
snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” –
Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[Szyk Cech]

W dniu 21.06.2019 o 23:13, Mr Flibble pisze:
> (humans evolved, fact)

Monkeys do not evolved to humans! Humans are not similar to any monkey
(and vice-versa). Humans were created by Gods (like any other species).
Human and monkeys have different races which are mixable - but this is
not evolution - this is variety inside species.
Show me some monkey which apear more like human and which do something
like human (especialy perform dialy complicated tasks) and which build
civilization.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <yfhPE.4284$CV5...@fx02.fr7>, Szyk Cech <szyk...@spoko.pl> wrote:
...

>Show me some monkey which apear more like human and which do something
>like human

George W. Bush?

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Rorschach

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 6/22/2019 7:03 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <yfhPE.4284$CV5...@fx02.fr7>, Szyk Cech <szyk...@spoko.pl> wrote:
> ...
>> Show me some monkey which apear more like human and which do something
>> like human
>
> George W. Bush?
>

LOL!

[Juha Nieminen]

rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> From Fox News:
>
> https://www.foxnews.com/science/city-gate-from-time-of-king-david-discovered-israel
>
> A dig related to Biblical history and King David.

I always laugh when Christian apologists use the term "archaeological
evidence for God". That's a conceptually completely asinine term.
There *cannot* be archaeological evidence of God, because archaeology
deals with what people did in the past, not with the existence deities.

It all boils down to the argumentative fallacy of "thing X described in
the Bible really happened, therefore *everything* that the Bible says
is true".

Rather obviously just because a book describes an event that actually
happened doesn't mean that *everything* the book says is true. There
are literally hundreds of thousands of books of fiction that mention
real-life events, like wars, kings, rulers, countries, and so on.
Just because they mention real-life events has zero consequences on
whether everything else these books say is true or not.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:33:54 AM UTC-4, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > From Fox News:
> >
> > https://www.foxnews.com/science/city-gate-from-time-of-king-david-discovered-israel
> >
> > A dig related to Biblical history and King David.
>
> I always laugh when Christian apologists use the term "archaeological
> evidence for God". That's a conceptually completely asinine term.
> There *cannot* be archaeological evidence of God, because archaeology
> deals with what people did in the past, not with the existence deities.

I didn't say "archaeological evidence for God." I said "Biblical
proof," and that means the Bible text is being proven accurate as
they unearth artifacts from that time period with the names and
events which all correlate to indicate specific things that didn't
have physical evidence previously now do.

> It all boils down to the argumentative fallacy of "thing X described in
> the Bible really happened, therefore *everything* that the Bible says
> is true".

The word of God is like a lion, Juha. You do not need to defend
a lion. You simply release it. It will defend itself.

> Rather obviously just because a book describes an event that actually
> happened doesn't mean that *everything* the book says is true. There
> are literally hundreds of thousands of books of fiction that mention
> real-life events, like wars, kings, rulers, countries, and so on.
> Just because they mention real-life events has zero consequences on
> whether everything else these books say is true or not.

To believe what a book says, any book, is not wise. You have to
put the book to the test. It is there, in those tests that you
begin to have confidence in the book's authority on its subject
matter, be it a book on physics concepts, or a religious text.
And, there are even some religious texts which have authority on
which they speak, but you have to look to other sources as well
to see if there's a reason there why what that book says is hap-
pening is explained.

When you examine the Bible, you'll find the truth. You may even
find what Napoleon found about it (English translation begins
about half-way down, search for "One day,":

https://biblehub.com/library/schaff/the_person_of_christ/napoleon_bonaparte.htm

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

And Satan invented fossils, yes?

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> And Satan invented fossils, yes?

Satan tried to re-define what fossils are because laboratory
evidence reveals to us what they are. He's spent billions of
dollars on educational efforts, movies, over decades, to try
and convince the general public that fossils are the result of
billions of years of some timeline.

The truth is more intereseting:

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/

Dinosaur bones found with DNA, soft tissue, red blood cells,
and more:
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/bones/

Nobody can force you to see the truth, Leigh Johnston. You have
to be willing to see it. This is exactly how people will condemn
themselves on Judgment Day. It's not because God judges them and
casts them into Hell. He's already made the way back to eternal
life by His Son. It will be because people put their hands over
their ears, and ran around in circles yelling "Blah blah blah blah
blah" like a five-year old, rather than hearing what was being
shown them for their true knowledge, which in this case leads to
exactly the salvation of their eternal soul from the punishment of
sin in Hellfire.

You're gonna miss it, Leigh if you don't take those hands off your
ears. :-(

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Daniel]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 2:31:38 PM UTC-4, rick....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > And Satan invented fossils, yes?
>
> Satan tried to re-define what fossils are because laboratory
> evidence reveals to us what they are.

Hi Rick,

Could I ask if you have a university degree, and if so in what subject? The
reason that I'm interested is that you write as if you were uneducated, and
had no facility for critical thinking.

Thanks,
Daniel

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 3:15:42 PM UTC-4, Daniel wrote:
> Could I ask if you have a university degree, and if so in what subject? The
> reason that I'm interested is that you write as if you were uneducated, and
> had no facility for critical thinking.

Read my reply to Leigh, Daniel, as it applies to you as well. It
applies to many people who move about in this world likewise, be-
ing unwilling to seek the truth, but only to follow the flow of
hate and ignorance with regards to the true teachings of the Bible.

Even when I was an atheist, deep down I still wanted to know the
truth. I wasn't content to just assume I was right based on what
I'd read in a textbook somewhere, or seen in a movie. I always
wanted to know the foundation of the statements being made, to
see the evidence, to understand the methodology, so I could judge
for myself if what they concluded was true.

For example, I learned even in school that radiometric carbon
dating isn't accurate. It has characterized things we know came
from the 1800s, for example, as being over 25,000 years old. And
parts taken from one portion, and parts from another, have yielded
widely different target date ranges, varying by 10s of thousands
to 100s of thousands of years.

Scientists assume a lot when they use dating technologies, and
these assumptions cannot be proven. It, therefore, removes the
possibility of them being relied upon scientifically, especially
when there is evidence or theories to the contrary which refute
it.

The truth is there, Daniel. If you want to seek it you can.
Just pick a direction and begin looking for it.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias
in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than
it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and
comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability.
Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively
evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1]" --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Daniel]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 3:27:15 PM UTC-4, rick....@gmail.com wrote:

> deep down I still wanted to know I wasn't content to just assume I was

> right based on what I'd read in a textbook somewhere, or seen in a movie.

Well, I wouldn't recommend basing your understanding of the world on what
you saw in a movie :-) But thanks for answering my question (by omission).
It is what I thought.

Be well,
Daniel

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 4:25:14 PM UTC-4, Daniel wrote:
> [snip]

You can find fault with man, but the one Christians point you
to is not a man like us, but a different kind of man. He did
not have original sin. He was not under the same constraints
on His relationship with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit
that we are. His relationship (as a man) with God was full, for
he was God.

You won't find fault with Him. You won't find error in Him or
His ways. You will only find absolute stunning brilliance beyond
words, beyond an ability to describe it.

All of God's ways are like that.

It is to Him I point you, Daniel, so that you can be saved by Him,
not by me, but by Him and His perfect sacrifice at the cross, an
atoning death given to you in your place so that you won't have to
die and face judgment, but only pass on from this sinful physical
existence to the eternal sin-free one He restores us to.

-----
You can deflect and mock and move in all manner of directions away
from God, but you can't do it forever. Your time on this Earth is
finite, and God ultimately owns the final determination about where
you will spend eternity.

Deflecting the argument onto me will only give you temporary com-
fort that will be completely erased from your existence on Judgment
Day.

I advise you to seek the truth today, for it is only here in this
world where we can be saved, because it is only here in this world
where Jesus came to save us. We must receive His free gift of total
forgiveness and salvation here, and we are not promised tomorrow.

Today is the day of each person's salvation. Tomorrow we might not
be here.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 4:24:09 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> "In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias
> in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than
> it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and
> comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability.
> Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively
> evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1]" --
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I always though the Dunning-Kruger effect was what was seen when
disruptors are used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty0s4emWeyA

Just more evidence my mental faculties are insufficient.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

And Satan invented fossils, yes?

[Juha Nieminen]

rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:33:54 AM UTC-4, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > From Fox News:
>> >
>> > https://www.foxnews.com/science/city-gate-from-time-of-king-david-discovered-israel
>> >
>> > A dig related to Biblical history and King David.
>>
>> I always laugh when Christian apologists use the term "archaeological
>> evidence for God". That's a conceptually completely asinine term.
>> There *cannot* be archaeological evidence of God, because archaeology
>> deals with what people did in the past, not with the existence deities.
>
> I didn't say "archaeological evidence for God." I said "Biblical
> proof," and that means the Bible text is being proven accurate as
> they unearth artifacts from that time period with the names and
> events which all correlate to indicate specific things that didn't
> have physical evidence previously now do.

Your brain seems physically incapable of understanding why
"thing X described in the Bible really happened, therefore everything
the Bible says is true" is fallacious.

Alternatively, even if your brain *is* capable of understanding why
it's flawed thinking, you are incapable of acknowledging it. You seem
only capable of spouting apologetics like a brainwashed robot. You
are completely incapable of having an actual discussion.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <a4858035-8cd2-4fb0...@googlegroups.com>,

It's the Trump phenomenon: When you don't know anything about anything, you
might as well believe that you know everything about everything. You have
nothing to calibrate on.

This describes well both our whacky president and our whacky religious
nutcase Rick.

--
I love the poorly educated.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 3:00:25 AM UTC-4, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I didn't say "archaeological evidence for God." I said "Biblical
> > proof," and that means the Bible text is being proven accurate as
> > they unearth artifacts from that time period with the names and
> > events which all correlate to indicate specific things that didn't
> > have physical evidence previously now do.
>
> Your brain seems physically incapable of understanding why
> "thing X described in the Bible really happened, therefore everything
> the Bible says is true" is fallacious.

I never said that. I said, "More Biblical proof."

A new thing was found by archaeologists. It provides additional
evidence on the Biblical account. That physical evidence didn't
exist before. Now it does.

> ... You seem

> only capable of spouting apologetics like a brainwashed robot. You
> are completely incapable of having an actual discussion.

I have lots of discussions. They sometimes involve the topic of
God, of Jesus, of sin, of salvation by Jesus' atoning work at the
cross.

One could argue that you are incapable of having a conversation
on subjects related to Biblical teachings, choosing instead to disparage
the people who do speak about the most influential book in human
history. It's almost as if you're hiding from its true teachings,
choosing to keep true knowledge of its teachings outside of your
grasp by purposefully mocking and attacking others who bring up
real facts about Biblical teaching, correlated to real-world observed
events.

You seem quite hostile to the things of God, Juha. They seem to
get under your skin and drive you from within. Why is that I wonder?

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

K-k-k-kenny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzY7qQFij_M

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Daniel]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 7:15:44 AM UTC-4, rick....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I have lots of discussions.

Factually, I think that's incorrect. You believe one, that you are right and
everybody else is wrong, and two, that you have to make them see that they
are wrong. Moreover, you have to make them see that they are wrong using two
arguments, one, it's in the bible so it must be true, and two, it was
revealed to you personally so it must be true. This isn't how educated
people have discussions, including educated people that have religious
convictions.

Be well,
Daniel

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 8:17:55 AM UTC-4, Daniel wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 7:15:44 AM UTC-4, rick....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I have lots of discussions.
>
> Factually, I think that's incorrect. You believe one, that you are right and
> everybody else is wrong,

I tell people in my posts not to believe me, not to trust me, and
to not believe or trust any person, but to go the Bible for them-
selves and see with their own eyes if what I post is true.

People can be deceived, misguided, believe something that's in-
correct, but we are each personally accountable unto God based on
what HE HAS REVEALED to us.

It's personal, Daniel. One-on-one with God. It doesn't involve
a third party or middle-man. I simply point you to Him, because
it is in HIM you have salvation, and in HIM you will learn the
truth of all things.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Mr Flibble]

obtuse, adj.
View as: Outline |Full entryKeywords: On |OffQuotations: Show all |Hide all
Pronunciation: Brit. /əbˈtjuːs/, /ɒbˈtjuːs/, /əbˈtʃuːs/, /ɒbˈtʃuːs/,
U.S. /əbˈt(j)us/, /ɑbˈt(j)us/
Frequency (in current use):
Origin: A borrowing from Latin. Etymon: Latin obtūsus.
Etymology: < classical Latin obtūsus blunt, dull, stupid, (of an angle)
greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees, use as adjective of
past participle of obtundere obtund v. Compare Middle French, French obtus
, obtuse blunt (c1370 in Chauliac; compare quot. ?a1425 at sense 1a),
dull, stupid (1532), (of an angle) greater than 90 degrees and less than
180 degrees (1542), indistinctly perceived (c1550 in Paré).
With obtuse-lobate (see Special uses 2) compare earlier obtusilobous adj.
at obtusi- comb. form .
(Show Less)
1.
Thesaurus »
Categories »

a. Chiefly Botany and Zoology. Not sharp or pointed, blunt.
?a1425 tr. Guy de Chauliac Grande Chirurgie (N.Y. Acad. Med.) f. 78v
Þo [instruments]..he calleþ ciryngathoma, bycopez, curue, suple, & obtuse,
i. blont [?c1425 Paris dulle; L. obtusos], byhynde & at þe ende & not sharp.
1589 G. Puttenham Arte Eng. Poesie ii. xi. 84 Such shape as might not
be sharpe..to passe as an angle, nor so large or obtuse as might not essay
some issue out with one part moe then other as the rounde.
1657 S. Purchas Theatre Flying-insects 6 Their tails are somewhat
sharp (the Drones more obtuse).
1660 R. Boyle New Exper. Physico-mechanicall xxxix. 322 An Oval (1858)
Glass..with a short Neck at the obtuser end.
1753 Chambers's Cycl. Suppl. at Leaf Obtuse Leaf, one terminated by
the segment of a circle.
1767 B. Gooch Pract. Treat. Wounds I. 237 A blow with an obtuse weapon.
1806 Philos. Trans. (Royal Soc.) 96 427 This socket..supports the
whole weight of the moveable part of the instrument, which revolves on an
obtuse point at the bottom.
?1877 F. E. Hulme Familiar Wild Flowers I. Summary p. viii Spur stout,
obtuse.
1961 J. Stubblefield Davies's Introd. Palaeontol. (ed. 3) v. 130 The
marginal border of the cephalon is drawn out into an obtuse point in front.
1997 Jrnl. Ecol. 85 531/1 Leaves..oblong-ovate to lanceolate, cordate
at base, crenate-serrate, apex acute or obtuse.
(Hide quotations)


Thesaurus »
Categories »

b. Geometry. Of a plane angle: greater than 90 degrees and less than 180
degrees. Frequently in obtuse angle.
1570 H. Billingsley tr. Euclid Elements Geom. i. f. 2v An obtuse angle
is that which is greater then a right angle.
1633 P. Fletcher Purple Island iii. xxi. 34 Into two obtuser angles
bended.
1701 N. Grew Cosmol. Sacra ii. v. §18 All Salts are Angular; with
Obtuse, Right, or Acute Angles.
1790 Nat. Hist. in J. White Jrnl. Voy. New S. Wales App. 283 Their
base is a triangle of the scalenus kind, or having one angle obtuse and
two acute.
1879 E. P. Wright Animal Life 6 This bone forms an obtuse angle with
the pelvis.
1972 M. Kline Math. Thought xii. 239 The negative values of the cosine
and tangent functions for obtuse angles.
1991 Choice Mar. 77/3 Most restaurants now have low chairs..with the
backs at an acute angle, compressing the stomach, whereas they should be
at right angles and preferably an obtuse angle.
(Hide quotations)


2. figurative.
Thesaurus »
Categories »

a. Annoyingly unperceptive or slow to understand; stupid; insensitive.
Also, of a remark, action, etc.: exhibiting dullness, stupidity or
insensitivity; clumsy, unsubtle. Formerly also: †rough, unpolished; =
blunt adj. 4 (obsolete rare).
1509 S. Hawes Pastime of Pleasure (1845) xiii. 113 I am but yonge, it
is to me obtuse Of these maters to presume to endyte.
a1586 Sir P. Sidney Lady of May in Arcadia (1598) sig. Bbb5v Thus must
I vniforme my speech to your obtuse conceptions.
1602 J. Marston Antonios Reuenge i. iii. sig. B2 I scorne to retort
the obtuse ieast of a foole.
1606 W. Warner Continuance Albions Eng. xvi. civ. 408 Obtuse in phrase.
1667 Milton Paradise Lost xi. 541 Thy Senses then Obtuse, all taste of
pleasure must forgoe.
1792 M. Wollstonecraft Vindic. Rights Woman iii. 107 If the faculties
are not sharpened by necessity, they must remain obtuse.
1829 Scott Anne of Geierstein I. ii. 41 Obtuse in his understanding,
but kind and faithful in his disposition.
1885 M. Blind Tarantella I. xi. 121 We were too obtuse to understand
their peculiar way of manifesting it.
1915 W. S. Maugham Of Human Bondage cxi. 589 He remembered with what a
callous selfishness his uncle had treated her, how obtuse he had been to
her humble, devoted love.
1952 H. E. Bates Love for Lydia ii. iii. 121 Perhaps the sisters were
not, after all, as obtuse as they sometimes seemed.
1992 Daily Tel. (BNC) 5 Apr. 13 Kohl..will have to live with a
politically obtuse gesture that is being compared to his appearance with
American President Ronald Reagan [etc.].
1999 SL (Cape Town) June 144 (advt.) I love being obtuse. Obtuse is
my middle name.
(Hide quotations)



†b. Not acutely affecting the senses; indistinctly felt or perceived;
dull. Obsolete.
1620 T. Venner Via Recta ii. 31 The wine..carrieth the same, which
otherwise is of an obtuse operation, vnto all the parts [of the body].
1733 Swift Epist. to Lady 12 Bastings heavy, dry, obtuse.
1781 W. Cowper Hope 22 Pleasure is labour too, and tires as much,..By
repetition palled, by age obtuse.
1791 Philos. Trans. 1790 (Royal Soc.) 80 426 I..felt an obtuse
pain..in my stomach.
1897 T. C. Allbutt et al. Syst. Med. IV. 126 Pain, sharp or obtuse.