• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Moon theories out the window now too!

ecco

Veteran Member
Written records are not needed until the time God saw fit to give us a written record.
In post #100 above, I thanked @gnostic for his informative posts.

It's now my turn to thank you for your responses. Everyone needs a good laugh now and then. You do know it's at not with - right?
 

dad

Undefeated
Except the older biographers don’t say any thing about prophecies Alexander. These stories were invented centuries later.
Perhaps the proud king never made a big deal of all things, especially when they might have made him look less than ruthless.

It was the Israeli records that tell of that particular occurrence.


It is basic history 101. Preferably, contemporary sources or near contemporary sources are better than ones fifty or one hundred years later. Even less reliable are sources written two or more centuries later.
Your idea of reliable has been shown to result in skewed 'history'.

There is 2000 years between the fictional Tower of Babel to Alexander, and another 800 years between Simplicius and his invented story about astronomers.
You claim it was invented based on nothing. At least the guy was known to have spent time in the proper circles and area. All history is belief based basically. You dismiss what you like.

You talk of archaeology being unreliable with dating methods, but you are relying on the hearsay of philosopher having more credence, just show ignorant and illogical you are.
False. I am relying on God's word and records of the people He chose. The findings of someone that agreed with the general timeline are not to be tossed out for no reason.

History, written history is only reliable, in two possible ways:
  1. if you have archaeological evidence to verify the event,
Baloney. History is about who we chose to believe!

or if you have contemporary and multiple independent sources to verify each other.
In other words, ANYTHING BUT God's word!

And in the case, of Genesis Tower of Babel,

  1. there are no archaeological evidence of its existence in your claim 2234 BCE.
Nor should there be in the nature change was around this time. The evidences of many nations and languages and where some major kingdoms arose all fit perfectly.

And there are no written records contemporary to 2234, which write of Babel’s existence.
I have no reason to assume that when all people on earth spoke the same language that there was a need for writing. That came later.
Ha
 

dad

Undefeated
Nuclear Physics has shown the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old.
Assuming the present physics/nature always existed on earth, as well as that there was no creation has misled so called science to fabricate false ages and times.
Trinity_Detonation_T%26B.jpg

Thanks for the evidence that science has no morals.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Perhaps the proud king never made a big deal of all things, especially when they might have made him look less than ruthless.

It was the Israeli records that tell of that particular occurrence.
Alexander?

You are not making sense, dad.

You were speaking of Simplicius’ writing about Alexander’s encounter with some unnamed astronomers in Babylon after the battle of Gaugmela. Simplicius was a Neoplatonist philosopher writing about Aristotle, Alexander’s mentor and friend.

What does that have to the Chaldean astronomers with some Jewish prophecies about Alexander?

My problem is that there are no other sources to verify the encounter between the Chaldeans and Macedonian king, especially contemporary or near contemporary sources. Without verification, it looked to me Simplicius invented this story.

You seem to be forgetting, nothing is really history, unless you verify the alleged accounts or claims...

from (A) another independent source, preferably contemporary or near contemporary to the specific event,
or (B) with some testable physical or archaeological evidence contemporary to the event,
or (C), all of the above.​

Any alleged history need verification for something, for some events, to be true.

And people who write something about another person, particularly someone famous, some centuries later (like Simplicius did with Alexander the Great), would either distort, exaggerate or invent something that didn’t happen.

For instance, Plato included 6th century BCE Athenian statesman/reformer Solon, in his 2 philosophical dialogues - Timaeus and Critas. Not much of Solon’s own works survive, so much about Solon come from people, century or centuries later, like Herodotus (5th century BCE), Plutarch (late 1st century and early 2nd century CE), Diogenes Laertius (3rd century CE), and of course, Plato himself (4th century BCE)

In every works by people (Herodotus, Plato, Plutarch and Diogenes) that I mentioned, say Solon traveled to Egypt, but only in Plato’s dialogues, does it mention Solon visiting Egyptian priests at a temple in Sais, where Solon heard the story about Atlantis.

None of the other authors mentioned Atlantis at all, only Plato. And Egypt, there are no mention of Solon’s visit to Sais (Egypt) in the 6th century BCE, no mention of any Atlantis in Egyptian records.

One can safely deduce that Plato invented the story about Solon learning about Atlantis from Egyptian priesthood.

A lot of prophecies were invented lot later, to build the legends of Alexander. And without any verification from the Persian archives, one would have to say that Simplicius was less than truthful.

History, I will iterate, required some sorts of verification, and so far, you haven’t provided other sources that agree with astronomers supposedly saying that Babel and Babylon were built in 2236 BCE.

And right now, as usual, you are making excuses.

You claimed that the Tower of Babel was buried under geological uplift and subduction. That’s just another new claim, but where are the evidence that Babylon was ever buried due to uplift and subduction.

We do have evidence that Babylon did construct a large ziggurat (Etemenanki) in Babylon, the largest structure ever built in Babylon, but the only thing lest in the ruin, is the base and foundation of Etemenanki. Based on the size of the base, it was probably no higher than 90 metres tall. That actually shorter than the two 4th dynasty pyramids in Giza, Khufu’s and Khafre’s.

Plus, the 2nd ziggurat was completed in Nebuchadnezzar II’s time, after the first one’s destruction by Assyrian king Sennacherib in 689 BCE.

There are simply no evidence that Babylon built the Tower of Babel in 2236 BCE.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Well, we do have records of Alexander chatting to folks in Israel, and being impressed at the prophesy about him that he was informed about. I have no reason to doubt that conquering kings would have some interest in gleaning knowledge from places they defeated.
Judaea was never defeated by Alexander’s army, dad, because they surrendered without a fight.

The cities of Tyre and Gaza did resist, and were defeated after sieges.
 

dad

Undefeated
Alexander?

You are not making sense, dad.

You were speaking of Simplicius’ writing about Alexander’s encounter with some unnamed astronomers in Babylon after the battle of Gaugmela. Simplicius was a Neoplatonist philosopher writing about Aristotle, Alexander’s mentor and friend.

The issue is whether we believe he did have access to some info, and some feel he was in a great position to have had plenty. Like all history it is a matter of belief. You can doubt for no reason all you like. We don't really know. But I would believe his on target dates more than I would your fantasy dates.

What does that have to the Chaldean astronomers with some Jewish prophecies about Alexander?
That was another instance, where Jews were said to have informed Alexandra as he passed Jerusalem about the astounding prophesies about him and Greece.

My problem is that there are no other sources to verify the encounter between the Chaldeans and Macedonian king, especially contemporary or near contemporary sources. Without verification, it looked to me Simplicius invented this story.
You think we have sources for every person and meeting?

You seem to be forgetting, nothing is really history, unless you verify the alleged accounts or claims...
History is man's story, and we can't know that without His tory.


And people who write something about another person, particularly someone famous, some centuries later (like Simplicius did with Alexander the Great), would either distort, exaggerate or invent something that didn’t happen.
In other words you choose to believe what you like.

For instance, Plato included 6th century BCE Athenian statesman/reformer Solon, in his 2 philosophical dialogues - Timaeus and Critas. Not much of Solon’s own works survive, so much about Solon come from people, century or centuries later, like Herodotus (5th century BCE), Plutarch (late 1st century and early 2nd century CE), Diogenes Laertius (3rd century CE), and of course, Plato himself (4th century BCE)

In every works by people (Herodotus, Plato, Plutarch and Diogenes) that I mentioned, say Solon traveled to Egypt, but only in Plato’s dialogues, does it mention Solon visiting Egyptian priests at a temple in Sais, where Solon heard the story about Atlantis.

None of the other authors mentioned Atlantis at all, only Plato. And Egypt, there are no mention of Solon’s visit to Sais (Egypt) in the 6th century BCE, no mention of any Atlantis in Egyptian records.

One can safely deduce that Plato invented the story about Solon learning about Atlantis from Egyptian priesthood.
Maybe. Maybe not. It is a matter of belief.

A lot of prophecies were invented lot later,
Not bible prophesy.


History, I will iterate, required some sorts of verification, and so far, you haven’t provided other sources that agree with astronomers supposedly saying that Babel and Babylon were built in 2236 BCE.
Babel was about a century and a bit after the flood. So that would not be far off.

You claimed that the Tower of Babel was buried under geological uplift and subduction.
I said probably.

That’s just another new claim, but where are the evidence that Babylon was ever buried due to uplift and subduction.
Or not. There is evidence that a lot changed at that time!

We do have evidence that Babylon did construct a large ziggurat (Etemenanki) in Babylon, the largest structure ever built in Babylon, but the only thing lest in the ruin, is the base and foundation of Etemenanki. Based on the size of the base, it was probably no higher than 90 metres tall. That actually shorter than the two 4th dynasty pyramids in Giza, Khufu’s and Khafre’s.
Irrelevant and after the fact.

Plus, the 2nd ziggurat was completed in Nebuchadnezzar II’s time, after the first one’s destruction by Assyrian king Sennacherib in 689 BCE.
Also useless info.

There are simply no evidence that Babylon built the Tower of Babel in 2236 BCE.
Or not. Since it fits God's record, we can assume the date is good.
 

dad

Undefeated
Judaea was never defeated by Alexander’s army, dad, because they surrendered without a fight.

The cities of Tyre and Gaza did resist, and were defeated after sieges.
He bypassed them, and it is said that was because of the prophesy.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Thanks for the evidence that science has no morals.

What evidence are you referring to? A nuclear bomb that ended a war thereby saving the lives of countless people on both sides of the conflict?

In any event, science is primarily about garnering knowledge about the universe we live in.

Nevertheless, science does teach us about morals by showing the stories in The Book are completely man-made. Would we really want to live by the morals of a god who encourages slavery? Would we really want to live by the morals of a god who encourages giving young women to the soldiers who destroyed their armies and killed their mothers and brothers? Would we really want to live by the morals of a god who injects his sperm into the body of a young betrothed virgin?



Assuming the present physics/nature always existed on earth, as well as that there was no creation has misled so called science to fabricate false ages and times.

That not an assumption. That is a rational conclusion based on the workings of atoms.

In any case, you not only constantly make assumptions about things in your Book, you actually make up stories of things that happened on the earth. Stories for which you have absolutely no rational basis. Stories like continents zipping across the oceans following your Flood.
 

dad

Undefeated
What evidence are you referring to? A nuclear bomb that ended a war thereby saving the lives of countless people on both sides of the conflict?
Yes. That evidence. There are thousands bigger than that pointed at us as we speak. Is that a good thing? Is that good for earth and life here? No. Even real science that does work and deal in the present nature is not moral. It is just knowledge. Knowledge of good and evil.

In any event, science is primarily about garnering knowledge about the universe we live in.
The stories of origins are not knowledge.

Nevertheless, science does teach us about morals by showing the stories in The Book are completely man-made.
Interesting. You claim the morals in science are based on being biased and antiChrist. OK. We all have different ideas of morality I guess.

Would we really want to live by the morals of a god who encourages slavery?
Jesus died to set slaves free. He that Jesus sets free is free indeed. Should we live by morals of slaves that want to stay slaves and enslave us all??

Would we really want to live by the morals of a god who encourages giving young women to the soldiers who destroyed their armies and killed their mothers and brothers?
The nations destroyed by God's people were sacrificing children in many cases. They were engaged in the worst kind of demon worship and violence and deep wickedness imaginable. In some cases the city or people were so totally infested and infected with Satanic wickedness and depravity that God could not allow them to continue.
If you are correct that in one of these extreme instances, God had mercy of some of the women and children allowing them to live, that was not a bad thing.

The facts of life in that time were not the same as today. The culture of conquering and captivity for the vanquished was a harsh reality.

Would we really want to live by the morals of a god who injects his sperm into the body of a young betrothed virgin?
Chapter and verse?

That not an assumption. That is a rational conclusion based on the workings of atoms.
In other words you think it rational to assume the workings were always the same for no reason at all.

Stories like continents zipping across the oceans following your Flood.

Science knows the continents were together. You make up stories about how long it took to separate based on belief in a same nature in the past.
 
Top