Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[Autodidact]

I believe that you are again trying to apply the rules one thing to another just as you try and apply the rules of science to religion in a debate forum. As long as you continue this you will fail to gain any understanding. The rules of the universe do not apply to the non-universe. Nevertheless, the answer I previously gave is the correct answer to your question.

I must have missed it. I'm trying to learn from you. Where is heaven?
Because the water you're talking about was and is in the universe, right?
And I agree completely that God exists, if at all, in the non-universe, which science cannot study.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So I might say that since David existed and "giants" exist, and there is a written account of the incident, that it could be said to be superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but specious.

You have an account that seems to portray the line of kings on the throne when it was written as descended from a hero effectively ordained by God. Given the self-serving benefit that this would give the administration under which the text was written, I think it's appropriate to treat it with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

[Autodidact]

sandy: I went back and read your answer more carefully. The water came from heaven, and heaven is (outer) space, so the water came from outer space????

 

[Autodidact]

I believe that you are again trying to apply the rules one thing to another just as you try and apply the rules of science to religion in a debate forum. As long as you continue this you will fail to gain any understanding. The rules of the universe do not apply to the non-universe. Nevertheless, the answer I previously gave is the correct answer to your question.

Why would I ever apply the rules of science to religion? That makes no sense. But this isn't a thread about religion, sandy, it's a thread about science, specifically, archeology, and more recently, geology and physics. When asked a factual, scientific question, you, that's right, you, replied, "heaven." When asked to specify, you retreated to bible verses. So, who's inappropriately talking religion about science here?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I must have missed it. I'm trying to learn from you. Where is heaven?
Because the water you're talking about was and is in the universe, right?

Heaven exists beyond the universe. Space separated the waters from above, Heaven, from the waters below, Earth.

And, no, the water from heaven came from heaven during the flood (the "windows of heaven were opened") and returned to there.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Why would I ever apply the rules of science to religion? That makes no sense. But this isn't a thread about religion, sandy, it's a thread about science, specifically, archeology, and more recently, geology and physics. When asked a factual, scientific question, you, that's right, you, replied, "heaven." When asked to specify, you retreated to bible verses. So, who's inappropriately talking religion about science here?

You still don't get it because you don't want to. It's a debate. It's in a science vs. religion debate forum. Ponder that a while.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

sandy: I went back and read your answer more carefully. The water came from heaven, and heaven is (outer) space, so the water came from outer space????

Heaven is not outer space. That is the firmament of heaven. Genesis 1 allows for the formation of three heavens (backed up by later scripture where John is called to the 3rd heaven): Heaven, the firmament of heaven (space), and the open firmament of heaven (the sky).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You have an account that seems to portray the line of kings on the throne when it was written as descended from a hero effectively ordained by God. Given the self-serving benefit that this would give the administration under which the text was written, I think it's appropriate to treat it with a healthy dose of skepticism.

In other words "valuable but specious." Ie. plausable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Heaven is not outer space. That is the firmament of heaven. Genesis 1 allows for the formation of three heavens (backed up by later scripture where John is called to the 3rd heaven): Heaven, the firmament of heaven (space), and the open firmament of heaven (the sky).

This is a very odd interpretation of Genesis 1, IMO. Most modern translations I've seen don't seem to allow your interpretation.

You still don't get it because you don't want to. It's a debate. It's in a science vs. religion debate forum. Ponder that a while.

Pondering that myself, it strikes me as odd that, given you posted in a science vs. religion debate forum, that you'd have a problem with juxtaposing religion against science.

In any case, any claim can be evaluated scientifically, including ones that come from the Bible.

In other words "valuable but specious." Ie. plausable.

No. I don't think "likely a fabrication for political gain" is a good synonym for "plausible".

Its value doesn't come from any truth in its statements (which I suspect is rather lacking anyhow), but as a documentation of the beliefs of the people who wrote it, as well as the beliefs of Jews, Christians and perhaps Muslims since then.

 

[painted wolf]

So some sort of hole in space opened up and let a bunch of water flood the earth?
Then the water just flew back up into the hole in space?

How far out in space is heaven? Can we see it with a telescope?

wa:do

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This is a very odd interpretation of Genesis 1, IMO. Most modern translations I've seen don't seem to allow your interpretation.

It's found in the King James, Genesis 1, and there is nothing odd about it. Read carefully and you will find it. Try here as well:
The three heavens of the Bible, CARM

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So some sort of hole in space opened up and let a bunch of water flood the earth?
Then the water just flew back up into the hole in space?

That's not what Scripture says.

How far out in space is heaven? Can we see it with a telescope?

Heaven isn't in space. Though according to some models of the universe if you look far enough out you will see your butt.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Heaven isn't in space. Though according to some models of the universe if you far enough out you will see your butt.

Heaven is painted wolf's butt?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You have an account that seems to portray the line of kings on the throne when it was written as descended from a hero effectively ordained by God. Given the self-serving benefit that this would give the administration under which the text was written, I think it's appropriate to treat it with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Wouldn't perhaps they leave out his dalliences with another man's wife and the subsequent murder of said husband as well? Also, didn't a number of American presidents rise to the position because of their military experience? I think of Grank and Eisenhower right off the bat. So why not David?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wouldn't perhaps they leave out his dalliences with another man's wife and the subsequent murder of said husband as well?

You mean Abigail?

There aren't any explicit "dalliances" between her and David until after she kills her husband. It seems a bit harsh to me, but given that not too long before, David presents 200 foreskins of slain Philistines as a dowry, I don't think it's out-of-keeping with the brutal nature of the book.

Also, didn't a number of American presidents rise to the position because of their military experience? I think of Grank and Eisenhower right off the bat. So why not David?

If Eisenhower ran for President on a story that through his righteousness, he arranged to have the D-Day landing force carried across the English Channel by angels, then I'd treat it with the same skepticism.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You mean Abigail?

Bathsheba, and the murder of her husband Uriah by David's orders, to cover up his impregnating her.

If Eisenhower ran for President on a story that through his righteousness, he arranged to have the D-Day landing force carried across the English Channel by angels, then I'd treat it with the same skepticism.

Yet David only killed a giant with a slingshot. That's not so outlandish.

 

[Autodidact]

sandy: Most people, by the word, universe, mean everything. When you say that heaven (where the water came to and returned from) is outside the universe, do you mean that it is, or is not a real physical place? If the former, about how far is it from earth? Could you diagram it for me?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

sandy: Most people, by the word, universe, mean everything. When you say that heaven (where the water came to and returned from) is outside the universe, do you mean that it is, or is not a real physical place? If the former, about how far is it from earth? Could you diagram it for me?

I'll accept that in which case heaven is beyond space. As to how far that is probably cant be answered. For example, some current models of the universe say that it is cuved on itself and the fartherest you can go is all the way around to your butt.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bathsheba, and the murder of her husband Uriah by David's orders, to cover up his impregnating her.

I don't know why. Perhaps it figures into the story of Solomon somehow, or to give a reason for known historical calamities

Yet David only killed a giant with a slingshot. That's not so outlandish.

What's outlandish is portraying God as acting through David to kill Goliath and thereby bring greater glory to the God of Israel.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What's outlandish is portraying God as acting through David to kill Goliath and thereby bring greater glory to the God of Israel.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.