Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Because the Bible explicitly says "flat."
-
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!
Has anyone used science to "just" disprove the bible?
- Thread starter Just_me_Mike
- Start date
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
It is he that sits upon the circle (chug) of the earth and its inhabitants are as grasshoppers that stretch out the heavens as a curtain and spread them out as a tent to dwell in
חוּג
chug, pronounced-khoog
Hebrew definition-circle, to draw around, make a circle, circle of a compass
As in Proverbs 8:27
When he prepared the heavens I was there when he inscribed a circle (chug) upon the face of of the deep
Or Job 26:10
He has inscribed a circle (chug) upon the surface of the waters at the boundaries until the light and darkness come to an end
Gabethewiking
Active Member
Well, that sort of ends that issue/debate then doesn't it. If Theist here do not consider the as-close-as-the-original we can come is not valid over the English translation.
Funny enough, Jews I met, educated ones, consider it metaphorical and seem to hold a more deistic view rather then literal.
Jollybear
Hey
Tumbleweed41
That is not entirely correct. The New International Version is also translated directly from the Hebrew. But there are different ways to translate a given word in the Hebrew language. That does not mean one can pick and choose based on what they like, but it does mean they pick based on a context within a given chapter.
Also for the record, they had hundreds of bible scholars and translators working on the NIV to seep out all bias as possible. It’s a good translation.
If you want, we can go directly to a Hebrew lexicon; there is a free one on studylight.org. Actually Here is the lexicon http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ge+30:37&t=str&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en and here is the Hebrew word used for when the sheep mated in front of the branches and the trough. http://studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=03179 The word for mated there is “Yacham” and it can be translated as “to be hot, conceive, to be hot, become hot, to mate (of animals), to become hot of anger, to conceive sexually, to be in heat (of animals).” These are all the ways they can be translated and one picks the best one for the context. So when your translation says “to conceive when they drank” it can also be translated DIRECTLY from the Hebrew “to MATE”. It’s there in the lexicon, I am not twisting anything, look at the links for yourself I provided.
Also if you say to me ‘but it says they still mated and brought FORTH’. I will say yea, it does, but so does Genesis 29:33-35 Genesis 38:4 and 1 Samuel 1:20 and 1 Samuel 2:21 all of these people it says “they conceived and gave birth” so does that mean it’s saying they gave birth the second after they conceived? If you’re going to say this about the sheep, to be consistent, you have to say it about all these people in these passages. Right?
It’s just as I said, God blessed Jacob, it was not the branches (superstition) that blessed him. And it was not luck or chance, it was God. The angel did not say to Jacob “good Job with the branches” either as you will notice. Notice in 31:8 Jacob says “If he (Laban) said, ‘the speckled ones will be your wages, then all the flocks gave birth to speckled young; and if he said, the streaked ones will be your wages, ‘then all the flocks bore streaked young. So God has taken away your father’s livestock and has given them to me.” < God blessed Jacob. The peeled branches were only an allegory of what God was going to do. God did this type of thing many times with prophets in the bible with allegories.
Verse 10 “in breeding season I once had a dream in which I looked up and saw that the male goats mating with the flocks were streaked, speckled or spotted. The angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob.’ I answered, ‘Here I am.’ And he said, ‘Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me. Now leave this land at once and go back to your native land.’” < God blessed Jacob.
This story does not have anything to do against genetics. The God who created sheep and knits the baby sheep in the womb, is the God who controls it all and can use branches as an allegory of what he will do within the wombs of sheep. The branches really have nothing to do with the actual birthing of the sheep and how they look, it’s just an allegory.
Maybe, but still it’s not sufficient proof to say that Jacob wrote it, because God could tell Moses what Jacob said verbatim and Moses thus write it down. The apostles of Jesus did that with quoting Jesus words and we know Jesus did not write the gospels. According to your rational Jesus must have wrote the gospels because he is quoted. Also in the same chapter you say Jacob wrote in, it says in verse 4 “So Jacob sent word to Rachel and Leah” if it was Jacob writing this, why would he not say “and I sent word to Rachel and Leah”?
Regardless whether it was Moses or Jacob or someone else who wrote it; the point I think is strong and which I am making is: God blessed Jacob, based on the text itself and which Jacob himself realizes. So therefore the issue with the branches must be allegorical of what God wanted to do.
If we believe the branches were allegory, then there is no problem. If it was superstition, but Moses wrote it, then there is still no problem. But I admit, that if Jacob wrote it AND it was superstition, THEN it is a problem, BUT you cannot prove this to be the case within the text.
If the mistakes are minor and only spelling mistakes, and sometimes omitting a sentence by mistake in copying, then no, it does not lead to theology errors. Plus the thousands of copies, the mistakes were different, therefore footnotes come into play. In other words, we have a reliable ancient document called the bible. The mistakes were not in the content of its message. And the original copies had no mistakes.
I do not admit the bible has mistakes in its message or in its honest witness and in its science either. I do admit it had mistakes in recopying by scribes, mistakes such as a wrong spelling, a omitted word or sentence by accident. But then again it’s made up for by other scribes copying.
Hold on their now, you did NOT prove that there was an actual error in the story of Jacob. No you didn’t. You READ YOUR ERROR INTO THE STORY.
That is not entirely correct. The New International Version is also translated directly from the Hebrew. But there are different ways to translate a given word in the Hebrew language. That does not mean one can pick and choose based on what they like, but it does mean they pick based on a context within a given chapter.
Also for the record, they had hundreds of bible scholars and translators working on the NIV to seep out all bias as possible. It’s a good translation.
If you want, we can go directly to a Hebrew lexicon; there is a free one on studylight.org. Actually Here is the lexicon http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ge+30:37&t=str&st=1&new=1&sr=1&sc=1&l=en and here is the Hebrew word used for when the sheep mated in front of the branches and the trough. http://studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=03179 The word for mated there is “Yacham” and it can be translated as “to be hot, conceive, to be hot, become hot, to mate (of animals), to become hot of anger, to conceive sexually, to be in heat (of animals).” These are all the ways they can be translated and one picks the best one for the context. So when your translation says “to conceive when they drank” it can also be translated DIRECTLY from the Hebrew “to MATE”. It’s there in the lexicon, I am not twisting anything, look at the links for yourself I provided.
Also if you say to me ‘but it says they still mated and brought FORTH’. I will say yea, it does, but so does Genesis 29:33-35 Genesis 38:4 and 1 Samuel 1:20 and 1 Samuel 2:21 all of these people it says “they conceived and gave birth” so does that mean it’s saying they gave birth the second after they conceived? If you’re going to say this about the sheep, to be consistent, you have to say it about all these people in these passages. Right?
It’s just as I said, God blessed Jacob, it was not the branches (superstition) that blessed him. And it was not luck or chance, it was God. The angel did not say to Jacob “good Job with the branches” either as you will notice. Notice in 31:8 Jacob says “If he (Laban) said, ‘the speckled ones will be your wages, then all the flocks gave birth to speckled young; and if he said, the streaked ones will be your wages, ‘then all the flocks bore streaked young. So God has taken away your father’s livestock and has given them to me.” < God blessed Jacob. The peeled branches were only an allegory of what God was going to do. God did this type of thing many times with prophets in the bible with allegories.
Verse 10 “in breeding season I once had a dream in which I looked up and saw that the male goats mating with the flocks were streaked, speckled or spotted. The angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob.’ I answered, ‘Here I am.’ And he said, ‘Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me. Now leave this land at once and go back to your native land.’” < God blessed Jacob.
This story does not have anything to do against genetics. The God who created sheep and knits the baby sheep in the womb, is the God who controls it all and can use branches as an allegory of what he will do within the wombs of sheep. The branches really have nothing to do with the actual birthing of the sheep and how they look, it’s just an allegory.
Maybe, but still it’s not sufficient proof to say that Jacob wrote it, because God could tell Moses what Jacob said verbatim and Moses thus write it down. The apostles of Jesus did that with quoting Jesus words and we know Jesus did not write the gospels. According to your rational Jesus must have wrote the gospels because he is quoted. Also in the same chapter you say Jacob wrote in, it says in verse 4 “So Jacob sent word to Rachel and Leah” if it was Jacob writing this, why would he not say “and I sent word to Rachel and Leah”?
Regardless whether it was Moses or Jacob or someone else who wrote it; the point I think is strong and which I am making is: God blessed Jacob, based on the text itself and which Jacob himself realizes. So therefore the issue with the branches must be allegorical of what God wanted to do.
If we believe the branches were allegory, then there is no problem. If it was superstition, but Moses wrote it, then there is still no problem. But I admit, that if Jacob wrote it AND it was superstition, THEN it is a problem, BUT you cannot prove this to be the case within the text.
If the mistakes are minor and only spelling mistakes, and sometimes omitting a sentence by mistake in copying, then no, it does not lead to theology errors. Plus the thousands of copies, the mistakes were different, therefore footnotes come into play. In other words, we have a reliable ancient document called the bible. The mistakes were not in the content of its message. And the original copies had no mistakes.
I do not admit the bible has mistakes in its message or in its honest witness and in its science either. I do admit it had mistakes in recopying by scribes, mistakes such as a wrong spelling, a omitted word or sentence by accident. But then again it’s made up for by other scribes copying.
Hold on their now, you did NOT prove that there was an actual error in the story of Jacob. No you didn’t. You READ YOUR ERROR INTO THE STORY.
Jollybear
Hey
That is maybe but would you like to go another round on it and see what happens?
The documents are real. Let me post this to you, if you still want to forget this and get the archeology from me, then I will give it to you. Just let me know if you want to bypass everything I just said here?
Also, here is an interesting link for you to look at. This puts a different spin on it, saying that what Jacob did was not unscientific, but actually SCIENTIFIC. http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/gen30.htm
Tell me what you think of the whole link.
Jollybear
Hey
Alceste
You read the word “static” INTO the text. The text does not say “static”. The text says “cannot be moved”. That’s what it says. Now does that mean “static” as you say, or does it mean in a general sense “it’s not going to go into none existence” as I say? Well, one thing we can be certain on, it says “cannot be moved”. The author did not give us ENOUGH detail of what he REALLY meant, did he? I gauss that means you can’t prove your point.
Also, I can PROVE that the author DOES use poetic language many times. Look at Psalm 51:7 he says “cleanse me with hyssop and I will be clean, wash me and I will be whiter then snow”. He is talking about his sin. He is not literally asking God to take a hyssop plant and cleanse and wash him. He is using poetic language. Here is another example in Psalm 78:19 “can God spread a TABLE in the desert?”. Notice in this verse it says the word table. Now it’s not literally talking about God spreading a table in the desert, it means God sending FOOD in the desert to his people. It’s poetic license. Intuition and common sense tells us this. Here is another one from the psalms again, in Psalm 65:12 “the hills are CLOTHED with gladness”. Are hills literally clothed? Of course not, the Psalm writer is using poetic language. There are many more, but I just want to make this point. The Psalms have a lot of poetic language going on, CONTEXT and the style of writing tells us this.
Prove it.
Prove it
Prove it
Well, this part is obvious
And this part is obvious too.
No it’s not, prove it. Prove to me the bible authors believed the earth was flat and STATIC. PROVE IT. Don’t tell me that I am “pig-ignorant” to argue otherwise. Prove your point. That does not help your argument by saying that to me.
No you have not. Give me proof of your proof.
I showed you many places in the psalms where they use poetic language. I PROVED they use poetic language in the psalms. I also pointed out a FACT, which is, that you read the word STATIC INTO the text. The text does not say “static” it says “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved”. Now the Hebrew word for established there is kuwn and it means to be secure, or enduring or stable. Now the Hebrew word for “moved” in the text is to shake, dislodge, totter or overthrown. THAT is what it means by MOVED ACCORDING to the Hebrew. Therefore your definition of moved “static” is NOT there in the Hebrew.
So, there are two points against your case I just made.
I see the world as it genuinely is, that’s not the issue, but what you fail to see is what the bible genuinely says. You read things INTO it which are not there. I gave you two points for you to ponder, tell me what you think?
I don’t have issue with science, I have issue with your reading something wrong into the text.
I disagree with you, I am not factually incorrect, prove me wrong that this is not what the author means what I said?
I agree, and who knows, there may be other factors involved as well that balance it so precisely.
This is assumption, you don’t know this. This is all speculation or prediction.
Your just getting into semantics now. When Isaiah said the “circle of the earth” how do you know he meant a DISK? It does not say DISK in the text. True it also does not say BALL in the text. It says the circle of the earth.
Plus the Hebrew word there for circle is “Chuwg” and it means this “circle, CIRCUIT, compass, vault of the heavens. Those are all the ways it can be translated. Now, CIRCUIT means to start from one spot and go around and END in the spot you started at. It means to go around. So, Isaiah was not teaching a FLAT earth, nor a circular disk.
Actually New Testament writers did know the earth was round. In Luke 17:31-34 Jesus talks about in that “day”, then he says in that “night” referring to the same event. So it’s appearing to be day on one side of the planet and night on the other side.
I am not going around no “obvious fact that the writers of the bible thought the earth was stationary and said so on numerous occasions throughout the books”. You are not seeing the “obvious fact” that you have not PROVEN this statement. Prove this, so far all I have seen is you reading something INTO the text.
You read the word “static” INTO the text. The text does not say “static”. The text says “cannot be moved”. That’s what it says. Now does that mean “static” as you say, or does it mean in a general sense “it’s not going to go into none existence” as I say? Well, one thing we can be certain on, it says “cannot be moved”. The author did not give us ENOUGH detail of what he REALLY meant, did he? I gauss that means you can’t prove your point.
Also, I can PROVE that the author DOES use poetic language many times. Look at Psalm 51:7 he says “cleanse me with hyssop and I will be clean, wash me and I will be whiter then snow”. He is talking about his sin. He is not literally asking God to take a hyssop plant and cleanse and wash him. He is using poetic language. Here is another example in Psalm 78:19 “can God spread a TABLE in the desert?”. Notice in this verse it says the word table. Now it’s not literally talking about God spreading a table in the desert, it means God sending FOOD in the desert to his people. It’s poetic license. Intuition and common sense tells us this. Here is another one from the psalms again, in Psalm 65:12 “the hills are CLOTHED with gladness”. Are hills literally clothed? Of course not, the Psalm writer is using poetic language. There are many more, but I just want to make this point. The Psalms have a lot of poetic language going on, CONTEXT and the style of writing tells us this.
Prove it.
Prove it
Prove it
Well, this part is obvious
And this part is obvious too.
No it’s not, prove it. Prove to me the bible authors believed the earth was flat and STATIC. PROVE IT. Don’t tell me that I am “pig-ignorant” to argue otherwise. Prove your point. That does not help your argument by saying that to me.
No you have not. Give me proof of your proof.
I showed you many places in the psalms where they use poetic language. I PROVED they use poetic language in the psalms. I also pointed out a FACT, which is, that you read the word STATIC INTO the text. The text does not say “static” it says “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved”. Now the Hebrew word for established there is kuwn and it means to be secure, or enduring or stable. Now the Hebrew word for “moved” in the text is to shake, dislodge, totter or overthrown. THAT is what it means by MOVED ACCORDING to the Hebrew. Therefore your definition of moved “static” is NOT there in the Hebrew.
So, there are two points against your case I just made.
I see the world as it genuinely is, that’s not the issue, but what you fail to see is what the bible genuinely says. You read things INTO it which are not there. I gave you two points for you to ponder, tell me what you think?
I don’t have issue with science, I have issue with your reading something wrong into the text.
I disagree with you, I am not factually incorrect, prove me wrong that this is not what the author means what I said?
I agree, and who knows, there may be other factors involved as well that balance it so precisely.
This is assumption, you don’t know this. This is all speculation or prediction.
Your just getting into semantics now. When Isaiah said the “circle of the earth” how do you know he meant a DISK? It does not say DISK in the text. True it also does not say BALL in the text. It says the circle of the earth.
Plus the Hebrew word there for circle is “Chuwg” and it means this “circle, CIRCUIT, compass, vault of the heavens. Those are all the ways it can be translated. Now, CIRCUIT means to start from one spot and go around and END in the spot you started at. It means to go around. So, Isaiah was not teaching a FLAT earth, nor a circular disk.
Actually New Testament writers did know the earth was round. In Luke 17:31-34 Jesus talks about in that “day”, then he says in that “night” referring to the same event. So it’s appearing to be day on one side of the planet and night on the other side.
I am not going around no “obvious fact that the writers of the bible thought the earth was stationary and said so on numerous occasions throughout the books”. You are not seeing the “obvious fact” that you have not PROVEN this statement. Prove this, so far all I have seen is you reading something INTO the text.
Jollybear
Hey
You can’t use the word more if you have not PROVEN what you thought was a first error. Prove the first thing was an error, if you can’t prove it, but only interpret it into the text, then give me another one? It’s not fruitless. Why do you think it’s fruitless?
The above is the infinite space. Solomon said, the heavens, the highest heavens cannot even contain you.
The edges or corners you refer to, in revelation 7:1 were it talks about the four corners of the earth. The word corner there in the greek is “Gonie” and it means “an external angle, a corner, internal corner, a secret place. It does not mean a place where it’s a ledge to where you tip over and fall off. Plus even for a boundary ledge for the earth, that does not have to mean the earth as a WHOLE has a ledge. The united states have boundaries from one state to the other; so, the corner or ledge of a state.
I would face the proof if you had it, but it’s not there to face. Prove they thought the earth did not spin?
Jollybear
Hey
Freethinker44
The bible was not using poetic language to describe the events surrounding the life of Jesus. Why? Because of the way it reads, the context, the style.
You distinguish factual language and poetic language by the style of writing, context and how it reads.
God is a God of variety and complexity. He gives many different kinds of gifting and talents and ways of expression for people to use and exercise. Some write poetically, some write in a story form, some write in law form.
It is clear, and it’s also clear that the others have not proven me wrong. Many places in scripture there is no need or room to interpret because it is so detailed and clear as a bell. However sometimes in sections it’s not very detailed and in those cases, one has to interpret or go with the most plausible explanation. Why did God do that? Or should I say, why did some of the writers do that? Because their main issue was not to talk about the shape of the earth, that was not the whole point of their book or chapter, that was not their EMPHESIS. Also the other reason why God does not detail every single tiny winy thing is because he does want an ELEMENT of faith, but faith in the most plausible. In other words, go in the direction that has the WEIGHT of the evidence pointing toward it. There is no confusion.
The weight of the evidence is their pointing in ONE direction. Our intelligence is also there, our intuition is there, our common sense is there. Our conscience is there.
No, not a bit of confusion, he wants to cause a bit of faith and courage and trust.
He don’t punish people for being confused, he punishes them after it’s clear and they reject it still. And if you come back and say “why would anyone still reject it after it’s clear?” to that I say, they definitely do. I know some of them, there even mentioned in the bible some of them too.
Gebethewiking
Incorrect, when the context and style of writing in the bible calls for symbols and poetic license, THEN it’s LITERALLY poetic license. But when it calls for story form, then it’s literally story form.
Debate is not ended yet. It’s just beginning. I may not respond right away, but I will respond definitely.
The bible was not using poetic language to describe the events surrounding the life of Jesus. Why? Because of the way it reads, the context, the style.
You distinguish factual language and poetic language by the style of writing, context and how it reads.
God is a God of variety and complexity. He gives many different kinds of gifting and talents and ways of expression for people to use and exercise. Some write poetically, some write in a story form, some write in law form.
It is clear, and it’s also clear that the others have not proven me wrong. Many places in scripture there is no need or room to interpret because it is so detailed and clear as a bell. However sometimes in sections it’s not very detailed and in those cases, one has to interpret or go with the most plausible explanation. Why did God do that? Or should I say, why did some of the writers do that? Because their main issue was not to talk about the shape of the earth, that was not the whole point of their book or chapter, that was not their EMPHESIS. Also the other reason why God does not detail every single tiny winy thing is because he does want an ELEMENT of faith, but faith in the most plausible. In other words, go in the direction that has the WEIGHT of the evidence pointing toward it. There is no confusion.
The weight of the evidence is their pointing in ONE direction. Our intelligence is also there, our intuition is there, our common sense is there. Our conscience is there.
No, not a bit of confusion, he wants to cause a bit of faith and courage and trust.
He don’t punish people for being confused, he punishes them after it’s clear and they reject it still. And if you come back and say “why would anyone still reject it after it’s clear?” to that I say, they definitely do. I know some of them, there even mentioned in the bible some of them too.
Gebethewiking
Incorrect, when the context and style of writing in the bible calls for symbols and poetic license, THEN it’s LITERALLY poetic license. But when it calls for story form, then it’s literally story form.
Debate is not ended yet. It’s just beginning. I may not respond right away, but I will respond definitely.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
just trying to avoid getting bull **** on me shoesWhere are you going to sail to?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Basically, Jacob "believed" what he did caused different markings on the sheep. Obviously this is not true.
You claim the writer did not "believe" it, he just wrote it.
This is pure speculation and desperate apologetics.
So if anyone is to point to a verse in the bible and says "scientifically imposable", it is just a matter of replying that is is allegorical, an actual "miracle", misunderstanding, or mistranslation.
So, like I said. Lets move on to the real world.
Supply me with your archeological evidence.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
The best way to use the Bible when it comes to scriptural research is when placed with other near eastern texts and epigraphy so that we can gather some kind of a whole. as obviously each class and each culture had its own perspective.
Jollybear
Hey
Mestemia
You can do that without going on the boat, just step on the grass where no poo is.
Tumbleweed41
No, Jacob believed GOD was the one who blessed him with the right kind of sheep (Genesis 30:30 Genesis 31:13) so therefore the branches had to be allegory. Plus the website I gave you showed that the branches could be a scientific thing Jacob did.
No its not desperate apologetics, its very reasonable. There is many things the author wrote in Genesis that he did not believe in, such as Lot getting drunk and having sex with his daughters, such as Noah getting drunk, such as Josephs brothers selling him to Egypt, such as Cain killing Abel and the list goes on and on. Based on your reasoning, the author would have to believe literally everything he wrote down. And that is DESPARATE on your part to say such a thing. People can write factual history without believing in some of the things that go on in that factual history. But that assumes that your correct and that Jacobs branch thingy was unscientific, or not an allegory, to which you cannot prove otherwise. Yes, read the link I gave you that shows what he did could be scientific. Also you cannot prove Jacob wrote any section of the text either, plus even if you did prove it, then you would have to prove that what he did with the branches was not an allegory, or that it was not scientific according to the article I gave you. So dont act like I am doing special pleading here, for I am clearly not.
Sometimes it is allegorical, yes, and what is wrong with saying it is? Its not a cop out to say that. There is many times God got prophets to do allegorical things which displayed a deeper message. For example, God told Jeremiah the prophet to bind a belt around his waist and then burry it. Then God told him, in like manner I have bound Israel around my waist and I will send them into exile. Does this mean Jeremiah taking a belt around his waist and burying it caused the exile of Israel to Babylon? Obviously not, it was an allegory. Here is another example, God sent a prophet to someone and asked him to strike him, but the person refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet asked another and he did it, then the prophet told his message to Ahab that he did not carry out the will of God by killing a king the Lord determined should die. Then Ahab went away angry. Just take a look at the prophet Ezekiel, God talks to him in a lot of allegorical ways.
Ok, your point is? The bible is full of cases of miracles, that does not tell me anything. Saying thus and thus is a miracle also is not a cop out, the bible is full of miracles. If God is real, miracles are EASY.
Yea and sometimes it is misunderstanding. Sometimes people really do misinterpreted passages. In your case I believe you have done that. It clearly shows that Jacob believed God blessed him, not the branches. Your saying otherwise.
Yea and sometimes this happens as well. Your implying all of these are cop outs and I am saying, no there not, these are strong factors.
As you wish. Here is the FIRST case with archeology. Here is one video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkcgLz3U56k and here is a more detailed series of videos of the same subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjT7pviAWAU&feature=related and these ones go in part 1, 2, 3 and on and on. Just follow the next video after the first one is done.
Look at them all and tell me that is not evidence and then tell me WHY its not evidence.
You can do that without going on the boat, just step on the grass where no poo is.
Tumbleweed41
No, Jacob believed GOD was the one who blessed him with the right kind of sheep (Genesis 30:30 Genesis 31:13) so therefore the branches had to be allegory. Plus the website I gave you showed that the branches could be a scientific thing Jacob did.
No its not desperate apologetics, its very reasonable. There is many things the author wrote in Genesis that he did not believe in, such as Lot getting drunk and having sex with his daughters, such as Noah getting drunk, such as Josephs brothers selling him to Egypt, such as Cain killing Abel and the list goes on and on. Based on your reasoning, the author would have to believe literally everything he wrote down. And that is DESPARATE on your part to say such a thing. People can write factual history without believing in some of the things that go on in that factual history. But that assumes that your correct and that Jacobs branch thingy was unscientific, or not an allegory, to which you cannot prove otherwise. Yes, read the link I gave you that shows what he did could be scientific. Also you cannot prove Jacob wrote any section of the text either, plus even if you did prove it, then you would have to prove that what he did with the branches was not an allegory, or that it was not scientific according to the article I gave you. So dont act like I am doing special pleading here, for I am clearly not.
Sometimes it is allegorical, yes, and what is wrong with saying it is? Its not a cop out to say that. There is many times God got prophets to do allegorical things which displayed a deeper message. For example, God told Jeremiah the prophet to bind a belt around his waist and then burry it. Then God told him, in like manner I have bound Israel around my waist and I will send them into exile. Does this mean Jeremiah taking a belt around his waist and burying it caused the exile of Israel to Babylon? Obviously not, it was an allegory. Here is another example, God sent a prophet to someone and asked him to strike him, but the person refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet asked another and he did it, then the prophet told his message to Ahab that he did not carry out the will of God by killing a king the Lord determined should die. Then Ahab went away angry. Just take a look at the prophet Ezekiel, God talks to him in a lot of allegorical ways.
Ok, your point is? The bible is full of cases of miracles, that does not tell me anything. Saying thus and thus is a miracle also is not a cop out, the bible is full of miracles. If God is real, miracles are EASY.
Yea and sometimes it is misunderstanding. Sometimes people really do misinterpreted passages. In your case I believe you have done that. It clearly shows that Jacob believed God blessed him, not the branches. Your saying otherwise.
Yea and sometimes this happens as well. Your implying all of these are cop outs and I am saying, no there not, these are strong factors.
As you wish. Here is the FIRST case with archeology. Here is one video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkcgLz3U56k and here is a more detailed series of videos of the same subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjT7pviAWAU&feature=related and these ones go in part 1, 2, 3 and on and on. Just follow the next video after the first one is done.
Look at them all and tell me that is not evidence and then tell me WHY its not evidence.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I'm sorry, both Wyatt and Cornuke have been thoroughly debunked throughout the Archaeological community. Neither have provided any peer reviewed evidence in support of any of their claims.
If you want to be taken seriously, please provide actual archeological evidence that supports the Bible as Gods word.
Alceste
Vagabond
Too long: didn't read.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I'll save you the trouble. When the Bible said "circle," you claimed that it meant "circle," when actually it means "sphere."
Jollybear
Hey
Tumbleweed41
And what are some of those debunkings? I am waiting for them from you. I would like to actually see a actual debunk of the links I just showed you.
Ok, the link shows you CLEAR footage and evidence and all you have to say is “they did not provide any peer reviewed evidence in support of any of their claims”? The location of the “real mt Sinai” is over there fenced in by the Arabian government for ALL TO SEE, ALONG with the rest of the journey of the exodus, and this is all you have to say?
Watch this, I now witness a hill in front of my house, it’s a fact that it’s there, but I have not provided any peer reviewed evidence in support that there is a hill in front of my house, THEREFORE a hill must NOT BE in front of my house? Does that sound feasible to you? Come over and see the hill in front of my house in charlotte NC and you will see the proof for yourself. Also if it’s too fair for you to come, I can take a picture and send it to you. O, maybe I am manipulating the picture? Then come over and see for yourself then.
Also for the record, I checked it out on Google earth once and the mountain can also be seen on it.
You know sometimes archeologists will disagree NOT BECAUSE of any truth perse, but because of selfish reasons. One archeologist may disagree with wyatt and carnuk simply because they want to be recognized as the founder of the traditional site. There is a lot of selfish factors involved as well. Plus, the Arabian government will not allow the archeologists to go over there and study the location, and that is why they have it fenced in obviously. But it’s still there, clearly seen, even with the fence there. But they have still gone over there and checked it out and found it.
Perhaps, but I don’t know if this is the reason, but maybe they have not submitted a peer reviewed thing for their findings is because they went over there WITHOUT a VISA and that may have gone against the RULES of archeology. But they knew probably the government would not give them a visa for that location. I don’t know all the factors, but this could be some. But what I do know, is that link IS EVIDENCE. Now it’s your turn, tell me why it’s NOT evidence. Don’t just say “it’s not evidence” show me HOW and WHY it’s not?
If you won’t do that, would you like me to give you the SECOND archeology evidence that the bible is true and corroborated?
More like, if you want me to take you seriously, show me how and why either you or some other archeologist who happens to disagree with wyatt is RIGHT in disagreeing with wyatt and carnuk? Show WHY or WHERE they have been refuted? The evidence is over there in the location and it’s very compelling. Deny it all you want, it won’t suffice, show why it don’t corroborate the biblical story of the exodus? Don’t deny that it’s over there, there is NO question that this location is over there, no question about it, the issue is, does it corroborate the biblical story? It sure does, but if you disagree, show HOW IT DON’T?
I would like an actual refutation of the links I provided you, not just denial of them. This is a debate forum, right?
If you would like, you can provide me a LINK that you trust of the refutation if you want to and I will examine it.
Autodidact
When you look up at the moon, is it in the shape of a circle? Yes, but is it a sphere? Yes. That is my point.
Plus if we go by your definition of circle, then it’s one dimensional, not two dimensional (a disk). So, did the biblical authors believe the earth was a circle like one dimensional THIN sheet of paper like object? Obviously not, they could dig into the ground. Globes are in the shape of a circle. The earth was in the shape of a circle. Plus I showed you from the Hebrew that it can be a Journey starting in one spot and ending in the same spot (like a globe). Anyway, you cannot prove your point from the little bit of detail that the biblical authors gave.
And what are some of those debunkings? I am waiting for them from you. I would like to actually see a actual debunk of the links I just showed you.
Ok, the link shows you CLEAR footage and evidence and all you have to say is “they did not provide any peer reviewed evidence in support of any of their claims”? The location of the “real mt Sinai” is over there fenced in by the Arabian government for ALL TO SEE, ALONG with the rest of the journey of the exodus, and this is all you have to say?
Watch this, I now witness a hill in front of my house, it’s a fact that it’s there, but I have not provided any peer reviewed evidence in support that there is a hill in front of my house, THEREFORE a hill must NOT BE in front of my house? Does that sound feasible to you? Come over and see the hill in front of my house in charlotte NC and you will see the proof for yourself. Also if it’s too fair for you to come, I can take a picture and send it to you. O, maybe I am manipulating the picture? Then come over and see for yourself then.
Also for the record, I checked it out on Google earth once and the mountain can also be seen on it.
You know sometimes archeologists will disagree NOT BECAUSE of any truth perse, but because of selfish reasons. One archeologist may disagree with wyatt and carnuk simply because they want to be recognized as the founder of the traditional site. There is a lot of selfish factors involved as well. Plus, the Arabian government will not allow the archeologists to go over there and study the location, and that is why they have it fenced in obviously. But it’s still there, clearly seen, even with the fence there. But they have still gone over there and checked it out and found it.
Perhaps, but I don’t know if this is the reason, but maybe they have not submitted a peer reviewed thing for their findings is because they went over there WITHOUT a VISA and that may have gone against the RULES of archeology. But they knew probably the government would not give them a visa for that location. I don’t know all the factors, but this could be some. But what I do know, is that link IS EVIDENCE. Now it’s your turn, tell me why it’s NOT evidence. Don’t just say “it’s not evidence” show me HOW and WHY it’s not?
If you won’t do that, would you like me to give you the SECOND archeology evidence that the bible is true and corroborated?
More like, if you want me to take you seriously, show me how and why either you or some other archeologist who happens to disagree with wyatt is RIGHT in disagreeing with wyatt and carnuk? Show WHY or WHERE they have been refuted? The evidence is over there in the location and it’s very compelling. Deny it all you want, it won’t suffice, show why it don’t corroborate the biblical story of the exodus? Don’t deny that it’s over there, there is NO question that this location is over there, no question about it, the issue is, does it corroborate the biblical story? It sure does, but if you disagree, show HOW IT DON’T?
I would like an actual refutation of the links I provided you, not just denial of them. This is a debate forum, right?
If you would like, you can provide me a LINK that you trust of the refutation if you want to and I will examine it.
Autodidact
When you look up at the moon, is it in the shape of a circle? Yes, but is it a sphere? Yes. That is my point.
Plus if we go by your definition of circle, then it’s one dimensional, not two dimensional (a disk). So, did the biblical authors believe the earth was a circle like one dimensional THIN sheet of paper like object? Obviously not, they could dig into the ground. Globes are in the shape of a circle. The earth was in the shape of a circle. Plus I showed you from the Hebrew that it can be a Journey starting in one spot and ending in the same spot (like a globe). Anyway, you cannot prove your point from the little bit of detail that the biblical authors gave.
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
According to Cornuke, the scholar Frank Moore Cross of Harvard Divinity School supports his Mt. Sinai claims, but according to Franz, "Frank Moore Cross, retired professor of Hebrew at Harvard University opines that the mountain of God was located in the Land of Midian. When asked if he had a guess what mountain might be Mt. Sinai, he responded, 'I really don't'" and Moore "later put the "Midian Hypothesis" in print, but did not endorse any mountains for the location of Mt. Sinai (Cross 1998: 60-68)." Another critic noted the "BASE institute site had some quotes from respected archaeologists which seemed to support the idea that Jebel al-Lawz was a good candidate for Mount Sinai," but, "when I contacted some of these individuals, they assured me they never made such statements, neither did they feel Jebel al-Lawz was the real Mount Sinai." Thus, "it became quickly obvious that some of the information on the BASE Institute site was not legitimate."
Bob Cornuke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cornuke and Halbrook (2000) claim that a mountain in Saudia Arabia, called "Jabal al Lawz" is Mt. Sinai of the Bible. This claimed is based on, among other dubious "evidence," their interpretation that the top of Jabal al Lawz is "melted" and "charred" as the result of events described in the Bible. Unfortunately, geologists, who are familiar with the geology of the area, in which Cornuke and Halbrook (2000) claimed to have found Mt. Sinai, would certainly not regard their ideas about Jabal al Lawz being Mt. Sinai a "remarkable geological find." Rather, they would regard their interpretation that the top of Jabal al Lawz had been both melted and charred by any event during the last few thousand years to be a remarkable geological blunder on the part of Cornuke and Halbrook (2000).
Any geologist looking at the pictures of Jabal al Lawz readily recognizes that the dark-colored rocks shown in the pictures of Jabal al Lawz shown at Bob Cornuke's web page are quite clearly roof pendants of darker-colored rocks intruded by younger, light-colored rocks. In fact if a person examines the published geological maps of the Jabal al Lawz, i.e. Bramkamp et al. (1963) and Trent and Johnson (1967), they would find that these geological maps confirm this interpretation. These maps shows that bulk of Jabal al Lawz to be composed of light-colored granite and red or salmon granite. The dark-colored rocks comprising the summits are small areas mapped as (older) greenstone. These greenstone outcrops are roof pedants of older rocks that have been intruded by the red or salmon granite. North of this mountain are additional outcrops of older gabbro into which the granites have intruded.
A roof pendant is: "A body of country rock surrounded by intrusive rock."
The descriptions of the units from youngest to oldest in the stratigraphic column within the in the Jabal al Lawz area as given by Bramkamp et al. (1963) are:
"gm = Granite. Massive, light-colored calc- alkaline granite, mostly without large dikes, in large discordant stocks and batholiths on the flanks of Jabal al Lawz, Jabal Rawa, and Jabal ash Shati.
gr = Granite. red or salmon, coarse-grained, commonly highly altered espcially in the mountains on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba; widely scattered throught the Underlying granite and granodiorite and cut by many dikes of basalt, rhyolite, and diabase. (This unit intrudes an older granite and granodiorite, unit gg in places).
gb = Gabbro. In stocks and sills associated with the greenstone. Some basic intrusives may be younger than the granite and granodiorite unit, gg.
gd = Greenstone. Diabase, andesite, and basalt; mostly flows, somewhat metamorphosed to greenschist facies, locally to amphibolite."
The greenstone (gd) overlies older folded calcareous and siliceous schist and slate Silasia formation elsewhere in the area. Bramkamp et al. (1963) regards these rock units to be Pre-Cambrian age. It is intruded by the red or salmon (gr) and preserved as roof pendants as observed by both Bramkamp et al. (1963) and Trent and Johnson (1967).
Even some Young Earth creationists dispute the claim that the rocks exposed at the top of Jabal al Lawz are either charred or melted. Their brief comments can be found in "PROBLEM NO. 11: Melted or Burned Rocks From Jebel al-Lawz are Volcanic" at:
Problems with Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia
Essentially, direct oservations by both "secular" and religious geologists of the Jabal al Lawz region readily refute argument by Cornuke and Halbrook (2000) that the top of Jabal al Lawz has been either charred or recently melted. If the rocks on the summit of Jabal al Lawz look "melted" it is because they consist of metamorphosed lava and other extrusive igneous rocks called "greenstone", formed from the cooling of once molten rocks billions of years before the Israelites even existed. This "remarkable find" is actually a remarkable blunder on the part of people, who obviously didn't understand anything about the geology of the area that they were studying. There is nothing about the geology of Jabal al Lawz that indicates it was either melted or charred by any event reported to have occurred by the Bible.
TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for December 2003
Two treasure hunters stood on the top of Jebel al-Lawz thinking it was the real Mt. Sinai, the "Mountain of God". One was struck with fear because he thought he was trespassing on the "holiest place on earth". As he gulped down Gatorade and munched on M & M's, a sense of guilt overcame him because he had forged a letter from the king of Saudi Arabia in order to obtain a visa into the Kingdom (Cornuke and Halbrook 2000: 10, 11, 74, 77, 79; Blum 1998: 206). Should he have felt guilty for this deceit? Yes, what he did was illegal, and offended the honor of the Saudi Arabian people. Should he have been afraid because he was on the holy mountain of God (Ex. 19:12)? No, because he was standing on the wrong mountain. MT. SINAI IS NOT IN SAUDI ARABIA!
This article will examine four aspects of the question regarding whether or not Mt. Sinai is located in Saudi Arabia. First, the credibility of the claims will be questioned. Second, the false assumptions by the proponents of Jebel al-Lawz will be disputed. Third, the Biblical evidence will be discussed. Fourth, the archaeological evidence will be examined.
Mount Sinai was the destination of Moses and the Children of Israel after the Lord miraculously delivered them from the bondage of Egypt (Ex. 18:5). It was from this mountain that the Lord also gave the Ten Commandments to Moses and the people of Israel (Ex. 19:1-3, 11,18; 20:1-17). Here, too, the prophet Elijah found himself after his escape from wicked Queen Jezebel (I Kings 19).
Pilgrims, scholars and tourists have visited the traditional site, Jebel Musa (Arabic for the Mountain of Moses) for more than 1,600 years. In the early 4th century AD Eusebius of Caesarea placed Mt. Sinai in the southern Sinai Peninsula. When Egeria made a pilgrimage to the East between AD 381 and 384, she visited Jebel Musa as Mt. Sinai (Wilkinson 1981: 1, 18, 91-100). This impressive mountain located in the southern Sinai Peninsula is situated behind the Byzantine monastery of St. Catherine's built by Emperor Justinian in the middle of the sixth century AD (Tsafrir 1978:219).
It may come as a surprise to most people, but scholars have identified 13 different sites as the "real" Mount Sinai (Har-el 1983:2). I would agree with the proponents of the Jebel al-Lawz hypothesis that Jebel Musa, the traditional Mt. Sinai, or any other site in the southern Sinai Peninsula, could not be the real Mt. Sinai. Professor Har-el in his book, The Sinai Journeys, has argued very convincingly, against the southern Sinai theory (1983: 175-233).
Recently, six American treasure hunters have added a 14th mountain to the already long list of candidates for the real Mt. Sinai: Jebel al-Lawz.
Is Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia, by Gordon Franz
Cornuke claims the signs on the fence surrounding Jebel al-Lawz said, "No Trespassing Allowed. Violators Will Be Put to Death" (Cornuke and Halbrook 2000: 1). Yet if one looks at the photograph in Blum's book, the sign actually says, "Archaeological area warning: It is unlawful to trespass. Violators are subject to penalties stipulated in the antiquities regulations passed by royal decree no. M 26, U 23.6.1392" (1998: plate 4, top). Williams (1990: 157) just mentions the fines, but not the death penalty.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Interesting choice of words.
Last edited: