Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Bronze Standard
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 41 (788387)
07-30-2016 9:31 AM


Supposedly the Biblical flood, whichever of the Biblical Flood stories is considered, happened about 2500-2000 BCE.
That firmly places the Biblical Flood, if it had happened, during the Bronze Age. Fortunately there has been lots of research done on Bronze Age sites and also on the earlier Stone age sites. Many locations show continuous habitation from the Stone Age through the Bronze Age and even into the Iron Age.
This gives us a great method and guide to look for any indications that either of the Biblical Flood myths might have actually happened. We can use the known Stone, Bronze and Iron age sites to guide our exploration and narrow the search. Any sites from before the Bronze age would have been pre flood sites while any Iron age sites would have been post flood sites.
So in that narrow time span between the Stone and Iron age, that period during the Bronze Age, where is the World-Wide Flood?
AbE: likely in Dates and Dating or Geology and the Great Flood.
Edited by jar, : suggest likely locations
Edited by jar, : method & method ----> method & guide...

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2016 1:22 AM jar has not replied
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 11:32 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 41 (788416)
07-31-2016 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
07-31-2016 11:32 AM


Faith writes:
It's the height of foolishness to prefer mere humanly devised dating methods to a revelation given us by God Himself that tells us clearly what happened when.
Denying this revelation or its Authorship leaves you with the flawed human methods, but surely it ought to be logical that IF the Bible IS the Creator God's revelation to His human creatures then contradicting it is sheer foolishness.
Also any attempt by its supposed believers to reinterpret time indicators in that revelation, especially in order to reconcile it with worldly methods and ideas, is even more foolish.
Dogma Faith, nothing but Dogma.
This is a Science forum though and so you need to present more than mere dogma.
It would even be a good idea to present the reasoning of why it is foolish to prefer reality and the actual evidence God left in the form of this Earth over 2000 year old mythology?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 11:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 41 (788420)
07-31-2016 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-31-2016 12:02 PM


Why ignore reality?
Faith writes:
What I said is complete in itself, perfectly logical and that's the end of it.
Then perhaps you can explain why what is in the Bible should be preferred over what is actually found in reality particularly when there are two mutually exclusive stories about the event in the Bible?
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 12:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 41 (788424)
07-31-2016 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by LamarkNewAge
07-31-2016 1:12 PM


Re: What about the "sight to the blind" issue, Faith?
Please stop posting utter irrelevancies to yet another thread.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-31-2016 1:12 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-31-2016 2:21 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 18 of 41 (788430)
07-31-2016 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by LamarkNewAge
07-31-2016 2:21 PM


Re: What about the "sight to the blind" issue, Faith?
Stop posting irrelevancies, NOW.
This is a science forum and what the different bible texts or extra biblical commentary say is irrelevant.
If you continue I will have to ask that you be banned from this thread.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-31-2016 2:21 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 41 (788456)
07-31-2016 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by LamarkNewAge
07-31-2016 9:04 PM


Re: My point was about the text used by New Testament quotations.
And the key point is that what particular texts say is irrelevant. All that is relevant is what date the believers place on when the Biblical flood would have happened and that is generally 2500-2000 BCE.
I does not matter if the dates are correct or accurate based on any given text; all that is important is for the flood believers to say "It happened X years ago."

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by LamarkNewAge, posted 07-31-2016 9:04 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 07-31-2016 11:08 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 41 (788496)
08-01-2016 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by LamarkNewAge
08-01-2016 10:48 AM


Re: My last post on this thread.
And the fact is that even if the flood were a thousand years earlier it would still fall within the Bronze Age and so your dating is still irrelevant.
But thanks for playing.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-01-2016 10:48 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-01-2016 11:20 AM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 39 of 41 (788522)
08-01-2016 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
08-01-2016 3:08 PM


Everyone understands your position
Faith writes:
He doesn't even recognize in the middle of the argument that I HAVE an objection to conventional dating, THAT"s what Im talking about.
We all understand that you do not believe conventional dating but you need to understand that unless you can present a strong enough case to convince the whole scientific community that the conventional dating is incorrect you have no argument.
The problem is that not only would you have to overthrow ALL of the existing correlations involved in dating, all of physics and chemistry but also all of common sense. You need to explain how multiple lithification incidents can possibly happen within the time frame you propose.
So that is your challenge; totally overthrow all of physics and chemistry as well as all common sense. Support your objection.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 3:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 5:22 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024