Radio-dating authenticates Biblical tunnel

[Ivan Seeking]

Biblical accounts of the construction of an ancient underground tunnel below Jerusalem have been verified by dating the material lining its walls.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994156

 

[megashawn]

Seems to me to verify that the bible was probably one of the best newspapers of the day.

Does this do anything more then verify that some of the bible is historically accurate?

 

[radagast]

I bet all the people that don't think radio-dating is accurate because it's shows the Earth much more than 6000 years old, and the Shroud of Turin only from the middle ages, won't have any problem with this study. Nothing like picking and choosing what you want to accept as true.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by radagast
I bet all the people that don't think radio-dating is accurate because it's shows the Earth much more than 6000 years old, and the Shroud of Turin only from the middle ages, won't have any problem with this study. Nothing like picking and choosing what you want to accept as true.

You know, I was thinking the exact same thing?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
I bet all the people that don't think radio-dating is accurate because it's shows the Earth much more than 6000 years old, and the Shroud of Turin only from the middle ages, won't have any problem with this study. Nothing like picking and choosing what you want to accept as true.

Sounds like you're not particularly happy with these results, and would just assume pick and choose as well?

Of course I had better read the article first and see what everybody's talking about.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Sounds like you're not particularly happy with these results, and would just assume pick and choose as well?

Of course I had better read the article first and see what everybody's talking about.

I don't think anyone is unhappy with the results, bub...because they don't prove anything at all. If this sort of thing is 'proof' of a religion, then Egyptian mythology has the best odds of being true.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
I don't think anyone is unhappy with the results, bub...because they don't prove anything at all. If this sort of thing is 'proof' of a religion, then Egyptian mythology has the best odds of being true.

Yes, there is the least tiny bit of historical accuracy to the Bible! Oh man that just makes my day!

Isn't that like one of the main gripes, that there's nothing historically accurate about it?

Of course even if they could vouch for it being 100% accurate, that's still only evidence of religion, not necessarily God Itself. So in this respect I guess you're still safe. You can relax now, Okay?

However, you may begin wonder why they would go to any lengths at all to obtain historical accuracy, if that doesn't apply to the God of the same time frame? -- which, is what so much of their history is about. Hmm ...

 

[megashawn]

Wasn't it KAT that had the quote about how historically accurate the bible is?

I don't think anyone thinks the bible is completely innacurrate about history. That seems to be one of its purposes.

And this proves that, well, someone wrote about an old tunnel being built.

Your right, in that proving its accuracy still falls short of proving for god. I just love the way people cling to little proofs like this, and will support the radio dating, but for one of the biggest historical innacuracies of the bible, (age of earth) they ignore the same results.

 

[Laser Eyes]

but for one of the biggest historical innacuracies of the bible, (age of earth) they ignore the same results.

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Wasn't it KAT that had the quote about how historically accurate the bible is?

I don't think anyone thinks the bible is completely innacurrate about history. That seems to be one of its purposes.

And this proves that, well, someone wrote about an old tunnel being built.

Your right, in that proving its accuracy still falls short of proving for god. I just love the way people cling to little proofs like this, and will support the radio dating, but for one of the biggest historical innacuracies of the bible, (age of earth) they ignore the same results.

And yet who's to say that in God's time frame a day isn't equivalent to a billion years? That would be getting little bit closer wouldn't it? Whereas the idea of one week may have more to do with the idea of "completion," which I believe is what the number 7 signifies.

 

[Tsu]

Oh, BS. We are all pickers and choosers. Every last one of us. Me included. I just choose not to pick a side in a controversy that cannot be proven either way. Is the Bible THE word of God? For me, the jury is still out, and there exists reasonable doubt. It really doesn't matter that much, because there is still MUCH good to learn from it. For me, God exists. That's what I choose to believe. Jesus existed. That's what I choose to believe. Those of you who have chosen sides about this will, more than likely, never change your minds. Stubborn old goats.

 

[Tsu]

Here's definition #4 of 'religion' from dictionary.com

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

By this definition, you all have a religion. Ivan's religion seems to be trying to get people to have an open mind. Radagast's seems to be science. Zero, your religion is getting people to believe that God and the Bible are lies. Iacchus, yours is numbers. Megashawn's I haven't quite figured out yet, but PF is a distinct religious possibility for him/her. Lasar Eyes seemingly has an agenda to support Biblical content. None of you will allow any of the others their opinion or 'religion' without dissing them for it. Stubborn old goats. Y'all are sounding like a bunch of Republicans. Quit yer damn fighting and go make someone you love happy.

 

[megashawn]

Megashawn's I haven't quite figured out yet, but PF is a distinct religious possibility for him/her.

Haha, that's pretty good. I can assure you, if anything in my life fits your definition, it would be my motorcycle hobbie.

Another reasons you've not figured mine out, and won't is because I do not have any "beliefs" that fit the above definition. If I can't prove it, and it doesn't have any noticeable effect on my life and those close to me, then I certainly will not "pursu it with zeal or conscientious devotion".

So I guess you can consider me the founder of the "yamaha riders in NC" religion.

edit: Just how many women have you met named Shawn? Extend my sorrow to them



j/k of course.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Sounds like you're not particularly happy with these results, and would just assume pick and choose as well?

Where the hell did you get that? I didn't say anything one way or another about being happy/unhappy about this.

I've been under the assumption that it's most likely true. I don't see any problem with things in the bible being true, especially the more mundane historic portions. The more 'magical' are a little harder to believe, and certainly the stuff that contradicts strong scientific research, but I don't have any problem with many of the things in the bible being true.

Of course I had better read the article first and see what everybody's talking about.

It might be advisable not to read things into other folks posts.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, there is the least tiny bit of historical accuracy to the Bible! Oh man that just makes my day!

Isn't that like one of the main gripes, that there's nothing historically accurate about it?

Of course even if they could vouch for it being 100% accurate, that's still only evidence of religion, not necessarily God Itself. So in this respect I guess you're still safe. You can relax now, Okay?

However, you may begin wonder why they would go to any lengths at all to obtain historical accuracy, if that doesn't apply to the God of the same time frame? -- which, is what so much of their history is about. Hmm ...

Hmmm...you are full of it, and I think you even know it. Cultures preserve cultural history, there is no question about that. Of course they remember large imigrations, times when Jews committed genocide, etc. That doesn't prove a single thing about the religious aspect.

And, again I say, if historical accuracy and preservation of history is a standard, the Egyptians win hands down. By your logic, we have no choice but to say that the Egyptian gods are much more likely to exist than the Jewish one, because teh Jews had a book based on oral history, while the Wgyptians built mighty structures which still exist relatively unmarked by time.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Here's definition #4 of 'religion' from dictionary.com

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

By this definition, you all have a religion. Ivan's religion seems to be trying to get people to have an open mind. Radagast's seems to be science. Zero, your religion is getting people to believe that God and the Bible are lies. Iacchus, yours is numbers. Megashawn's I haven't quite figured out yet, but PF is a distinct religious possibility for him/her. Lasar Eyes seemingly has an agenda to support Biblical content. None of you will allow any of the others their opinion or 'religion' without dissing them for it. Stubborn old goats. Y'all are sounding like a bunch of Republicans. Quit yer damn fighting and go make someone you love happy.

There's a reason that your definition is fourth on the list: BECAUSE IT ISN"T AS GOOD AS THE OTHER THREE!

Heh.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Here's definition #4 of 'religion' from dictionary.com

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

By this definition, you all have a religion. Ivan's religion seems to be trying to get people to have an open mind. Radagast's seems to be scienceZero, your religion is getting people to believe that God and the Bible are lies. ...

This is an argument flaw. Specifically Equivocation or the Fallacy of four terms. You are trying to use one definition to mean the same thing as another. I can think of three definitions of 'screwed', but trying to use a dictionary definition of one to imply it's the same as another is an argument flaw. If I say I got 'screwed' in a business deal, it would hardly be accurate to say it involved one of the six simple machines known as a screw.

p.s. MY religion is Buddhism.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
Where the hell did you get that? I didn't say anything one way or another about being happy/unhappy about this.

It's just seems like I've heard this so many times before, and it all pretty much sounds the same. Or, perhaps I misconstrued the "general whining" for a discontent of the acutal results?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And, again I say, if historical accuracy and preservation of history is a standard, the Egyptians win hands down.

What are we comparing religions now?

By your logic, we have no choice but to say that the Egyptian gods are much more likely to exist than the Jewish one, because teh Jews had a book based on oral history, while the Wgyptians built mighty structures which still exist relatively unmarked by time.

No, this is your logic, which is just as you stated above.


While all I'm saying is that isn't a wonder that wherever they go, that the notion of "their God" goes with them? Which is to say, why would they bother to portray the historical aspect correctly, and misrepresent God at the same time? -- i.e., in the sense that He doesn't exist, as you would have us believe.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they be truthful on the one hand, when perhaps they weren't even looking to do so, while creating this tremendous fabrication (or outright lie) on the other?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It's just seems like I've heard this so many times before, and it all pretty much sounds the same. Or, perhaps I misconstrued the "general whining" for a discontent of the acutal results?

What I wrote was a commentary on certain creationists and their picking and choosing of data. I didn't target christians in general, nor did I say anything whatsoever, implied or otherwise, concerning the dating this thread refers to.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
What I wrote was a commentary on certain creationists and their picking and choosing of data. I didn't target christians in general, nor did I say anything whatsoever, implied or otherwise, concerning the dating this thread refers to.

It sounded kind of facetious to me. In which case I would suggest it stems from it not being in agreement with your views.

However, granted that they (the creationists) may not have the best means by which to present their case, considering that much of their "reasoning" may be erroneous, does not invalidate the case. In which case it may be just a matter of reinterpreting "their evidence" (by not taking the Bible too literally).

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What are we comparing religions now?


No, this is your logic, which is just as you stated above.


While all I'm saying is that isn't a wonder that wherever they go, that the notion of "their God" goes with them? Which is to say, why would they bother to portray the historical aspect correctly, and misrepresent God at the same time? -- i.e., in the sense that He doesn't exist, as you would have us believe.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they be truthful on the one hand, when perhaps they weren't even looking to do so, while creating this tremendous fabrication (or outright lie) on the other?

They weren't lying, they were just wrong. You seem to buy into the Bible myth, do you claim that all other religions were lying?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
They weren't lying, they were just wrong. You seem to buy into the Bible myth, do you claim that all other religions were lying?

Are you asking if I believe in monotheism? Essentially I do, and yet I believe that other religions, such as with Egypt and Greece, have their place.

The first commandment says, "Thou shalt have no gods before ...," which is to say, "I am central to your beliefs, I am your heritage, so don't forsake who you are." And neither does it imply you can't deny that god exists in other forms (as gods), as practiced in other religions.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It sounded kind of facetious to me. In which case I would suggest it stems from it not being in agreement with your views.

Perhaps there's just too many pronouns in the above, but I can't parse what your saying.

However, granted that they (the creationists) may not have the best means by which to present their case, considering that much of their "reasoning" may be erroneous, does not invalidate the case. In which case it may be just a matter of reinterpreting "their evidence" (by not taking the Bible too literally).

Though I don't believe in god, I can respect those that do and accept that god created the universe in such a way that it conforms to the scientific observations of which we know. In fact, using the bible more metaphorically, Genesis is much closer to the big bang than other creation myths.

If I were to assume there was a god that talked to the Isrealites and wanted his message to stay accurate thru-out time, then metaphor would be the only way to be both accurate and able still able to mean something to the more scientifically primative peoples.