• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Which Bible

Atheos said:
Lion IRC said:
You said archeology had debunked the Flood myth and the Kingdom of Solomon.
Don't blame me if that claim sounds like there never was a Flood or a Kingdom of Solomon
Click to expand...

Oh, and I didn't intend to let this slide either. I meant what I said earlier about reading what you're responding to instead of putting words in the other person's mouth (or keyboard).

Here's what I wrote:

Atheos said:
Damning. From the flood myth to the mighty kingdom of Solomon over which the queen of Sheba allegedly gushed "The half has not been told," fact-finding geologists, historians and archaeologists have (without intention) debunked dozens of claims of biblical scripture.
Click to expand...

There have been many floods, some truly devastating. But the evidence is clear that there has never been a flood on this planet that matches the flood described in the Genesis myth. Never. It is what I said from the outset of this back-and-forth and it's what I continue to affirm.

And there is a vast difference between a "Kingdom of Solomon" and the "mighty kingdom of Solomon over which the queen of Sheba allegedly gushed 'The half has not been told.'" Since I'm revisiting this claim maybe this would be a good place to point out that this anachronism is one of the many pieces of evidence that tie these histories to the time period of Nehemiah, wherein they magically appeared after supposedly being hidden away for hundreds of years. The kingdom of Saba (which is by far the most likely candidate for "Sheba" in the OT scriptures) did not exist before the 8th century BCE (far too late for the time frame of Solomon.) But Saba was a prominent player in Arabian trade routes by the 7th century BCE (which is about the time Nehemiah and his buddies would have been doing their thing). Acknowledgment of Solomon's kingdom's greatness by this unnamed queen is a big old red flag when it comes to archaeology and attempting to piece together what really did happen. Sure, there may have been a minor "kingdom" ruled by Solomon, but there sure as hell wasn't any Queen of Sheba around at that time to gush about it and exaggerate how big it was.

Like Joseph Smith inserting the phrase "Bid him Adieu" in a "history" of the Americas about a time at least 700 years before the first french-speaking people existed, the 6th century authors of Kings and Chronicles got caught by archaeologists.
Click to expand...


Now we're onto Joseph Smith?

You're drifting away from your original specific claim that archeology has "debunked" two things.
I already conceded that archeology might concede a particular strawman version of Genesis which exists in your imagination.

...around 6000 years ago, a young earth was entirely covered continuously for a year by flood waters no less than 10,000 metres above sea level, following which the earth rapidly repopulated the previously extant flora and fauna into every single species to what we have today.
 
Lion IRC said:
Atheos said:
Oh, and I didn't intend to let this slide either. I meant what I said earlier about reading what you're responding to instead of putting words in the other person's mouth (or keyboard).

Here's what I wrote:



There have been many floods, some truly devastating. But the evidence is clear that there has never been a flood on this planet that matches the flood described in the Genesis myth. Never. It is what I said from the outset of this back-and-forth and it's what I continue to affirm.

And there is a vast difference between a "Kingdom of Solomon" and the "mighty kingdom of Solomon over which the queen of Sheba allegedly gushed 'The half has not been told.'" Since I'm revisiting this claim maybe this would be a good place to point out that this anachronism is one of the many pieces of evidence that tie these histories to the time period of Nehemiah, wherein they magically appeared after supposedly being hidden away for hundreds of years. The kingdom of Saba (which is by far the most likely candidate for "Sheba" in the OT scriptures) did not exist before the 8th century BCE (far too late for the time frame of Solomon.) But Saba was a prominent player in Arabian trade routes by the 7th century BCE (which is about the time Nehemiah and his buddies would have been doing their thing). Acknowledgment of Solomon's kingdom's greatness by this unnamed queen is a big old red flag when it comes to archaeology and attempting to piece together what really did happen. Sure, there may have been a minor "kingdom" ruled by Solomon, but there sure as hell wasn't any Queen of Sheba around at that time to gush about it and exaggerate how big it was.

Like Joseph Smith inserting the phrase "Bid him Adieu" in a "history" of the Americas about a time at least 700 years before the first french-speaking people existed, the 6th century authors of Kings and Chronicles got caught by archaeologists.
Click to expand...


Now we're onto Joseph Smith?

You're drifting away from your original specific claim that archeology has "debunked" two things.
I already conceded that archeology might concede a particular strawman version of Genesis which exists in your imagination.

...around 6000 years ago, a young earth was entirely covered continuously for a year by flood waters no less than 10,000 metres above sea level, following which the earth rapidly repopulated the previously extant flora and fauna into every single species to what we have today.
Click to expand...

So you concede that the flood described in the Bible did not occur. Good, that's a start. Now lets move on to the other stories in the Bible, about how and when the universe, the earth and life formed. Do you concede that the Biblical description of these events does not match reality as well? What about the story of a corpse being reanimated and floating off into space? Where do you stand on that?
 
There are people who believe Tramp is a might and glorious businessman despite all his business failures.

There are those who believe ancient Ismael and Solomon were mighty and glorious empires despite actual known history and archeological evidence..
 
Lion IRC said:
Atheos said:
Oh, and I didn't intend to let this slide either. I meant what I said earlier about reading what you're responding to instead of putting words in the other person's mouth (or keyboard).

Here's what I wrote:



There have been many floods, some truly devastating. But the evidence is clear that there has never been a flood on this planet that matches the flood described in the Genesis myth. Never. It is what I said from the outset of this back-and-forth and it's what I continue to affirm.

And there is a vast difference between a "Kingdom of Solomon" and the "mighty kingdom of Solomon over which the queen of Sheba allegedly gushed 'The half has not been told.'" Since I'm revisiting this claim maybe this would be a good place to point out that this anachronism is one of the many pieces of evidence that tie these histories to the time period of Nehemiah, wherein they magically appeared after supposedly being hidden away for hundreds of years. The kingdom of Saba (which is by far the most likely candidate for "Sheba" in the OT scriptures) did not exist before the 8th century BCE (far too late for the time frame of Solomon.) But Saba was a prominent player in Arabian trade routes by the 7th century BCE (which is about the time Nehemiah and his buddies would have been doing their thing). Acknowledgment of Solomon's kingdom's greatness by this unnamed queen is a big old red flag when it comes to archaeology and attempting to piece together what really did happen. Sure, there may have been a minor "kingdom" ruled by Solomon, but there sure as hell wasn't any Queen of Sheba around at that time to gush about it and exaggerate how big it was.

Like Joseph Smith inserting the phrase "Bid him Adieu" in a "history" of the Americas about a time at least 700 years before the first french-speaking people existed, the 6th century authors of Kings and Chronicles got caught by archaeologists.
Click to expand...


Now we're onto Joseph Smith?

You're drifting away from your original specific claim that archeology has "debunked" two things.
I already conceded that archeology might concede a particular strawman version of Genesis which exists in your imagination.

...around 6000 years ago, a young earth was entirely covered continuously for a year by flood waters no less than 10,000 metres above sea level, following which the earth rapidly repopulated the previously extant flora and fauna into every single species to what we have today.
Click to expand...

Archaeology works by comparing known things (behaviors of humans well documented in recent history) with evidence unearthed from ancient times. Joseph Smith is one of many well documented examples from recent history that can be used in an attempt to understand how mythology might have developed in ancient times. I simply used it as a convenient parallel to what has been discovered about the ancient mid east.

I also note that in the quote that you LOL'd about you clipped off an important part of the sentence. Perhaps this was inadvertent but it has a disingenuous appearance.

I find it tiresome that you keep misrepresenting what I say. If that isn't enough you also claim to know what I am thinking, attributing to me things that I have not said.

I already conceded that archeology might concede a particular strawman version of Genesis which exists in your imagination.

...around 6000 years ago, a young earth was entirely covered continuously for a year by flood waters no less than 10,000 metres above sea level, following which the earth rapidly repopulated the previously extant flora and fauna into every single species to what we have today.
Click to expand...

It's as if you can't argue with what I do say so now you're making up stuff I'm "thinking" and arguing against it.

Of this snippet the only thing that is stated in the Genesis flood myth is "earth was entirely covered continuously for a year by flood waters." That has been demonstrated untrue by a combination of several sciences (which by the way is another thing you're misquoting me on, as I never claimed that archaeology alone is responsible for this debunking).

Attempting to have an intelligent discussion with you is becoming a futile exercise in correcting ongoing misrepresentations of my statements and position. If you want to continue discussing this with me I'm going to insist that these misrepresentations cease. I don't know what your motivations are but I do this in the spirit of learning and discovery through mutual exchange of knowledge, understanding and philosophy. I have no fondness for unproductive dialog that is little else besides correcting continual misrepresentations of previous statements.
 
You're the one making it hard for yourself.

How about you stick to...specific fact claim "A" has been debunked by counter factual evidence from archeology exhibit "B".

Stop saying stuff like...the "mighty" Kingdom of Solomon as if archeology knows the difference between stuff that is and isn't worth the Queen of Sheba "gushing over."

Archeology can't falsify that she "gushed" and you know it.

So try to find some real specific archeological FACTS and the chapter/verse you think is falsified by that (alleged) discovery. And I don't give a stuff about Joseph Smith so, (in this thread) - stick to the bible.

And stop assuming that there's "THE" one true version of "THE" flood myth which archeology has 'debunked' and nothing else matters. You Flood mythers do this all the time. You make big generalized claims about what's scientifically impossible about YOUR own interpretation of Genesis, then you admit that you don't actually know when the Noachian Flood occurred, or what size/age animals were taken on the Ark, or what the height above sea level Mount Ararat was, or how much of a helping hand God was in enabling the events you find unbelievable.

Just keep it simple. You don't need a 500 word essay.
Bible fact claim - A
Archeology fact claim - B
 
Lion IRC said:
You're the one making it hard for yourself.

How about you stick to...specific fact claim "A" has been debunked by counter factual evidence from archeology exhibit "B".

Stop saying stuff like...the "mighty" Kingdom of Solomon as if archeology knows the difference between stuff that is and isn't worth the Queen of Sheba "gushing over."

Archeology can't falsify that she "gushed" and you know it.

So try to find some real specific archeological FACTS and the chapter/verse you think is falsified by that (alleged) discovery. And I don't give a stuff about Joseph Smith so, (in this thread) - stick to the bible.

And stop assuming that there's "THE" one true version of "THE" flood myth which archeology has 'debunked' and nothing else matters. You Flood mythers do this all the time. You make big generalized claims about what's scientifically impossible about YOUR own interpretation of Genesis, then you admit that you don't actually know when the Noachian Flood occurred, or what size/age animals were taken on the Ark, or what the height above sea level Mount Ararat was, or how much of a helping hand God was in enabling the events you find unbelievable.

Just keep it simple. You don't need a 500 word essay.
Bible fact claim - A
Archeology fact claim - B
Click to expand...
It isn't "us flood mythers" interpretation. "Us flood mythers" are reading the account literally from Genesis and proclaiming the literal account bullshit. The entire Earth was not completely flooded, even the peaks of the tallest mountains, as Genesis says and religious literalists claim. We do offer a possibility of what inspired the story though. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers flood yearly... some years the floods are much higher. It is quite possible that there was an extraordinarily large flood of these rivers that washed away the towns on their banks and killed much of the population. The account of the flood in Epic of Gilgamesh was likely inspired by such a flood and the Noachian Flood in Genesis is obviously inspired by and a "one upmanship" retelling of that tale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom