More Archaeological Confirmation of OT Events

https://email.breakpoint.org/todays-breakpoint-archaeology-the-philistines-and-the-old-testament?ecid=ACsprvt09TMU0bxUgAxMICDNuzEX-Z1Fn6dysp6WOaRYZWWpVe_JEseacPvOAYa_CAH5dKiB216c&utm_campaign=BreakPoint Daily&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=75105887&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--Xjz-oA5gNXolETz36HBpbZpd5Vmc7bM4DvP2DUZ4a_r4386U2IdoCWa29hJLePdNhfp_GbEPBThXgkmFggkgwxnrKyA&_hsmi=75105887

This time, on the origins of the Philistines, thanks to DNA testing. No, it doesn't prove all other OT events are true, but as the author says, the Bible in on quite a streak.

"Biblical faith is a historical faith. Many other faiths are “ways of life” or “paths to enlightenment” or something like that. The Bible is different. It tells the story of God’s dealing with His people as it unfolded in human history. Its details are grounded in real events, not in some mythological “once upon a time.”

 

As usual....proof of god comes in place/name form.....as in nothing again.

 

London is a real place and the people of London exist. Proof positive that Harry Potter is a true story.

Whatever.

 

Yet we hear from some here that archaeology disproves the Bible.

 

I have not noted that...there are far too many more concrete avenues to use for that.

 

The OT is one of them.

 

Ridiculous comparison, nobody is claiming the Potter books are reality, or willing to die for that assertion as the Apostles did.

 

So all it takes to prove reality is for someone to die for their beliefs ... really?
By the way, been to the new Harry Potter theme park?

 

Now THAT place us real. So is The Hobbit book and a whole bunch of folks died in that one.

 

No, people knowlingly for the same events they claimed to see is a good piece of evidence for their genuineness.

 

It does. The global flood, for example, is disproven by both archaeology and geology. That doesn't mean that EVERYTHING in the Bible is wrong.

 

Geology supports the flood. In the Rio Grande valley where I live for example, there is 1,500' of water deposited sediment in an area that gets 9" of rain a year. Then we have arctic areas with many extinct animals drowned, then flash frozen with tropical vegetation still in their mouth.

https://creation.com/startling-evidence-for-noahs-flood

 

The comparison isn't necessarily ridiculous. The comparison to Harry Potter was made with respect to the suggestion that a book like the Bible having many facts in them making it believable as a whole (it was a bit unclear exactly what you suggest it indicates, but I reckon it was something in that direction). The comparison was deliberately made to highlight that argument and I think a comparison to Harry Potter is a valid comparison to make in that context.

However, if you change the subject to the argument that claims of reality or willingness to die makes something believable, then you have simply avoided the argument that was actually made, you have moved the goalposts. Of course, you may make that argument, but doing so instead of actually meeting the argument made is a bit of a red herring.

 

Strawman, I'm saying people willing to die for something they and hundreds of others personally saw is a piece of evidence in it's favor. Nobody knowingly does for a lie, many unknowingly die for a lie such as the Jihadists.

 

Yes, you are saying that, but in doing so, you're failing to answer the argument which was actually made. Daniel Light commented on your suggestion that "No, it doesn't prove all other OT events are true, but as the author says, the Bible in on quite a streak", not on the argument that nobody dies for a lie.

 

No geology completely disproves a global flood. Lots of regional floods but there is absolutely no trace of a global flood at all.

Your pointing out that there is 1500 feet of sedimentary rock in the Rio Grande Valley is testament the dynamic nature of tectonic forces over time that created and reshaped the continents into their current configuration. Once the top of Everest was at the bottom of the sea and Antarctica was a tropical land.

The so called "evidence" amassed by creationists is completely rejected by science, but completely accepted by the believers.

Wait, do you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old?

 

Both probably the aftermath of the flood. White Sands national park here in NM was tropical only about 10,000 years ago, which doesn't exactly argue for uniformity of causes in a closed system.

I'm sure you believe that, are scientists that agree with me not real scientists?

The Bible doesn't say how old the earth is. What I do know for sure is that it is bunk to think nothing X nobody = everything, or that random mutations are evolutionary, not devolutionary.

 

What? 10,000 years ago the earth was emerging from an ice age and sure as hell White Sands wasn't tropical then. Where are you getting this nonsense from?

Oh they may be real scientists doing science in some discipline or other, but that doesn't make them or you right.

So how old do you think it is?

Its too bad you know that for sure, because no amount of fact is going to dissuade you. Personally, I view the nothing as a place holder for "who the hell knows". As for nobody, it seems that the basic laws of physics were created in the first few hundred thousand years of the universes existence and after that, EVERYTHING can be explained without any "divine" intervention.


And it extremely clear you totally misunderstand the entire theory of evolution. Random mutations that do not contribute to survival ensure the death of that particular species. Only mutations with positive survival benefits are successful.

 

So what you have shown is that the writers of the bible correctly dictated the historical events of their times. How does this show the supernatural is real again?

 

Geology directly refutes a global flood.

 

The onus is not on people to prove everything is wrong. The onus of on people to prove key events described in the Bible happened as described.

 

Your statement as quoted appears to be nonsense. No disrespect intended. I assume you are intending to say that random mutations do not lead to increasingly complex organisms but you totally omit the evolutionary element of natural selection. So far random mutations plus natural selection have created complex organisms, but that is not to say evolution cannot create less complex organisms.

With the discovery of DNA and DNA sequencing evolution is a proven fact.

 

Firstly, the claim by one person that 500 people saw something (reincarnated Jesus) is hardly proof that 500 people saw something. Where are the names, testimonials, and so forth of these hundreds of people?

The Buddhists protesters in Vietnam who torched themselves to protest the Diem regime knowing died for Buddhism -- I guess Buddhism is a "real" religion.

 

From my visit there. This is from NASA:

"During the Pleistocene Ice age, especially between 12,000 and 24,000 years ago, the American Southwest enjoyed much more precipitation than it does today. The water washed gypsum from the San Andres and Sacramento Mountains into a huge lake that filled Tularosa Basin. Once again, however, the region dried and the lake evaporated, leaving behind massive quantities of gypsum. Probably about 6,500 to 7,000 years ago, the gypsum began to form dunes. The dunes of White Sands National Monument continue shifting today, some of them moving as much as 9 meters (30 feet) per year."

Why, it almost sounds like the aftermath of a flood.

This is really a science vs. science issue.

I don't know, and neither do you. What difference does it make?

So who created those laws? Are you a deist?

How can random mutations add information?

 

Would it matter to you? 500 people during the same 40 days don't have the same hallucination.

Not the same at all, they weren't dying rather than deny miracles they had seen, it was merely a political stunt.