[_ Old Earth _] The creation of light

[BobRyan]

Well, I can see their point, though. "Prove the Bible is true, else it isn't" has been used before in forums.

True and atheist & agnostic forums tend to argue the more stubborn "EVEN if you DO prove the Bible true - you have to prove every WORD true or we will still claim it is an untrusted work of fiction" when faced with Bible CONFIRMING evidence like the DSS or the Ebla tablets.

No one can prove or even test the hypothesis or theory of literal Genesis 1 accounts.

Indeed the 7 days of creation week summarized into codified LAW in Ex 20:8-11 would be hard to PROVE unless you had a video or unless you could see God going around and creating new living planets every week.

No question about that. Same with the resurrection of Christ and virgin birth and resurrection of Lazarus and ascension of Christ and Christ our high priest in heaven and people being healed when Peter's shadow passed by them (Acts 19) etc.

The doubt-the-bible-first groups would argue that if you can't see it still happening -- or at least have a non-Christian confirm it then then Christian testimony is false.

It would rest on the shoulders of those who deem it AS truth to give good evidence of their case. Because this will not happen, the atheist does pose a good argument in their favor.

Indeed the "show us the non-video-taped past" argument works for atheists. I agree.

Now, in turn, you could say that no one can test the theories of +-60 million years ago to any real conclusion.

Yep - same problem when they start "Their own story telling" about the non-video taped past.

Even worse -- they have to come up with "a better story than genesis" for the origin of life AND it's diverse forms seen today. And that IS testable in BOTH the realm of ID SCIENCE and in basic chemistry.

But basing what we know about the PROVEN and CONFIRMED Bible facts through the DSS and Ebla tables conclusions can be drawn about the rest of the Bible

So, then basing what we currently know about the universe, assumptions can be made

True -- either in favor of God's Word or opposed to it depending on the bias of the person looking at those things WE SEE and KNOW. (Christian vs atheist)

That is why we find in Romans 1 that "THEY (barbarians and pagans) are WITHOUT excuses... since the invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE"

that can and DO tend to call into question the vality of any religious belief, namely an earth and entire universe coming into existance only 6-10 thousand years ago.

The Bible does not argue that the universe is 6-10 thousand years old or even that the earth in it's "Formless and void" state of Gen 1:1-2 (returns to that state in Jeremiah 4:23-24 during the millennium) is only 6-10 thousand years of age.

What the Bible argues that opposes atheists is that ALL LIFE on earth came about 6000 years ago in 6 REAL days and that the Sun and moon also came to be at that time.

"He made TWO GREAT LIGHTS" on day 4.

I don't necessarily hold the stance of "the Bible is as Aesop's fable".

However when you look at the video it is clear that the atheist argument is that you need to "remove the facts" about characters and events from the Bible -- and what good you have left is only of the moralizing "moral of the fable" sort that you get in Aesop's fables.

I don't think that LK does either,

That remains to be seen. L.K's version is that no fact of the Bible can be trusted until some outside source confirms it -- in other words he backs down from doubt-the-book at the same point that atheists do!

though I would not want to speak in his behalf. But even in the examples you gave, there are those who would debate some topics, even within Christian circles, ie., the "virgin birth" or the "literal Genesis reading".

There is no such thing as "literal genesis reading" outside of "really reading it or not". What actual Christians debate is whether the AUTHOR intended the book to be accepted for what it says OR whether he was leading his slaves-from-Egypt audience into a discussion of darwinism over vast millennia of time. But in both cases it is not the authenticity of the text that is doubted but it is the INTENT of the author that is being questioned.

Even L.K admits that the notion that Moses was trying to preach darwinism through Genesis is and extreme wild-guess for those who try to argue it.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Orion

As for your other post, . . .

1. "What does the Bible say?" That is the problem that I'm talking about.

For that we need exegesis. hint: takes a little practice.

Orion
2. "What is the REAL substance .....evidence...." I'm speaking more about my problems within the biblical text, not of evidence of evoltionary finds.

Then claims made by atheist-following darwinists that may be debunked-tomorrow for all we know can not be part of that equation.

"Evidence within the text" would then get us back to exegesis.

Orion
So as was agreed upon (relatively) you have those two options (the bible is wrong, or was meant as an analogy), . . . . . . When I say "the bible is wrong", that doesn't mean that "God is wrong", however. When man is thrown into any endeavor, you will ultimately find error.

As I said before -- that one-of-two options is only valid AFTER showing with certainty what the problem is -- not merely "assuming" it.

The other point to be made is that the Bible is "a house of cards" if you start ripping it to shreds the whole thing collapses. For example when you delete Genesis -- the LAW in Exodus also breaks - so also does the Gospel and the NT writers themselves fail as they appeal to the VERY DETAILS in Genesis that atheists would lilke to claim "are not true".

While that is a very statisfactory results for atheists, agnostics and all other non-Christian religionists -- it does not work for Christians.

What I am speaking of goes beyond any guesswork and lies within the text itself, which is why I can conclude that either the bible was wrong (mostly the person who actually wrote it), or the story was meant to be metaphorical. The PERSON of the story may have existed, but were placed in a metaphorical story.

Again - the argument that the persons were not real and therefore events they participated in also not real -- has to be based on something more than a guess and more than the atheist "assume the Bible is wrong until proven otherwise".

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Again, Bob, it SEEMS to me that you are continually suggesting that anyone who does not see the entire Bible as being inerrant, must therefore be an "atheist Darwinist". I see the Bible as having many errors (not just punctuation), yet am far from being either an atheist, nor one who sees the Darwinian theory as being air tight.

I agree with you that Bob seems to divide the world into two hostile camps: the select group of true believers in biblical inerrantry of which he is a member and everyone else who may disagree to any extent at all with this view. Thus Christians who comfortably reconcile their faith with the evidence that science unearths become witting or unwitting tools of 'atheist Darwinism'. Bob seems entirely incapable of understanding any distinction between those who see the findings of science as leading them towards atheism and those who see the findings of science as entirely compatible with their beliefs. Are the latter to conceal their knowledge-based conclusion that ID science is 'junk science' (one of Bob's favourite phrases), to deny the evidence for an ancient Earth, to turn their backs on the theory of evolution and all it offers for an understanding of life, simply because someone with different attitudes towards religion happen to agree with them?

lordkalvan has made some very good observations in this post, and I have been following it for a while. To be honest, I see questions asked, yet page after page, they go relatively unanswered. I would wish that all the posturing would be laid aside and everyone just come out and blatantly state what it is they believe!

Thanks for those few words of support. I am glad that at least one other person has noted Bob's apparent reluctance to answer particular questions that result from his posts.

 

[BobRyan]

by referring to the Ebla tablets as if the phrase 'Ebla tablets' is a powerful mantra that all by itself absolves you of any requirement to answer specific questions with relevant and specific answers.

Your response is a pre-eminent example of your preference for bluff, bluster and rhetoric over reasoned argument.

Nice smoke-mirrors and "harrumph!" once again but as usual you missed the point entirely.

My reference to the Ebla tablets is an example that exposes the lack of genuine due diligence in your argument. You pretend to be interested in the integrity of the Bible -- but you show by your complete dissinterest in those finds that confirm it -- that your real agenda is "doubt-the-bible-first" without any real interest in cases where the just-say-nay arguments were debunked.

Any atheist or agnostic can take your "bible is wrong until proven otherwise" approach to the text. The Christian by contrast takes the more balanced view of "Bible was proven right against its skeptics here and here and here... and can be trusted".

You seem to get stuck on that point every time. Much as we would "expect" the atheist and agnostic and all "other" non-Christian religionists to do.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Bob, my interest in seeing you answer simple, straightforward questions simply and straightforwardly. If all you want to do is engage in verbal gymnastics, there is little point in attempting a reasoned discussion with you. If you want to support your arguments evidentially it is your responsibility to provide that evidence, not mine to hunt down every vague, unspecified reference you make to try and understand what it is you mean and exactly what it is you are referring to.

At last count there were some 15,000 Ebla tablets. Do you have the original texts and the translations you have made that support your assertions about whatever it is that the Ebla documents prove in respect of the Bible?

Do you have evidence that Noah existed exactly as described in Genesis and lived to be 950 years old? Or is the fact that no one can definitively prove to your satisfaction that Noah didn't exist exactly as described in Genesis and didn't live to be 950 years old all the evidence you need to support your argument otherwise?

Just out of curiosity, is there any evidence you can think of that would falsify Noah's existence and/or his legendary long-livedness?

 

[BobRyan]

by referring to the Ebla tablets as if the phrase 'Ebla tablets' is a powerful mantra that all by itself absolves you of any requirement to answer specific questions with relevant and specific answers.

Your response is a pre-eminent example of your preference for bluff, bluster and rhetoric over reasoned argument.

Nice smoke-mirrors and "harrumph!" once again but as usual you missed the point entirely.

My reference to the Ebla tablets is an example that exposes the lack of genuine due diligence in your argument. You pretend to be interested in the integrity of the Bible -- but you show by your complete dissinterest in those finds that confirm it -- that your real agenda is "doubt-the-bible-first" without any real interest in cases where the just-say-nay arguments were debunked.

Any atheist or agnostic can take your "bible is wrong until proven otherwise" approach to the text.

^ Bob, my interest in seeing you answer simple, straightforward questions simply and straightforwardly.

I quoted you -- and I responded.

. If you want to support your arguments evidentially it is your responsibility to provide that evidence,

Ebla tablets.

DSS

For those with genuine interest in seeing how the Bible is confirmed in Archaeology.

not mine to hunt down every vague, unspecified reference you make to try and understand what it is you mean and exactly what it is you are referring to.

At last count there were some 15,000 Ebla tablets. Do you have the original texts and the translations you have made that support your assertions about whatever it is that the Ebla documents prove in respect of the Bible?

They have been working on them since the 1970's and many "just-say-nay" claims about the Bible have been and are being debunked in the process.

What is of MORE interest to me is your complete lack of interest in this confirming evidence!

It goes to your "doubt-the-Bible-first" model -- you demonstrate a lot of interest in accusations against the Bible - and no interest in ares that confirm it.

Just out of curiosity, is there any evidence you can think of that would falsify Noah's existence and/or his legendary long-livedness?

God and the Angels - falsified (Atheists would love that!)
Christ's resurrection - falsified (atheists would love that!)
Christ's ascension into heaven - falsified (atheists would love that!)
The virgin birth - falsified (atheists would love that!)
Literal 6 day creation of life - falsified (atheists would love that!)

My arguments are not that atheists have no interest in getting to the same points that interest you -- my argument is that given the debunking of the just-say-nay claims against the Bible as seen in archaeology -- and that you seem to have no interest at all in researching - there is an amazing similarity to your approach and the one we see all atheists making on this same topic!

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ Good grief, Bob. You make the claim; you support it. If the Ebla tablets support a claim you wish to make, state the claim and show the relevant tablets. For a man who is ready to accuse anyone else of 'smoke and mirrors' and 'wild claims', the substance of many of your posts seems to be little more than that: assertions devoid of evidence to back them up.

I notice your 'falsifications' refer to Noah not at all and you still avoid giving any evidence supporting either the existence of Noah as described in Genesis or the great age to which he is supposed to have lived.

 

[BobRyan]

My "claim" is that you have no interest in either the DSS or EBLA tablet findings that confirm bible facts -- thus debunking your "I am just interested in objective honest rendering of Bible facts" argument.

You seem happy to confirm my "claim" with almost every post.

This is the part that would never get old for someone in my position observing your total lack of research in areas that SUPPORT the Bible. ( A glaring lack that one would EXPECT of an atheist religionist defending their own doctrines -- but what is your excuse for doing it???)

Oh no wait!! You were just about to clalim that you DID review the EBLA tablets and that they don't confirm Bible facts at all!! ;-)

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

^
I notice your 'falsifications' refer to Noah not at all and you still avoid giving any evidence supporting either the existence of Noah as described in Genesis or the great age to which he is supposed to have lived.

Finding (not merely "guessing and imagining") Noah to be a 95 year old fisherman in Mesopotamia in 1500 B.C??

But MORE importantly - your question is of the form --

God and the Angels - falsified (Atheists would love that!)
Christ's resurrection - falsified (atheists would love that!)
Christ's ascension into heaven - falsified (atheists would love that!)
The virgin birth - falsified (atheists would love that!)
Literal 6 day creation of life - falsified (atheists would love that!)

What honest unbiased objective reader could MISS that point??

My arguments are not that atheists have no interest in getting to the same points that interest you -- my argument is that given the debunking of the just-say-nay claims against the Bible as seen in archaeology -- and that you seem to have no interest at all in researching - there is an amazing similarity to your approach and the one we see all atheists making on this same topic!

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

....my argument is that given the debunking of the just-say-nay claims against the Bible as seen in archaeology -- and that you seem to have no interest at all in researching - there is an amazing similarity to your approach and the one we see all atheists making on this same topic!

I am happy to research specific claims that you wish to support with examples, as I am attempting to do on the thread where we are looking at the prophesies of Daniel and the evidence for the age of Earth as evidenced by the 'sedimentation rates of all major river deltas.' I am sorry that you find anyone who questions OT literalism because they think that it has been clearly shown to contain errors of science and history can only be either an atheist or a dupe of atheists. I return once more to the question of all those Christian-faith scientists whose knowledge and understanding leads them to an acceptance of evolutionary theory.

 

[BobRyan]

....my argument is that given the debunking of the just-say-nay claims against the Bible as seen in archaeology -- and that you seem to have no interest at all in researching - there is an amazing similarity to your approach and the one we see all atheists making on this same topic!

I am happy to research specific claims that you wish to support with examples

Thanks. We will get to those ... for now I am just happy to see you continuing to admit that being aware of these sources -- you have no initiative -- no motivation - no interest in looking into the Bible confirmation that they provide.

This goes to your "motive" your clearly biased approach to the text --

Your tactics are amazingly identical to those of our atheist friends on the same point.

I am just curious as to your excuse for it since I "think" you claim that you are neither atheist or agnostic.

L.K
' I am sorry that you find anyone who questions OT literalism because they think that it has been clearly shown to contain errors of science and history can only be either an atheist or a dupe of atheists.

See -- you clearly show that you would "like" to present your position as objective -- but when it comes to examples of Bible confirming events that debunk some just-say-nay arguments - you transparently reveal that these are not your area of interest at all -- much as we would expect from our atheist and agnostic friends.

I understand why they do it -- why do you?

I return once more to the question of all those Christian-faith scientists whose knowledge and understanding leads them to an acceptance of evolutionary theory.

Err... ummm "As long as they are not engaged in ID SCIENCE"?????

Bob

 

[Orion]

This is REALLY getting boring. . . . . . . all the posturing.

PLEASE..... pick a point or two and discuss it! Drop what one thinks about the other and their POSSIBLE motive and just (for pete sake) discuss a point or two!!! :-?

I'm getting worn out . . . . . . . . :o

 

[lordkalvan]

This is REALLY getting boring. . . . . . . all the posturing.

PLEASE..... pick a point or two and discuss it! Drop what one thinks about the other and their POSSIBLE motive and just (for pete sake) discuss a point or two!!! :-?

I'm getting worn out . . . . . . . . :o

If Bob would be prepared to present just one of his 'examples of Bible confirming events that debunk some just-say-nay arguments' I for one would be more than happy to discuss it in detail. However, Bob seems to think that all he has to assert is that these examples exist and then others must read his mind as to which ones he is referring to and then go and find them themselves, the Ebla Tablets being such a case. When I have attempted to raise a point for discussion, as in the matter of any evidence for Noah's existence and his great age, Bob has appeared reluctant to address it.

 

[Orion]

Yes, I see that, lordkalvan.

Perhaps, from this point on, there can actually be a relevant discussion of one or two of these, because, as you state, nothing gets done (but wasting bandwidth) until each topic is addressed by both sides. I hope this will happen now.

I have not read the Ebla documents, so am interested IN the ones that Bob would bring forth that would talk to his side of this topic! Then, other topics can be raised from the Ebla Tablets.

I look forward to some interesting debates!

 

[lordkalvan]

I have reflected on Bob's remarks on the Ebla Tablets and begun to look at their history and origins. My understanding is that during the last half of the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s (beginning in 1964) a team of Italian archaeologists discovered a palace at Tell Markadh dating to 2000-2500 BC in the ruins of which there were found some 15,000 relatively well-preserved cuneiform tablets. The palace has been identified as being on the site of Ebla. The tablets have been dated to the period between 2400 and 2240 BC. This summary accords with information provided on a number of Christian sites, for example:

http://www.icr.org/article/92/
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/The_Old_Testament_Is_Verified_Archeologically
http://www.adventmessage.com/Secrets/ebla.html

Is this summary correct in all its essentials?

 

[BobRyan]

I have reflected on Bob's remarks on the Ebla Tablets and begun to look at their history and origins.

What a refreshing turn in motive and initiative. It will be interesting to see how your approach to the evidence differs from an Atheist.

My understanding is that during the last half of the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s (beginning in 1964) a team of Italian archaeologists discovered a palace at Tell Markadh dating to 2000-2500 BC in the ruins of which there were found some 15,000 relatively well-preserved cuneiform tablets. The palace has been identified as being on the site of Ebla. The tablets have been dated to the period between 2400 and 2240 BC. This summary accords with information provided on a number of Christian sites, for example:

http://www.icr.org/article/92/
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/The_Old_Testament_Is_Verified_Archeologically
http://www.adventmessage.com/Secrets/ebla.html

Is this summary correct in all its essentials?

I have not checked out all of your links in detail but your summary of WHERE they were found and the antiquity of the data looks accurate and the links appear to take the Bible believing Christian reaction to discovery of Bible-confirming data.

I.E. Evidence to be welcomed rather than "a problem to be solved" so much "bible confirming data to be ignored as one seeks for more just-say-nay arguments".

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

I have reflected on Bob's remarks on the Ebla Tablets and begun to look at their history and origins.

What a refreshing turn in motive and initiative. It will be interesting to see how your approach to the evidence differs from an Atheist.

What do you mean by 'your approach to the evidence'? What 'approach' to the evidence should I take? Surely the evidence stands or falls on its own merits? Are you prejudging any conclusiuons I may come to? If I disagree with your conclusions - whatever they may be, as all I have seen so far is a declaration that the Ebla evidence counters biblical nay-sayers in some unspecified way - am I to be automatically cast into the camp of atheism?

 

[lordkalvan]

Further information on Ebla: the consensus view appears to be that Ebla was a thriving knigdom that controlled a region that included the site of the present capital of Syria, Damascus, totalling as many as 17 other major settlements categorized as cities and numbering a population in excess of 250,000 persons, the citizens of Ebla itself owning some 200,000 head of sheep, cattle and goats. Ebla's language was part of the Semitic family,

 

[lordkalvan]

Evidence from Ebla can be conveniently divided into two parts: that which attests to an interpretation of the antiquity of humanity as derived from the Bible and that which attests generally to the text of the Bible as it is recognized today.

The indirect evidence that has been gathered at Ebla in my opinion tends, on the whole, to cast doubt on a short chronology for an early history of humanity that began 6,000 years ago and was then interrupted by a near-extirmination event about 4,500 years ago in the form of a global inundation. I derive these two creationist-inspired dates from previous posts on other threads by Bob and understand them to be ones which many creationists would be prepared to argue for.

Why do I think the indirect evidence from Ebla casts doubt on this short chronology? A number of reasons that I will elaborate below.

The Ebla Tablets are dated to the period 2400-2240 BC; the date assigned to the palace in which they were found is 2500-2000 BC. No sites that I have been able to track down contest these dates. An AiG article by Clifford Wilson mentions a date of 'about 2200 BC' in connection with a contract between the King of Ebla and the supposedly legendary King Tudiya of of Assyria, but without specifically referring to the Ebla Tablets as such*. How have these dates been arrived at? In the absence of information directly attesting to this, it is reasonable to suppose that the same techniques that are used across the field of archaeology to date artefacts and other remains have been used to date the Ebla Tablets and associated material. These techniques include relative dating methods, including stratigraphy, king lists and limmu lists; absolute dating methods, which include calendrical and astronomical records; and radiometric methods, including carbon-14 and thermoluminescence. If these methods are considered generally accurate when determining the date of the Ebla Tablets, there is no plausible reason for supposing that they should be considered inaccurate when determining other dates, for example:

• The date for the construction of Khufu's Pyramid at Giza, c. 2590-2560 BC.

• The date from which the Ebla site was under continous occupation, i.e. before 3000 BC and perhaps as early as 3500 BC.

• The founding of Jericho at c. 7000 BC.

• The dating of human activity at the Grotte de Niaux to at least 12000 BC.

Even disregarding these examples, however, and looking solely at the accepted dates for the Ebla Tablets, the problems for the creationist chronology of humanity are immediately apparent:

• An AiG article by J. Osgood argues confidently for a Flood date of 2304 BC +/- 11 years**. This places the Flood as occurring after the palace at Ebla was founded and almost exactly in the middle of the period to which the Ebla Tablets are attributed. Obviously there is no indication of a catastrophic global flood overwhelming the Ebla site. Furthermore, the 'dividing of the earth' at the time of Peleg is generally supposed to have occurred about 100 years after the Flood. There is no sign of the Ebla site being affected by massive tectonic movements around 2200 BC.

• Dates for the Flood referred to by Bob suggest that '...using Lyell's formula for age computation, Humphreys got an age of about 4620 years or approximately the time of the Flood of Noah' and that the Flood occurred 'about 4500 years ago'***. The earliest of these dates places the Flood 120 years before the founding of the palace at Ebla, 220 years before the earliest date to which the Tablets are attributed, and 380 years before the later date for the Tablets. The significance of these intervals is that the global population after the Flood was eight persons. Using the longest interval we can calculate from the dates referred to here, in 380 years the population of the Middle and Near East alone must therefore have increased from eight persons to over 250,000 persons in the Kingdom of Ebla all by itself, when Ebla was but one of many kingdoms in the area; Egypt, for example, mustered a population of around two million persons at this time according to archaeological evidence****. Nothing that is known from palaeopathology and population studies of this period suggests that the kind of population growth necessary to expand from eight persons to several millions in the space of four centuries would have been plausible. Indeed, the best evidence available indicates that the annual population growth rate in Dynastic Egypt, one of the most advanced societies of this time, was less than 0.1%.


* http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/tablets.asp

** http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/noahs_flood.asp

*** Dates from this thread: http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32659&start=135&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

**** http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/people/index.html#mortality

 

[BobRyan]

Evidence from Ebla can be conveniently divided into two parts: that which attests to an interpretation of the antiquity of humanity as derived from the Bible and that which attests generally to the text of the Bible as it is recognized today.

The indirect evidence that has been gathered at Ebla in my opinion tends, on the whole, to cast doubt on a short chronology for an early history of humanity that began 6,000 years ago and was then interrupted by a near-extirmination event about 4,500 years ago in the form of a global inundation. I derive these two creationist-inspired dates from previous posts on other threads by Bob and understand them to be ones which many creationists would be prepared to argue for.

Why do I think the indirect evidence from Ebla casts doubt on this short chronology? A number of reasons that I will elaborate below.

How facinating that like our atheist friends you completely ignore the evidence about Sodom and Gomorrah about the kings about the ancient city of Jerusalem and dozens of other "Bible confirming facts" only useful in "ignoring them entirely" when our atheist friends look at them.

notice also that this is a pagan city -- and the Chrisitan POV is never in the form of atheist claims that "Pagans are more reliable than the Bible".

Just pointing out the obvious here.

The main reason for bringing up Ebla is that all the points raised in objection to the Bible - that are debunked in the Ebla find are "conveniently ignored" by the just-say-nay groups - and you too show "no interest at all" in them.

I thing the unbiased objective reader will find that "instructive".

thanks again for demonstrating the point.

Bob