Jump to content


Photo

If There Was A Worldwide Flood . . .


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
57 replies to this topic

#41 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 December 2008 - 08:53 PM

Thanks Fred.

Heres a good video on the subject.

Egyptian chronology and The Old Testament.





Enjoy.

#42 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 26 December 2008 - 06:15 AM

Okay, so Fred and Jason vote for "historians are mostly all either ninnies or in a brainwashed cult of some sort or in cahoots with all other secularists."

Thanks. I think I'm getting some really good answers to my question.

<_<

#43 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 December 2008 - 07:49 AM

Okay, so Fred and Jason vote for "historians are mostly all either ninnies or in a brainwashed cult of some sort or in cahoots with all other secularists."

Thanks.  I think I'm getting some really good answers to my question.

;)

View Post

Putting your words in people's mouths is on-topic how?

#44 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 26 December 2008 - 08:21 AM

Putting your words in people's mouths is on-topic how?

View Post



These are the words that came out of Fred Williams mouth:

CTD already mentioned the one hugely flawed assumption that no two dynasties were simultaneous. Sorry, but just how short-sighted and frankly dumb is that?


I was merely paraphrasing.
;)

#45 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 December 2008 - 09:24 AM

Okay, so Fred and Jason vote for "historians are mostly all either ninnies or in a brainwashed cult of some sort or in cahoots with all other secularists."

Thanks.  I think I'm getting some really good answers to my question.

;)

View Post


Judy,

This may belong in the "caricature" thread.

Your paraphrasing is flawed. I hope you don't seriously think that's representative of what Fred said. He's talking about secular historians lining dynasties up like dominoes as if viewing history in this linear fashion is actually even potentially good history.

Have you followed any of those links? I will pull some excerpts out but I hope you get serious about the discussion verses pouring your version of what you think you're hearing on to everything and believing it is good conversation.

#46 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 December 2008 - 12:28 PM

Okay, so Fred and Jason vote for "historians are mostly all either ninnies or in a brainwashed cult of some sort or in cahoots with all other secularists."


Hi Judy,

Were saying,that they are using the old chronoloy as evidence.The new chronology is derived from archeologic evidence from different places,c14 dating archeologic evidence from that location,and astrologic evidence as well.

If you don't agree with the new chronology then you have to admit something most evolutionists wont....c14 dating is flawed,even though it's correlated by other evidence.

Thanks.

#47 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 December 2008 - 01:05 PM

Hi Judy,

Were saying,that they are using the old chronoloy as evidence.The new chronology is derived from archeologic evidence from different places,c14 dating archeologic evidence from that location,and astrologic evidence as well.

If you don't agree with the new chronology then you have to admit something most evolutionists wont....c14 dating is flawed,even though it's correlated by other evidence.

Thanks.

View Post


Jason,

I have come to the conclusion that atheists/agnostics are not interested in finding the most viable explanation. They are most interested in smearing doubt on everything that can't be tested and demonstrated through the scientific method and declaring that they are more intellectually honest because we just don't know... ;)

Basically; "if I didn't see it with my own I eyes, within my life time I'm not going to believe it...except evolution of course." :P

My question to all agnostics that I have never received an answer to because it reveals the flawed nature of the agnostic's skepticism:

If all viable truth can be test and demonstrated, how does a person test and demonstrate the "truth" that all viable truth can be tested and demonstrated?

This is a reasonable question and it is logically consistent.

The agnostic has a plethora of presuppositions in their arsenal. The deception comes in when using presuppositional reasoning, through first principles, and denying it simultaneously.

It's similar to having a blind faith in the untestable, unprovable, theory of evolution and simultaneously declaring that it's not faith because it simply takes too much time. :P

An agnostic can never be a logically consistent skeptical historian without rejecting all of history, yesterday and past on the grounds that it can not be tested and demonstrated.

#48 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 December 2008 - 01:17 PM

Hi Adam,

The confusion comes from the fact that most experts know the evidence,but they refuse to let it be taught because it may have religous implications,therefore high school and college level texts are devoid of the known evidence.




thanks.

#49 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 December 2008 - 01:38 PM

Hi Adam,

The confusion comes from the fact that most experts know the evidence,but they refuse to let it be taught because it may have religous implications,therefore high school and college level texts are devoid of the known evidence.

View Post

You're right, this also plays a huge roll. I have lost much of my faith in the public education system when certain things are scrubbed out for the sake of "separation of church and state" which has never been found in our legal system. It has been read in by a twisting interpretation and implied by force.

Also, the amount of disproved evidences for evolution that are kept in to indoctrinate...oops I mean "teach" evolution and numerous things left out (One of my current favorite things to study is OOP Art.) should give any honest skeptic a moment of pause.

I'm leading a series at my Church called "The Truth Project" which is excellent materiel. It comes highly recommended. Del Tackett was associated with George H. Bush's presidency. When he was serving he had plenty of opportunity to study American history. He devotes an entire hour of the twelve hour series to just showing how quotes and excerpts from historical documents as taught in today's culture are carefully scrubbed to remove as much of the Christian undertones as possible from the work of those who found this country.

Any agnostic who employs critical thinking would do well to be open minded and be critical of themselves and their motives before studying history.

As a Christian I am very mindful of my biases in submission to scriptural infallibility. I am not ashamed. I believe a willingness of the Christian (or anyone for that matter) to admit his/her bias is the starting point of reason and a bold unshakable faith. The apostles and disciples had no qualms about being totally biased for Christ, neither should we. In the course of study if these biases are strengthened by what's uncovered should the Christian still reject His faith for the sake of agnosticism?

For all agnostics; What does agnosticism offer in the way of finding truth? A carousel of skepticism is a never ending ride. You must get off the ride to find truth, allowing skepticism to be a tool and not a foundation. The worst thing that will happen is the other riders will scream and yell that you're narrow-minded but so what?

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 December 2008 - 02:11 PM

Thanks Fred.

Heres a good video on the subject.

Egyptian chronology and The Old Testament.


Enjoy.

View Post


Thanks, Jason. That was very informative. I think the question for the atheist continues to be; does reliability and historical steadfastness and concise revelation give the skeptic a moment of pause when asking, what the historical truth is about the Bible?

If not, my question is; why not?

#51 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 December 2008 - 04:48 PM

These are the words that came out of Fred Williams mouth:
I was merely paraphrasing.
;)

View Post

That is not so. Those who specialize in piecing together the fragments of the most ancient Chinese and Egyptian history are a tiny minority among historians, so even if the whole group actually had been called evil, ignorant, stupid, deceitful conspirators, it would not measure up to the words you employed.

Your whole argument can be accurately summed up as follows:
Wiki represents the mainstream, and anyone questioning the mainstream is calling them this, that, and the other thing, and needs to prove they're this, that, and the other thing. You are fabricating an argument that hasn't been made, and attempting to dump this imaginary burden of proof on all of us, while avoiding the actual issues.

The real issues are simple: what's been discovered, verified, and reconciled? You haven't discussed any of these things yet the whole thread, choosing rather to rely on your "mainstream is always right" propaganda.

Would you like to discuss the historic record of the mainstream, and how it compares to the ideal of "always right"? Might be informative for some and should at least be entertaining for others.

#52 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 26 December 2008 - 05:16 PM

I'm leading a series at my Church called "The Truth Project" which is excellent materiel. It comes highly recommended. Del Tackett was associated with George H. Bush's presidency. When he was serving he had plenty of opportunity to study American history. He devotes an entire hour of the twelve hour series to just showing how quotes and excerpts from historical documents as taught in today's culture are carefully scrubbed to remove as much of the Christian undertones as possible from the work of those who found this country.


Those beloved feelings of persecution. They seem to fuel your fervor. Even the Bible promises that you will be persecuted. So there it is, your proof that what you believe must be true.

Any agnostic who employs critical thinking would do well to be open minded and be critical of themselves and their motives before studying history.


I am very curious what you think those motives are. Just like the vast conspiracy of deluded and evil evolutionary scientists, you appear to believe there is a vast conspiracy of deluded and evil secular historians. What is it that motivates these people, if not the search for truth?

As a Christian I am very mindful of my biases in submission to scriptural infallibility. I am not ashamed. I believe a willingness of the Christian (or anyone for that matter) to admit his/her bias is the starting point of reason and a bold unshakable faith. The apostles and disciples had no qualms about being totally biased for Christ, neither should we. In the course of study if these biases are strengthened by what's uncovered should the Christian still reject His faith for the sake of agnosticism?


You've mentioned several times now that you're not ashamed. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. Maybe you really are a little embarrassed, maybe you realize how silly some of your clinging to goatherder superstitions really is. The thing that should make you ashamed is squandering your intellect.

For all agnostics; What does agnosticism offer in the way of finding truth? A carousel of skepticism is a never ending ride. You must get off the ride to find truth, allowing skepticism to be a tool and not a foundation. The worst thing that will happen is the other riders will scream and yell that you're narrow-minded but so what?

View Post


I'm not an agnostic, so I can't answer this.

#53 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 December 2008 - 05:24 PM

Judy,

Your statements above are interesting. Hey, so what is this wonderful evidence that's disproving the Bible?

I have this really cool archeological study Bible and it's amazing how the leftovers correspond perfectly. The Bible has been used as a guide over and over again for out in the archeological field. I wonder why?

#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 December 2008 - 05:39 PM

I wouldn't mind discussing this page:

http://www.bibleevid.../archeology.htm

The reason is this. When the Bible continues to line up with what we see over and over there are some things to keep in mind; archeology doesn't read like a book it's fragmentary. It must be interpreted and guessed at regarding what it really is.

However, take the physical and the eye-witness and put them together and a robust understanding can emerge.

In the case of the Book of Mormon the utter lack of evidence has forced Mormons to take on a blind faith attitude that Christians are customarily accused of, wrongly.

If anyone gets a chance check this out. It goes with this thread nicely for a contrast histories real and made-up:

http://www.lhvm.org/thebiblevs.html
(It's the first link on the page called: "The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon")

#55 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 26 December 2008 - 05:48 PM

I've never claimed that the Bible doesn't contain some things that are historically accurate. I think Isaac Asimov wrote several volumes about the historicity of the Bible, and he was an atheist himself. Just because historical figures and battles can be verified using archeology, how does that in any way prove that every word about every miracle is, excuse me, "the Gospel truth?"

http://www.amazon.co...30338947&sr=8-1

#56 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 December 2008 - 08:20 PM

I've never claimed that the Bible doesn't contain some things that are historically accurate.  I think Isaac Asimov wrote several volumes about the historicity of the Bible, and he was an atheist himself.  Just because historical figures and battles can be verified using archeology, how does that in any way prove that every word about every miracle is, excuse me, "the Gospel truth?"

http://www.amazon.co...30338947&sr=8-1

View Post

A very important part of conducting historical research is the evaluation of sources. This is easily demonstrated in the present. One trusts or distrusts sources every day. The scale ranges from tabloids & politicians to reputable sources and generally maxes out with long-term acquaintances.

As a source, the Bible has been challenged more than any other. Yet it still stands, looking better and better as time goes on. A source which has proven to be reliable is a great asset for one who intends to discover what has happened in the past. The contrast between the view taken by real historians and the dismissive view of the scoffers is extreme. The scoffers simply cannot be taken seriously until they produce an honest evaluation, which must include the merits as well as any objections they wish to dust off and reassert.

One of the most frequent objection is that all "supernatural" events must be assumed false. This is not a logical way to seek truth. For if supernatural events do occur, they cannot be reported to a member of this school. The gate is barred. I can just as easily claim the colour yellow doesn't exist and simply deny all reports of yellowness.

If one does not take this approach, and bar the gate tightly, one runs along thinking like a reasonable man, and figures out that reports of "supernatural" events, just like anything out-of-the ordinary, must as a practical matter be dismissed unless they come from reliable sources. Bingo! Now we have a sensible criteria upon which to begin investigating whether or not these things have ever happened.

The trustworthiness of the Bible is well-established. Only by denying this, or injecting an unjustified 'but' into the discussion can one avoid proceeding to investigate properly. Neither option is consistent with seeking truth.

#57 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 30 December 2008 - 12:21 AM

These are the words that came out of Fred Williams mouth:
I was merely paraphrasing.
:rolleyes:

View Post


That was a mostly inaccurate caricature of what I said. I pointed out a serious flaw in Egyptian chronology, and mentioned that there are plenty of secular historians who admit it is flawed and needs revision. Did you miss that part? However, your caricature is partly right in that many historians are ninnies, the liberal ones who care more about their political agenda than truth. Most aren’t brainwashed, they are just “dumb on purpose” (read the last half of Romans 1 to see why). Consistent with liberalism you then hypocritically say you are not getting good answers to your question. You got a good answer, you just didn’t like it, and REFUSED to address the point. Do you believe it is reasonable for certain “ninny” historians to assume single-threaded dynasties? If so, provide evidence to this effect, instead of wasting our time with claims that no one is answering you but instead are busy pondering brainwash conspiracies, UFOs, and Elvis Presley.

Fred

#58 Crispus

Crispus

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Florida

Posted 08 March 2009 - 02:10 PM

Wikipedia has the following paragraph in its entry under Ancient Egypt:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Ancient_egypt

Ancient Egypt was an ancient civilization in eastern North Africa, concentrated along the lower reaches of the Nile River in what is now the modern nation of Egypt. The civilization began around 3150 BC[1] with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under the first pharaoh, and it developed over the next three millennia.[2] Its history occurred in a series of stable periods, known as kingdoms, separated by periods of relative instability known as Intermediate Periods. After the end of the last kingdom, known as the New Kingdom, the civilization of ancient Egypt entered a period of slow, steady decline, during which Egypt was conquered by a succession of foreign powers. The rule of the pharaohs officially ended in 31 BC when the early Roman Empire conquered Egypt and made it a province.[3]


Secular historians often use Egyptian Chronology and the Sothic dating method as a standard. On that page about Ancient Egypt the first footnote says "Only after 664 BC are dates secure. See Egyptian chronology for details."

I've been to the page about Egyptian chronology and quoted them when posting about the global flood. It begins by saying "The creation of a reliable Chronology of Ancient Egypt is a task fraught with problems." In his book "The Hittites" Johannes Lehmann said this about Egyptian chronology:

"In the course of a single century’s research, the earliest date in Egyptian history—that of Egypt’s unification under King Menes—has plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C., and not even the latter year has been established beyond doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?"
(The Hittites by Johannes Lehmann, 1977, p. 204)

In a more recent book it says Egyptian Chronology has been revised more than twenty times and the span of thirty-one dynasties decreased by about three thousand years (Riddle of the Exodus: Sartling Parallels Between Ancienct Jewish Sources and the Egyptian Archaeological Record by James Long, 2006, p. 8).

Roger Henry wrote a book called Synchronized Chronology: Rethinking Middle East Antiquity. He believes the flood was mythical but calls the Hebrew historical account "rigid history" and asks some good questions:

"What happens when there is a complete rigid history paralleling Egyptian history? Which history will be trusted? Will the Old Testament Chronicles, with sequentially dated reigns of kings and judges for over 1500 years, be accepted? Or will it be assumed that disagreements with Egyptian archaeology disqualify scripture?"
(Synchronized Chronology: Rethinking Middle East Antiquity by Roger Henry, p. 2)

Under Chinese Dynasties, the following chart can be found:

http://en.wikipedia....inese_dynasties

Chronology of dynasties
Dynasty Years
Three Sovereign Ones and the Five Emperors before 2070 BCE

Xià Dynasty 2100 BCE — 1600 BCE


How would you go about reconciling your belief that approximately 4000 years ago the entire earth was flooded, and only a few human beings survived, with the fact that there is historical evidence for at least two thriving civilizations existing around 4000 years ago, civilizations that did not get completely wiped out, but continued to thrive for thousands of years?

You assert that the historical evidence is factual and I assume you believe it to be irrefutable but this hasn't been proven. Certainly, Egyptian chronology is tenuous and shouldn't be used as a standard though that probably won't change for some time. Given a choice I'd have to take the Table of Nations in Gen. 10 which Josephus used to describe how all nations came to be inhabited. I haven't researched Chinese chronology very much but there are people, including Chinese Christians, that believe the Chinese descended from Noah and the debate centers on whether they descended from Shem, Ham or Japheth. I downloaded a book called "After The Flood" by Bill Coooper and haven't read it yet but it looks to be an extensive examination of historical evidence supporting the belief that all mankind descended from Sehm, Ham and Japheth.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users