Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 B.C.). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected."
"The chronology of Jericho is by no means the only problem associated with the traditional biblical chronology of the Exodus and Conquest. For example, even if Wood's chronology of Jericho were viable, the complete absence of fortified habitation at et-Tell (identified by almost all scholars with the biblical Ai) for 1000 years prior to the traditional biblical chronology date for its destruction by Joshua is still left to be explained. And the archaeological and historical data from Egypt must also be explained. These depict Egypt as a stable, properous nation at the very time the traditional biblical chronology date for the Exodus says Egypt should be a nation devastated by plagues."
No it doesn't. Please read something that doesn't come from Bible apologists.
Please read something other than...... Bible Deniers Knowledge!!
Quote:
Kenyon's research is supported by the mass of modern archaeological scholars...as you will see if you ever dare to do some real, unbiased research.
Her research is also supported by modern archaeological scholars, that she withheld evidence.
Quote:
It is not my "opinion" that you are disagreeing with. What you disagree with is modern archaeological scholarship, preferring instead to cite work that was carried out by one man in the 1930's.
You do realize, her research was only 22-25 years later, not a huge span of time!!
Quote:
You are an ape whether you like it or not.
You were made by........... God like it or not!!
Do you see how some of your comments are just.....well you know!!
Quote:
I have no respect for the religious beliefs of Christians, nor Muslims, nor Hindu's. Beliefs, religious or otherwise command no automatic respect.
With out some respect...... you are probably useless to debate with!!
Please read something other than...... Bible Deniers Knowledge!!
What...like the mythology you read? No thanks!
Quote:
Her research is also supported by modern archaeological scholars, that she withheld evidence.
If that was the case then modern archaeological research would not support her findings would it? Modern day archaeologists...the guys that are professionally trained for the job... say she was right. You're just going to have to live with that. Sorry!
Quote:
You do realize, her research was only 22-25 years later, not a huge span of time!!
25 years is a massive amount of time regarding scientific advances. Go check out how the world was in the 1930's to how it was in the 1950's. The facts show that there was no walled city for Joshua to destroy. Your Bible is wrong, just like it is wrong about so many other things. Get over it!
Quote:
You were made by........... God like it or not!!
Unfortunately for you, apart from a book that has been proven to be mostly fable, fiction and fraud, you have no evidence to support that. The evidence that we are primates is testable, verifiable, objective and overwhelming and is something else you are just going to have to learn to live with.
Quote:
Do you see how some of your comments are just.....well you know!!
Far too clever for you?? Yes, I do see that.
Quote:
With out some respect...... you are probably useless to debate with!!
Without some basic scientific knowledge, so are you.
The OT also claims that Joshua destroyed Jericho by blowing trumpets but archaeology shows that Jericho was destroyed by means of conventional warfare a thousand years before Josh. There wasn't even anyone living there when he was alleged to have been around.
So you see, in order to make the claim that the Bible is true, you have to provide verifiable evidence that that every person in it existed, every place existed and every event happened. I on the other hand need only present you with one single event that didn't happen, one single person that didn't exist and I have proven that the Bible contains things that are not true....as in Josh and Jericho.
I think you should read something other than 'Answers in Genesis' or mis-information from similar Bible apologist site.
Another 'creationist' trying to debunk evolution without knowing anything about it. We did not evolve from apes. We ARE apes.
What a scholar!!! He uses the Bible to prove the Bible!! Brilliant!!
I'm shocked!!
So what? Would you like me to give you a list of famous theists that have become atheists?
You need to ask if Flew changed his mind or did Flew's mind change him. Flew, in his later life, became a little senile. In 2005 a Christian broadcaster had to abandon plans to broadcast an interview with Flew, 'out of respect'. This was because he was incoherent and could not understand the questions.
From what I've read, it seems Flew was taken advantage of and I think it's despicable. It shows the moral depravity of some theists.
If flew was anything in his dotage he was deist. Either way, he didn't believe in your Biblegod.
Sorry, but as soon I hear some clown claiming that "the universe is tuned for life" and that every word in the Bible is literally true and also absolutely compatible with scientific data, my attention level drops to zero. His books too, are the same old apologist tosh. He claims that the 'six day creation' of the universe in Genesis does not contradict the evidence of a 15 billion year old universe. Why?...because a 'day' to his god may well last for more than a billion years. Right!!
"One of the differences between the first and the second books by Schroeder relates to the chronological data in regard to Noah, the Flood, Tuval-Cain, and the onset of the Bronze age. In his first book, Schroeder calculated that the interval of time between Adam and Tuval-Cain was about 1350 years, that Tuval-Cain was a contemporary of Noah, and that the Bronze age started some 4400 years ago (pages 31-32 and Table 2 in the first book [1]).
In the second book [2] the onset of the Bronze age is said to have happened about 5000 years ago, i.e. about 600 years earlier than in the first book (see, for example, page 131 in [2]). Furthermore, on page 130 of [2][1]. On the other hand, in [2] (page 131) the date of the Flood is said to be about 4100 years ago, which is about 900 years later than that date of the advent of Bronze which is given in that book. According to these altered dates, Tuval-Cain is no longer considered to be Noah's contemporary, since the invention of bronze, attributed by Schroeder to Tuval-Cain, is now said to have happened 900 years earlier than in [1].
Schroeder does not provide a single word of explanation as to why he changed the dates after his first book.
As was indicated in the previous sections of this article, the above alteration of dates was apparently done because somebody had shown to Schroeder the error in his count of generations between Cain and Tuval-Cain in his first book.
"Despite the change of dates, Schroeder still asserts in his second book that the advent of the Bronze age, according to the archeological data, precisely coincides with the biblical story (as per his calculations). Like in his first book, Schroeder again pretends not to notice the statement in Genesis 4.22 indicating that Tuval-Cain also made tools of iron. Since in the second book the lifetime of Tuval-Cain is shifted back by some 900 years, it makes it even farther in time from the iron age as determined by archeology. This completely undermines Schroeder's chronological exercise."
Well done Dr Schroeder. That's REALLY scientific!!!
Sorry, but as soon I hear some clown claiming that "the universe is tuned for life" and that every word in the Bible is literally true and also absolutely compatible with scientific data, my attention level drops to zero. His books too, are the same old apologist tosh. He claims that the 'six day creation' of the universe in Genesis does not contradict the evidence of a 15 billion year old universe. Why?...because a 'day' to his god may well last for more than a billion years. Right!!
"One of the differences between the first and the second books by Schroeder relates to the chronological data in regard to Noah, the Flood, Tuval-Cain, and the onset of the Bronze age. In his first book, Schroeder calculated that the interval of time between Adam and Tuval-Cain was about 1350 years, that Tuval-Cain was a contemporary of Noah, and that the Bronze age started some 4400 years ago (pages 31-32 and Table 2 in the first book [1]).
In the second book [2] the onset of the Bronze age is said to have happened about 5000 years ago, i.e. about 600 years earlier than in the first book (see, for example, page 131 in [2]). Furthermore, on page 130 of [2][1]. On the other hand, in [2] (page 131) the date of the Flood is said to be about 4100 years ago, which is about 900 years later than that date of the advent of Bronze which is given in that book. According to these altered dates, Tuval-Cain is no longer considered to be Noah's contemporary, since the invention of bronze, attributed by Schroeder to Tuval-Cain, is now said to have happened 900 years earlier than in [1].
Schroeder does not provide a single word of explanation as to why he changed the dates after his first book.
As was indicated in the previous sections of this article, the above alteration of dates was apparently done because somebody had shown to Schroeder the error in his count of generations between Cain and Tuval-Cain in his first book.
"Despite the change of dates, Schroeder still asserts in his second book that the advent of the Bronze age, according to the archeological data, precisely coincides with the biblical story (as per his calculations). Like in his first book, Schroeder again pretends not to notice the statement in Genesis 4.22 indicating that Tuval-Cain also made tools of iron. Since in the second book the lifetime of Tuval-Cain is shifted back by some 900 years, it makes it even farther in time from the iron age as determined by archeology. This completely undermines Schroeder's chronological exercise."
Well done Dr Schroeder. That's REALLY scientific!!!
You, obviously, are not a listener. You have not heard a single word.
NONE of what you wrote here has to do with the origin of life and consciousness. Why not address those, and some of the points brought out by this scientist, instead of attacking a person for his convictions?
You have relegated yourself to being a single-minded preacher.
If you are not going to listen, nor address the points of contention, why engage in debate at all?
You, obviously, are not a listener. You have not heard a single word.
NONE of what you wrote here has to do with the origin of life and consciousness. Why not address those, and some of the points brought out by this scientist, instead of attacking a person for his convictions?
You have relegated yourself to being a single-minded preacher.
If you are not going to listen, nor address the points of contention, why engage in debate at all?
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson
The point of contention is that Schroeder talks through his arse, as proven in the link I gave you...and I have addressed that point.
The point of contention is that Schroeder talks through his arse, as proven in the link I gave you...and I have addressed that point.
NO!
The point of contention is the origin of life and consciousness. You have not addressed that, regardless of whatever mistakes or inaccuracies Schroeder may have made in the past.
This man is saying that all the accumulation of modern scientific knowledge shows abiogenesis to be impossible.
Are you saying that he is wrong? What is the ONLY alternative?
If you are, then the burden to prove it is on you and all of your associates.
This man is saying that all the accumulation of modern scientific knowledge shows abiogenesis to be impossible.
Are you saying that he is wrong? What is the ONLY alternative?
If you are, then the burden to prove it is on you and all of your associates.
Au contraire lesser mortal!! It is you and Herr Schroeder that are saying that biogeneses is not possible and it's for you and him to prove that. We have seen, in the link that I provided, that his 'science' is flawed, his dates are flawed, that he overcomes the evidence for a 15 billion year old Universe with such lunacy as 'One of god's days can be a billion years' and that the only 'argument' that he has is 'God done it and God can do anything he wants'
It is not for me to disprove him wrong it is for him (and you) to prove that he is correct. We can see well enough that he isn't.
wilsoncoleNO!
The point of contention is the origin of life and consciousness. You have not addressed that, regardless of whatever mistakes or inaccuracies Schroeder may have made in the past.
This man is saying that all the accumulation of modern scientific knowledge shows abiogenesis to be impossible.
Are you saying that he is wrong? What is the ONLY alternative?
If you are, then the burden to prove it is on you and all of your associates.Wilson
This will be their argument through the whole what they call debate!! They will ask you to prove and they must prove nothing. Even if their scientific archaeologist have gotten it wrong, they will say their right, your wrong.
They use the excuse that Christians can't defend the Bible and just give up and walk away ...........This is because they don't know the versus that is given to Christians..............
And he said unto them, In what place so ever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. 11And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Not walking away because we can't explain, just moving on!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
