Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

[_LittleNipper]

Try to consider the following:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a011.html
http://www.christiancourier.com/article ... nt-jericho

Seriously? You're killing me, here. The first is yet another article by the thoroughly discredited Bryant Wood (although in the article he refers to himself in the third person), and the second relies exclusively on Wood.

From the first article, here is an example of the type of deception in which Wood trades:

"...Kathleen Kenyon (1952-1958) ... dug at Jericho for six seasons and a German excavation directed by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger dug for three. All found abundant evidence of the city's destruction by fire in a layer related to the Biblical date of 1400 BC."

Wood is being dishonest. Watzinger/Sellin dated their finds to 1950-1550 BCE, and Kenyon dated the destruction of Jericho's wall to approx. 1550 BCE. Addressing the question of the conquest, Kenyon wrote:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."

Contrary to what Wood wrote, Kenyon specifically ruled out a date of 1400 BCE. In other words, Wood is lying. Why on earth do you continue to cite him?

Now, enough already: will you please stop being content to simply link to discredited articles and offer some of your own thoughts on the various evidences?

I see that you are being true to yourself but unfair and unrealistic in your opinions. Secular scientists are in no way perfect or better than anyone else, and as such they do often have an ax to grind. To suggest that secular scientists could never be out to discredit or disprove the Bible, is exactly like saying that Christians and Jews are not trying to prove the Bible. I'm sorry to see that you are so intent on lumping everyone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God as less honest than those who think the Bible is simply a fable. You clearly imagine that Christians are out to prove the Bible right no matter what; however, where evidence is available, you seem to think it is okay to only accept the word of someone trying to negate what is clearly seen. So in reality, it doesn't matter if Noah's ark were to be found or not, there will be those who will try to prove it a hoax in some way, shape or form. The reality is that faith is the work of GOD, as also is the hardening of one's heart... God gives to each what they ultimately desire. You wanted my thoughts and now you have them. Carbon dating is unreliable at best. Dating based on geological soil layers is even more unreliable. And people have always liked to stick with that which they are comfortable/familiar with for years after such is considered outmoded or out of fashion. So I have absolutly no problem with the fact that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the wall came tumbling down. You will believe what you will --- it doesn't change the reality in the least.

[_Drifting]

I see that you are being true to yourself but unfair and unrealistic in your opinions. Secular scientists are in no way perfect or better than anyone else, and as such they do often have an ax to grind. To suggest that secular scientists could never be out to discredit or disprove the Bible, is exactly like saying that Christians and Jews are not trying to prove the Bible. I'm sorry to see that you are so intent on lumping everyone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God as less honest than those who think the Bible is simply a fable. You clearly imagine that Christians are out to prove the Bible right no matter what; however, where evidence is available, you seem to think it is okay to only accept the word of someone trying to negate what is clearly seen. So in reality, it doesn't matter if Noah's ark were to be found or not, there will be those who will try to prove it a hoax in some way, shape or form. The reality is that faith is the work of GOD, as also is the hardening of one's heart... God gives to each what they ultimately desire. You wanted my thoughts and now you have them. Carbon dating is unreliable at best. Dating based on geological soil layers is even more unreliable. And people have always liked to stick with that which they are comfortable/familiar with for years after such is considered outmoded or out of fashion. So I have absolutly no problem with the fact that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the wall came tumbling down. You will believe what you will --- it doesn't change the reality in the least.

I notice you didn't address the problem that the source of your supporting evidence, Wood, lied.

[_LittleNipper]

I see that you are being true to yourself but unfair and unrealistic in your opinions. Secular scientists are in no way perfect or better than anyone else, and as such they do often have an ax to grind. To suggest that secular scientists could never be out to discredit or disprove the Bible, is exactly like saying that Christians and Jews are not trying to prove the Bible. I'm sorry to see that you are so intent on lumping everyone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God as less honest than those who think the Bible is simply a fable. You clearly imagine that Christians are out to prove the Bible right no matter what; however, where evidence is available, you seem to think it is okay to only accept the word of someone trying to negate what is clearly seen. So in reality, it doesn't matter if Noah's ark were to be found or not, there will be those who will try to prove it a hoax in some way, shape or form. The reality is that faith is the work of GOD, as also is the hardening of one's heart... God gives to each what they ultimately desire. You wanted my thoughts and now you have them. Carbon dating is unreliable at best. Dating based on geological soil layers is even more unreliable. And people have always liked to stick with that which they are comfortable/familiar with for years after such is considered outmoded or out of fashion. So I have absolutly no problem with the fact that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the wall came tumbling down. You will believe what you will --- it doesn't change the reality in the least.

I notice you didn't address the problem that the source of your supporting evidence, Wood, lied.

Every Christian website is not about Woods or just his finding. Lets face it, I feel Darwin is a liar/cheat/fraud ------ likely you embrace him among others. I do not worship Woods. I worship the God of the Bible and have every faith in His Word even when I do not totally understand every aspect. However, Jericho's walls fell out flat and the city was burned and grain was left behind and not taken... That is what the Bible says and that is exactly what I believe and those are the findings. Twist everything else and you are only fighting about opinion concerning the date...

[_Bret Ripley]

... offer some of your own thoughts on the various evidences?

I see that you are being true to yourself but unfair and unrealistic in your opinions.

That is always a possibility, of course. However, I think you misunderstand my position on a number of matters. Read on.

Secular scientists are in no way perfect or better than anyone else, and as such they do often have an ax to grind.

Of course. That's why it is important for us non-scientists to try to understand the data (as much as it is in our power to do so) and its interpretations. Scholarly consensus is not infallible, of course, but it is a good place to start for non-scientists.

To suggest that secular scientists could never be out to discredit or disprove the Bible, is exactly like saying that Christians and Jews are not trying to prove the Bible.

It is just as well that I make no such suggestion.

I'm sorry to see that you are so intent on lumping everyone who believes that the Bible is the Word of God as less honest than those who think the Bible is simply a fable. You clearly imagine that Christians are out to prove the Bible right no matter what;

That's not correct: I am quite familiar with Christian scholars who are happy to follow the evidence wherever it may lead (one of these Christian scholars happens to be a dear friend of mine). In Wood's case, however, he is director of a Christian ministry whose stated purpose is to "prove the Bible". I think I am probably justified in taking them at their word.

however, where evidence is available, you seem to think it is okay to only accept the word of someone trying to negate what is clearly seen.

Dude, I think you owe me a new Irony Meter. Let us remember that I am the one sympathetic to the consensus view, here, and it is Bryant Wood and his followers who are trying to negate "what is clearly seen" by pretty much every other archaeologist on the planet.

So in reality, it doesn't matter if Noah's ark were to be found or not, there will be those who will try to prove it a hoax in some way, shape or form. The reality is that faith is the work of GOD, as also is the hardening of one's heart... God gives to each what they ultimately desire.

And if one desire's the truth, regardless of whether it flatters their preconceptions?

You wanted my thoughts and now you have them.

For which I thank you very much indeed.

Carbon dating is unreliable at best.

QED? Also, is it worth noting that Dr. Wood was happy to cite the single C-14 result that seemed to support his preferred date?

Dating based on geological soil layers is even more unreliable.

If you are serious about the unreliability of carbon dating and soil layers, please feel free to try to support your bald assertions.

And people have always liked to stick with that which they are comfortable/familiar with for years after such is considered outmoded or out of fashion.

Okay, that's two Irony Meters.

So I have absolutly no problem with the fact that Joshua fought the battle of Jericho and the wall came tumbling down.

If the evidence supported it, I would have no problem with it either.

You will believe what you will --- it doesn't change the reality in the least.

And that's three.

See, I don't care whether the destruction of Jericho dates to 1550 BCE, 1400 BCE, or any other date. I am quite happy to follow the evidence wherever it leads. If the evidence happens to challenge some preconceived notion, the honest response is a willingness to re-examine the preconceived notion. Contrast that with Wood's response, which you have seen is to misrepresent the findings of other archaeologists in an attempt to make the evidence appear to support his preconceived notion. Interesting, no?

[_Bret Ripley]

I notice you didn't address the problem ...

Hey, at least he's finally talking to me!

[_Bret Ripley]

I notice you didn't address the problem that the source of your supporting evidence, Wood, lied.

Every Christian website is not about Woods or just his finding.

All but one of the links you have provided are articles that were either authored by or depend on Dr. Wood. The one link that does not explicitly cite Wood follows him in his assertion that the evidence must be re-interpreted in order to fit their particular ideological approach to Biblical texts. In other words, every link you have provided tacitly admits that the unmanipulated findings of competent archaeologists are stacked against their ideologically-driven preconceptions.

Lets face it, I feel Darwin is a liar/cheat/fraud ------ likely you embrace him among others. I do not worship Woods. I worship the God of the Bible and have every faith in His Word even when I do not totally understand every aspect.

I hope you will forgive me, but I'm not at all certain this is completely true. It appears to me that the object of your faith is not God (per se) but a specifice and fairly modern (late-19th, early 20th century) approach to Biblical exegesis. To illustrate: there are many faithful, God-loving people who do not regard the Bible as some sort of hyper-precise history book. Everyone agrees that the Bible certainly possesses historical value, but this is not its primary purpose or focus. In fact, I would go so far as to say that an expectation that the Biblical authors meet our 21st century standards of recording history is disrespectful to those authors and to the Biblical texts themselves.

However, Jericho's walls fell out flat and the city was burned and grain was left behind and not taken... That is what the Bible says and that is exactly what I believe and those are the findings. Twist everything else and you are only fighting about opinion concerning the date...

The discrepancy regarding the dates is the subject of the links you provided. Would you now prefer that we ignore them? Your links do not treat the dating methods as "opinions", but instead seek to re-interpret (and in some cases lie about) the data to try to make them less inconvenient to their ideology. If you now wish to argue that the dates are just a matter of opinion, you are throwing the sources you have cited under the proverbial bus.

Which isn't a bad day's work, I'll admit.

[_bcuzbcuz]

There is a question as to when the Israelites actually left Egypt and that would effect the time they entered into the land of Promise. So one can only more closely dertermine when Joshua attacked Jericho. There are no years provided in the Historic Biblical account, so I cannot see what you have proven or disproven... People who claim absolutes for their own calculations are usually wrong. Humans are not God --- for all their attempts at perfection...

Now you're finally addressing the actual question. "There is a question as to when the Israelites actually left Egypt". How true. Since no evidence exists to prove that the Israelites actually lived in Egypt, it is equally true that no exit date exists. Furthermore, despite sincere and devoted research has never found any evidence that 600,000+ people wandered about in the Sinai desert it makes it doubly difficult to establish a date when said 600,000+'s offspring would have entered Israel.

Just find one (1) piece of evidence of 600,000+ people wandering about in the Sinai, such as fire places, rubbish, bones, graves, or anything, and I will re-consider. Just one piece of evidence. Get back to me at your leisure.

[_Bret Ripley]

Just find one (1) piece of evidence of 600,000+ people wandering about in the Sinai ...

Do you think it is fair to note that is considerably greater than the current population of the peninsula? Because I am tempted to note that this is considerable greater than the current population of peninsula. But I won't mention it if you think it unfair.

[_Franktalk]

In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the Lord.

Edwin R. Thiel's The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (frequently cited as the definitive work on the chronology of Hebrew kings) places the fourth year of Solomon's reign at 966BCE. 966 + 480 = circa 1446 BCE for the exodus, and 40 years in the wilderness puts the conquest at circa 1406 BCE. Others argue for a later date (~1250BCE), but it doesn't really matter because that date doesn't match the archaeological evidence either.

The problem with scholars is they have an agenda of the world and are not even looking for God's message. The timeline you use is based on worldly assumptions. A more accurate timeline based on scriptural study can be found here.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm

"The date of 1545 BC ± 6 years for Joshua's conquest of Canaan accords with both the Bible and archaeology."

It is a good read by the way. So if you have been misreading scripture and forming your worldview on a misread maybe you should study scripture more and re-evaluate your worldview. It appears to me that the scholars you follow do not know much about scripture.

[_ludwigm]

The problem with scholars is they have an agenda of the world and are not even looking for God's message.

No. YOU have the agenda.

Pierre-Simon Laplace said:
- "[Sire,] je n'A.I. pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse."
(Translation: "[No, Sire,] I had no need of that hypothesis.")
Reputed reply to Emperor Napoleon I, who had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his discourse on secular variations of the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter ("Mais où est Dieu dans tout cela?"/'But where is God in all this?').

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htmIt is a good read by the way.

No. It is stupid reading. By the way.
Fortunately, there are less and less setterfields around.

So if you have been misreading scripture and forming your worldview on a misread maybe you should study scripture more and re-evaluate your worldview. It appears to me that the scholars you follow do not know much about scripture.

When some criticize the Bible for scientific errors ("the hare, because he cheweth the cud", or healing leper with "scarlet and the hyssop... the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water", or stopping the Sun for a day), the Bible defenders - like You - are shouting "No, it is a scripture, it is not biology, not medicine, not astronomy - not science."

In this case, You - and Bible defenders - are right.
The scriptures are not science. They are far from it.

[#img] http://wumocomicstrip.com/img/strip/-WM ... -12-16.gif[#/img]

Then, why should scientists use them? Why should know them much about?
The scientists have their scientific books, written by other scientists - not written by unknown or never existed tribal leaders.

by the way to know much about scriptures there are the well educated catholic priests, the little less educated muslim mullahs, and the totally uneducated Mormon priesthood holders - concerning scripture and/or theology.

Which category is Your lonesome pet Setterfield?