subgenius wrote:schreech wrote:"archaeological evidence that god created" rainbows? What??? Can you please point me to this evidence?
archaeology 101....information in written documents from the past are valid forms of evidence. Especially since no conflicting evidence is known to exist that would negate the author's assertion that God created rainbows.
What kind of "empirical evidence" would prove that rainbows existed prior to the creation of the flood myth?
the empirical type..though it would be awesome to see a photograph of one...or a painting.
OK, now you've done it. You've just tipped the scales of reason into the realm of fantasy, citing scripture as written proof: i.e. "written documents from the past are valid forms of evidence".
Yes, they are; but evidence of what?
Have you ever heard of source critique? The Bible is NOT a primary source. It doesn't matter how you twist it or turn it, the Books of Moses were not written by Moses. They weren't even written down until centuries after Moses. "Modern biblical scholars have concluded that the written books were a product of the Babylonian exilic period (c.600 BCE) and that it was completed by the Persian period (c.400 BCE).[4]" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah)
But even if you are willing to buy into the idea that the Torah was and is the revealed scripture given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, it still doesn't qualify as a primary source. It's only what Moses says that he was told....same as "hearsay" in a trial.
It's like finding a perfectly made watch lying in the desert sands. You might presuppose that finding a watch means that someone created the watch....but that doesn't mean you have to believe the first guy who comes along and says, "See that watch? I made it!" "And I can prove it. I've got loads of relatives who will swear on a stack of Bibles that I made it."
The Torah was an oral history for centuries before it was ever written down. There is absolutely ZERO proof of it existing in written form prior to 600 BCE. Even present day Hebrew scholars cannot agree on who the author(s) are for the Torah.
The Bible is a secondary source material, at best. As you so aptly state. "....any proof for any of that would be nice...otherwise it seems to be taken on "faith"."
But I digress. Source critique. What would you say about a book as a source material that has talking donkeys in it?
Numbers 22:22 22 Then God's anger was aroused because he went, and the Angel of the Lord took His stand in the way as an adversary against him. And he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 Now the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand, and the donkey turned aside out of the way and went into the field. So Balaam struck the donkey to turn her back onto the road. 24 Then the Angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on this side and a wall on that side. 25 And when the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord, she pushed herself against the wall and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall; so he struck her again. 26 Then the Angel of the Lord went further, and stood in a narrow place where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. 27 And when the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam's anger was aroused, and he struck the donkey with his staff. 28
Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?" 29 And Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!" 30 So the donkey said to Balaam,
"Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?" And he said, "No." 31 Then the Lord opened Balaam's eyes, and he saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand; and he bowed his head and fell flat on his face. 32 And the Angel of the Lord said to him, "Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to stand against you, because your way is perverse before Me. 33 The donkey saw Me and turned aside from Me these three times. If she had not turned aside from Me, surely I would also have killed you by now, and let her live." 34 And Balaam said to the Angel of the Lord, "I have sinned, for I did not know You stood in the way against me. Now therefore, if it displeases You, I will turn back." 35 Then the Angel of the Lord said to Balaam, "Go with the men, but only the word that I speak to you, that you shall speak." So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.
If you buy that then I want to admit Aesop's Fables as a trustworthy source material. Or how about Baron Münchhausen?
Next you'll be telling me that Fox News is a trustworthy source.
What you should be thinking about is finding an outside source that verifies your Bible story. You can't have the Bible telling the story then using the Bible to verify the story, that's circular reasoning. Play fair.
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC
