Does Archaeology Support the Bible?

[falasha]

Falasha you said, "Now what about that proof that God exists?

Jeremiah 10:12 says that God “founded the world by his wisdom.”
The earth was designed with vegetation that continues to provide nourishment (and pleasure) thru replication so that each produces, as Genesis says, “according to their various kinds” through its own distinctive seed, bulb, or tuber. Every tomato comes preprogramed to produce fruit with seeds that will produce fruit with seeds that will produce tomatoes ad infinitum. If there is a program, there is a programer.

Can you ignore the proof in front of your eyes? Paul told the congregation in Rome, “since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”— Romans 1:20

You might enjoy reading some of the comments of author and creator of the PBS-TV series "The Secret Life of the Brain,"  neurologist and neuropsychiatrist, Dr. Richard Restak. In his book The Brain, he observes: “The brain is the only organ in the known universe that seeks to understand itself.” Then he asks a pertinent question: “How could an organ such as the brain, which contains between ten billion and one hundred billion cells, ever develop from a single cell, the egg?” Is the brain the result of impersonal quirks and flukes of nature? Or is there intelligent design behind it all?
He observes, “The performance of even the most advanced of the neural-network computers has about one ten-thousandth the capacity of a housefly.” Yet the infant  human brain comes preprogrammed to learn languages, repair itself, rewrite programs, and improve its capacity.
The brain’s neurons make connections by means of branching fibers called dendrites. Dr. Restak states: “Estimates of the total length of dendrites within the human brain exceed several hundred thousand miles.” And all that within the compact mass of the brain inside your skull.
He notes, “Some flippantly respond that it is all genetically programmed, forgetting for the moment that a program is a meaningless term without a programmer.” Says Dr. Restak, “The human brain, and the human brain alone, has the capacity to step back, survey its own operation, and thus achieve some degree of transcendence.”
I particularly liked his statement “The performance of even the most advanced of the neural-network computers has about one ten-thousandth the . . . capacity of a housefly.” The brain of a human is far superior to that of a housefly. It comes preprogrammed to learn languages, repairs itself, rewrites programs, and improves its capacity. No doubt you would agree that even a powerful supercomputer with only “one ten-thousandth the . . . capacity of a housefly” has an intelligent designer. What about the human brain?
If humans are merely an accidental grouping of nucleic acid and protein molecules, why would these molecules develop an unlimited capacity to love, appreciate art, beauty, music, truth, come to abhor uncleanness, turn religious, and contemplate eternity?
Consider the vegetation. A plant does everything to satisfy the insects, flying from flower to flower to pollinate them; as they serve the flowers, in return they get their food from them. We call this a synergistic relationship. How did this happen? Did ever the plants hold a conference with the insects and make some agreement and now stick to this agreement, even better than men stick to their agreements, these men who pretend to be so intelligent?
It is only logical that all this is governed by someone with higher intelligence than humans. Let men, who think they are so wise, produce one such plant without a grain of seed and let them prove this way that these plants can come into existence from nothing.
What about the stars and the unexplored universe?  Scientists use the sun, the moon and stars to launch their satellites around the earth because they can count on the orbs being where they should be at all times. Are they as clever as that which they call the laws nature? If there are laws there is a law-giver who had to establish these laws and has to control them, and this law-giver is God!

Yes, it is amazing.

[archaeologist]

If God kept pulling tricks to "punish" us, we would not have confidence in His laws

they aren't tricks but you want to deny God the right to use His power as He sees fit.  miracles do not undermine his design because His design is a product of a miracle and His power.

[falasha]

If God kept pulling tricks to "punish" us, we would not have confidence in His laws

they aren't tricks but you want to deny God the right to use His power as He sees fit.  miracles do not undermine his design because His design is a product of a miracle and His power.

All I am doing is trying to understand the nature of God. I don't believe He turns His laws upside down just to impress those He created. We are already impressed. I believe He wants us to be confident in His laws so that we can build on what we know and know more.

I read something onetime that impressed me but I don't remember where I read it so I can not reproduce it. If you need a citation stop reading now because I don't have one.

An experiment was done on a man wide awake while undergoing brain surgery. An area of the brain was stimulated to see which body part was affected. When a stimulated area of the brain moved an arm, the Doctor asked the man (still awake) "why did you move your arm?" , the man said "I didn't move it, YOU did!"

To me this experiment means that our "selves" do not reside in the brain.

[notalent]

If God kept pulling tricks to "punish" us, we would not have confidence in His laws

they aren't tricks but you want to deny God the right to use His power as He sees fit.  miracles do not undermine his design because His design is a product of a miracle and His power.

All I am doing is trying to understand the nature of God.

And if an AI (artificial intelligence) inside a computer simulation wants to understand the nature of the programmer, will he learn it by improving his understanding of the physics of the simulation?

I don't believe He turns His laws upside down just to impress those He created. We are already impressed.

The Pharisees were of a similar mind.  They weren't impressed by the miracles of Christ at all.  They refused to believe anything based on them.  Neither were the generation of the Exodus who witnessed mind-boggling wonders and the physical manifestation of God's presence in the pillars of fire and smoke.  They completely blew that off.  I'm sure they would have much preferred to know more about physics to put power in their own hands on their own terms instead of having to trust God for power on His terms.

I believe He wants us to be confident in His laws so that we can build on what we know and know more.

Any atheist can develop confidence in the physical laws made by God and build upon their knowledge of them.  Their understanding of God still sums to zero.

I read something onetime that impressed me but I don't remember where I read it so I can not reproduce it. If you need a citation stop reading now because I don't have one.

An experiment was done on a man wide awake while undergoing brain surgery. An area of the brain was stimulated to see which body part was affected. When a stimulated area of the brain moved an arm, the Doctor asked the man (still awake) "why did you move your arm?" , the man said "I didn't move it, YOU did!"

To me this experiment means that our "selves" do not reside in the brain.

[RamboPreacher]

and my point is that if YOU make a statement as an apriori (matter of fact), then YOU need to provide the PROOF of that claim. (or as mentioned, you simply should rephrase your statement.)  Again, as I said several times now, without that PROOF, your statement as posted is false.  you can not prove that lots wife was not made a pillar of salt.

What I found out is that if the water were evaporated in a human cell, the salt crystals would not reconstitute. Salt crystals conduct electricity so disolved salt crystals would release ionic charge and then be considered "electrolytes".  In other words, salt in the body is not in the form of crystals and could not even be called "salt" because the ions have been discharged.
(second posting)

I saw this the first time, but it does not constitute, evidence of, nor absolute proof, that Lots wife did not become a pillar of salt. it only shows a certain scientific process of dehydration, involving electrolytes.

I don't think you actually understand the difference between making an apriori statement and one based in opinion, assumption and personal derivation; so nevermind, I will continue to consider the source and your incorrect statements (as given).  I am at a loss for a better way to explain it to you these many times.  I am sorry I got so far off topic.  please continue.

[falasha]

and my point is that if YOU make a statement as an apriori (matter of fact), then YOU need to provide the PROOF of that claim. (or as mentioned, you simply should rephrase your statement.)  Again, as I said several times now, without that PROOF, your statement as posted is false.  you can not prove that lots wife was not made a pillar of salt.

What I found out is that if the water were evaporated in a human cell, the salt crystals would not reconstitute. Salt crystals conduct electricity so disolved salt crystals would release ionic charge and then be considered "electrolytes".  In other words, salt in the body is not in the form of crystals and could not even be called "salt" because the ions have been discharged.
(second posting)

I saw this the first time, but it does not constitute, evidence of, nor absolute proof, that Lots wife did not become a pillar of salt. it only shows a certain scientific process of dehydration, involving electrolytes.

I don't think you actually understand the difference between making an apriori statement and one based in opinion, assumption and personal derivation; so nevermind, I will continue to consider the source and your incorrect statements (as given).  I am at a loss for a better way to explain it to you these many times.  I am sorry I got so far off topic.  please continue.

I believe proven scientific processes can be classified as evidence in this forum.  Even Rick would have to agree.

[archaeologist]

All I am doing is trying to understand the nature of God. I don't believe He turns His laws upside down just to impress those He created. We are already impressed. I believe He wants us to be confident in His laws so that we can build on what we know and know more.

i think you fail to understand God and how he acts.  no matter what He does He has to use His power and in this instance He used it to warn not to impress.

i think you are trying to have confidence in the wrong things.  it is not His laws we are to have confidence in BUT Him.  i have never found one verse in the Bible directing His followers to have confidence in His laws.  It is always about looking to Jesus or God for help not the instituted laws.

To me this experiment means that our "selves" do not reside in the brain.

i think you are looking at only part of the picture and expect complete autonomy but when you have given control of yourself over to another person (per your example) then you are not in control someone else is thus the doctor could move the arm and not the man.

[falasha]

quote]

i think you are looking at only part of the picture and expect complete autonomy but when you have given control of yourself over to another person (per your example) then you are not in control someone else is thus the doctor could move the arm and not the man.

You are probably right but I thought it was an interesting observation.

[archaeologist]

not saying it wasn't interesting but i think it says something different than what you wanted it to say.

[Elijah]

I would agree with you. The problem lies when every single word is taken literally. Lot's wife was a salt deposit from which legends grew. Some things must be taken with 'a grain of salt'.

But that is to imply that she was not buried in a spout of salt that came down upon her, or thrown up from a crack beneath her feet.
If someone insinuates that a particular formation was her, then of course some day they would find no skeleton inside it because someone presumed what was her. The exposing the specific tradition as being false will only prove that those who later came around and said THIS IS HER were wrong. Just because the Turin Shroud Of Jesus is carbon dated to 1260 BC doesnt mean there was no Jesus who was killed.
The same with her.

Yes words will always be an issue even in real science. Do it 100 times and the next student may read it and wonder what it is you did 100 times, while someone else is bold enough to make the claim they know your whole study (and yet be totally wrong as they read it to you).

I beleive in the actual parting of the Red Sea. But i also see it clearly
reveals the pillar, the funnel cloud parted it. I doubt very much that a pillar of fume from Thera could be seen that far. Mount Saint Helens made Idaho and Montana dark for days, but it was not a plume seen from those states.
But now refer to the Nile being blood... and i recall the moon has been blood too. So then, i would not hold to it being beyond a descriptive metaphor for the color, and stench, and death as it would be if it had been blood. Otherwise i ask all religions, will we indeed have a moon that turns into 1500 mile depth of real blood, and oh will this be human blood or cow's blood.

I do trust science as being FROM God, but i do not mean SCHOOLS of science or their scholars because i see them as churches and priests who can do what is wrong. So what i gather is from facts that all ancient texts insinuate. Example: how does ten men save a city. Well that city had wives and children not to mention all the servants of Lot which was the initial reason for Lot to move there away from Abram. Note that this whole large household of Lot didnt leave the city either, or had they gone back with AmraPal. The point is that 10 beleiving men could evacuate the city without Lot whom they all hated so much. A true warning is a warning, you dont have to ignore the message just because you hate the messenger.

Example 2: Hyksos are they Israel or are they not. Chronological figures and comparisons prove they all left together. So they were Israel in that they accepted and agreed to be citizens with Israel, and under Israel. But their dwelling in Egypt was to their 518th year which means they entered at Peleg's death 87 years before Abram did for 430 years. This theory is then verified fact by all other chronologies who derive different Hyksos number of years from Peleg's death to Abram to Israel. So they argue the rate for 600,000 men in 215 years when in fact the issue doesnt exist due to merged Hyksos married and adopted into each individual tribe.

Example 3: Other science such as water canopy pressure proving it was only a small fractional part of the disaster, results in saving us if we recognize the ocean plates can be pushed up and out 5000 feet again.

[Elijah]

Maybe this is what happened.
The earthquake rumbled and roared
The volcano exploded its guts
Thus the wife of Lot was smothered in a mixture
of brimstone, sand, dirt, lava, salt
because she stopped to tarry
when her sandal fell off.

Well, it COULD have happened...

You are precise Kattey, you are well-knowing of God better than these others. It is exactly what happened until you ignore one verse and say her sandal fell off. It clearly states she was lagging behind, griping, crying, oh were gonna all die. Had nothing to do with my sandel fell off.... could be more like my feet hurt i have to sit and take my sandel off here. The issue is totally correct, it is about obeying to survive. It does not mean she was more evil than her daughters who are so stupid they believe no men are alive and so must have daddy's children. The humble like you inherit the world, they do survive when the time comes.

[Elijah]

God's presence in the pillars of fire and smoke.  They completely blew that off. 

There was only one pillar or funnel cloud. I was seen three ways.

ONE:  In day it was a cloud or smoke, it was dark in the daylight.

TWO:  At night it glowed like fire, it illuminated, from the morning after Passover lamb when it killed all firstborn it then wandered for 40 years in Sinai as they followed it. It would disappear because it was said it would appear and move and they would go move the tabernacle under it again. The light it produced was the shikinah light that came down into the tent because they put this tent under that cloud. Records of doing so are always at Passover and atonement day, opposite seasons of spring equinox and autumn equinox near full moon.

THREE: as it passed thru the Red Sea heading east behind Israelites who ran ahead of this moving cloud it was night for 12 hours as they crossed. The full moon overhead as it rose 6pm to set 6am, and the cloud behind them was all lit up its usual (fire by night), the light from the cloud could have been from the full moon. I personally believe it to be a reaction of stationary orbit from a comet of which Edmond Halley, Isaac Newton, and Whilliam Whiston fancied. Yet apparently it seemed to Israel to be dark or black as they looked back to the west side toward the Egyptians. So in this third description there seems to be reason it is not dispersing light to the west as it had been the previous night as they followed it heading east.

[DThomas]

I do not see a single post under this topic that really has anything to do with archaeology and the Bible. Scary.

DThomas

[Elijah]

I do not see a single post under this topic that really has anything to do with archaeology and the Bible. Scary.

DThomas

I disagree, Wyatt went to the Red Sea claiming he found chariot wheels, what is that if not from the book of Exodus and archeology.... or doesnt archeology bother once the water floods it. I find that we live in a time when they move the temple of Karnak for a dam reservoir to protect it, and then the archeologists want to see if it measures any astronomy from its new location hahahaha

[DThomas]

If you are so easily frightened maybe you should not venture so far from home. The internet is a kind of "free-for-all" and your mother cannot monitor everyone that comes into contact with you.
[/quote]

falasha:
I am not at all frightened. I am turned off by the ridiculous nature of most of the posts. There is no intelligent discussion here. For the most part, it is only a pooling of ignorance. The Biblical Archaeology Society will be embarassed by most of what is happening here, I am sure of that!

DThomas