Page 120 of 152 FirstFirst ... 2070110119120121130 ... LastLast
Results 4,166 to 4,200 of 5317

Thread: Scientific knowledge

  1. #4166
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,197

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by purri View Post
    Why do you folk respond this Aquinian sock puppet? You put yourselves in the same basket of collective stupidities that "both" espouse. Fools all!
    It's the fascination of what comes next.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  2. #4167
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,384

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    What it means is anybody could find their name in the bible using these weird so called codes.
    Gary, you have still missed the point - why?

  3. #4168
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,197

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Gary, you have still missed the point - why?
    What point? You claim stuff is coded into the old testament that only appears later in the new testament. I pointed out that men wrote both and have had 2,000 to fiddle with it. How many versions of the bible are there Frank? How many versions of christianity are there in the World? I believe there are over 1,500 different sects in the US alone.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  4. #4169
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,384

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Gary, you have still missed the point - why?
    having just seen the post above, i am guessing that you are not taking it seriously - ok so why would you expect me to bother with you either....


    However, when i was going back through the pages looking for Nicks links (which i am still studying - but i remember from when i first scanned them that no point that he made actually refuted Humphrey. he made some criticisms, some of which were fair enough - but did not affect* the fact that the satellite data vindicated Humphreys predictions. - )




    *there was one possible exception that i found. there may have been others that i didnt find too - but in any case Thompsom was very far short of "shredding" Humphreys.

    the possible exception involved a 'free parameter' - the constant k. T made out that it could have had any value (and therefore made Humphreys' equation useless - which it would if it could have have had any value at all)

    But Humphreys had already set out that it could only have three specific values only - and , since H. was predicting only a ""ball park" figure , it didnt matter at that stage. AT a later stage as more data came in , it would become clear which of the three values was the right one to use in future.

    Humphries was perfectly entitled to do what he did - that is how science works . You make a rough stab, then refine it in the light of further information.

    i gather T. was so keen to criticize H. that, in his haste he stumbled.

    look i know i have got off track onto another subject - but no matter.

    cheers,

    frank

  5. #4170
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,384

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    However, when i was going back through the pages looking for Nicks links .... i came across some earlier posts of yours which were quite good and deserved a proper response - which i realize you may not have got - causing you to tune out????

  6. #4171
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,384

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    What point? You claim stuff is coded into the old testament that only appears later in the new testament. I pointed out that men wrote both and have had 2,000 to fiddle with it. How many versions of the bible are there Frank? How many versions of christianity are there in the World? I believe there are over 1,500 different sects in the US alone.
    You make a number of points, Gary


    I pointed out that men wrote both and have had 2,000 to fiddle with it


    There are many difficulties wit that scenario

    - the collusion would have to been organised across centuries - and we have texts that were already established before the collusion could have altered them!

    - (I suggest you take a more careful look at what i write - and with a less blinkered outlook - might save us both a lot of trouble)


    How many versions of the bible are there

    - Google < Torah accurate to 9 letters in 304,000 >

    - The N.T. has lots more variations - but none, when it boils down to it that affect significant doctrine.


    How many versions of christianity are there in the World

    - people take the basic text and run in all different directions - but that does not affect the original text (unless, like the JWs they deliberately alter it - and who listens to them?)

  7. #4172
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,384

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    whew! - now ive got Nick off my back i find it easier to cope with (pass over) the rest of the peanut gallery.

    shame about Nick though - as my old Boss often said, "If only he would use his genius for good and not evil"

    nuff!

  8. #4173
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,197

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    You make a number of points, Gary


    I pointed out that men wrote both and have had 2,000 to fiddle with it


    There are many difficulties wit that scenario

    - the collusion would have to been organised across centuries - and we have texts that were already established before the collusion could have altered them!

    - (I suggest you take a more careful look at what i write - and with a less blinkered outlook - might save us both a lot of trouble)


    How many versions of the bible are there

    - Google < Torah accurate to 9 letters in 304,000 >

    - The N.T. has lots more variations - but none, when it boils down to it that affect significant doctrine.


    How many versions of christianity are there in the World

    - people take the basic text and run in all different directions - but that does not affect the original text (unless, like the JWs they deliberately alter it - and who listens to them?)
    No collusion just people either misinterpreting from one language to another or even just altering the text for various reasons.
    Okay I googled Torah accurate to 9 letters in 304,000 and I got this.
    First, the Christian Bible is about 1,700 years younger than the Torah. Second, the Christians haven't gone through nearly as much exile and dislocation as the Jews. Third, Christianity has always had a central authority (the Vatican) to ensure the accuracy of their text.
    What are the results? The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, a book written to prove the validity of the New Testament, says: " A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform."
    Other scholars report there are some 200,000 variants in the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, representing about 400 variant readings which cause doubt about textual meaning; 50 of these are of great significance.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  9. #4174
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,642

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    No collusion just people either misinterpreting from one language to another or even just altering the text for various reasons.
    Okay I googled Torah accurate to 9 letters in 304,000 and I got this.
    First, the Christian Bible is about 1,700 years younger than the Torah. Second, the Christians haven't gone through nearly as much exile and dislocation as the Jews. Third, Christianity has always had a central authority (the Vatican) to ensure the accuracy of their text.
    What are the results? The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, a book written to prove the validity of the New Testament, says: " A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform."
    Other scholars report there are some 200,000 variants in the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, representing about 400 variant readings which cause doubt about textual meaning; 50 of these are of great significance.
    And hen you consider the Old testament. it was not written down until King David's time according to latest research. So until then it was a folk memory handed down from generation to generation. That means that it will have been embroidered for effect, modified to reflect the changes in the ancient Israelites societal standards, boring or hard to remember bits will have been left out.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  10. #4175
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,384

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by amish rob View Post
    Written records from China date back 4000 years.

    Where does that fit into the 4500 year timeline and the Noah story?

    Peace,
    Robert

    Sorry, Robert, almost overlooked this one - but actually i have been giving it a lot of thought - wondering where this might lead???

    I remember your mentioning records or something from the ancient middle east - 7500 , 15000 years ago? - and i responded that i would be surprised if there were not a significant level of uncertainty with the dates.

    As to the 4000 y.o. Chinese records i see no prob - when babel scattered everyone, some quickly re-established elsewhere

    - and i note some provocative things about the early Chinese.

    Their pictograms (?) have some provocative biblical links viz: the Character for "Salvation" was apparently "eight mouths in a boat" (Noah family in Ark...)

    there is a bookfull of more examples of this feature - but your expertise would be better than mine at chasing that stuff down



    then again, their most solemn ceremony , of later years held in Tiananmin square , had provocative elements of the Passover ceremony of ancient Israel, and used to be held (at great inconvenience) at their far western border.

    but im rambling - dont see particular connection to your query

    any way sokit2me

    frank

  11. #4176
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,750

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Careful you are not putting words in my mouth, Keith A better way of putting what i believe would be that "You cannot have two contradictory truths . . .
    I was attempting to represent your beliefs accurately. If I'm not, please correct me.

    But a considerable majority of Christians do not interpret the bible literally - certainly not the passages that describe things in the physical world that are. They do not believe the universe was created in seven 24-hour days, they do not believe the sun literally stopped moving when Jacob wrestled with the angel (and maybe not even that he literally wrestled with a physical supernatural being). You are correct that the earth cannot be both 4.5 billion and 6000 years old - but that does NOT mean that if the bible is true, the earth must be 6000 years old. A literal interpretation is not at all necessary, as millions of Christians show us every day. TomF is a very serious believer , and is Nanoose, and neither of them has trouble with geology or biology. Standard Christian thinking is that the bible was not intended as a geology or biology textbook, and should not be read as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    . . . in Job (arguably the oldest book of the bible) it speaks of the earth as a "ball hanging on nothing"
    Very arguably. Standard biblical scholarship definitely says otherwise, but that's beside the point. Reference, please?
    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 07-09-2018 at 07:29 AM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  12. #4177
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,384

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    No collusion just people either misinterpreting from one language to another or even just altering the text for various reasons.
    Okay I googled Torah accurate to 9 letters in 304,000 and I got this.

    No collusion just people either misinterpreting from one language to another or even just altering the text for various reasons.

    Still Isaiah could not have physically encoded those names in his text - no way! - would have required a supercomputer which still couldnt - the task of inserting stuff as densly as happens in the torah is statistically impossible.

    and then , Why those names?

    and certainly a random process like misinterpreting etc - no way


    Okay I googled Torah accurate to 9 letters in 304,000 and I got this.

    should be able to do better than that - has worked for me a number of times

    i have seen the longer quote a number of times - and read other commentaries on it - on the whole, i think my original statement stands - but the NT is not as constrained as the old - which has always been held to be letter-perfect important - even Jesus said so.
    Last edited by Frank!; 07-09-2018 at 07:29 AM.

  13. #4178
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,384

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    I was attempting to represent your beliefs accurately. If I'm not, please correct me. But a considerable majority of Christians do not interpret the bible literally - certainly not the passages that describe things in the physical world that are. They do not believe the universe was created in seven 24-hour days, they do not believe the sun literally stopped moving when Jacob wrestled with the angel (and maybe not even that he literally wrestled with a physical supernatural being). You are correct that the earth cannot be both 4.5 billion and 6000 years old - but that does NOT mean that if the bible is true, the earth must be 6000 years old. A literal interpretation is not at all necessary, as millions of Christians show us every day. TomF is a very serious believer , and is Nanoose, and neither of them has trouble with geology or biology.

    Very arguably. Standard biblical scholarship definitely says otherwise, but that's beside the point. Reference, please?
    and how are you going with plate tectonics and the physical reality thereoff?

  14. #4179
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    22,459

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by purri View Post
    Why do you folk respond this Aquinian sock puppet? You put yourselves in the same basket of collective stupidities that "both" espouse. Fools all!
    Because he's there, Rick!
    Ignoring his spew of willful ignorance would be dangerous to the children who might take him seriously and disregard real science in favor of wanton mumbo jumbo like he advocates.
    In centuries past, men like Frank became the Inquisitor. We can't have that!

  15. #4180
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,750

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    And how are you going with plate tectonics and the physical reality thereof?
    Which emphatically does not confirm young-earth creationism. God of the gaps again.

    What's the passage in Job you referenced, please?


    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________

    I seriously doubt Frank's a sock puppet, certainly not of Aquinian. Quite different style, quite different theology. Catholics like Aquinian are rarely biblical literalists, and almost never young-earth creationists (in the last couple of hundred years, anyway). Official Roman Catholic teaching is that if observation of the physical world contradicts what the church or the Bible says, the evidence takes precedence. And no fundamentalist Protestant would EVER refer to himself as 'Aquinian'.
    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 07-09-2018 at 09:35 AM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  16. #4181
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Gulf Islands B.C.
    Posts
    130

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    If at first Frank! doesn't succeed in convincingly presenting his delusions, the rational majority are called deniers and he doubles down on the rhetoric.
    I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that people like this exist, but then I log onto you-tube and watch otherwise seemingly rational people argue that the earth is flat. And their reasoning seems very parallel to Frank!. Start with the desired result from a belief system and work backwards, creating more and more convoluted and complex arguments to try to create a system in which the belief is plausible. And of course assume everyone that doesn't see the "logic" is simply brainwashed, and is simply in need of seeing the "facts", at which time they to will see the light.

    Those of a delusional nature seem to tend to have more than one odd belief.

    Tell me Frank!, what do you think about 9/11, the moon landings, ghost visitations and alien abduction?

  17. #4182
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    central cal
    Posts
    14,126

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Sorry, Robert, almost overlooked this one - but actually i have been giving it a lot of thought - wondering where this might lead???

    I remember your mentioning records or something from the ancient middle east - 7500 , 15000 years ago? - and i responded that i would be surprised if there were not a significant level of uncertainty with the dates.

    As to the 4000 y.o. Chinese records i see no prob - when babel scattered everyone, some quickly re-established elsewhere

    - and i note some provocative things about the early Chinese.

    Their pictograms (?) have some provocative biblical links viz: the Character for "Salvation" was apparently "eight mouths in a boat" (Noah family in Ark...)

    there is a bookfull of more examples of this feature - but your expertise would be better than mine at chasing that stuff down



    then again, their most solemn ceremony , of later years held in Tiananmin square , had provocative elements of the Passover ceremony of ancient Israel, and used to be held (at great inconvenience) at their far western border.

    but im rambling - dont see particular connection to your query

    any way sokit2me

    frank

    Okay.

    So why don’t the Chinese people believe they came from a migration afterr he Tower Of Babel? Why don’t the Americans believe they were lost tribes of Israel or scattered Babel denizens?

    Those Australians? They also believe they are relocated from Babel?

    Certainly the Inuit and Pacific Islanders are descendants of Babel Tower dwellers, eh?

    There is no logical way for these disparate peoples to be accounted for in the whole earth flood story. Nor the young earth story.

    Peace,
    Robert

  18. #4183
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Modesto, CA
    Posts
    1,276

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Longino View Post
    Because he's there, Rick!
    Ignoring his spew of willful ignorance would be dangerous to the children who might take him seriously and disregard real science in favor of wanton mumbo jumbo like he advocates.
    In centuries past, men like Frank became the Inquisitor. We can't have that!
    Sadly, the Franks! of this world will always be with us. And they will always be able to cultivate a cluster of weak-minded followers. The best we can hope for is to keep them corralled away where they can do the least amount of harm.

    Frank!, in this instance -- or instantiation -- has shown himself to be impervious to logic as a result of his faulty powers of reasoning. The best we can hope for here is simply to be amused by his obfuscations and delusions.
    "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." William Gibson

  19. #4184
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    9,390

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    seriously, way too much effort

    Nosce te ipsum

  20. #4185
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Seymour, TN
    Posts
    10,146

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    This is like watching the ants trying to escape the bottle chamber of some bromeliads. YOU know its hopeless, THEY are pretty sure its hopeless, but -like a scab- you just can't let it alone.

    I'm just as guilty, but it sure is a lot of fun.

  21. #4186
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wow-Ming
    Posts
    17,483

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip-skiff View Post
    As you seem either to be not in your right mind or absolutely lacking in integrity and judgement, please put me on ignore as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    no need you can do it yourself ....
    Another falsehood.


    Not quite on the geological scale, but significant in a small way.

    That is, you seem to lack a basic, bedrock sense of how stuff works.
    Last edited by Chip-skiff; 07-09-2018 at 01:42 PM.
    We're merely mammals. Let's misbehave! —Cole Porter

  22. #4187
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,750

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    One more time, Frank: a challenge for you. Give us an example of a scientific truth, generally accepted and well-supported by objective evidence, that was correctly described in the Bible before it was discovered in the physical world by scientists.

    A couple of examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about: a passage in Genesis that says 'the sun is a star', or that says 'light is the fastest thing there is'. Something, anything, in the Bible about the physical world that's true, but that was discovered by science only recently. And please give a reference so those who aren't experts can look it up.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  23. #4188
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,642

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    One more time, Frank: a challenge for you. Give us an example of a scientific truth, generally accepted and well-supported by objective evidence, that was correctly described in the Bible before it was discovered in the physical world by scientists.

    A couple of examples of the kind of thing I'm talking about: a passage in Genesis that says 'the sun is a star', or that says 'light is the fastest thing there is'. Something, anything, in the Bible about the physical world that's true, but that was discovered by science only recently. And please give a reference so those who aren't experts can look it up.
    U R being silly. You know that there is nothing there.
    Doesn't appear to slow Frank down though.
    What puzzles me is that Frank posted
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    Well, yes, likely so.....

    I well remember during induction week at uni. - the engineering department set up a ferrous bar about 2 feet long on a block at each end. It was about 4 inches in diameter and all and sundry were invited to bend it with one finger - which all did!
    so must have done science, including physics, and passed exams in science as a teenager. Yet Frank cannot apply basic laws of physics to the problem. Laws like conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, conservation of matter, Newtons laws of motion. All of these are a closed book to Frank, one that he refuses to open.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  24. #4189
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Wales
    Posts
    19,639

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    That quote does not exclude the possibility of a divinity student - or, lord help us a sociologist, encountering the demonstration.
    Creationists aren't mad - they're possessed of demons.

  25. #4190
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Douglasville, Ga
    Posts
    4,898

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip-skiff View Post
    Another falsehood.


    Not quite on the geological scale, but significant in a small way.

    That is, you seem to lack a basic, bedrock sense of how stuff works.
    Thanks for this one. 😊
    Tom

  26. #4191
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,642

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by P.I. Stazzer-Newt View Post
    That quote does not exclude the possibility of a divinity student - or, lord help us a sociologist, encountering the demonstration.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  27. #4192
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,750

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    U R being silly. You know that there is nothing there. Doesn't appear to slow Frank down though.
    Of course there's nothing there; I know that. I'm just trying to force Frank to look it square in the face.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  28. #4193
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,642

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Of course there's nothing there; I know that. I'm just trying to force Frank to look it square in the face.
    You can drive a horse to water, but you cannot make it think.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  29. #4194
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Caribbean cliff edge
    Posts
    18,004

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip-skiff View Post
    Originally Posted by Frank!
    no need you can do it yourself ....
    nother falsehood.

    So you actually tried to do it ????? LMAO
    Enjoy a good rum on the rocks at sunset.

  30. #4195
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,197

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank! View Post
    No collusion just people either misinterpreting from one language to another or even just altering the text for various reasons.

    Still Isaiah could not have physically encoded those names in his text - no way! - would have required a supercomputer which still couldnt - the task of inserting stuff as densly as happens in the torah is statistically impossible.

    and then , Why those names?

    and certainly a random process like misinterpreting etc - no way


    Okay I googled Torah accurate to 9 letters in 304,000 and I got this.

    should be able to do better than that - has worked for me a number of times

    i have seen the longer quote a number of times - and read other commentaries on it - on the whole, i think my original statement stands - but the NT is not as constrained as the old - which has always been held to be letter-perfect important - even Jesus said so.
    The Torah is near letter perfect apparently but the bible is not. Jesus if he said that would have been referring to the Torah, he was Jewish.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  31. #4196
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    26,197

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    So you actually tried to do it ????? LMAO
    He applied scientific process to test the process and it gave a varifyable result.
    The definition of stupid has got to be the belief that more guns will negate the bloodshed done with guns.

  32. #4197
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,642

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    The Torah is near letter perfect apparently but the bible is not. Jesus if he said that would have been referring to the Torah, he was Jewish.
    The earliest date so far that the Torah could have been written has been pushed back to the 10th BCE. King David prior to Solomon.
    The inscription itself, which was written in ink on a 15 cm X 16.5 cm trapezoid pottery shard, was discovered a year and a half ago at excavations that were carried out by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa near the Elah valley. The inscription was dated back to the 10th century BCE, which was the period of King David's reign, but the question of the language used in this inscription remained unanswered, making it impossible to prove whether it was in fact Hebrew or another local language.
    Prof. Galil's deciphering of the ancient writing testifies to its being Hebrew, based on the use of verbs particular to the Hebrew language, and content specific to Hebrew culture and not adopted by any other cultures in the region. "This text is a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans. It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ("did") and avad ("worked"), which were rarely used in other regional languages. Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ("widow") are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages. The content itself was also unfamiliar to all the cultures in the region besides the Hebrew society: The present inscription provides social elements similar to those found in the biblical prophecies and very different from prophecies written by other cultures postulating glorification of the gods and taking care of their physical needs," Prof. Galil explains.


    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-01-ancien...hered.html#jCp
    Before then it was an oral tradition, with all of the possibility for change, mistakes and omissions that allows.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  33. #4198
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    40,642

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Here is a fun idea.
    In a room far far away a man with a computer and a knowledge of simple codes has an idea.
    He thinks " Wouldn't it be fun to find new testament names in the old testament and start a meme going to see how far it runs."
    "How about Isiah, the chapter that the Christians have hijacked, but is really about Israel".
    So he sits down at his computer and runs code after code, until eventually he finds a combination that does find New Testament names.
    He has to discard the codes that generate the names of all of the US presidents, and all of the European countries capitals, and so on because those are just coincidences and of no use to his projected wind up.
    Then he writes a piece and posts it on some whacko Christian fundamentalists site just to see whether the site followers will take the bait.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  34. #4199
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wow-Ming
    Posts
    17,483

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate View Post
    So you actually tried to do it ????? LMAO
    I tend to prefer the empirical approach over the theoretical.

    A few years back, when I was irked at how Scot was allowing outspoken women on the Forum to be harrassed by a gang of bad old boys, I put him on ignore. Which drew a similar response.

    If I did succeed in placing myself on ignore, that would be interesting, in both practical and philosophical terms.
    We're merely mammals. Let's misbehave! —Cole Porter

  35. #4200
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,384

    Default Re: Scientific knowledge

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Which emphatically does not confirm young-earth creationism. God of the gaps again.

    What's the passage in Job you referenced, please?


    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________

    I seriously doubt Frank's a sock puppet, certainly not of Aquinian. Quite different style, quite different theology. Catholics like Aquinian are rarely biblical literalists, and almost never young-earth creationists (in the last couple of hundred years, anyway). Official Roman Catholic teaching is that if observation of the physical world contradicts what the church or the Bible says, the evidence takes precedence. And no fundamentalist Protestant would EVER refer to himself as 'Aquinian'.

    Plate Tectonics / Runaway Subduction

    - what do you think those slabs are - if not crust, hanging down and folded up on the bottom?

    You asked for real, physical evidence in the real world - something that would allow me to accept the millions and billions of y.o. earth.

    - and an important point!! ​ - I am just as interested as you, believe it or not! - maybe more interested - because (as i think you have come to accept, my beliefs stem from science - not the other way round) so that my trust in and respect for the apparent contents of the scriptures would be rocked.

    thin cold rock sitting in hot rock - yet not yet melted?

    not rock(et) (pardon .....) science, hey?

    i think you are avoiding this because you are absolutely not open.


    passage in Job

    well! - you tell us you are married to someone who surely much more able to answer that than i. i just remember reading it or something , a long time ago now. just ask your wife - its in her job to know how to find the answer to these sorts of things, no ?

    best regards,

    frank
    Last edited by Frank!; 07-11-2018 at 07:29 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •