Interesting evidence of an ancient Middle East Meteor Cataclysm...Jericho? Sodom?

[tas8831]

The first thing to be clear about--and may Christians are not--is the purpose of scripture. Scripture is not a text of astronomy or geography or archeology or biography--not even, really, history.

Agreed.

 

[Halbhh]

I meant inaccurate by outside- the Bible examination.

What you'd find, if you have the willpower/patience to investigate, is that the 'inaccurate' part in trying to compare the bible to science is typically a mistaken doctrinal idea about what is imagined to be in the bible. For instance, nowhere does the Bible give any indication at all of the age of the Earth (which would be an odd trivial detail to include since the Bible is only and entirely about our relationship with God). That the scripture says nothing about the age of the Earth won't stop some from pretending it does of course. If you argue against a flat Earther for instance, don't make the error of assuming anything they say about the Bible is correct, but expect it could be often just be erroneous misreading.

 

[Estrid]

What you'd find, if you have the willpower/patience to investigate, is that the 'inaccurate' part in trying to compare the bible to science is typically a mistaken doctrinal idea about what is imagined to be in the bible. For instance, nowhere does the Bible give any indication at all of the age of the Earth (which would be an odd trivial detail to include since the Bible is only and entirely about our relationship with God). That the scripture says nothing about the age of the Earth won't stop some from pretending it does of course. If you argue against a flat Earther for instance, don't make the error of assuming anything they say about the Bible is correct, but expect it could be often just be erroneous misreading.

Everyone seems entitled and certainly inclined to
take on their own, generally inerrani* reading of what
the Bible really says, other ideas being in error.

It strikes me as a bit disingenuous to say the Bible gives
no info on the age of the earth/ stars.
There's plenty of indications.
Nothing older than the span of (modern) human existence on earth

On other inaccuracies-
For a small detail, the amusing contradiction and the
"Explanations" re the bronze "sea" in kings.
The numbers are impossible. Exact measurement is
IMPOSSIBLE. The numbers are gross approximations.
As info from outside the Bible clearly will reveal.
The radio shows the value ofvPi to be 3.0, and if
a person only studied the Bible, then they'd be satisfied
the number is correct. Or that snakebite can be cured
with a special stone, or that Paul's snake mudt quite true,
when it has holes like a calendar.

Outside sources would guide the understanding of Pi, snakebite
and ftm Exodus, for anyone willing to look. And who can
tolerate inaccuracies without shattering faith.

None of that is about Bible v "science".


*God guides their understanding

 

[Halbhh]

Everyone seems entitled and certainly inclined to
take on their own, generally inerrani* reading of what
the Bible really says, other ideas being in error.

It strikes me as a bit disingenuous to say the Bible gives
no info on the age of the earth/ stars.
There's plenty of indications.
Nothing older than the span of (modern) human existence on earth

On other inaccuracies-
For a small detail, the amusing contradiction and the
"Explanations" re the bronze "sea" in kings.
The numbers are impossible. Exact measurement is
IMPOSSIBLE. The numbers are gross approximations.
As info from outside the Bible clearly will reveal.
The radio shows the value ofvPi to be 3.0, and if
a person only studied the Bible, then they'd be satisfied
the number is correct. Or that snakebite can be cured
with a special stone, or that Paul's snake mudt quite true,
when it has holes like a calendar.

Outside sources would guide the understanding of Pi, snakebite
and ftm Exodus, for anyone willing to look. And who can
tolerate inaccuracies without shattering faith.

None of that is about Bible v "science".

Sounds like a pretty strong ideology there. When I read in contrast, I don't assume I know all the meaning, and listen to learn, reading fully from the beginning of a book to the end.

That's how I know there is no passage or verse saying the age of the earth, but such extraneous theories require adding assumptions not anywhere supported in the text and even contrary to the sense of context.

 

[Estrid]

Sounds like a pretty strong ideology there. When I read in contrast, I don't assume I know all the meaning, and listen to learn, reading fully from the beginning of a book to the end.

That's how I know there is no passage or verse saying the age of the earth, but such extraneous theories require adding assumptions not anywhere supported in the text and even contrary to the sense of context.

Ideology. (Strong)
Nothing relating to the age of the earth.
No comment on contrasting Bible with external sources.

As noted we've those who see, or don't see, as they choose.

 

[Halbhh]

Ideology. (Strong)
Nothing relating to the age of the earth.
No comment on contrasting Bible with external sources.

As noted we've those who see, or don't see, as they choose.

The Earth is estimated to be 4.55bn years old and ask if you need to hear how that's been estimated.

That has no bearing on scripture, though it fits it just as well as if the age were 1 million years or 50,000. Any of those would fit the text, which says nothing on trivialities like a precise age of the Earth.

 

[Estrid]

The Earth is estimated to be 4.55bn years old and ask if you need to hear how that's been estimated.

That has no bearing on scripture, though it fits it just as well as if the age were 1 million years or 50,000. Any of those would fit the text, which says nothing on trivialities like a precise age of the Earth.

East is east, West is west

 

[chilehed]

faith, which is to believe without seeing proof or to believe before proof..

That's not what faith is at all, never has been. That's a distortion made up by people like Bertrand Russel. Faith is "an act of the will by which one binds oneself to another who is known".

 

[Estrid]

That's not what faith is at all, never has been. That's a distortion made up by people like Bertrand Russel. Faith is "an act of the will by which one binds oneself to another who is known".

"Made up by"? Like, not legitimate and concocted in bad faith?
There is a,lot to be found under definitions for the word.
How did you determine the "true" one?
My quick search didn't find anything like it.

People make up uses for the word all the time, as in
" it takes more faith ti believe in evolution than in God"

"Faith" is one of the most popular words ever, for equivocation games.

For Christian faith, isn't the best (only) source what the Bible says
about it?

 

[tas8831]

That's not what faith is at all, never has been. That's a distortion made up by people like Bertrand Russel. Faith is "an act of the will by which one binds oneself to another who is known".

Ah, so faith is essentially premised on the fallacy of begging the question.
Great foundation for a belief system!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ah, so faith is essentially premised on the fallacy of begging the question.
Great foundation for a belief system!

Maybe the other that one binds oneself to can be fictional - the imaginary friends of childhood come to mind.

But anyhow, binding oneself to another who is not known would be reckless...

 

[Estrid]

Sodom and Gomorrah

Google Image Result for https://i.pinimg.com/originals/03/1c/3f/031c3f9e90bc40a84369acb4dc90eabf.jpg


Toadstool Park

Google Image Result for https://nebraska.tv/resources/media/864bd504-f9e4-4739-aa54-4f1fd33fcd3f-medium16x9_ScreenShot20201111at6.07.32PM.png?1605139816614

 

[chilehed]

For Christian faith, isn't the best (only) source what the Bible says
about it?

This is a good example of the problems that arise when using a single verse of scripture totally out of context. That definition makes no sense given how the word has always been used. Abraham and Moses knew that God existed, they spoke with him. The same is true for the Apostles: they knew God firsthand and personally as no one has known him before or since. If faith is “believing without proof”, then faith would never have been used to describe their response to God.

For example, the idea of being faithful to one’s spouse - does it mean that we don’t know our own spouse? Or the motto of the US Marines: “Semper Fidelis” (“Always Faithful”); does it mean that a Marine is faithful to something that isn’t proven to exist? Not at all! The assurance my wife has in me, and me in her, is the fact that we have each freely made an act of the will to bind ouselves to each other. She knows me, and I know her, and we can have faith in and be faithful to each other only because we know each other. And every Marine knows well the Corps and Country to which he’s faithful.

The Hebrew word aman is translated as “believe”, “trust”, “have faith”, and also “support”, “nourish”, and “make lasting”. A derivative word is omenat, meaning “pillars” or “supports of the door” as in 2 Kings 18:16. Another cognate is emunah, which is “faithfulness” or “trust”, as in Exodus 17:12where God brought victory to Israel as long as Moses would hold his hands up. Aaron and Hur held up his hands so that they “remained emunah until sundown”. All of these illustrate that faith is an action that we take, which is exactly what the Catholic church teaches. Faith is a work, it's about what you DO and not merely about what you believe.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses this by saying that faith is an act of the will in which one turns toward God and away from sin; in which we decide that we will cooperate, with our intellect and will, with the divine grace that God gives us to enable us to comply with the moral law; it is a free response of the human person to the initiative of God; it is a personal adherence of the whole man to the God who reveals himself. It is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is Truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God." For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God's will. "The righteous shall live by faith." Living faith "works through charity."

We are not able to do this work by our own effort because of the effects of original sin, which weakens our will so that it is not truly free. Each and every time we turn toward God and away from sin it is because God gave us at that moment the grace to be able to do it of our own free will. It is completely and totally due to the grace of God, who enables all of us at some point in our lives to perform the work of freely responding to Him by performing the "obedience of faith". At that moment we truly have the choice that Adam had, to submit to God or submit to ourselves, and we only have that choice because of God’s grace.

These are all actions, things we do in obedience to God. Thus the Apostle Paul says in Romans 1:5 "Through Him we have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith...” This obedience is the essence of Christianity: submission to the Eternal One who was enfleshed, and through that submission being brought into union with Him so that we may participate in His divine life.

Bertrand Russel was a smart guy, but he hadn't the slightest clue of what he was talking about when he was yammering on about faith.

 

[Estrid]

This is a good example of the problems that arise when using a single verse of scripture totally out of context. That definition makes no sense given how the word has always been used. Abraham and Moses knew that God existed, they spoke with him. The same is true for the Apostles: they knew God firsthand and personally as no one has known him before or since. If faith is “believing without proof”, then faith would never have been used to describe their response to God.

For example, the idea of being faithful to one’s spouse - does it mean that we don’t know our own spouse? Or the motto of the US Marines: “Semper Fidelis” (“Always Faithful”); does it mean that a Marine is faithful to something that isn’t proven to exist? Not at all! The assurance my wife has in me, and me in her, is the fact that we have each freely made an act of the will to bind ouselves to each other. She knows me, and I know her, and we can have faith in and be faithful to each other only because we know each other. And every Marine knows well the Corps and Country to which he’s faithful.

The Hebrew word aman is translated as “believe”, “trust”, “have faith”, and also “support”, “nourish”, and “make lasting”. A derivative word is omenat, meaning “pillars” or “supports of the door” as in 2 Kings 18:16. Another cognate is emunah, which is “faithfulness” or “trust”, as in Exodus 17:12where God brought victory to Israel as long as Moses would hold his hands up. Aaron and Hur held up his hands so that they “remained emunah until sundown”. All of these illustrate that faith is an action that we take, which is exactly what the Catholic church teaches. Faith is a work, it's about what you DO and not merely about what you believe.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses this by saying that faith is an act of the will in which one turns toward God and away from sin; in which we decide that we will cooperate, with our intellect and will, with the divine grace that God gives us to enable us to comply with the moral law; it is a free response of the human person to the initiative of God; it is a personal adherence of the whole man to the God who reveals himself. It is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is Truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God." For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God's will. "The righteous shall live by faith." Living faith "works through charity."

We are not able to do this work by our own effort because of the effects of original sin, which weakens our will so that it is not truly free. Each and every time we turn toward God and away from sin it is because God gave us at that moment the grace to be able to do it of our own free will. It is completely and totally due to the grace of God, who enables all of us at some point in our lives to perform the work of freely responding to Him by performing the "obedience of faith". At that moment we truly have the choice that Adam had, to submit to God or submit to ourselves, and we only have that choice because of God’s grace.

These are all actions, things we do in obedience to God. Thus the Apostle Paul says in Romans 1:5 "Through Him we have received the grace of apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith...” This obedience is the essence of Christianity: submission to the Eternal One who was enfleshed, and through that submission being brought into union with Him so that we may participate in His divine life.

Bertrand Russel was a smart guy, but he hadn't the slightest clue of what he was talking about when he was yammering on about faith.

I'm well aware of the very broad meaning given to the word "faith"..
I also familiar with the equivocation that is indulged in.
Too broad an application tend to ruin a word.
(See "awesome" which now means " thank you")

Or see the stupid and tiresome "it takes more faith to
believe in evolution than in God ".

Christians probably need a new word for their faith(s)
for as you noted it has a spectrum of meanings all the
way around to quite opposite things within
the faith.

Faith for the rest of us is .simpler. Faith such as in Mom;
faith in myself, faith that the sun will come up. Belief and
trust based on reason and evidence.

As for Russell, I'd not so lightly dismiss his thinking.

You as a Christian have a pov that rather rigidly defines
what you must think, including thevassumption that such
persons as " Moses" actually existed and if so,
that they had said knowledge.


I live wholly outside that paradigm, as did Russel. Unless you
can see from that perspective, you won't understand what
you so inappropriately overdescribed as
" clueless yammering", and are in no position to say you know better.

 

[essentialsaltes]

When the paper dropped into my inbox on the day of publication, one sentence in the abstract stood out: “Tunguska-scale airbursts can devastate entire cities/regions and thus, pose a severe modern-day hazard.” Because this is my area of expertise and has been the subject of my research for decades, I thought I’d better give the paper a thorough read. I posted comment threads on Twitter as I went, which caught the attention of other scientists and skeptics. Together we quickly made a disturbing discovery: Images from the Tall el-Hammam excavation had been photoshopped and rotated to match the hypothetical compass direction of the supposed blast.

The rabbit hole gets deeper.

 

[chilehed]

the need for faith, which is to believe without seeing proof or to believe before proof....

Why do people keep posting this nonsense? That's not what faith is, and it never has been.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When the paper dropped into my inbox on the day of publication, one sentence in the abstract stood out: “Tunguska-scale airbursts can devastate entire cities/regions and thus, pose a severe modern-day hazard.” Because this is my area of expertise and has been the subject of my research for decades, I thought I’d better give the paper a thorough read. I posted comment threads on Twitter as I went, which caught the attention of other scientists and skeptics. Together we quickly made a disturbing discovery: Images from the Tall el-Hammam excavation had been photoshopped and rotated to match the hypothetical compass direction of the supposed blast.

The rabbit hole gets deeper.

Reading the rest of that Skeptical Inquirer article, the author and co-authors of that paper were involved in a dig in Jordan organised & funded by Trinity Southwest University (TSU) and Veritas International University (VIU).

TSU is an unaccredited evangelical Christian institution whose mission is “to uphold the divine authority of the Bible as God’s only inspired representation of reality to humankind.” and VIU is a Christian institution dedicated to biblical inerrancy. The GoFundMe page asks potential donors to consider giving money to their “Dig Sodom” project to “help us prove the veracity of the Bible.”

'Nuff said...

 

[Estrid]

That's not what faith is at all, never has been. That's a distortion made up by people like Bertrand Russel. Faith is "an act of the will by which one binds oneself to another who is known".

Like my faith in mom. I cant have faith in the unknowable.

 

[Estrid]

Reading the rest of that Skeptical Inquirer article, the author and co-authors of that paper were involved in a dig in Jordan organised & funded by Trinity Southwest University (TSU) and Veritas International University (VIU).

TSU is an unaccredited evangelical Christian institution whose mission is “to uphold the divine authority of the Bible as God’s only inspired representation of reality to humankind.” and VIU is a Christian institution dedicated to biblical inerrancy. The GoFundMe page asks potential donors to consider giving money to their “Dig Sodom” project to “help us prove the veracity of the Bible.”

'Nuff said...

Excepting i will underline that's not science, its not archaeology.

 

[ruthiesea]

There is compelling evidence that a significant meteor strike (about 15 megatons) in the northern Levant absolutely obliterated one major city and leveled the walls of Jericho around 1650 BC. That would be close to the time scripture tells of Jericho's destruction by the Israelites.

https://phys.org/news/2021-09-evidence-cosmic-impact-ancient-city.html

https://phys.org/news/2021-09-evidence-cosmic-impact-ancient-city.html

An earthquake seems much more likely.