1351. Comment #67984 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 2:03 pm

UPDATE on post 1392
1392. Question: Why has Jesus not come back within the lifetime of those who knew him as promised?

This has been discussed further:

A few "highlights" can be found below:
Mark's first response: 1398,
Further questions from me: 1400 & 1420 & 1428
Response from JC: 1414

The debate is still OPEN.


Other Comments by LeeC

1352. Comment #67985 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Question: Any evidence (from non-Christian sources) for the bible miracle accounts, focusing on the events described at the time of the crucifixion?

This question was raised during a rant that I made here.
In it I question why no evidence has been found outside the bible (or other Christian writings) to confirm the bible miracles, in particular the events around the crucifixion.

JC gave a "possible" reply from a theist point of view, showing a Christian writing that has been used in the past as evidence. here

My main point to this is that it is still Christian literature which is here and here and here
Where I go into further details on the miracle claims, and their more likely natural origin.

No reply as yet for Mark or any other theist.

Other Comments by LeeC

1353. Comment #67987 by BillySands on September 5, 2007 at 2:06 pm

to define and set bounds on the possible behaviour, or design choices, of an all-knowing, all-powerful God! It seems to me that RD is concerned to define God in human-relative terms - God could only have certain possible characteristics

Isn't deciding that something must be designed not projecting your ideas of what design is onto a putative designer. On thing that evolutionists do is argue that life is reducibly complex. On a related not, I would like to ask Mark whether he is of the opinion that life is "designed" to point to evidence of god's existence or is something that is looked upon in faith.

You also have to do some proper archaeology, not rely on photos, but we also have different views on the word rebuilt.

To physically take away the remains and (to use your word) "dump" them in the sea would be stupid, pointless and a great waste of time and material. Who would do such a thing "normally"?

Tthat's not really evidence, and the Roman's did that to Carthage, so as improbable as you claim, it certainly is not without precedence.

Cant remember if we have been over this before, but the dumping in the sea happens before the destruction of the mainland. Also, what other city could be meant when it is said that it will become a bare rock - sounds like an island to me, and of course, Nebuchadnezzar never got his promised plunder.
You still haven't shown that these things were written about before the event.

Other Comments by BillySands

1354. Comment #67988 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Hi Mark,

By the way, Lee, this is nothing like the "face on Mars" business. We are talking about a real, accessible place

I will trust you then... it just sounded "odd" that the "something" that you saw was in an old picture, but not the new.

Remember, I do not know what this something is yet.

I have to go to work now... back later.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1355. Comment #67989 by BillySands on September 5, 2007 at 2:09 pm

OOPs, didn't realise there was an extra page and I have repeated some of SWRB's post - Thats 2-1 Mark - we win by weight of numbers :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

1356. Comment #67990 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Hi Billy,

I'm going to be late... again

You still haven't shown that these things were written about before the event.

This is the most important thing that needs to be proven; when was the document written and last modified (We have all repeated this many times now)

Without it, the story could be just poor history writing.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1357. Comment #67991 by LeeC on September 5, 2007 at 2:13 pm

3-1

Other Comments by LeeC

1358. Comment #67992 by Quine on September 5, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Here is part of the debunking from the page I listed:

Some bibliolaters have tried to mitigate the failure of Ezekiel's Tyre prophecy by extending its scope beyond Nebuchadnezzar to Alexander the Great, who did succeed in capturing the island part of Tyre in 332 B.C. But this ploy won't work. Ezekiel clearly identified Nebuchadnezzar as the avenging instrument that Yahweh would use to bring about a total, everlasting destruction of Tyre. If Alexander the Great was to be a part of the scenario, why didn't Ezekiel name him too? After all, Ezekiel was a prophet, and prophets can see into the future, can't they? Inerrantists delight in pointing to 1 Kings 13:2 where a prophet allegedly mentioned Josiah by name almost 300 years before he was born and to Isaiah's alleged references to Cyrus by name over 100 years before he was born, so if Ezekiel had meant for his Tyre prophecy to include Alexander the Great as Yahweh's instrument of destruction, why didn't he refer to him by name? If other "prophets of God" could pull off amazing feats like these, why couldn't Ezekiel? Why would the predictive talents of one inspired prophet of God have been so consummately inferior to others'?

Even if bibliolaters could somehow prove that Ezekiel had intended Alexander the Great to be a part of the prophecy against Tyre, they would still have to explain why the complete and everlasting destruction of the city did not happen as predicted. Most assuredly, nothing comparable to the scope of destruction predicted occurred at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, and although Alexander the Great did succeed in capturing the island part of the city, Tyre by no means ceased to exist after this conquest. In The History of Tyre, Wallace B. Fleming said this of the city's defeat by Alexander:

Alexander then left the city which was half burnt, ruined, and almost depopulated. The blackened forms of two thousand crucified soldiers bore ghastly witness to the completeness of the conquest. The siege had lasted from the middle of January till the middle of July, 332 B.C. The city did not lie in ruins long. Colonists were imported and citizens who had escaped returned. The energy of these with the advantage of the site, in a few years raised the city to wealth and leadership again (Columbia University Press: New York, 1915, p. 64, emphasis added).

So Ezekiel predicted that Tyre would "be no more forever," but, to the embarrassment of Bible inerrantists, it just didn't happen that way. Tyre existed after Ezekiel in the days of Jesus, who "withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon" at one time during his personal ministry (Matt. 15:21), and it existed in the time of the Apostle Paul, who, returning from one of his missionary journeys, stopped there, found disciples, and tarried with them seven days (Acts 21:3). In fact, Tyre still exists today, as anyone able to read a map can verify. This obvious failure of a highly touted Old Testament prophet is just one more nail in the coffin of the Bible inerrancy doctrine.

Other Comments by Quine

1359. Comment #67993 by Quetzalcoatl on September 5, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Billy-

as your God I must chide you for ganging up on Mark. Let your arguments do the convincing, not sheer weight of numbers!

Mark-

I agree with Lee on the "non-christian sources for Biblical miracles" point. I appreciate that we're throwing a lot of questions at you though, and you probably haven't got round to it yet!

Don't forget what I mentioned in Comment 1500 about the Private Messaging. Sounds like Lee is interested in seeing it as well.

Bye for now.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1360. Comment #67996 by BillySands on September 5, 2007 at 2:21 pm

More things to deal with in your posts Mark, but its been a long day, and I'm I'm lucky, JC is already writing them. Time for bed.

Other Comments by BillySands

1361. Comment #67997 by BillySands on September 5, 2007 at 2:26 pm

You are of course right quetz. I have been very busy today and have not had enough Divine tea. I will try and get Mark a companion on this thread -Quetz willing of course.
It is good that you give your followers direct and unequivocal moral tutilage

Other Comments by BillySands

1362. Comment #67998 by Quetzalcoatl on September 5, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Hope I didn't come across as a nagging God!

Really will go now, my mortal avatar is shattered from an evening of Taekwon-Do.

Until tomorrow.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1363. Comment #68000 by Goldy on September 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Yes indeed, that is a thought that initially bothered me - but the resolution is straightforward. I have not found old Tyre the city (the "you" in "you will never be found again"): instead I have found only the site where it once stood, which is a different thing

Heheheheheheheheh! Ah, Mark, you wily old thing! I have tears in my eyes now! And my gut hurts - best wake up laugh in ages! I thank you from the bottom of my heart!
Of course, I guess even if Tyre was not destroyed (probably several times in several ages, a lot of them by developers) the prophecy could be said to be fulfilled. After all, would Shakespeare know London now? Hell, my wife doesn't recognise Shanghai after a few years away. Indeed, Shanghai is not there anymore, only the site remains. Just happens to have a bunch of new building on it!
Still, I like what you do - keep it up.
Thanks for that piece there, Quine. Always good to have the other (dare I say less excitable) side of the story :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

1364. Comment #68003 by steve99 on September 5, 2007 at 2:41 pm

There is also something called "Primordial" blackholes (Theoretical objects that might have been created at the start of the universe (doubt it though- no evidence). These objects though could be more of God's deadly little "toys". If they came close to the Earth they would rip us apart, if nearby, they would still be a huge risk, they could explode at any moment, they are a ticking timebomb… and if they were created with the right mass – it could be right now they are set to go BOOM!.

No need to worry at all. There is a limit to the size of the primordial black holes that were created during the Big Bang, and that is about the mass of a large mountain. These would not be any kind of risk at all.

Other Comments by steve99

1365. Comment #68005 by steve99 on September 5, 2007 at 2:52 pm

I am always staggered when I see this quote appear in the side-bar, as it just did. I would love Richard Dawkins to tell us how he can happily assert this, without effectively claiming God-level (i.e. infinite) knowledge and status for himself!

This is a silly (but common) criticism of Dawkins and others. 'God' is a word used by humans to describe a supernatural entity that is supposed to actually exist by many - people presumably say that because they believe that have evidence of it: either their own thoughts, or what they observe of the universe. You don't need God-level knowledge to discuss what humans mean by 'God' - you only need a certain understanding of humans.

Just to give an example of what this means, humans use the word 'infinite' to describe God. However, the vast majority haven't a clue what 'infinite' really means - they are simply using their own labels for God. Therefore, we don't have to have a deep understanding of infinity to discuss God - all we have to know is that humans have a need to believe God is Very Very Big.

There may well be some vast hidden intelligence somewhere, but that is not what we mean by God: if it were hidden, we could have know knowledge or experience of it, so it could not be the source of our definition of 'God'.

Other Comments by steve99

1366. Comment #68008 by Quine on September 5, 2007 at 3:08 pm

It may be just a coincidence, but about a month ago a couple of J.W. missionaries knocked on my door and proceeded to try to use this old flat Tyre prophecy on me. I think it is one of these things that keep coming up in waves as new people grow up not knowing it is bogus.

Other Comments by Quine

1367. Comment #68015 by Mark Taunton on September 5, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Folks, I am overwhelmed. Lee alone seems to generate about 5 posts for every one of mine. I have a little time, but not nearly enough to reply to al the points people have been raising of late. Sorry - but that's just the way it is! Let me however briefly take up a couple of things for now:

SRWB:

The laying, putting, placing, dumping, etc. is semantics, nothing more.

But semantics is exactly the core of the issue here! What did Ezekiel mean by the words he used? If you think "semantics" are unimportant, that suggests you aren't actually concerned about what his words mean, and whether or not this is an inspired prophecy, as I claim it is (but you deny). I can't see where you can go from here, or how you could disprove my argument, if that's really what you think!

I asserted, and presented evidence from Biblical usage to support, specific senses ("semantics"!) for two of the phrases - "midst of the waters" and "midst of the sea" - that are important to an understanding of the text here. I did that because otherwise anyone considering the words can simply read into them whatever idea he or she chooses, without justification, whereas the Bible itself provides the relevant framework to develop an understanding of Ezekiel's intended meaning. I could do exactly the same for the word translated "lay" in 26:12, and show that the consistent sense of the Hebrew word throughout the OT is indeed one of intentional placement, not mere discarding or random throwing ("dumping"). However, it would be a much longer job (the word is very frequent, by contrast with the rarity of the two particular phrases I discussed), and I don't propose to do it now.

Billy:

You also have to do some proper archaeology, not rely on photos

This may surprise you, but I agree entirely. Aerial archaeology is a very useful tool, used with increasing frequency, but it can never replace actual excavations. So to substantiate my proposal would indeed require people om the ground working. However, there are some real practical difficulties with that in this particular case, not least of which is that the site I propose as being where old Tyre stood is part of a legally protected nature reserve. Human activities there are restricted under Lebanese law, and I am doubtful that digging up the whole area would be classed as compatible with conservation! (Of course, if my identification of the site is correct, the same law very nicely ensures that Ezekiel's words continue to hold true, and the city cannot be rebuilt!) An additional concern, of course, particularly for any possible foreign involvement in such a project, is the current very tense political situation in the region: it is only a few miles from the Israeli border, and I suspect a place where Hezbollah and other activists are, well, active. Hardly somewhere for the Time Team to go to work, I fear.

we also have different views on the word rebuilt

I would like to know what you mean...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1368. Comment #68027 by SRWB on September 5, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Mark,

OK, my comment about "semantics" may have been a tad harsh and not entirely accurate. As you say this IS about use of language. Nevertheless, I contend that this debate really revolves around the likelihood of Ezekiel's prophecy being true or not. The evidence that has been presented by those counter to your viewpoint has been overwhelming, in my opinion. That is why, for me, it's not about whether anything was "laid" in the "midst of the waters" and other technicalities of ancient languages; it's about hard and convincing historical evidence for the events that supposedly took place. Any "inspired prophecy" worth a shekel should have been able to come up with a name or dates, and not simply relied upon riddles and commonly issued threats.
For example, if verse 26:12 was in reversed order, i.e, if the stones, timber and dust were laid in the water BEFORE all the riches were spoiled, merchandise was preyed upon, and walls broken down and pleasant houses destroyed, I would be more open to your interpretation.

Other Comments by SRWB

1369. Comment #68069 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 2:14 am

Hi Mark,
Suprisingly, I didn't think you would disagree with me on excavation.

we also have different views on the word rebuilt
I would like to know what you mean...

It seem that you interpret rebuilt to mean built exactly the same way as it was before. This seems unreasonably constraining. No one would quibble over whether Clydebank, Coventry or London were rebuilt after the blitz. They stand today and are inhabited. As does Tyre.

Other Comments by BillySands

1370. Comment #68073 by LeeC on September 6, 2007 at 3:16 am

OK - one very long post so not to add to the post-count (just the word count)

Hi steve99,

I wrote:

"Primordial" blackholes (Theoretical objects that might have been created at the start of the universe (doubt it though- no evidence).

Your reply:

No need to worry at all. There is a limit to the size of the primordial black holes that were created during the Big Bang, and that is about the mass of a large mountain. These would not be any kind of risk at all.

Thanks... I don't believe in them myself (didn't know enough physics at the quantum level to prove it like as you say)

I sometimes like to throw "Sci-Fi" science around just for fun - they could make good stories, I guess I watched too much Star Trek as a child.
(Science Fiction Science – does that make any sense? Oh well…)

Please forgive me but I did include "Theoretical", "might", "doubt it" and "no evidence" in the same sentence - this was meant as a hint to the reader my true feelings on the subject, but if any children read my post and had nightmares, then I am sorry.
(It is also good to know that we have people like you out there correcting mistakes and other "misinformation" by fools like me – keeps the mavericks under control.
"May Quetzalcoatl bless your cup of tea!".)

On the maximum mass point in your reply - from what little (I think) I know about primordial blackholes, doesn't this "prove" they do not exist today - since they should have evaporated away by now due to Hawking radiation? The "large" mass I quote was a value I understood was the mass required to last 13.7 billion years? If the mass limit is less, then they have gone "boom" already? (If the theories are correct – which is unlikely at this stage?)

I like physics... and it is good to bounce ideas of others. It is the only way I'll learn.

Hi Quetzalcoatl,

as your God I must chide you for ganging up on Mark. Let your arguments do the convincing, not sheer weight of numbers!

Sorry Quetz… I joined in as well. The "flock" mentality and all that.

Just because all the facts, evidence, logic and common sense are on our side is no reason just to "shoot the score" at Mark as well. This act was wrong – and it shows how wise you truly are.

It is not about "bean counting"… evidence – this is all that matters really.

All praise Quetzalcoatl

Don't forget what I mentioned in Comment 1500 about the Private Messaging. Sounds like Lee is interested in seeing it as well.

You're right… I'm always interested in evidence – I'm rather focused on it.
Sign me up!!!

Hi Quine,
Post 1519

It may be just a coincidence, but about a month ago a couple of J.W. missionaries knocked on my door and proceeded to try to use this old flat Tyre prophecy on me

Coincidence?

It is God's will and message - nothing happens by chance in God's world! It ALL has a purpose and reason… this act via God stoped you watching evil TV for a start because you had to answer the door to the JW and listen to their – erm "story".

I do miss the JW – they have not knocked on my door for years.

A chap stands at the train station giving out their magazines every other week or so. I take a copy in "kind" (no one else getting off the train takes one, only me?) – At least I will read it and it stops a more "impressionable" person getting their hands on this "stuff". On the back page it says something like:-
"If you would like the JW to come visit your house for a bible study, please call this number… 1800 STRAIGHT TO HEAVEN"

I have a little devil in my head who wants to ring… but that would be cruel and immoral – wouldn't it? I have resisted the temptation up to now.

Hi Mark,
Just finishing up on the Google photo evidence (the link didn't work from work)

I found a very clear and detailed piece of visual evidence - visible in the older view but not the current on

I was in a rush this morning; I meant to ask – Why do you think it visible in the original and not the second. Rather important that.
(A bad photograph or just different conditions when the photo was taken?)

Not saying it is impossible but with the little details I have, I must be doubtful at first. We can see many things in photographs if we look hard enough.

Back on the prophecy track though…

You asked me once to read Ezekiel - I read it and give a rather long response as you know (in my own words because you did not want me to copy or be influenced by anyone else). Anything else I write will be repeating what I have already written (although I really, really want to join in again…)

I know you have been busy (and I write 27.3 posts for your one at the moment - sorry) but it looks like the questions against the passage are being repeated – so maybe now would be a good time to address my points (and others) and we can finally (?) move on from the Ezekiel prophecy.
(I fancy looking at the evidence for the miracles described in the bible – not that God cannot do them, I know you believe that he can, but if some of the events did happen as described, why do we not see any non-Christian evidence for them?
I thank Quetz for seconding the motion – but it is of course up to you Mark – I have seen no evidence but want to be amazed – I probably just have not been looking hard enough?)

Anyway, the links to the Ezekiel debate can be found following the summary link at the top of this page under:
Why are there so many questions and interpretations on the bible prophecies?

I am overwhelmed. Lee alone seems to generate about 5 posts for every one of mine. I have a little time, but not nearly enough to reply to all the points people have been raising of late. Sorry - but that's just the way it is!

Sorry… I feel shamed. I grouped my comments into one long post now so it might not look so bad? (It is still sad I know – the shame)

The rate of posting will not last though (so enjoy (or suffer it) while you can kids) I'm having quiet moment at work as the project comes to an end… so I have time to write much of my words during the day (I just post them at night).

When I moved onto a new project – I will not have the same amount of time for writing. (Hooray I hear you all cry!!!)

I do not expect you to answer all my posts, there is a part of me that hopes that my questions are so clever that they are "impossible" to answer – but I doubt I have written anything new on any topic so far. (Maybe this is why I write so much – some of it must be good right, by chance alone?)

You replied to SRWB with:

I can't see where you can go from here, or how you could disprove my argument

Taken out of context I know Mark (sorry) but it is worth commenting on this type of thinking – it is not for anyone here to "disprove" the bible… a theist needs to prove the bible to the rest of us (which I know is your aim Mark and I thank you for that).

For example: If I say "I can fly by just by moving my arms up and down really fast" – Well, you cannot disprove this statement but you would be right to dismiss it until I can prove it to you.

You could throw me off a high building and watch me move my arms around like an idiot before I fall horribly to my painful death (or into a swimming pool so I just get wet - I hope) but this still would not "disprove" my statement. I never said "when" I could fly or if I have to take a "run up" first for the magic of flight to work… I can just "move the goalposts" every time.

You will NEVER disprove me – I'm a moving target.

However, you could look at the claim from a different angle, look at the other 6 billion humans on this planet who cannot fly by moving their arms up and down – has anyone you trust seen such an event? – or you could do some Physics research and state my mass is too great and so the amount of downward thrust I could make with my arms would NEVER be enough to lift me off the ground (and that each downward thrust would be cancelled out by the upward)

This all would make me look like a liar (or just deluded)… certainly very likely to be wrong. You cannot "disproved" my claim with this line of thinking, but would have rightly classified it as unlikely, and without evidence – reject my claim.

So unless I can present you with evidence proving that I can fly (or that flight is likely or even possibly by humans with just their arms moving up and down) then you should dismiss such crazy claims. "False until proven otherwise" (As I am sure you do). You are "atheist" to my claims of human flight.

I used the same method of questioning and reason when I read the "amazing" stories in the bible.

Why would this be wrong?

It has been said (by others, if not you) that "if I believe in God, then I will believe in the bible" – but then it is also been said that "the bible is the evidence for God"… this logic just does not work.

Hence I am looking outside the bible – outside Christianity for evidence for the stories within the bible, it is the only "safe" way, anything else is "out to prove itself"

I have presented this thread with several (I others could make it many if you like) events/"miracles" described in the bible which should have evidence from non-Christian sources to backup the claims (either written or physical)
(I know, I know – I write too much so you probably missed them)

The absence of any such evidence for these miracles for me (and others) is the "evidence of absence"… they just did not happen as described.

It is not that atheists "won't" believe – some of us "want" to believe (or have in the past) – however I think all the atheists here "don't" believe because they have not been present with the evidence.

I have written enough – there is a danger with the volume I write so much gets lost.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1371. Comment #68074 by LeeC on September 6, 2007 at 3:36 am

Hi Billy,

No one would quibble over whether Clydebank, Coventry or London were rebuilt after the blitz. They stand today and are inhabited. As does Tyre

Its all about interpretation… you know that. If only the prophecy was a little clearer on the matter so not as much of this interpretation would be required. When I read the chapter I could think of many ways it could be read – this is just one area where the "true" meaning is being ignored.

Let's taken another quick look… (I have already done this once in detail, but hey, if I do it again now, we can see if I match my first comments against it. Maybe I'm interpreting it differently…)

"This is what the Sovereign LORD says: When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you, then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place in the land of the living. I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD."
Ezekiel 26:19-21

Shall we bullet point some bits and see how it matches reality?

make you a desolate city… no longer inhabited
So no one should be living in Tyre any more – this is very clear. It says Tyre just before this verse – not the piece of land currently known as Tyre, or the town that looks like Tyre… Nope, it is talking about Tyre.

Anything else requires interpretation – therefore not clear – therefore someone has to bend reality to fit the document – much easier to say it is just wrong.
bring the ocean depths over you…vast waters cover you
A flooded city? – Vast waters!!! Very clear – any evidence for this, or his this part of the prophecy just been ignored? It also seems to mean Tyre should still be under water, any evidence?
bring you down with those who go down to the pit
Now this is just plain weird, and seems to go against the earlier statement of flooding – maybe this area is known to flood and to have earthquakes, so the writer is just saying both, in the hope one turns out true? Edging his bets so to speak.
make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit
Wow… the city actually goes under ground… below the Earth… cool. Very clear – any evidence – or just another interpretation?
you will not return or take your place in the land of the living
So sounds like the city will never been seen by any living soul after this battle of battles… excellent… shame it does not match history.
bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more
Well, any end would be horrible – so this is just words, like most of the prophecy. It could be talking about almost any battle if you ask me.
You will be sought, but you will never again be found
Now this is the important bit on our current debate. "never again be found". However Mark found it… Excellent.

Oh no I'm quoting from the book again… stop Lee, stop…

Other Comments by LeeC

1372. Comment #68075 by LeeC on September 6, 2007 at 3:38 am

The Lord and Saviour Quetzalcoatl spoke in Chapter: 1496 Verse: 67888

some commandments (in no particular order)-

- Look both ways before you cross the street.
- Although I watch over you, be sure to watch out for yourself.
- He that says he knows enough knows too little by far. Always keep learning.
- Remember the importance of letting tea brew.

Of course I cannot hope to match your wisdom, so I merely will speak "ideas" of my own in the hope they meet your approval.

- Always heat the pot before brewing your tea
- Where there is evidence, believe – where there is none, doubt.
- If something is too good to be true, then it is probably just not true
- Biscuits are nice, but chocolate-coated biscuits should not be dipped into your tea.
- Question everything, but don't question this.
- Beware of false prophets, and the ones that are not very good and have long white beards, actually just don't trust them unless they have a proven track record, and even then do put your house on it.

All Praise Quetzalcoatl

Lee

Most go… I think that is my 5 posts for 1 of Marks…. Oops.

Other Comments by LeeC

1373. Comment #68083 by Philip1978 on September 6, 2007 at 4:50 am

My goodness Lee that was rather formidable! Well done!

Mark, I think you rather have enough on your plate here so I will type what I have found out but, really, reply when you can because this is simply a question I brought up to ask if you had any information or ideas about the existence of Nazareth which you have very kindly given! I love doing the research and will pass on what I find out unless I am boring the crap out of you all!

Ok, here goes!

In 1962 a Jewish Archaeologist Michael Avi-Yonah discovered 3 broken pieces of marble tablet dating to about the 3rd or 4th century listing 24 priestly courses. The 24 priestly courses were 24 groups of Jewish priests who took turns in the service of the Jerusalem temple as prescribed by bible numbers 24:1-19. After the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Wromans in AD 70 and/or after the Wromans repressed the Bar Kochba Jewish revolt in AD 135 those 24 priestly courses would have left Jerusalem & scattered around with one of them possibly ending up in Nazareth.The reference on this tablet reads as follows from the Hebrew translation as copied by Avi-Yonah

'The eighteenth priestly course [called] Hapizzez, [resettled at] Nasareth.'


Right, here goes, I have read a bit about this and I agree with what various people have said about this

Frank R Zindler writes(http://www.atheists.org/christianity/jesuslife.html)

"It is doubtful, however, that the inscription really mentions Nazareth. The several related fragments of the inscription were interpreted by means of Hebrew liturgical poems dating from the sixth to seventh centuries - when present-day Nazareth was already a thriving tourist site and the name was well-known. The letters n-ts-r-t are bounded by broken edges of the stone (in fact, the n is only partially present), and it is not certain what letter may have preceded the n. In my opinion, the damaged n probably was preceded by a g (a narrow letter in Hebrew, easily fitting into the space hypothesized by the discoverers of the inscription) and read Gennesaret, not Nazareth. Gennesaret was founded in Hellenistic times and was well known."

I looked elsewhere
http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2005/12/12674.php
and again, this problem is this tablet is so fragmentary it is very difficult to ascertain the actual translation of where the Hapizzez went and also when, are we talking about AD70 or Ad135? Plus this is not proof of Nazareth ever existed during Jesus's time of roughly 4BC/6AD to 32AD because the people who made this tablet wrote it a minimum of 150 years after this event, exactly how would they know? Where did they get their information from considering the Wroman obliteration of of the Jews in AD67 and AD135?

Most archaeological studies of the site of Nazareth have found evidence of a grave yard and possibly a small farm but nothing to indicate the "city" mentioned in the Bible. I will continue to poke around but this tablet, like all other references to Nazareth brings up more questions and doubt in my mind that Nazareth ever existed in the 1st century during the period of about 6AD to 32AD.

I hope that was interesting, if I am being boring, tell me and I will mention this no further!

Cheers,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1374. Comment #68089 by newatheist on September 6, 2007 at 5:24 am

Sorry all... can't help myself...1486. Comment #67841 by Mark Taunton

Biblically defined, (the purpose of God) is to fill this earth
with his glory, through the future establishment of his kingdom upon it,
ruled by Jesus Christ and his faithful disciples from all ages, who will be
resurrected and made immortal at his return. (References available on request.)

Wow. You really believe this stuff.
Wow. Just... wow.

That's why it's here.
The whole universe, with stars that number more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches and deserts on this
planet: This planet, unimaginably tiny, insignifcant and fragile, one of billions upon billions of planets, orbiting
a nondescript star in the spiral arm of one of billions upon billions of galaxies.

You really believe this. You really do. Knowing, I assume, the basic facts about the vastness of the universe.
I mean, the creator of the universe, created this universe, so he could have this planet to etablish his kingdom on.
This tiny, tiny, speck of debris is what the big guy wanted to make, and the rest is a side effect. "Ah, now,"
he says, "That's where I wants me home..."

"To fill this earth with his glory." This earth. This pissy planet in the whole universe, in all of creation.

You...... really...... wow.

It's absolutely no wonder you can argue black and blue about Bible prophecy. Seriously. That's an absolute walk in the
park when you can accept the above.

Other Comments by newatheist

1375. Comment #68091 by Philip1978 on September 6, 2007 at 5:38 am

Newatheist, come on, this is not a pissy planet! This planet is so amazingly mind bogglinly fortunate to actually have life and Tea existing on it how can you call it pissy? The Mighty Lord Quetz did not create this planet with his subcontractors weeing everywhere, he did create it partially so you could drink Tea on it for one thing! How can it be pissy with the Tea of Quetz existing on it?

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1376. Comment #68092 by LeeC on September 6, 2007 at 5:39 am

Hi Philip,

My goodness Lee that was rather formidable!

Sorry… as I mention, it has been quiet at work. So I had all day of nothing much to do. (Hope my boss doesn't read this? Eek)

Hope I'm not p*ssing anyone off with my rants.

I hope that was interesting, if I am being boring, tell me and I will mention this no further!

I'm really impressed… its great work. I like it. I cannot get my mind around such research, so I'm glad people like you, Mark and JC can.

I can just then read the summary… (lazy I know) but it is interesting.

Thanks

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1377. Comment #68093 by epeeist on September 6, 2007 at 5:42 am

Really for Billy Sands, though it is sort of in line with this thread.

Apparently Ken Ham will be at Dowanvale Church in Dowanhill Street in Glasgow on the 6th of September at 7:30.

This is a Free church - I wonder if the wee flea will be there?

Other Comments by epeeist

1378. Comment #68096 by LeeC on September 6, 2007 at 5:48 am

Its 22:45 here on the 6th Sept.

Damn I've missed it

Other Comments by LeeC

1379. Comment #68100 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 6:04 am

Thanks Epeeist,
I've got something else planned for tonight, but might see if I can rearrange it. I heard he was comming and was wanting someone to debate. Iconsidered volunteering untill I remembered how dishonest creationists tend to be. I also thought that I shouldn't give them credibility, and creationists in Scotland are not too much of a problem.
Wouldn't want my words being twisted and taken out of context on the internet now.

Other Comments by BillySands

1380. Comment #68101 by Quetzalcoatl on September 6, 2007 at 6:06 am

Damn. I'm playing football tonight.

Will have to peruse the Internet to see if any of Hammy's words of wisdom from tonight make it on there.

Philip- damn straight.

Lee- I like the second one. That may make it into the permanent collection.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1381. Comment #68103 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 6:16 am

Found the tour dates for Ham

http://www.c-r-t.co.uk/events.htm

He may be near some of you guys at some point too

Other Comments by BillySands

1382. Comment #68150 by J.C. Samuelson on September 6, 2007 at 8:54 am

As usual, the thread goes silent for awhile and suddenly there are 50-100 posts to catch up on. :)

Mark,

Welcome back! It's good to know that you enjoyed your adventure, and I'm glad you're back in one piece. I see that you've been overwhelmed here, so I won't spend too much time adding to it. We'll probably have to agree to disagree.

"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different."
Richard Dawkins

I am always staggered when I see this quote appear in the side-bar, as it just did. I would love Richard Dawkins to tell us how he can happily assert this, without effectively claiming God-level (i.e. infinite) knowledge and status for himself!

The others have answered far more ably than I could, but just to add one minor suggestion, this is not so staggering a claim as you might think. There are many specific claims that Christians make with respect to the alleged design of the universe, and more than a few can be looked at scientifically. Victor Stenger does a fine (albeit imperfect) job of this in God: The Failed Hypothesis, which treats the "God hypothesis" most frequently offered by adherents to the Abrahamic faiths as a scientifically testable proposition. He succeeds mostly in demonstrating that the universe looks just as we would expect in the absence of a god as described by Abrahamic theists.

It seems to me that RD is concerned to define God in human-relative terms - God could only have certain possible characteristics, so far as he is concerned, and if an actual God fitted them, then RD might be right about the nature of this universe. But that requires God to conform to his (human-defined) rules. In other words, from that quote on its own, Richard Dawkins appears to be (as he certainly does all too often in TGD) inventing an imaginary version of God that fits his purpose, in order to prove that such a God does not exist. In other words, a straw man...

This is such a self-defeating argument, Mark. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised you'd offer it, though perhaps I shouldn't be. Essentially, you've just rendered all definitions of God meaningless, for they all rely on human understanding. You cannot logically claim to know anything about God while simultaneously asserting that the terms we use are useless.

Scripture, which you've defended as eminently comprehensible, describes God as jealous, righteous, loving, wrathful, omniscient, omnipotent, and so forth. Are these terms not human-relative terms? If human terms do not or cannot define God, then scriptural definitions too are rendered meaningless. You can't have it both ways. Do you believe God has or does not have the traits described in the Bible, Mark? If so, then human-relative terms are valid, aren't they?

In any event, Dawkins did not 'invent' the image of God he attacks. Believers did. The only difference is in the framing. Believers are willing to equivocate on or overlook difficult aspects of the scriptural depiction of God's personality. Non-believers are not.

Or, perhaps you are suggesting that believers are not subject to human limitations?

Moving on...

With respect to Tyre, I don't think we're going to reach agreement here. Continually, you've asserted that Ezekiel was specifically referring to particular attackers, though the text names but one - the one with whom Ezekiel was familiar. It would have been pathetically easy for God to give Ezekiel precise names and dates, thereby eliminating any question as to its alleged prophetic nature, but that isn't what we read. In fact, in order to support your case at all, you are forced to shift huge portions of that book and others backward in time by nearly two decades, thus undermining any present historical credibility it may have.

Although I find the idea that you've uncovered new evidence concerning the ruins intriguing, without knowing what it is I can't say that anything has changed. We've already agreed that there are ruins there. Indeed, I've never suggested that Tyre wasn't destroyed many times. That wasn't the question at all. The question is, was it ever rebuilt? Yes. Was it "found again?" Yes. This gives the lie to your position that the prophecy was literally fulfilled in all its particulars, as far as I'm concerned (not that my concern matters).

To be clear (again), I do not have a problem if Ezekiel was being hyperbolic in his description of Tyre's destruction at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. In fact, I feel this maintains a degree of historical integrity for the document. You, on the other hand, maintain literal fulfillment. This is an enormously difficult position (actually, I'd call it 'untenable') to take in light of the facts.

Again, while it seems unlikely that anything will change, I'd be interested in seeing this alleged "new" evidence you have. That it seems to have convinced you further doesn't help us here. The pictures you did provide don't really add much to our discussion, sorry. Will you share your evidence via PM?

Sorry to sound negative, but I've no interest in debating Tyre further unless something new and meaningful is entered into the discussion. I mean, what else is there to say?

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1383. Comment #68165 by Quetzalcoatl on September 6, 2007 at 9:21 am

Hello again JC-

Will you share your evidence via PM?

I have asked Mark this before, but he probably missed it in the blizzard of posts!

Mark-

JC, Lee and myself have all expressed an interest now. Can you PM the evidence to us?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1384. Comment #68190 by J.C. Samuelson on September 6, 2007 at 10:16 am

Hey Quetz,

Maybe he did miss it. I surely did!

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1385. Comment #68212 by Mark Taunton on September 6, 2007 at 11:16 am

Sorry folks, but I won't be using PMs to send the relevant picture, which is rather crucial to the corroborative evidence for the location of the original Tyre. Nor will I discuss the details of what the additional evidence is, separately, even by PM. The two need to go together.

The licence I have for the satellite photo data does not allow me to share it with anyone else, although I am allowed to make hard copy prints for publication in limited quantities. I did make it clear earlier - but you've no doubt missed it in the blizzard of posts(!) - that my offer is to send a hard copy of the paper I am working on, to any serious contributor to this thread who is willing to give me, via PM, their postal address. Yes, I will even pay international postage. As I have not yet finished the paper, there will be a wait, of course.

In terms of who counts as "serious", I include JCS, Quetz, Lee and Billy, but would consider anyone else who makes a suitable case.

Sorry to be so awkward about this, but as I mentioned, I have reasons that real archaeologists would undoubtedly approve of (see my post 1499).

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1386. Comment #68229 by SRWB on September 6, 2007 at 12:32 pm

A question from the colonies - what is a PM? Other than the obvious? I assume it has something to do with the post.

Other Comments by SRWB

1387. Comment #68244 by Philip1978 on September 6, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Billy

Gosh, he is heading to High Wycombe, stupid boy, I sort of live near there and grew up near there, if there is anything I can say of the Micklefield area is that you have to know which pub you are in!

So be it, I will go an ask Mr Ham some questions, I kind of get the feeling I will not get as good an answer as I have from Mark. Not being sycophantic Mark but I respect that you do your research and work hard at it. I thoroughly expect I will get obfuscation from Mr Ham as to how complex his god is, but being the good man I am, I will walk in there with as open a mind as I can and accept they believe in their God. I know there exists a greater god called Quetzalcoatl who not only is able to answer my questions but also works hard at his Tea!

Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers
Philip!

Other Comments by Philip1978

1388. Comment #68249 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Hi SWRB,
PMs are personal messages. You can send them by loging in to the forum, or click on the name of the person you wasnt to send one to on a thread and click on PM

Hi Mark, the paper sounds interesting, I'll be in touch

Philip, Ken Ham was awful, I have never disagreeed with anything so completely in my life. There was no question and answer session, so I left after his first talk. Just the usual dishonesty and Darwinism being the work of Satan stuff - atheists have no morals and if there is no god there is no basis for morality. The usual stuff. It was "interesting" to hear what he had to say on the bible concerning the 6 days, but he offered no evidence against evolution and kept asking why people reject the biblical message. To him, science is something that has to be wrong if it disagrees with the bible. To the rest of us, the evidence of science is why we deny the bible, but he doesn't seem interested in being lead by the evidence. He even accuses people of wanting to follow science - personally I think most people follow the evidence. Suprisingly, he gives no evidence that the bible is right. Funny that he has double standardshere. He says we havent observed radioactive decay from the beginning of time to show that the rate hasn't changed. Strange, whe he wasn't around to seecreation take place, but that's not a problem for him - he needs no evidece, he has the bible - praise the lord" it takes a denialist attitude to argue that decay rates may have changed. There is no evidence that they do, despite trying to make them change. Not suprisingly, he abused 14C dating and implies sceintists use it for dating fossils - which is a lie).
I'm suprised I didn't walk out in disgust.

Never saw the flea. Strange, because he claims to be an evolutionist, surely he would want to see the truth represented. Mind you, given the disharmony in the free church, maybe the ministers there dont talk to him. Maybe if Scottish Geologist is reading, he can inform us.

Other Comments by BillySands

1389. Comment #68251 by Mark Taunton on September 6, 2007 at 2:10 pm

SRWB:

OK, my comment about "semantics" may have been a tad harsh and not entirely accurate. As you say this IS about use of language. Nevertheless, I contend that this debate really revolves around the likelihood of Ezekiel's prophecy being true or not.

But whether the prophecy "is true or not" is critically dependent on what it says, and the understanding of that is of course dependent on what Ezekiel's words mean.

The evidence that has been presented by those counter to your viewpoint has been overwhelming, in my opinion.

Can you give an example of this overwhelming evidence? I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to.

That is why, for me, it's not about whether anything was "laid" in the "midst of the waters" and other technicalities of ancient languages;

You may wish to dismiss all this semantics aspect as "technicalities of ancient languages", but if you want to debate whether Ezekiel's prophecy is true or not, then the meaning of words and phrases is exactly what it comes down to! If Tyre's stones, timber and dust were indeed laid (deliberately placed) in the midst of the waters (forming a separation or division between two pieces of water), then that element of the prophecy at least did indeed come true, despite being a very peculiar prediction. To show that this part (at least) is not the prophecy from God that it claims to be, you need to do at least one of two things. You must show it was perfectly normal to dismantle whole cities and place the material deliberately into the sea, i.e. that Ezekiel was predicting only a commonplace event – just an ordinary thing (in which case, why make a prediction out of it, and why the stress on how shocking the fulfilment was going to be to all the other nations?). Or you need to demonstrate that my analysis of the Biblical usage of those phrases "midst of the sea" and "midst of the waters" is actually in error and they really are (as you would like them to be) merely some lyrical way of speaking about a certain unspecified distance out off the shore (and not in contact with it), and no more precise than that.

it's about hard and convincing historical evidence for the events that supposedly took place.

But the event I'm focussing on at this point – the dismantling of Tyre and its use to make the causeway – certainly did take place! Or are you wanting to cast doubt on the multiple secular writers who report how Alexander the Great's conscripted labourers broke down and carried away the city of Palaetyros (old Tyre), in order to build his "mole"? The details of the actual events are not recorded in the Bible, but quite independently of it; none of the ancient writers who describe this (including Diodorus Siculus and Quintus Curtius Rufus) had particular knowledge of the Bible, or a religion based on it, so far as we know. They certainly never mention Ezekiel's prophecy!

(That last point, by the way, gives the lie to the notion that all defence of the truth of the Bible, as evidence for God's existence, is circular: "Bible <==> God", to use JCS's terse formulation.) The point about so many prophecies and their fulfilments (though not all) is that the fulfilments are independently recorded and verified outside the Bible, as is the case for this one.

Any "inspired prophecy" worth a shekel should have been able to come up with a name or dates, and not simply relied upon riddles and commonly issued threats.

You are one of many people who like to say this sort of thing, as if it would satisfy you (where all the rest of my case does not). The problem is that where names and time periods (not dates, but equivalent) are indeed identified in advance in Biblical prophecies, it is then asserted by sceptics that the details were inserted much later, after the events! (Two examples of such rejection include Josiah and Cyrus being named in advance of their births). So I see no reason to suppose things really would be different in this case…

For example, if verse 26:12 was in reversed order, i.e, if the stones, timber and dust were laid in the water BEFORE all the riches were spoiled, merchandise was preyed upon, and walls broken down and pleasant houses destroyed, I would be more open to your interpretation.

You raise an interesting point. What would be necessary to give it any force, however, is to show that in all relevant Biblical contexts describing a series of (related) events, the mention of those events in the text is always in strict chronological sequence. And I believe you would fail to do that, as I can think of a number of counterexamples…

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1390. Comment #68256 by Philip1978 on September 6, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Billy,


Bugger! How frustrating! I will go see him in Wycombe, if only to wear my new A t-shirt! I take it there is no way of asking him how exactly he wishes to date things? I am no science know-it-all but I am under the impression dating requires not just one test but several before people will authenticate it!

Either that or I get lynched in Micklefield heheheh!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1391. Comment #68265 by Zaphod on September 6, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Hi Billy et al,

I am sorry you had to sit and listen to the pious, sanctimonious rhetoric of an anti-science obscurantist quack-hack.

I read this in an AC Grayling review of the book "Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism"

Again: what a waste of effort is here provoked by the necessity to quash absurdity. Take just one example in illustration. Creationists contest isotopic dating techniques which show that the earth is billions of years old by suggesting that "since the Creation one or more episodes occurred when nuclear decay rates were billions of times greater than today's rates. Possibly there were three episodes: one in the early part of the Creation week, another between the Fall and the Flood, and the third during the year of the Genesis Flood" (this from a publication by a creationist group calling itself RATE – "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth"). Brent Dalrymple calmly points out that for this suggestion to be true would require changes in fundamental constants including Planck's constant and the speed of light, which in turn changes the nature of light and many other physical and chemical properties, and thus the universe no longer works – or a very different one would result. Such is the quality of thought, which in understatement Dalrymple describes as "incredibly naïve".

Other Comments by Zaphod

1392. Comment #68269 by Mark Taunton on September 6, 2007 at 3:15 pm

newatheist:

The whole universe, with stars that number more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches and deserts on this
planet: This planet, unimaginably tiny, insignifcant and fragile, one of billions upon billions of planets, orbiting
a nondescript star in the spiral arm of one of billions upon billions of galaxies.

Wow! You got quite lyrical there, didn't you?!

But have you never asked yourself - given your standpoint (I presume) that evolution by natural selection is the reason why living things have the properties they do – why:
(a) human beings can see the stars at all;
(b) we have a consciousness to know that we are seeing the stars;
(c) we are endowed with the intellectual and physical capabilities sufficient for us, by the development and application of technology, to observe that in fact there are apparently enormous numbers of stars out there;
(d) despite our obvious inability to mentally grasp those numbers in any physical (unary) sense, we have minds that enable us to easily contemplate and work mathematically with such huge numbers, including the simple but potent mechanism of based number representation (e.g. decimal);
(e) we can create poetic language to describe the universe and invoke emotion in others by doing so, even by reference to such seemingly remote and intangible objects as stars;
(f) and all that despite the fact that, apart from casting tiny amounts of light on us at night, the stars do not interact with us in any meaningful way, at the level of our day-to-day lives?

What possible significant survival advantage (sufficient to create the necessary high selection pressure) actually arises from the above features of the human brain, sufficient to explain the formation of such powers in us?

After reading your comment, I did a quick approximation. I think the number of grains of sand on the planet and the number of stars in the sky are actually remarkably close (when you work in logarithmic scales = "orders of magnitude"). By a very rough and ready bit of Excellery, I came up with 10^23 as a first stab at the number of grains of sand on earth. Without any particular prior expectation about it (other than a thought that 10^18 was a number I had seen), the very first scientifically respectable web site I consulted on the question suggested a range of between 10^22 and 10^24 stars in the universe.

To follow that, a related musing (though none of the sceptics here will be impressed, I predict). The unaided human eye is said to be able to distinguish only about 2,000-3,000 stars, and even ancient people could readily appreciate that the number of grains of sand on even a single beach vastly exceeds that. Yet the Bible uses both the stars, and the sand on the seashore, as a (clearly symbolic) characterisation of the divinely multiplied "seed of Abraham" (Genesis 22:17). I wonder why?

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1393. Comment #68271 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Zaphod,
Interesting about changing the laws of physics. So much for the fine tuned hypothesis. Perhaps Epeist could comment more on this.
Philip
Normally more than one isotope is used. I think JC posted this befrore:
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Young earth creationists also have the problem that we have tree ring records going back 30 000 years and the oldest tree in the world is older than the date of the flood.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/oldest-organisms-on-earth.html

I trust Quetz won his game

Other Comments by BillySands

1394. Comment #68275 by SRWB on September 6, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Mark,

One more time! You are absolutely correct that for a prophecy to be worth anything it must be clear and unambiguous; as you said "… the meaning of words and phrases is exactly what it comes down to". But therein lays part of the problem. A very cursory search of a half-dozen different Bibles has turned up three other words in the verse under contention (26:12); these are "put", "throw" and "cast". So we are far from unanimously settled upon "lay" as the operative verb. I would grant that "put" is similar to "lay", but then you would be forced to agree that "throw" and "cast" are more in line with what I have suggested. The point is that there have been too many versions of this story written, and passed down, that it is of little use as irrefutable evidence.

You make an interesting point about the ordering of events in chronological sequence, and how this is not always the manner in which Biblical writings are formatted. Doesn't this admitted lack of conventions and rules of scholarship by the ancients weaken your overall argument of factuality and unambiguous use of terms and words somewhat?

Again, I will not concede that this verse comes anywhere near to the fulfillment of a prediction. Tyre didn't fall to this attack and it was only some 250+ years later that a successful assault was carried out. So I am not disputing Alexander's attack, just your interpretation of it as having been prophesized by Ezekiel.

Other Comments by SRWB

1395. Comment #68276 by Goldy on September 6, 2007 at 3:25 pm

What possible significant survival advantage (sufficient to create the necessary high selection pressure) actually arises from the above features of the human brain, sufficient to explain the formation of such powers in us?

Survival advantage or by-product? Maybe it isn't any advantage at all, but a spin off from something more useful.
Seeing stars is pretty useful for travel. Pacific Islanders used them to get here in NZ, along with currents, bird flight patterns, waves, sun, etc, etc, etc.
Another question - why can Christians eat pork but the others can't? Where did the special dispensation come from? Off topic, I know, but it has always been bothering me, somehow...

Other Comments by Goldy

1396. Comment #68278 by BillySands on September 6, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Just when I whant to go to bed, another post appears :-(

But have you never asked yourself - given your standpoint (I presume) that evolution by natural selection is the reason why living things have the properties they do – why:
(a) human beings can see the stars at all;

Well you try competing in this world wearing a blindfold for a day and see how far you get

(b) we have a consciousness to know that we are seeing the stars;

Intelligence allows communication. communication allows cooperation or planning things, such as setting traps for food, finding food, out witting predators/competitors etc

(c) we are endowed with the intellectual and physical capabilities sufficient for us, by the development and application of technology, to observe that in fact there are apparently enormous numbers of stars out there;

See above. You cant deny that technology - even as simple as making clothes from animal skins allows us to exploit our enviroment and exploit new ones

(d) despite our obvious inability to mentally grasp those numbers in any physical (unary) sense, we have minds that enable us to easily contemplate and work mathematically with such huge numbers, including the simple but potent mechanism of based number representation (e.g. decimal);

See above

(e) we can create poetic language to describe the universe and invoke emotion in others by doing so, even by reference to such seemingly remote and intangible objects as stars;

Girls like that stuff, probably because it implies intelligence and good social skills, indicating a good provider

(f) and all that despite the fact that, apart from casting tiny amounts of light on us at night, the stars do not interact with us in any meaningful way, at the level of our day-to-day lives?

They do intreract; calendars and navigation for example, but why ponder them? Most likely a by product of all the advantages above. Have you considered why hallucinogenic drugs can alter your brain? If there was a soul, it should be independant of such physical influences

Other Comments by BillySands

1397. Comment #68283 by Mark Taunton on September 6, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Lee:

I hope you don't think I'm ignoring you. I intend to respond to your comment 1524, detail by detail; however on just your last point there, please see my earlier post (1499) - there really isn't an issue at all.

Billy (a brief response, I ought to be in bed now):

You say Tyre has actually been rebuilt. But it's a different place. Looking at the site I propose as the ancient location concerned, I see no city, not one house, hardly any sign of human activity at all apart from a road passing through. Does that last feature really count as Tyre being "rebuilt"?

If you think the name alone identifies the city, then think again. If that's correct then Somerset, England and Massachusetts, USA are actually the same region, since both include a town called Taunton; also the map of England and Wales really needs to be redrawn with several extra dimensions, since there are (for example) several Newports and Miltons to be found. Clearly that is not correct.

"New" Tyre - the one on the island - is straightforwardly not the same place as old Tyre - Palaetyros - which was unquestionably on the mainland else Alexander's causeway could not have been built from its remains. It certainly isn't the place Ezekiel was prophesying about, which must have been on the mainland, else the description of Nebuchadrezzar's seige makes no sense at all. That Tyre - the original Tyre - has indeed not been rebuilt.

By the way, following my research I can bring forward a lot of historical (extra-biblical) evidence that in ancient times the name Tyre really did refer to the coastal mainland city, not the island, although the latter was probably used as a port and transit centre for traded goods.


Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1398. Comment #68286 by steve99 on September 6, 2007 at 3:53 pm

What possible significant survival advantage (sufficient to create the necessary high selection pressure) actually arises from the above features of the human brain, sufficient to explain the formation of such powers in us?

There is one idea about how high human intelligence arose that I find rather appealing. We seem to have more intelligence that is really needed. After all, the other great apes have far less, and (at least before we turned up), the lived pretty good lives.

However, there are well-understood mechanisms by which such 'excessive' features as our high intelligence can evolve. It could be rather like the peacock's tail - a result of sexual selection: intelligence could be a way of demonstrating general fitness (this tends to work with features that would cause a penalty in less-fit individuals, as the peacock's tail definitely does). The brain takes a lot of building, and a lot of energy to maintain, so I find this analogy a good one...

Other Comments by steve99

1399. Comment #68300 by SRWB on September 6, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Billy,

Thanks much for the response concerning PMs. There is still so much to learn!

Cheers
Steve

Other Comments by SRWB

1400. Comment #68303 by Goldy on September 6, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Wiki is quite illuminating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre%2C_Lebanon
I guess it was a bit like london now - City and Westminster, that sort of thing.
Anyway, if we had an original copy of the prophesy, not something handed down over the generations, then we'd see what Ezekiel meant. But we don't....
I still think if you find the site, that's as good as finding the city. I read the prophesy to mean tyre would be like Troy (except, of course, they found that too!)
Still, happy digging (whever possible)!

Other Comments by Goldy