Jump to content
Science Forums

Is Bible history fact or fiction?


eMTee

Recommended Posts

How old does carbon dating say the two cities are?...and are you sure that Wyatt is the ONLY sourse that these claims come from? there is one sure disagreement (mine) in his historical claims..and that is Noah's ark.

the MAME of the man was Lot...as weard as that sounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is carbon dating flawless.
If you are trying to precisely determine a date it is important to correllate multiple samples and other evidence such as strategraphy, known dates of types of artifacts found, known atmospheric and climatological changes and so forth. BUT if you are trying to say Bab-edDrah was destroyed at least 2000 years before the Biblical date for the destruction of Sodom & Gamorrah, you're talking about absolute certainty...
..and are you sure that Wyatt is the ONLY sourse that these claims come from?
There are several thousand hits that you will get if you Google Sodom & Gamorrah, and of all those that are trying to show Biblical truth, his is the ONLY name that shows up. If there were other sources, you'd see em!
the (N)AME of the man was Lot...as weard as that sounds.
Why's that weird? Sounds kinda biased to me...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and no, depending on your perspective. Muslims consider them the same God based on the Koran, most Christians think of them as different because of the biggest difference between the religions- Christ as the son of God (Christians) or Christ as a human prophet (Muslims). If Christ was God (literally or figurativally), then they are different God's.

 

Mostly semantics, but with a very large theological difference as well.

That difference is Trinity.

 

Islam disagrees with Trinity, they don't accept the dogma of one and only God being, at the same time, three different persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Hence for Islam only God is God and Christ was a prophet, and a very special one too, but not actually God.

 

It is clear that Islam considers Allah the same god as Yod He Vau He, only the name is different. Islam criticizes previous scriptures as having been corrupted and contaminated by evil spirits. They certainly don't consider them as two competing gods, this would be more obviously against the unicity of God than they consider Trinity to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are trying to precisely determine a date it is important to correllate multiple samples and other evidence such as strategraphy, known dates of types of artifacts found, known atmospheric and climatological changes and so forth.
Actually, radiocarbon dating is quite accurate for ages uo to a few thousand years. Other methods are important only for older stuff as well as things that weren't living tissue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That difference is Trinity.

 

Islam disagrees with Trinity, they don't accept the dogma of one and only God being, at the same time, three different persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Hence for Islam only God is God and Christ was a prophet, and a very special one too, but not actually God.

 

It is clear that Islam considers Allah the same god as Yod He Vau He, only the name is different. Islam criticizes previous scriptures as having been corupted and contaminated by evil spirits. They certainly don't consider them as two competing gods, this would be more obviously against the unicity of God than they consider Trinity to be.

 

You are defintly correct, I was trying to avoid using the Trinity concept, for simplictly. But thanks for the insight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is carbon dating flawless.

 

If you are trying to precisely determine a date it is important to correllate multiple samples and other evidence such as strategraphy, known dates of types of artifacts found, known atmospheric and climatological changes and so forth.

 

Are you saying that it is of error? I supose that you have all the other evidence listed in your dating, to be able to acurately date fossils. In me apinion...it would only be a few million or billion years off.

 

Sorry to be bias about the carbon dating method...well, should I not believe his findings..I'm not a person that just believes everything that everyone says...and I do find it weard that you only find him.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that it is of error? I supose that you have all the other evidence listed in your dating, to be able to acurately date fossils. In me apinion...it would only be a few million or billion years off.
As Q says, its actually very accurate going back tens of thousands of years, with an accuracy of tens of years (variable based on the age). The further back you go the bigger your margin for error.
Sorry to be bias about the carbon dating method...well, should I not believe his findings..I'm not a person that just believes everything that everyone says...and I do find it weard that you only find him.?
I assume you're referring to my mention of Ron Wyatt: yes, it does not pass what we Americans call the "smell test"....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

carbon dating is a totaly inacurate way or dating things, and that is a fact. or maybe this as a thought..but only a thought, the world was created by God to be a place to place the devil and his angels in, and he then cast them into it, who knows how long ago...it was a big blob of water at that time, God came back to the place, and created the Earth...this carbon dating method may be dating how old the earth is after all...but we might be getting WHAT all it's dating, wrong.

 

You think it's dating the bone or rock...but it's acualy dating the the eliments of of the water or somthin like that. the bone or rock itself might not be that old..only the elements making it up...but even this sounds subject to great error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

carbon dating is a totaly inacurate way or dating things, and that is a fact.
Well, I suppose you would think so if it led to conclusions that disprove your beliefs. Take it this way: carbon dating is not just mathematical projection of numbers, it has been correlated with known dated objects. The carbon dating of the Dead Sea scrolls matches contemporaneous histories whose provenance can be proven, and they all lead to the same conclusion on dates. It has never shown false dates except where there have been obvious explanations for contamination. If you don't like the fact that the Shroud of Turin does not date to 2000 years ago, sorry: you have no other proof than your faith to say otherwise, and you should not be surprised if others are not convinced by your faith.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How good is it at dating rocks and petrifyed things? you can look at a tree and count it's age by counting the layers of branches shooting out, but try that on a rock.

 

Consider this as a reprecertation in the endurability of carbon. The older you get, the facter you age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How good is it at dating rocks and petrifyed things? you can look at a tree and count it's age by counting the layers of branches shooting out, but try that on a rock.
Try taking a visit to the Grand Canyon sometime, they have geological/paleontology tours that will take you down the canyon rim showing you going back in time to earlier and earlier times, with lots of fossils. All the layers are consistent, and all the radiological dating (different elements can be used other than carbon) matches. Just like rings on a tree....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the layers are consistent, and all the radiological dating (different elements can be used other than carbon) matches. Just like rings on a tree....
are you talking about limestone growing in caverns? They have proven that they grow much faster than the evolutionists expected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you talking about limestone growing in caverns? They have proven that they grow much faster than the evolutionists expected.
No, the layers of rock that make up the land that the Colorado River carved into the Grand Canyon. Limestone stalagtites/stalagmites grow at widely diverging rates depending on the flow of water and the density/content of the intervening materials, so someone's probably quoting someone out of context for self-serving reasons...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...this carbon dating method may be dating how old the earth is after all...but we might be getting WHAT all it's dating, wrong.
Radiocarbon dating was never used to determine the age of Earth! :) It would be like trying to use a ruler to measure the size of the Sun!

 

As B says, you ought to brush up on the various dating methods and what each is applicable to, before criticizing their use. Radiocarbon is only useful for what was living tissue, it measures the time since respiration ceased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, when it comes to the Hebrews crossing of the Red Sea...There is suport of that in the large landbridge going across the sea to the other side, and with the structure of the land surrounding the beach so that they would be trapped if they where cut off from the small gap in the rocky cliffs that was connected to a path, by an army. and the charoit wheels all over the sea bed on both sides of the bridge.

 

But how would one explain how this event (acording to the Bible's claims) could have happened naturaly?

 

the Bible says that it happened with a great east wind, that caused the sea to open..it says that it took all night to dry, so the Israilites could cross.

 

*How could there possably be a wind so great that it is able to devide the water?

*How could the constent wind last for so long, that it would last from the time Moses lifted his rod, to the time of the very last Hebrew steppet off the landgridge the next day?

*How could the Israilites cross the sea without plunging into the sea walls in cause of the wind?

*How could have this Phenomenon happen naturaly, and have happen just at the right moment, and end, just at the right moment?

 

There is no natural conclusion how this could have happned, no scientific explanation for this outragous inconceivable claim. so thus it is impossable that it happened.

 

For you athiests, is this how you test miricals? (material evidence only threw the scientificly capable eyes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...