It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Carbon dating backs Bible on Edom

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Not that I feel Carbon 14 dating is all that accurate if 1000's of years old but this is interesting nonetheless........

It will be interesting to see the Bible-Haters knock this one...

Carbon dating backs Bible on Edom

The Mideast's latest archaeological sensation is all about Edom.

The Bible says Edom's kings interacted with ancient Israel, but some scholars have confidently declared that no Edomite state could have existed that early.

The latest archaeological work indicates the Bible got it right, those experts got it wrong and some write-ups need rewriting. The findings also could buttress disputed biblical reports about kings David and Solomon.

Edom was a rugged land south and east of the Dead Sea in present-day southern Jordan. The Bible reports that Edom had kings before Israel (Genesis 36:31, 1 Chronicles 1:43) and that they barred Moses' throng after the Exodus (Numbers 20:14-21) and later warred with David (2 Samuel 8:13-14, 1 Kings 11:15-16).





Traditional dating puts David's rule from 1012 B.C. to 972 B.C., followed by son Solomon through 932 B.C. By looser reckoning, their monarchy emerged around 1000 B.C. (The exodus came long before.)

The doubters figured the Bible erred because the earliest discovered remains from Edom and nonbiblical references dated back only to the eighth century B.C. Such thinking ignored the old archaeological warning that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."



SOURCE




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."



SOURCE


Wasn't this a quote from Donald Rumsfeld for lack of WMD evidence in Iraq? I remember the exact post last week? Is this the refresher?



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by IComeWithASword

Wasn't this a quote from Donald Rumsfeld for lack of WMD evidence in Iraq? I remember the exact post last week? Is this the refresher?


Maybe he reads World Net Daily???

Cool!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Now ed is a preacher first a bush advocate now a religous advocate, the many faces of ed.


I wonder when you are going to write your own version of the bible, or perhaps when you will find the Noah's Ark.



[edit on 18-2-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Now ed is a preacher first a bush advocate now a religous advocate, the many faces of ed.


I wonder when you are going to write your own version of the bible, or perhaps when you will find the Noah's Ark.



[edit on 18-2-2005 by marg6043]


You mean its lost?



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
hehhe, edsinger, interesting post.

Religion=belief without proof
Science=theory---> proof found-----> theory accepted as fact.
We are advanced due to methods of science, not religion. (Note: I myself am religious, but I prefer science to guide my daily life)

Nobody has a problem with Bible being a historical document, many scientists accept that possibility. Only they do not accept blind faith, they look for EVIDENCE of stories in historical documents. That happened here. Nobody has a problem with that.

However, the fact that the places described in the Bible existed at one point in history is not the evidence of existence of God. Don't confuse those two, edsinger



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I am not but the 'secularist' had used just that case to DISPROVE the Bible with the carbon dating and yet they were wrong again.


I am not trying to prove God with Carbon 14 dating at all, but when it is used in an attempt to disprove my God, then it is funny as heck when it falls on its face.....



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
singer has a short memory, since the story he is trying to push is found on this thread he started days ago: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read my post again singer, the one that quotes directly from the site of the archaeological team responsible for the dig.

They make no such claim, in fact just the opposite.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I have to agree with Ed about this as well. Many have used science to "disprove" the bible. Science seems to be making a comeback in the religious department, because more and more biblical facts are being confirmed with proof.

It is important to Christians (for instance) to show that their faith is not in vain as well.

I agree, that because the surroundings were the same does not mean the supernatural aspect is, yet it seems to.

They have found some amazing things, yet they get little light at all. Most would be surprised at some of the discoveries.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Ed the bible is a book of very fine stories of ancient times but the bible is actually the story of the blood line of Israel and the Jews, how it became the story of the entire world and a religious symbol after the new testament is something that only the originators and founders of Christianity knows about it.

The bible historic account parts is very good indeed, even when the timing on and off, in the first testament taking in consideration how many people was involved on its compilation.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Well not exactly now is it?

This doesn't explicitly support the Bible's references to Edom, Adams says, but does prove that the Edomites thrived in the 10th century, and that lends credibility to the biblical chronology. Dever has examined pottery from the site and is convinced that some is Israelite, indicating David's kingdom engaged in international trading

In addition, Adams says, early settlement in Edom corroborates archaeological work at the major Tel Rehov site in northern Israel by Amihai Mazar of Hebrew University and others. This team reported in Science magazine in 2003 that radiocarbon dating of olive pits and charred grain from the site dates between 940 B.C. and 900 B.C. That fits snugly with Solomon's biblical kingdom and the Pharaoh Shishak's invasion five years after Solomon died (1 Kings 14:25-6).



It would seem to me with my biased opinions that the Bible seems to be right and science no matter the methods keeps finding that ol Book to be quite accurate now doesn't it?



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

The bible historic account parts is very good indeed, even when the timing on and off, in the first testament taking in consideration how many people was involved on its compilation.


Marg you still fail to understand the the implications of a Bible that is true? Plus you do not believe that is is "God Breathed", I do.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
The bible only lies about what you wish it lies about.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Now ed is a preacher first a bush advocate now a religous advocate, the many faces of ed.


I wonder when you are going to write your own version of the bible, or perhaps when you will find the Noah's Ark.



[edit on 18-2-2005 by marg6043]


lol. i second that

Why doesn't the bible write of civilizations created before the time of the story's respective characters?

the phrase 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' was first used as a motto of the SETI organization, do you believe in aliens also?



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I have to agree with Ed about this as well. Many have used science to "disprove" the bible. Science seems to be making a comeback in the religious department, because more and more biblical facts are being confirmed with proof.


The only reason 'mass' religion was spread and continues to be spread is because it's a forced factor on others. If you guys want to talk about ARCHAEOLOGY and anthropology then you should know that culture is learned not created. The beliefs of a god from a christian, catholic, stand-point or any other god would not be manifested if the preceeders of that belief did not spread their opinions to their children.

Has anyone ever heard of secondary elaboration?

Why do so many western cultures believe that their ways/thoughts of life are the center of the world's attention?

IMO i will be happy when the thoughts of typical 'western' religions disappear.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well not exactly now is it?

This doesn't explicitly support the Bible's references to Edom, Adams says, but does prove that the Edomites thrived in the 10th century, and that lends credibility to the biblical chronology. Dever has examined pottery from the site and is convinced that some is Israelite, indicating David's kingdom engaged in international trading
Well yes. You are arguing a strawman here such that because the Bible says there were Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians and even Jews, the stories concerning them are all fact. That is quite a leap in logic. We may as well assume that the Egyptian Gods existed, and Ra tussled with a giant serpent every night, for we certainly have a ton of unearthed evidence to support the stories. And you conveniently extract a WorldNet journalist's less than factual extrapolation of the findings to make your case rather than going to the source of the findings for your information.

Here is a partial reprint of what I posted in the other thread:

In this paper, we present the recent excavation results from a major stratified Iron Age Edomite lowland site that demonstrate significant settlement and copper production activities well before the seventh and sixth centuries BC based on high precision radiocarbon dates. These dates demonstrate a much earlier Iron Age occupation in Edom dating to the twelfth to ninth centuries BC, when construction of massive fortifications and industrial scale metal
production activities took place. Due to the relatively small number of new dates published here (ten) our report does not attempt to link the new radiocarbon data with specific historical events or personages. However, given the current debate concerning radiocarbon dating and the Iron Age of the southern Levant (Holden 2003), it is clear that the new data presented here demonstrate that a complex Iron Age polity existed in the Edomite lowlands much earlier than previously assumed.
Now why on earth would does it come as a shock to you that the OT written between the 9th and 3rd centuries BCE would actually acknowledge known places? When they start coming up with evidence to support any of the miraculous events in the OT, even some of the buildings or stories, then you can jump for joy. You perpetuate this nonsense and run away from facts as with the story of Abraham.

As I said before, let them uncover much more, the sooner the world learns that Jews were nothing but a mix of disgruntled Egyptians and other slaves, the sooner the fables will be discarded. And that Egyptian scarab found at the site is quite a tell tale sign as to what God was worshipped.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
As I said before, let them uncover much more, the sooner the world learns that Jews were nothing but a mix of disgruntled Egyptians and other slaves, the sooner the fables will be discarded. And that Egyptian scarab found at the site is quite a tell tale sign as to what God was worshipped.


It is the reasons that they use 'science' to say that the Bible's time line is faulty and therefore the book is faulty that I bring this up in the first place. As it turns out, the Bible was a lot more accurate than the secularists wanted to admitt...

No as for the Egyptian comment, you are wrong just plain and simple. You don't have to believe me but you can not expect me to believe that Sumer was Egyptian.......Even the Egyptians knew that had the Jews in captivity as did the Babylonians but that came much later now didn't it?



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsingerIt is the reasons that they use 'science' to say that the Bible's time line is faulty and therefore the book is faulty that I bring this up in the first place. As it turns out, the Bible was a lot more accurate than the secularists wanted to admitt...

No as for the Egyptian comment, you are wrong just plain and simple. You don't have to believe me but you can not expect me to believe that Sumer was Egyptian.......Even the Egyptians knew that had the Jews in captivity as did the Babylonians but that came much later now didn't it?
You are quite confused. Science is not used to claim The Bible is faulty, it happens to find nothing in support of the stories, and as such it naturally contradicts the good book. Their finds also have absolutely nothing to do with proving the nations mentioned within the texts, since we already know most of them exist to this day, isn't that so?

Rather than make blanket statements that it is more accurate, provide the very scientific proof you are suggesting exists that makes it so. And saying that Edom or Egypt or India existed is not proof. While you are at it, tell me why The Bible supposedly written by Moses, speaks of UR of the Chaldees when UR at that time was not of the Chaldean empire, then tell me what is factual about him travelling south from Beth-el to Egypt then south from Egypt back to Beth-el. Do I predict a UFO story about to unfold?

In other words, deal with reality, exercise some logic, for these stories you are trying to sell as truth are only swallowed whole by those who are desperate to believe The Bible is not in fact, a book based on myths and fables.

[edit on 2/19/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Quickly - UR was part of Sumeria and Chaldea, at least influence wise.....you are grasping at straws.......


Worship whatever you wish............


Find me ONE single thing stated in the Bible that has been proven 100% wrong...........not speculation , but scientifically wrong.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Not that I feel Carbon 14 dating is all that accurate if 1000's of years old but this is interesting nonetheless........

It will be interesting to see the Bible-Haters knock this one...



It seems odd that although from the outset you state that you consider carbon dating innacurate, you imply that anyone who disputes this particular result is a bible-hater. Wee bit of a contradiction wouldn't you say? Seems it's perfectly accurate when it suits you...

It's true that alot of biblical writings are historical fact, it has even used as a reference by many historians. It's the theology I have a problem with.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join