reply to post by undo
so let me assume then that your position is the same as your predecessors, that the land of Shinar, as mentioned in the bible doesn't exist?
We can objectively test if a country existed in the past. If you dig up Roman remains, you come along the word Roman quite often for example, and not
only at one spot, but all over the place as far as their empire reached. We KNOW that empire existed because we have remains of people who called it
the Roman empire. Nothing mythical about that.
Just claiming a nuclear weapon (lol) went off because there's radioactivity in skeletons...or not, given that we only hear about those skeletons on
blogs...is kinda silly and not comparable to establishing a country existed in the past. There's a TON of objective evidence for the existence of
and that there was no flood (black sea flood)
First of all, the bible talks about a global flood because it specifically says "2 of each kind"...which means that arch was meant to save the
entire world's species. Of course now people start arguing they were talking about a local flood (for which there's at least some evidence) because
they see how absolutely silly the idea of a global flood is. We have objective sedimental evidence for floods, witness accounts claiming a global
flood happened aren't objective and therefore pretty much worthless.
and that the kings mentioned in the old testament of the bible never existed?
Given that we really only know of them from the bible and other scripture...yeah, we don't know for sure whether they existed or not. We don't have
any remains from them...contrary to remains of French kings for example.
Again, you don't seem to understand what objective evidence is.
that the tower of babel wasn't a real place
Given that we have no objective evidence that tower ever existed...yeah, we don't know if it existed. It's a MYTH, not a fact
We only have texts, no archeological remains whatsoever. That's SUBJECTIVE evidence again, and given that the chronological order in Genesis makes no
sense whatsoever (and is even demonstrably wrong in many cases like the creation of earth), it would be silly to accept it as fact.
and that the ancient greeks couldn't write?
We know they could write because we have OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for it. There's ruins and writings like Iliad, so we know for a fact they could write
and that nimrod didn't exist
And you mention a MYTH instead of anything that's backed up by objective evidence.
do something positive instead of sitting there saying "no proof!" unless you don't want to know, in which case, it doesn't matter.
Well, some homework for you too: Look up the definition of objective and subjective because you don't seem to realize there's a difference between
the two, or why that difference is important to understand reality.
You seem completely lost somewhere between science and myth. You write a ton about myths, which are descriptions of what people BELIEVED back then,
but totally forget about applying logic/rationality and actually looking for objective evidence that would back up those SUBJECTIVE accounts.