Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
Race of ancient Egyptians
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by The Covenant (U8843775) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
What is believed to be the race of the ancient Egyptians?
-
Message 2
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
Covenant,
are you joking?
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 3
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
It was five posts down from yours. The answer is they were Irish. Apart from the ones from China. -
Message 4
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
Back,
yes Irish. Just a feeling, I can't explain it rationally. No, definitely not Chinese...an even stronger feeling...also not based on rationality.
Warm regards from your friend,
Paul. -
Message 5
Posted by Jim Reuss (U10298645) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
Atlanteans.
-
Message 6
Posted by The Covenant (U8843775) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
backtothedarkplace. "It was five posts down from yours."听
You're getting mixed up with a completley different poster. The reason I ask the question, is that from a biblical perspective, the Egyptians were descendents of Ham. At the moment I'm interested in the debate on historical populations. -
Message 7
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Convenant,
oops, sorry for the errror, now I understand: You see it from a "biblical" perspective.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 8
Posted by Richie (U1238064) ** on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
the Egyptians were descendents of Ham#
听
and his wife Eggs -
Message 9
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Hi Covenant, if your wanting a biblical take on it then you need to be over on the religious boards. If you want to discuss the historical aspects of it then please use the post thats already underway.
-
Message 10
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
You're getting mixed up with a completley different poster. The reason I ask the question, is that from a biblical perspective, the Egyptians were descendents of Ham. At the moment I'm interested in the debate on historical populations.
听
If you're interested in debating the ancient history of the Egyptian population then the other thread has addressed just that topic.
If you're dissatisfied with the contents of that thread on the basis that you're interested only in discussing biblical allegorical explanations for subjects better approached anthropologically then you're on the wrong messageboard. The latter approach is the one that appeals primarily to contributors here.
If you have a theory as to how and why an ancient Jewish rendition of the even more ancient mythology cycle came to encapsulate a belief in a global inundation that further spawned characters which could, in one sense, relate allegorically to very early attempts at anthropological classification, then I would be interested in hearing it. -
Message 11
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 29th November 2007
The reason I ask the question, is that from a biblical perspective, the Egyptians were descendents of Ham.听
It's a misprint, it was meant to say Han. The Egyptians were indeed Chinese (apart from the ones who were black, or arabic, or semitic, or leventine, or north african or a combination thereof). -
Message 12
Posted by The Covenant (U8843775) on Friday, 30th November 2007
If you have a theory as to how and why an ancient Jewish rendition of the even more ancient mythology cycle came to encapsulate a belief in a global inundation that further spawned characters which could, in one sense, relate allegorically to very early attempts at anthropological classification, then I would be interested in hearing it.听
Next time just ask why I believe in the Bible
.
I don't know how much you know about Archaeology so to explain. A century ago Sumer lay buried under the earth, unknown to both archaeologist and historian. But after the nineteenth century Sumer's assistance was proved by Archaeology.
Sumer was a civilisation which had intricate systems of irrigation. It also developed commercial trade. This civilisation recorded its activates and thoughts in writing. According to M. Magnusson: ...the Sumerians had an extremely highly developed theology听
According to Magnus Magnusson these people recorded the oldest stories about Creation known to us, and these stories were to be echoed many centuries later in the Bible. I believe with certainty, that there was a worldwide flood which took place which didn't simply overflow a river but effected the entire world.
The Babylonian account is thought to be based on the Sumerian "original". The Genesis account is believed to be dated around 1400 B.C. It is obvious to me that the flood stories share a common origin. Any historian should be able to deduce, that the flood story was in existence over a fairly widespread area of both the Near and Middle East for several thousand years B.C. Also we can be sure, that both Semitic and non-Semitic people had some knowledge of this.
If you want I could discuss why I believe the peoples scattered around the Middle East could have come to possess the "original" flood story. -
Message 13
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 30th November 2007
I believe with certainty, that there was a worldwide flood which took place which didn't simply overflow a river but effected the entire world听
Other than it saying so in the Bible, do you have any reason for this because there's absolutely no evidence for this from geology.
It is obvious to me that the flood stories share a common origin. 听
Though not necessarily to everyone else. It is certainly possible that the Biblical flood is a retelling of an older flood story, but rivers in the region do regularly flood and it is equally possible that the biblical flood refers to a one of those. It may even be a folk memory of when the black sea flooded up to its present level when the wall between it and the mediterranean broke some 12,000 years ago and drove off the local populous.
Any historian should be able to deduce, that the flood story was in existence over a fairly widespread area of both the Near and Middle East for several thousand years B.C.听
Yes, but not necessarily derived from the same flooding incident. In folk tales elements are frequently borrowed from one for another. It may well be that the Biblical version came from half a dozen different folk stories about floods. -
Message 14
Posted by The Covenant (U8843775) on Monday, 3rd December 2007
cloudyj. There is evidence in every region of the Earth, we simply as humans have not understood everything yet. Take for example the Grand Canyon. Why is it that when one digs in to it one can find various layers with a clear exposure of the remains of sea creatures? The sedimentary rock is believed to have in some point trapped many of the sea creatures within. The only explanation for the widespread distribution of sedimentary formations as pointed out by Austin, must be down to a world wide flood rather than a local one.
Other than it saying so in the Bible, do you have any reason for this because there's absolutely no evidence for this from geology.
听 cloudyj. There is evidence in every region of the Earth, we simply as humans have not understood everything yet. Take for example the Grand Canyon. Why is it that when one digs in to it one can find various layers with a clear exposure of the remains of sea creatures? The sedimentary rock is believed to have in some point trapped many of the sea creatures within. The only explanation for the widespread distribution of sedimentary formations as pointed out by Austin, must be down to a world wide flood rather than a local one.
Take also other aspects of this world:
鈥 The formation of coral reefs must have taken place through the death of literally thousands of creatures.
鈥 The cliffs of Dover provide proof of a worldwide catastrophe.
鈥 On some of the highest mountain ranges sea creatures can be found within rocks.
If the sea level were to rise even by 16 feet 5m), most of the American cities would be drowned. How then is it impossible for a flood to have taken place? It is believed that the longest shower of rain lasted for 60,000 years, about 4,000,000 years ago which is claimed by scientists to create the seas and the oceans and yet what evidence is there for this?
In Genesis it describes the fountains of the deep being broken up. This may be a reference to Hydrothermal vents which are largely unknown in relation to how they effect the circulation of the water. But, their origin is certainly mysterious as they host a diverse range of life.
Scientist rarely admit it, but our Earth remains still a constant puzzle to all.
Though not necessarily to everyone else. It is certainly possible that the Biblical flood is a retelling of an older flood story, but rivers in the region do regularly flood and it is equally possible that the biblical flood refers to a one of those.听 Yes, they do. These floods have also been known to replenish the banks and give them much needed fertility. But, surely you could see how studying the evidence of ancient records, the flood which took place affected more than a small group of people. If one were to compare the Babylonian account and the Genesis account one would find some very clear similarities.
Take soem aspects of the Babylonian and Hebrew account:
鈥 Whereas the Babylonian Noah sends out three different birds from the ark, the Hebrew Noah sends out two
鈥 In particular contrast is the stature of the Hebrews 鈥 Elohim and the Babylonian g-ds. In the Babylonian account the g-ds crouch like dogs, quarrel among themselves and gather like flies swarming around the sacrifice offered. But in the Hebrew account there is a sublime majesty of Elohims pledge to mankind in the Covenant relationship.
鈥 The Babylonian g-ds have weaknesses [apparently the reason for the flood was because they were unable to sleep], but with the Hebrew Elohim Yahweh, it is due to the unrighteousness in the Earth.
鈥 The Babylonian mighty ones are not interested in destroying the humans because they are doing wrong, or breaking the moral law, but because these Mighty Ones cannot sleep. It seems obvious to me, that I hatred for Yahweh began to exist in this culture. Perhaps it was due to the fact, that Yahweh had cursed Ham, whose descendents went on to build Babel.
Yes, I believe that a flood did take place, and only a remnant survived.
Yes, but not necessarily derived from the same flooding incident. In folk tales elements are frequently borrowed from one for another. It may well be that the Biblical version came from half a dozen different folk stories about floods听 Good point cloudy. But, considering the above, it would be rather difficult to see why the Hebrews would have drawn from a polytheistic Sumerian source when they believed in the absolute oneness of the Creator. Surely, you can see the purity ad authenticity of the Hebrew Elohim in contrast to the Babylonians more 鈥渆ntertaining鈥 fables. To consider, when Yahweh confounded the languages at Babel, it is entirely logical to assume that different Mighty Ones were also constructed, as the Name of Yahweh was lost or forgotten.
When the breakdown of communication was to emerge, stories had to be invented to preserve a particular culture, but remnants of the truth remained. There was indeed a worldwide flood. In my opinion I believe the true account was preserved through the ages and came to us through the Bible. -
Message 15
Posted by Richie (U1238064) ** on Monday, 3rd December 2007
it is difficult to work seriously when you are mixing up events that may/may not have occured, with cizilizations which did exist, with religious beliefs and then trying to use the bible to "trump" any opposition argument.
One potential reason for a flood myth that exists in Greece as well as in Mesopatamia is the rising levels of the Med Basin as both the pilars of Heracles are breached and then later on the Bosphorous (sp) being breached. It is thought that there were quite a lot of people living along the coastal fringe of places like the Black Sea and the Levant Coast, such rises in sea level would force them to evacuate further inland, in the case of the Black Sea region entire areas are lost to the rising sea, possiblly forcing migrations of peoples south into Anatolia and along into the Mesopatamian region where they end up living alongside a river that again is prone to flooding.
Floods are part and parcel of human existence. Mankind has always lived on or near flood plains where they are on offer because you have a source of water, source of food, transport, and other benefits. However, rivers flood. In a society where mud and reed huts and small collections of animals are your world, it is easy for collective memories to share a "catastrophic" flood sent by the Gods (and in that region the Christian God was simply part of the body of Gods, something constantly refered to in the OT)
For a global flood to cover the entire world would require enomormous quantities of water. For the flood to cover Everest, how much would be required? In order for Noah to collect animals from Australia and the America's how long to sail there, collect the animals return to the Persian Gulf, await the flood. The food requirements of both herbivore and carnivore would be immense, add in the weight of animal droppings, insects, reptiles, birds, then the weight of the fresh water tanks (both drinking water and for the fresh water fish that could not survive a salt water flood)
Then you have the problems of where does the water go? Is it evaporated? That would take thousands of years. Does it get absorbed into water aquifiers? They would have been saturated early on leaving no room to absorb more. The only answer would be for the earth to rise up under the water and for the flood levels to actually stay the same, what happens to the soil though? grasses, cerals, trees, soil life (worms etc) the oxygen levels of the planet (without any plants on a world wide basis)
Once the flood has receeded you have one family of people stuck in one place with no food, no water (ironically), no shelter, no animals to slaughter as one would presume that no reproduction took place on the ark as otherwise the weight/bouyancy ratio would be ruined not to mention the food allocations, so no animals to slaughter, no wild fruits, cerals, berries to eat (as no trees or bushes or soil)
How does Noah and family survive in such a wasteland? How do the American/Australasian animals get returned as Noah's boat is now stranded high in the mountains (another issue for survivability, no mountain clothing in a rather cold environment)
I hope you can see where I'm going with the global flood idea. -
Message 16
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 17
Posted by The Covenant (U8843775) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
I believe from his/her other posts that he/she is member a the Assemblies of Yahweh, one of the myriad of American cults that exist to puzzle us simple historians.听 TwinProbe.What exactly are you talking of?
Do you even know what you are talking about? If there is anything unbiblical about the Assemblies of Yahweh, please tell. Why should you make judgements about a faith from a wikipedia article? I thought Historians were supposed to look at the "evidence", not make wild assertions.
Christians were called a cult, when they kept the commandments, same with any other faith trying to restore the Truth. If it is a cult, then explain it from the Bible, which is far more worth than any opinion. The Assemblies of Yahweh [Quhal Yahweh] was the name of the Assembly of Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures, are you going to call that a cult too?
The Assemblies of Yahweh isn't a cult, far from it. -
Message 18
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
You're right of course. It's a registered corporation whose mission statement is
"To teach and preach the word and sacred Name of our Heavenly Father and the truth of the inspired scriptures, to promote the interest of religion and the spread of spiritual holiness throughout the world, to assemble for worship to accomplish these beliefs and purpose and to engage exclusively in such religious, educational, and charitable purposes as are within the meaning of Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and its regulations as they now exist or as they may hereafter be amended."
And from what I can see from your website has about as much of a grasp on history as it has on reality in general.
Stating that the world was inundated completely by water on the whim of a deity, for example, is not stating history. It is stating fable. One does not even have to argue "evidence" since none can exist without lorry-loads of subjective interpretation applied to it. In other words, it is fabrication supporting fable.
If something that obvious, and as scientifically imperative, is beneath your contempt, then I suggest you would be more profitably employed discussing the merits and demerits of your "case" with people who share your disdain for rationality. People here tend to have a higher regard for accuracy than your beliefs will allow you. Unless you are here proselytising you are wasting your correspondents' time. And if you are here proselytising you are in breach of the message board rules.
Getting posters' messages deleted because they point out the incongruity of you arguing your faith on a history message board is rather petty. Though it fits in with the rest of the message you purvey and the mentality required to purvey it. -
Message 19
Posted by The Covenant (U8843775) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Richie, you have asked many questions, so I'll break it down:
鈥 One potential reason for a flood myth鈥
鈥 For a global flood to cover the entire world would require enormous quantities of water
鈥 In order for Noah to collect animals from Australia and the America's how long to sail there, collect the animals return to the Persian Gulf, await the flood
鈥 Once the flood has receded you have one family of people stuck in one place with no food, no water (ironically), no shelter, no animals to slaughter as one would presume that no reproduction took place on the ark as otherwise the weight/buoyancy ratio would be ruined not to mention the food allocations, so no animals to slaughter, no wild fruits, cereals, berries to eat (as no trees or bushes or soil)
鈥 How does Noah and family survive in such a wasteland?听 . But you question reasons for a myth; I reason that there was indeed a worldwide flood. Listen. This may sound extreme, but would you like to explain how in the world scientists have come to the conclusion that life started in the seas? Why they believe it rained for over 600,000 years, 4million years ago? And why on rocks nowhere near sea level could yield the traces of sea creatures dating only a few thousand years old? Forests can be transformed in the wilderness鈥 in just a few thousand years, so why is it unreasonable to think that the climate could have changed drastically as in this case.
. You claim that these people before the flood were primitive. Yet the Biblical account clearly points towards Cain building cities and making tools from iron. Later, after the flood, Nimrod went on to build four kingdoms in the land of Shinar, one of which was Babel. That takes an Engineering and analytical mind. Still some of the architectural work of the ancient peoples is marvelled at today!
. You say for a global flood it requires much water. Yet to comprehend, the name for our planet frequently as referred by oceanographers is the 鈥渨ater planet鈥. 71% of our Earth is made from water. In Genesis1, it clearly points towards a planet which was covered with water. That water was transferred to the atmosphere where it remained until the flood and again evaporated afterwards.
. You say Noah went to collect the animals, but as a matter of fact, the Bible points to the explanation that the animals came to him [Genesis7:9].
. The floods intention was to kill those who weren鈥檛 in the ark. The plants and trees would have survived, especially to say that by the time Noah allowed the dove to determine whether the Earth was yet dry, it came back with a freshly picked olive leaf. This tells us, that there was vegetation by the time humans set foot on the ground again. -
Message 20
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
There is evidence in every region of the Earth, we simply as humans have not understood everything yet. Take for example the Grand Canyon. Why is it that when one digs in to it one can find various layers with a clear exposure of the remains of sea creatures? The sedimentary rock is believed to have in some point trapped many of the sea creatures within. The only explanation for the widespread distribution of sedimentary formations as pointed out by Austin, must be down to a world wide flood rather than a local one.听
If Austin really claims that then he's talking out of his
. Sedimentary rocks are formed under water because the underlying igneous rock was at one point covered in water. That can be explained by a flood, or it can be explained by the seafloor being pushed upwards to higher than sea level. In either case, it is completely illogical to assume that all sedimentary rocks must be caused by the same geological flooding incident. Even a single sedimentary rock formation can be caused by multiple repeating floods. Take the Grand Canyon, google image search it and look at the coloured bands. These correspond to different periods of the rock being laid down. The dates can also be determined and shown to be different.
The formation of coral reefs must have taken place through the death of literally thousands of creatures听
Yes, but this has nothing to do with a single worldwide flood. Shipwrecks only a few decades old sport coral reefs.
The cliffs of Dover provide proof of a worldwide catastrophe.听
How? As far as geologists are concerned they only show that the chalk at Dover was under water when it was laid down. They provide no evidence whatsoever of conditions in say Paraguay at the time.
On some of the highest mountain ranges sea creatures can be found within rocks.听
Again, this only shows the rock was laid down under sea water. It does not show that it occurred during a single worldwide flood. In fact it doesn't even necessarily show flooding as such. More likely is that techtonic plate movement and collision has caused the seabed to be moved upwards.
But, considering the above, it would be rather difficult to see why the Hebrews would have drawn from a polytheistic Sumerian source when they believed in the absolute oneness of the Creator. 听
Not at all. Even the Bible says Abraham came from Sumeria, so why wouldn't they have a folk memory of a local Sumerian flood. The christians of medieval Europe worshipped one God, yet their stories of saint incorporate pagan motifs and aspects acquired from older folk tales. -
Message 21
Posted by Richie (U1238064) ** on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Covenant
1) I wasn't aware that scientists claim it rained for 600,000 years straight only 4 million years ago. Maybe some of the other posters here have heard of this, as this is completly new to me. Have you ever heard of geology? Rocks bearing fish fossils can be found miles and miles from seas and bodies of water as they have moved there over millenia, nothing supernatural in that
2) I don't claim anything about a "flood", however, humans 10,000 years ago were more primative than people living 5000 years ago and more primative than people living 2000 years ago. You can't use the bible to "trump" the argument as it is only itself what? 2500 years old.
3) Sorry, you're point here being?
4) My mistake. How did the animals build an Ark in order to sail to the Persian Gulf inorder to be lodge with Noah until such time as the global flood arrived
5)
The floods intention was to kill those who weren鈥檛 in the ark. The plants and trees would have survived
听
Trees survived violent flooding and submergtion for over a year without dying. And you wonder why people have issues with this story??? -
Message 22
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
I believe with certainty, that there was a worldwide flood which took place which didn't simply overflow a river but effected the entire world.听
You believe, or you know?
There is evidence in every region of the Earth, we simply as humans have not understood everything yet听
But YOU have?
It is believed that the longest shower of rain lasted for 60,000 years,听
Belief again! And that's a hell of a lot of moisture in the atmosphere!
Yes, I believe that a flood did take place, and only a remnant survived.听
There's that word again!
In my opinion I believe the true account was preserved through the ages and came to us through the Bible.听
This is a history board. There is no place for belief here, and certainly not if it is your only basis for presenting history.
I believe you might find more sympathetic ears on the religious boards, then again you probably won't. -
Message 23
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Coming to a history board and spouting religious claptrap with no historical basis or evidence whatsoever is the equivalent of going to someone's house and urinating in their kitchen sink.
-
Message 24
Posted by Richie (U1238064) ** on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Mick
As a regular on the Christian Board I can tell you that in general he'd get no better a response there than here. He would find some supporters, but they would be all of a certain "outlook" (6000 year old earth types) -
Message 25
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Have been reading this thread with interest, as I studied former climates at uni (a fair few years ago admittedly).
There is evidence of large areas of the globe flooding at different times during the melting of the ice caps in the period of c20,000 yrs BP to c8,000 yrs BP. It is thought that these have spawned the various flood myths from around the world. Interesting that both the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf and lower Tigris and Euphrates river valleys were flooded.
29
Funny that we know about these deluges from looking at the geology and geomorphology and run rigorous scientific tests on them, rather than just reading a book and believing it blindly -
Message 26
Posted by Richie (U1238064) ** on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Stoggler,
Thats exactly my point in the Black Sea Theory. Its a feasible date (10,000 years ago) its in an area that we know was flooded when the sea levels rose and the neck of the Bosphrous was breached, and that it appears (though searching for definite is difficult due to politics) that flooded coastal areas were populated.
The idea that survivors from this flood travelled south away from the Black Sea basin taking with them oral stories of the "Gods" destroying their homes in water is not so far fetched. Such a "global" flood is quite feasible insomuch as you understand that global simply means your local environment and not encomapssing Australia et all -
Message 27
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
"The idea that survivors from this flood travelled south away from the Black Sea basin taking with them oral stories of the "Gods" destroying their homes in water is not so far fetched. Such a "global" flood is quite feasible insomuch as you understand that global simply means your local environment and not encomapssing Australia et all"
Very good point Richie and one that people such as Convenant will usually conviently ignore. The known world was a much smaller place when the Old Testament stories were first written down than we know it to be today.
A few years ago Robert Ballard (if I remember correctly), in an effort to prove that the flooding of the Black Sea was the source of the Biblical flood story, did investigate the Black Sea seabed and found evidence of ancient houses & tools. -
Message 28
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
I believe you might find more sympathetic ears on the religious boards, then again you probably won't. 听
Speaking as a CofE-flavour Christian, believing in the literal truth of the early bits of the Bible is heresy from where I (and several Archbishops) stand. I'll bet he believes in -
Message 29
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Hi Covenant,
I鈥檒l choose my words more carefully this time so I don鈥檛 have another post pulled. You must try to remember that this is a history message-board and in principle we try to resolve historical questions by means of evidence and rational discussion. There may be those however who do not believe in the reality of the material world, or regard, as a matter of faith, a particular holy book as infallibly revealing the true history of mankind beyond any possibility of error. Such people are perfectly entitled to their views but an ordinary historical discourse with them is just not possible. Such views are best, IMO, expressed on a religious affairs message-board
As to the faith to which you may subscribe, I say 鈥榤ay鈥 since you have not made an explicit statement, well that is entirely a matter for yourself. I don鈥檛 think I made 鈥榳ild鈥 assertions exactly; the article in Wikipedia is quote sober in tone and no AoY member appears in the discussion page to refute the views. Nevertheless I would be interested to learn more, perhaps on the religious affairs message board so that we do not try the patience of the historians here. Perhaps you can understand the difficulties I have with the large number of American derived faiths of relatively recent origin and the abstruse points of doctrinal difference that seem to separate them. They often seem to spring from a new revelation by a charismatic leader, but I quite liked the older revelation personally.
Peace and love,
TP -
Message 30
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Tuesday, 4th December 2007
Nordmann (and others, apart from the cov)
i often read these boards and wish i had the historical/archaeological knowledge to contribute.
Could you please explain why you all give reasoned responses to someone who is obviously not posing a serious question? Granted the original posting might mean they did need to gain knowledge, but surely the subsequent gibberish indicated that wasn't the case. Ignore it.
glen -
Message 31
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
Hi glen berro
In the case of a message board that attempts to encourage serious debate (by which I mean grounded in reality) about subjects specifically historical there is always the danger that an opinion earnestly stated but predicated on fantasy will, by not being answered, be seen to be afforded the same validity as a reasoned and reasonable standpoint by the other contributors to the thread.
In the majority of cases (where the contributor has probably not realised that they take a stand based on no known fact) the response of the others is normally simply to point out their error, and in the majority of these cases it is quite normal for the contributor to acknowledge their mistake. Hence you have instances, for example, where someone might pose a question or viewpoint based on an assumption that the majority of Romans in Britain in the 2nd to 4th centuries AD were Italians, and a flurry of people who will answer them with the correct data.
What occurs with contributors driven by a religious agenda is normally quite different. For a start they are fully aware that they hold a viewpoint at variance with fact as arrived at through historical and scientific research. In fact not only do they know this but they often come prepared with well rehearsed "counter arguments" (taught to them or lifted wholesale from sources sympathetic to their bias) that have been formulated to appear as if they share the quality of empirical deduction with the scientific view, but in fact are simply circular arguments that always end up rooted in articles of faith, not knowledge.
In these cases it is necessary to make a reasoned response, both to warn the poster that their ruse is recognised for what it is, and to warn incidental readers of the thread (the poster's true target in fact) that a level of dishonesty - and proveable dishonesty - is being used to attempt to persuade them to believe something that palpably is not, nor cannot be, true.
Can I simply add that if you yourself recognise the absurdity of Covenant's position then you at least have the appreciation of fact and analysis to form perfectly valid opinions on history, which by definition is a discipline typified by opposing interpretations of data (which is what attracts posters such as the OP in this thread). As long as you hold true to that principle your contributions would always be welcome here, I feel, and would most definitely be more interesting and informative than the ones the OP has seen fit to post here. -
Message 32
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
Thanks for the reply Nordmann
it hadn't occurred to me that anyone would take such views seiously and can see that it is probably necessary to point out the facts.
i suppose not doing so would leave the board open to proselytizing nutters.
glen -
Message 33
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
Hi glen berro,
We do get the occasional proselytizing nutter here, but it has to be said that some are so out-there that they're hilarious. My favourite has to be the guy who asked this serious historical question...
The Demons Live In The Sea
Cheers,
RF -
Message 34
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
One thing is certain - the proselytizer will not be convinced of his or her error. The mental dedication required to negate reality, as far as I have observed with such people, is infinitely greater and more demanding of will than that used to acquire knowledge, and unfortunately the ability to reason must be sacrificed by protaganists of this style of non-thinking. If the term "self abuse" can be applied to cranial processes, then fundamentalism of any hue, by its very nature, must be classed as one of its more extreme forms.
But at least people who might otherwise have been susceptiple to impression by such earnestly expressed dedication - however misplaced its application - can see that it is something less impressive at a second, more critical, glance and definitely not a view that squares with a pursuit of knowledge. -
Message 35
Posted by The Covenant (U8843775) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
Nordman. I don't think you know what you're talking about. But continue on, by all means
. -
Message 36
Posted by The Covenant (U8843775) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
In the case of a message board that attempts to encourage serious debate (by which I mean grounded in reality) about subjects specifically historical there is always the danger that an opinion earnestly stated but predicated on fantasy will听
Nordman. Thank you for your contribution. I guess trying to explain that a shower of rain for forty days is a lot worse than the scientific theory that 4million years ago a shower of rain lasted for 60,000 years. Quite reasonable of you.
Perhaps we should rename HIStory as YOURstory.
Whether one would like to believe in a worldwide flood at the moment is irrelevant. Still, the most oldest archaeological finds seem to point towards a flood which resulted from a god or gods, and strangely, in both Babylonian and Hebrew cultures, resulted in a ark being built and a remnant being preserved.
Just to remind you, the topic is:
鈥 Ancient
鈥 Archaeology
If people want to use the Bible as a reference to locations as archaeologists do and events, but want to exclude the fact that it tells of a worldwide flood, isn't that biased history?
Posters have claimed the reason for the accounts of floods in so many cultures is probably down to the flooding of the Black Sea. But people need to pay attention to the consensus of what people had wrote of the flood.
In any case, there was a flood.
They are flood stories all over the world, which have survived in cultures, all as a result of something the g-ds could not stand happening on the Earth. Archeology digs up people not things, therefore, it might make a more positive change if more historians would accept that a true account exists in the world today.
What do you think happened after the flood, minor or otherwise? -
Message 37
Posted by Grumpyarchmonkey (U10592661) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
I'm getting everywhere
There is a much older flood myth than Noah, called the Epic of Gilgamesh, who I think may have been some bloke from Baylonia (outside my period so not 100% sure). The flood myth has existed in many forms since writing began and probably earlier. Ritchie is right, the people then would only have understood their local environment so that would have been the world for them. The Med has risen about 100 meters since around 9000BC which could also account for Ballard's underwater sites in the Black Sea.
The bible should be treated as a text source for possible proof by archaeology, for eg, OT Per Ramasses has been found and the Philistine pentapolis exists even today BUT no biblical story is safe till its proven, it cant be done by default, or Abraham's 400 odd year long life will have to be believed and errrrrrr well, you can see where I'm going ........... -
Message 38
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
Covenant. I'll ignore your insults. They are also par for the course with religious fundamentalists like yourself who find their utterly groundless and silly statements challenged. "Archaeologists dig up people, not things". Where did you get THAT from?
But I can't believe I'm the first person who has had to break the bad news to you. There was no flood in which a (rather disfunctional as it turned out) family built a boat to which all bisexually reproductive life forms made their own way, all living together for forty one or so days (factoring in assembly and dispersal routines) and finishing up on a mountain in Turkey. It's not even a good fable. Other flood fables (and flood was indeed a spectre that haunted early civilisations stationed in alluvial plains) come across as much more believable - in a Marvel Comics sort of way. But they're fables. They have a message within them of obeying wrathful gods or else. Of living according to a defined code or else. They're bogeyman stories dressed up as something heavier. One time ignorance led many people to believe them as fact. Such levels of ignorance are rare these days. Those that operate at such a level of ignorance these days do so voluntarily. And now, just as at any other time, those who oppose knowledge and its acquisition are expressing a fear whether they know it or not. It is the fear that a knowledgeable people will not be so easily controlled, and with some individuals their perceived impotency in that regard leads them to being consumed by that fear. But they can't change reality. And reality says that your fable - and a lot of other fanciful stuff in religious texts - just can't have happened. At least not without heaps of liberal reinterpretation (the theology business). It is not fact.
Either you admit to yourself you're peddling garbage or you're on a slope into fantasy that, I am afraid to have tell you, will impact tremedously destructively on your mental health and the lives of those around you. Just thought I'd tell you, as your religiously fundamentalist fellow travellers sure as hell won't. -
Message 39
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
"They are flood stories all over the world, which have survived in cultures"
Well of course there are flood stories all over the world, it is because at various times through history there have been floods all over the world and they will continue to happen all over the world. It does not mean that the flood stories of different cultures are referring to one single massive flood that engulfed the world. -
Message 40
Posted by Richie (U1238064) ** on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
In any case, there was a flood
听
Correction: "In any case, there have been many floods"
Other than that what a load of guff -
Message 41
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 5th December 2007
Just to remind you, the topic is:
鈥 Ancient
鈥 Archaeology听
Well done!
Is this a breakthrough? -
Message 42
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 6th December 2007
Hi Covenant,
Just to remind you, the topic is:
鈥 Ancient
鈥 Archaeology听
As opposed to:
鈥 Mumbo
鈥 Jumbo
Cheers,
RF -
Message 43
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Thursday, 6th December 2007
What is believed to be the race of the ancient Egyptians?听
Homo sapiens, as i am and, no doubt you wish to be.
glen -
Message 44
Posted by The Covenant (U8843775) on Thursday, 6th December 2007
Nordman. You also ask me
silly statements challenged. "Archaeologists dig up people, not things". Where did you get THAT from?听 Silly Statements? The quote was from Sir Mortimer Wheeler, do you even know who he was? You might want to do some research. -
Message 45
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 6th December 2007
Do you not even know what he meant? You might want to quote people correctly in future, if you intend to use quotations in your defence. Check out the foreward to Wheeler's "Archaeology From The Earth" again, and pay attention to what he says next.
Seriously, you have it bad, the fundamentalist thing - even down to the snide backbiting comments, using out of context data, to score "parting shots" in the hope of denegrating the person who has chosen to oppose your nonsense.
You can relax here, Covenant. You've been seen for what you are on this messageboard at least. There's no one to impress. Try the rational approach - deep down you know it makes sense. -
Message 46
Posted by The Covenant (U8843775) on Friday, 7th December 2007
Nordman. I have nothing more to say to you You have to resort to insults to put a point across. You won't accept anything that people who believe in the Almighty say. The only thing I can say, is that I believe the Bible is more accurate than you do. Several archaeological excavations have proved the Bible to be authentic. I have to say, I am displeased over the fact that you have had to resort to insults.
Most of your posts seem to be more of a attempt at psychology, therefore, you may wish to use this board to take your views where you can discuss what you believe the Bible is, with those who may agree:
You asked a question , as soon as I began to answer it, you simply attacked it, even though I gave evidence. I have asked you historical questions and you haven鈥檛 even attempted to answer them. And now this, you ask me, a quote which you originally ridiculed, if I know what he meant? I thought the role of one who wished to understand history, would be entirely bound upon the determination to explore possibilities of sources which archaeological evidence has given to us.
Archaeological evidence acknowledges supports the belief there was a flood, but you believe it was a minor one. Fair enough. But such beliefs can not be substantiated at this moment in time. I hope you take the time to understand.
The only thing I can say, is that I believe the Bible is more accurate than you do. -
Message 47
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 7th December 2007
Hi Covenant,
Your post to Nordmann comes to the heart of this issue. Are you saying?
1. The Bible is generally correct and accurate but might be shown to be incorrect in some details by textual, historical or archaeological evidence, and may contain poetic language that is not meant to be interpreted literally.
or
2. The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God which is accurate and literally true beyond any possibility of error.
If 1. we can have a conversation. If 2. you are perfectly entitled to your views but it is impossible for you to have a meaningful conversation on this board.
Could you please make your views unmistakably clear?
TP -
Message 48
Posted by Richie (U1238064) ** on Friday, 7th December 2007
Archaeological evidence acknowledges supports the belief there was a flood,
听
But it doesn't support the idea behind the biblical version, it supports that there have been floods (plural) in various places at various different times in history. -
Message 49
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 7th December 2007
The only thing I can say, is that I believe the Bible is more accurate than you do.
听
If by accurate you mean that the book is a scientific record of real events then you do both science and the book a great disservice.
You are also rather liberal with your meaning for the word "evidence", and I am sorry to see that my genuine attempt at alerting you to the absolute folly of your standpoint has been interpreted as "insulting". But then, that is also part of the fundamentalist mindset, as I have found in the past.
While your entitlement to hold any silly view you wish is indeed one that I would not presume to deny you, your naivete in thinking that presenting it amongst people, for whom a respect for deductive reasoning immunises them from the worst pitfalls of confusing unscientific allegory with hard data, simply delineates the extent down the road of irrationality to which you have already travelled. As has been requested by another poster, if you are here discussing the archaeological record (or even the geological record) then there is room for debate. If you are here presenting a selective pastiche of archaeological and geological terminology applied to patently proveable hogwash then you are indeed on the wrong messageboard.
You have yet to find one person in this thread who has anyhing but extreme doubts about your ability to recognise, let alone discuss, reality. I suggest that you take this as a possible pointer, not to their lack of faith, but to your lack of ability to reason. -
Message 50
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Friday, 7th December 2007
Covenant
I note that you have not addressed the points put in Message 15 from Richie. For a refresher, here's what he said:
For a global flood to cover the entire world would require enomormous quantities of water. For the flood to cover Everest, how much would be required? In order for Noah to collect animals from Australia and the America's how long to sail there, collect the animals return to the Persian Gulf, await the flood. The food requirements of both herbivore and carnivore would be immense, add in the weight of animal droppings, insects, reptiles, birds, then the weight of the fresh water tanks (both drinking water and for the fresh water fish that could not survive a salt water flood)
Then you have the problems of where does the water go? Is it evaporated? That would take thousands of years. Does it get absorbed into water aquifiers? They would have been saturated early on leaving no room to absorb more. The only answer would be for the earth to rise up under the water and for the flood levels to actually stay the same, what happens to the soil though? grasses, cerals, trees, soil life (worms etc) the oxygen levels of the planet (without any plants on a world wide basis)
Once the flood has receeded you have one family of people stuck in one place with no food, no water (ironically), no shelter, no animals to slaughter as one would presume that no reproduction took place on the ark as otherwise the weight/bouyancy ratio would be ruined not to mention the food allocations, so no animals to slaughter, no wild fruits, cerals, berries to eat (as no trees or bushes or soil)
How does Noah and family survive in such a wasteland? How do the American/Australasian animals get returned as Noah's boat is now stranded high in the mountains (another issue for survivability, no mountain clothing in a rather cold environment)听
These are rather important issues to consider when a global flood is being debated. If you cannot satisfactorily explain these issues how are you going to pursuade us "non-believers" that there was a flood as depicted in the Bible?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.