Gilbert West died 13 years before Napoleon was born, so I don't think he made a comment about there being "more evidence for Christ's resurrection than the existence of Napoleon".
Posted on 10/22/2007 6:48:17 AM PDT by Sopater
From:
http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/staffsling.html
(cool and eccentric Brit website warning)
(on the staff sling)
I took the Metro down to Tynemouth for my first experiments. From there, I slung stones out to sea. There were plenty of stones to pick from. I quickly discovered that I could with ease sling very large stones in comparison with the ones I used with my little hand sling.
I was picking stones the size of apples, perhaps a bit larger than a tennis ball, or the size of a smallish orange. Since all my shots went out to sea, I cannot tell you what range I was getting with my shots, but I doubt I was getting much further than 120 yards.
Some shots might have been as little as eighty yards, but I really could be very wrong with my estimates. One thing that made me doubt my guesses was when I decided to go for accuracy rather than range, and targeted a man-sized rock that was 50-80 yards away from me.
My first shot hit it plumb in the centre, bounced, flew back the way it had come, went directly over my head (missing me by several feet but I ducked anyway), and landed twenty yards behind me. Either some very strange physics was at work, or my estimates of distance were very poor.
There are a couple of moovies to go along with the narrative.
Well, there you go. It just shows that anyone who believes in Creationism is just a toothless, uneducated hillbilly.
(sarcasm alert)
that’s it in a nut shell!!
I think they should get decent marks for getting 3 out of 4. (especially in our post-JudeoChristian and biblically-illiterate country)
Three out of four what? They couldn't name one.
Gilbert West died 13 years before Napoleon was born, so I don't think he made a comment about there being "more evidence for Christ's resurrection than the existence of Napoleon".
It would seen that the archaeological evidence suggests that the walls came tumbling down between 1550 and 1400 BC. (Depending on who you cite.) This would be roughly 200-300 years before the time of Joshua.
I expect the dates of remote historical events are only rough educated guesses. The same for unearthed objects. A difference of only 200-300 years should not be surprising or troublesome.
“Three out of four what? They couldn’t name one.”
Thanks for the comment.
I guess I’m too much of a nice guy.
I presumed that what was meant was that they named 3 out of 4...
and choked on the fourth one.
At the same time, the actual result (couldn’t name a SINGLE gospel text)
doesn’t shock me that much.
As I said we live in a “Post-Judeo-Christian” and “biblically-illiterate”
society.
But then that’s not shocking when a professor from a theology/divinity
school (obstensibly “Christian”) chokes on an extemporaneous recitation
of The Ten Commandments.
To get a better feel of the story of Jericho, read Joshua 3 then Joshua 6 as if it were a continuous passage. Now read Joshua 6:20 closely and in several translations. Pay attention to the word “wall”. In most translations, it is translated as singular.... as in “A wall”. I’m also told that a singular translation is close to the original Hebrew. Though I must confess that I do not know Hebrew.
We also know, that in ancient times, when referring to the walls of a city, many people would view the WALLS (collective - plural) as being the some of many different walls. Think - the walls of Jerusalem and the wailing wall, or the north wall.... etc.
So it is quite possible, contrary to what many people believe, the WALLS of Jericho did not fall .... A WALL of Jericho fell. From an archaeological stand point, finding a single failed wall is much different than a total collapse as thought by most people. And if you start from a wrong premise, it follows that your conclusions are also likely to be false. Regardless, the city is sacked, burned to the ground and the evidence of that sacking is what is in much dispute.
There are also many other theories .... Joshua did not author the book as he is referred to in the third person in many places. This leads people to believe that the account was transcribed after the events.....
Another theory suggested by Emmanuel Anati states that the occupation of Palestine by the Israelites actually occurred prior to the Late Bronze Age as commonly held. Anati says he has found evidence to support Joshua’s conquest occurring in the Early Bronze Age circa 2200–2500 BC. Anati says that both a settlement bearing topographical similarity to the Biblical cities of Ai and Jericho were destroyed in this time frame, in a period when both sites had defensive walls. He also found that Ai was burned to the ground at this time, which fits the events in the Book of Joshua, and that the previous inhabitants of the areas around these cities gave way to a more nomadic people with different types of pottery than the original inhabitants and which developed into a pastoral society dominated by small villages. All of this would more accurately reflect what was recorded in the Biblical accounts of Joshua’s invasion, but it also conflicts with some of the Bible’s Old Testament chronology.
The strongest scientific evidence would be radio carbon dating of the ash and pottery of the Jericho dig, which puts the destruction of Jericho at 1410 BC. And many bible time lines site Joshua as being written around 1450, so that time line still holds and is not all that far off.
“To effectively equip our young people (and adults) today, we can’t just tell Bible stories. We need to teach Christians how to defend the Bible against secular attacks. In this way, they will believe these Bible stories to be real history.”
It’s being attacked from WITHIN the church too, by the emerging church movement, and by the purpose-driven one-world-religion agenda!
But on the other hand, Gilbert West must have had some supernatural power to predict that after he died that there would be someone named Napoleon born and conquer Europe but in reality it would all be a myth.
I did not mean to comment so brashly. I regretted it after I hit the enter button.
Not personally, but this fellow Sun Ming Ming, is proported to be 7'9".
proported=purported
There is. You might just go to Heaven. Fancy that intell...
5.56mm
Hmmm..., I’m about ready to try out the sling-shot on some pigeons in the yard... LOL! I’ll let you know the results...
But if they were able to scientifically prove that walking on water was possible, wouldn't it cease to be a miracle?
No, it wouldn't cease being a miracle. Just because there exists the (1) knowledge and (2) the power to make something happen, doesn't mean that this existence of that particular knowledge and that particular power makes it to be less of a miracle. It's still that same miracle, nonetheless.
God obviously has the knowledge and the power to bring the entire universe into existence, at His mere spoken word -- and Jesus, in like manner, can do the "paltry little things" like walking on water. If you knew the secret (of knowledge) and had the power (from "being") that Jesus knows and has, you could do it, too. Just because you don't have that knowledge and power and He does, doesn't make it less the miracle that it is.
The angels have been given the knowledge and power to appear and disappear (in our present existence) in ways that we don't understand and can't do (and don't have the power to do right now). But, at some time in the future, we may be given that ability and power to do the very same thing, as the angels. There is good indication that we will have the advanced knowledge and be given that kind of power, from what the Bible tells us.
You see, I don't believe it's necessarily that these things can't be done. Of course all the miracles can be done -- if -- you knew how to do them and you had the power.
It's like I've always said to people, "Anything is easy to do if you know how to do it..." LOL!
----------
God says that there is no one like Him and that He knows the beginning from the end and has all power and knowledge in the universe (and outside the universe, as He is outside of His creation and not part of it and subject to it). So, that makes all these thing "easy" for Him. Since that kind of knowledge and power exists (in God, Himself), that doesn't make these things any less of the miracles that they are, even if we knew and could explain them all. Since God is a God of order, of knowledge and of ultimate power, it's certainly feasible to "know" all these things at some time in the future, but it will take away nothing of the miracle that they are.
But, having the ultimate power to carry them all out and be able to do them, would require being something that one is not -- being that we all are part of this universe and that this universe was created by someone that is not part of it or is not subject to any of the "laws" of this universe. So, the "power part" will never be attained by us, as we are always part of the universe. And, some people would probably argue that the knowledge part may be beyond us, too, in that it may involve "knowlege" that is also "out of this universe" in that God is not part of it and not subject to it, so that He must have knowledge that exists apart from it, too. So, that part (i.e., the "knowledge") is, most likely, "unknowable", too.
And there you have it...
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. -- I would say that there is a good argument that we can attain to some of the "miracles" that we have seen (or "read" from God's word) from what angels have done -- as they are actually part of the created universe and simply represent higher powers (granted by God) than we are now. But, at some future time, we will have higher powers than we have at present. So, having some of that power (which are described as miracles now) wouldn't necessarily be beyond us.
It’s being attacked from WITHIN the church too, by the emerging church movement, and by the purpose-driven one-world-religion agenda!
Yeah, the Emergent Church and the Purpose-Driven "agenda" is nothing less than accommodating God to us (in human terms), rather than us to God (in divine terms). It's making God to be like us, and to have a "god of our own making" -- rather than what the God of the Bible tells us what He is like and what He demands and accepting what He has provided for our salvation.
Regards,
Star Traveler
I believe that the reason for this is that most people don't know anything else the Bible says apart from these stories, nor do they know how these stories relate to each other or to their lives.
Well, the primary reason is "sin" -- very simply. It's always been that and will continue to be that reason. It's not the lack of knowledge.
I mean, Satan himself, is not lacking knowledge, but he is certainly the father of sin, as sin was found in him and is described as first occuring in him. It's not Satan's lack of knowledge which causes him to do what he has done, but rather, sin in him -- that causes his actions.
And likewise, he imparts that to the human race, so that even if they were to have ultimate knowledge, they would still have sin, and thus would still reject God and have that sort of "disconnect" that is exemplified by that phrase in that article -- "unmistakable gap between belief and behavior". Sin is the cause for that gap...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.