Atheism, Meme, Science

The Big Bang is not the beginning…

I trust God over any man any day….the beginning has actually been recorded in Genesis 1.

“[8] Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: [10] but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: [11] for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” – Exodus 20:8-11

Every single week of every single year the people of God were to rest and there doesnt seem to br any other way they could have understood 6 days and then a 7th in any other way than the way they would have understood it back then and so should we. God bless…

Now, either Penrose is right and other scientists are wrong or the Bible is right and all of them are wrong.

“[4] God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, And mightest overcome when thou art judged.” – Romans 3:4

“[8]  It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in man. [9]  It is better to trust in the LORD Than to put confidence in princes.” – Psalm 118:8,9

Either it is, or it isn’t.

P.S. – I have yet to see anything in the observational and repeatable fields of science that contradict Genesis 1. It seems to me it’s just the origins sciences that contradict the Genesis 1 and these are quite hypothetical/theoretical and they have many holes in these theories and thus “rescuing devices” and so to trust these theories above and over Genesis is done so by an element of faith and those who trust Genesis over the theories of men that contradict Genesis are to be allowed rescuing devices in order to be fair and consistent when they are defending Genesis as much as one who defends the theories of life from none life etc etc etc.

26 thoughts on “The Big Bang is not the beginning…”

  1. and still no evidence for your imaginary friend. The big bang theory states that this universe began at a point billions of years ago. Nothing shows that any of the many gods that theists claim “created the universe” exists at all.

    We don’t know yet, and may never know, if the universe is cyclical. Still no god.

    funny how Genesis 1 claims that stars are little lights in a solid dome that can fall off. So now you have evidence that your bible full of nonsense. and curious how Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1. Ooopsie!

    “P.S. – I have yet to see anything in the observational and repeatable fields of science that contradict Genesis 1. It seems to me it’s just the origins sciences that contradict the Genesis 1 and these are quite hypothetical/theoretical and they have many holes in these theories and thus “rescuing devices” and so to trust these theories above and over Genesis is done so by an element of faith and those who trust Genesis over the theories of men that contradict Genesis are to be allowed rescuing devices in order to be fair and consistent when they are defending Genesis as much as one who defends the theories of life from none life etc etc etc.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. 1) I would argue that the universe having a beginning is consistent with a Christian theistic position.

      And 2) if it had a beginning, it’s hard to fathom nothing, creating everything.

      Because 3) We certainly do not have any scientific evidence of something coming from nothing. All of our experience in reality, in labs, in life, in chemistry, in quantum physics, in theories of relativity, etc etc etc seems to refute things come from nothing.

      So, 4) the universe coming from something as opposed to nothing is consistent with a Christian theistic position, not an atheist’s. There is no evidence of an atheist position here.

      You also said, “funny how Genesis 1 claims that stars are little lights in a solid dome that can fall off….and curious how Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1. Ooopsie!”

      Where in Genesis 1 does it claim that “stars are little lights in a solid dome” and how does “Genesis 2 contradict Genesis 1”?

      Like

      Reply

      1. You would argue a lot of false things. So? And that you can’t grasp something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. We do have scientific evidence for something coming, so again you fail. Physics shows that something can come from nothing: the casimir effect, virtual particles, etc. So your lies of “all of our experience” fail miserably.
        Most, if not every, religion has reality coming from their imaginary friends. Still no evidence for those claims.
        It’s great how you try to put off the inevitable, dear, and do a great job of showing how your cult requires its members to lie.

        “14 And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.’ And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. “ NSRV

        “14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
        15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
        16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
        17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
        18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.” – KJV

        The term “firmament” and “dome” come from a Hebrew word that means:

        “Pronounce: raw-kee’-ah Strong: H7549
        Orig: from 7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:–firmament. H7554Use: TWOT-2217a Noun Masculine
        Grk Strong: G3772 G4733
        1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
        1a) expanse (flat as base, support)
        1b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
        1b1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting ‘waters’ above “ strong’s concordance.

        Your bible also has how the stars can fall off, which can’t happen and is evidence of your bible reflecting the ignorance of humans, nothing else.

        ““Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” Matthew 24

        Genesis 1 and genesis 2 tell two separate stories. They disagree on the order of creation, and how man/woman was created.

        “26 Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind[c] in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth,[d] and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’
        27 So God created humankind[e] in his image,
        in the image of God he created them;[f]
        male and female he created them.” Genesis 1

        or:

        “7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,[b] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

        “15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’
        18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man[c] there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” – Genesis 2

        I do love the second version since it has this god too stupid to realize that all of other animals can’t be a mate for adam. So much for “omnipotent and omniscient”.

        Like

      2. Casimir effect? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-casimir-effec/ I’ll let the reader decide for themselves if the Casimir effect proves your claim that “Physics shows that something can come from nothing…

        The virtual particles? They seem to be connected to the Casimir effect but again you are not creating something from nothing. It seems virtual particles can “spontaneously emerge from a vaccum…” according to Wikipedia and this has to do with Casimir forces (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_force) but please read the Scientific America that a vaccum is “far from being empty”! This is not from nothing this is just further proof at the quantum level that we don’t find anything created from nothing anywhere.

        Now,

        You made be aware of something I did not know. There is one translation that uses the word “dome”. But still a huge majority disagree with translating this word as a “dome”. So you would be in the minority view amongst translations of the Bible. Which doesn’t necessarily mean you are wrong but is hardly solid proof that the Bible teaches the “dome” view which you claim!

        Besides, there is a huge problem with the idea that the firmament is itself a solid structure dividing the waters above and below. If everything between the waters above and below was the firmament and the firmament is solid material then how are birds flying in solid material or how are we living and breathing and talking in solid material. This is absurd!

        Now maybe the firmament was somewhat solid and as it expanded gave way to our current atmosphere so that we could live and move and fly and breath etc etc or maybe the atmosphere or space is the firmament but the firmament could not remain solid as the thing that separated the waters it had to give way to something we could live in and fly around in and travel to the moon in.

        The “dome” idea could possibly work if it was of solid composition of some sort that upon expansion broke into the composition of our atmosphere!

        I mean the atmosphere does have mass and a mass at 1 millionth the mass of earth so is there any relation there.

        Anyhow, just thoughts to ponder. Maybe the Casimir effect has something to do with all this as space is stretched particles may be created and even in a vaccum with cmb like light in the universe before sun moon and stars and therefore things can still be considered solid and yet not so we can live and fly in. I don’t know just being silly but who knows as we are discovering how weird things work at the quantum level!
        The same physics you are relying upon to prove that nothing can create everything may actually be the physics that help us better understand how it all happened in 6 days and within 6000 to 10000 years ago and in the order in which is claimed by Scripture and how a firmament of some sort could create space between waters and where the waters above this firmament went etc etc etc or is the clouds or not!

        I just wanna make an observation that Genesis 1 speaks of a light on day 1 before the sun moon and stars. Which may have been thought to be absurd or ridiculous and people may have been tempted at a time to change the ordering of the days in Genesis but we have discovered the CMB which is a light before sun moon and stars were made in the big bang paradigm.

        So, just because something may seem off in the Genesis account may turn out to be right upon further discovery!

        Now I will get to your other Biblical passages in the next post!

        This was fun. I learned alot in an hour or two or more of looking into these things. But I better take off for now. Take care…to be continued

        P.S. I put pictures of the Hebrew word and the root word that it comes from from the Hebrew which is what you copied but the added root word.

        Like

      4. Seems you have no idea what a “vacuum” is, TJ. Nothing new there. The layman considers “nothing” a vaccum. That you, and they, don’t get the idea of quantum fluctuations and fields doesn’t mean the term is wrong when something can indeed come from nothing. And still no evidence for your god at all, no matter if “nothing” is empty or not.
        No surprise that a Christian has no idea what their bible actually says. This set of book was written by ignorant humans thousands of years ago. Your attempt to take it out of that context and claim these ignorant humans understood the sky as we do is simply false. It notable how you can’t show that I’m in some “minority” view, TJ. That is far from the case since the KJV uses “firmament” which also indicates a solid structure. Again, the concordance shows you wrong: Orig: from 7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:–firmament. H7554Use: TWOT-2217a Noun MasculineGrk Strong: G3772 G47331) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament 1a) expanse (flat as base, support) 1b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above) 1b1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting ‘waters’ above
        Yep, there is a problem with how ignorant the people were when claiming that the firmament/dome/arch claimed that this thing separated the “waters”. Yep, it makes no sense, and those who wrote the bible were wrong about this and so many other things. Again, you try to pretend that the people who wrote this nonsense were educated like modern humans. They weren’t.
        And then you try to make up nonsense to explain why these ignorant authors were “kinda” right, when they weren’t. It’s hilarious how now you invent complete garbage about how the “firmament” somehow expanded to allow for their ignorance. Rather than admit your ignorant book is wrong, you have to perform acrobatics to avoid that.
        Of course you have no evidence for any of your invented nonsense, just like you have no evidence for your god. Christians repeatedly try this, with their lies about how the ridiculous flood happened, etc, and they always fail since their invented nonsense has no evidence to support it either.

        and no, there is no magical “relation” between the mass of earth’s atmosphere and the earth. The desperation that Christians have to find anything to show their nonsense is true is amusing.

        You have nothing to “ponder” just invented nonsense to try to support your cult. The sun and other stars are not solid, so you fail there too. So you simply ignore the definitions of words and make nonsense up. Your magical nonsense has no evience for it, even if we don’t completely grasp what happens at the quantum level.

        The same physics has never supported the supernatural nonsense in your bible. All you have is 2000+ years of abject failure. Nothing about quantum physics shows that imgniary beings exist or that they cause events to happen on earth. And curious how you Christians can’t even agree amongst yourselves on how your “creation” happened. You are all quite the frauds, each with no evidence for your claims.
        Your ”observation” about Genesis 1 has nothing to do with reality. Yep, your ignorant myth has light existing before anything could produce it. So you fail yet again. The CMB shows that the big bang event happened billions of years ago, so your “creation” of 6 days 6000 years ago is shown to be wrong by what you try to reference.

        Like

      5. I am not the best when it comes to end times language or even if this is an end time passage or has a double fulfillment or not. It would be better to refer you to somebody who is better versed in this but I will do my best.

        One thing seems to be of a huge majority opinion is that Jesus is not himself saying that stars are going to fall from a dome of some sort.

        In Isaiah 13:10 it reads: “For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.” Notice the similarity to Matthew 24:29 here but notice the context from Isaiah 13:1 is a judgment of Babylon by the Medes (Isaiah 13:17) which already happened. Notice that this judgment of Babylon by the Medes that God also states this in vs 13 “Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.” – Isaiah 13:13. This is what most Bible readers that I’m aware of see as apocalyptic language that is common in Scripture and is not to be taken literally.

        “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.” – Joel 2:31

        “And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD.” – Ezekiel 32:7,8 This concerning Egypt of days gone past.

        Non literal understanding of stars in certain contexts goes way back to Joseph’s dream of moon, sun and stars bowing to him and to Exodus with Balaam concerning The Star in Israel and they are to be for seasons AND SIGNS.

        Also, in Jugdes a star is said to fight against a king but clearly metaphorical as you read the king died at the hand and nail of a women and no star was involved. There are so many examples. This language would be obvious to most Bible readers I would argue. Kind of like when we say it’s raining cats and dogs most of us get this by being familiar with our culture.

        Now, I do wonder if this language will one day literally be fulfilled at the end of days and stars will be seen as falling from the heavens (Jesus doesn’t say they are going to hit the earth but be seen as falling none the less) and/or much heavenly debris falling to the earth from the sky and smoke causing the sun and moon and stars to fail to shine or their lights go out or all of the above but I am not entirely sure but one thing that seems to be for sure for me is the non literal aspect of this language is clear but whether or not it’s to be fulfilled literally in the future at the destruction of the universe in 2 Peter somewhere it may culminate then.

        Anyhow, hardly Jesus claiming things will fall off a dome ceiling of some sort.

        Take care for now and to be continued…

        Like

      6. And yet more excuses. I already know that christians can’t agree on what their ignorant set of books “really” says, so your attempts to claim ignorance isn’t anything new. Curious how an omnipotent god fails to make itself comprehensible.

        You again try to claim “huge majority opinion” when there is none. This appeal to popularity fallacy fails since you can’t show that it even exists or that a majority makes something “true”.
        As usual, christains can’t agree if the verses from Isaiah are mentioning something different than the nonsense jesus supposedly said, with christains claiming that reference in Isaiah is a “prophecy”. And curious how nothing of the sort happened during any period in earth’s history. It’s made up nonsense. And as always Christians can’t agree on what in their bible should be taken literally, taken as metaphor, taken as exaggeration, etc. You all make up what you want when your bible is too ignorant and ridiculous to be believed.

        I’s hilarious how you try to claim this garbage isn’t literal, but you try to invent excuses why the nonsense in Genesis 1 should be taken literally. How convenient.
        You simply assert that oh the silly parts of the bible are “clearly metaphor” and that simply isn’t the case when one considers who wrote this nonsense.

        Unsurprisngly, stars can’t fall onto the earth, and your claim that “but but it could happen”, simply is your desperation to cling to the cult. Your bible says they will hit the earth, so again your ignorance of your bible shows.

        “10 The third angel blew his trumpet, and a great star fell from heaven, blazing like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. 11 The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters became wormwood, and many died from the water, because it was made bitter.” Revelation 8

        and more complete garbage from 2 Peter “7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of the godless.” 2 Peter 3

        no flood, no fire. Just the sadistic fantasies of Christians.

        To whine that “jesus didn’t say it” is amusing since you Christians have no problem accepting other things jesus didn’t say. As usual, you have little more than hypocrisy.

        Like

      7. When it comes to things to be taken literally and not, should come after careful study. Genesis 1 is not in apocalyptic language, but Isaiah is apocalyptic. Genesis 1 has nothing to do with judgment and any apocalyptic scenarios, whereas Isaiah is a highly apocalyptic. But I suppose you’re going to say I’m wrong, a liar and a fraud.

        Anyhow, take care..

        Like

      8. ROFL. Every cultists makes these claims to justify their intepretation. Every one of you frauds claims only you done the “careful study”, and everyone of you claims only your “careful study” is the right study.

        Like

      9. I do not believe the accounts contradict each other. God makes man in His image on day 6. But His image includes both male and female. Without the female, the image of God is not created yet.

        “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male AND female created he them.” – Genesis 1:27 the text is quick to include and note the male and female aspect.

        “And God said, Let us (plural) make man in our (plural) image, after our (plural) likeness: and let them (plural) have dominion…” Genesis 1:26 same here showing singularity and plural and man in His image singular and plural.

        Genesis 5:1,2 basically repeats Genesis 1:26 when starting with the genealogy of Adam:

        “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

        So, the day Man/Adam was made in the image of God was the day when God created the female/Eve. It could be argued that man without the woman is not the image of God as it is male and female created in the image of God (that singular yet plural aspect without which would not fully image the creator’s singular yet plural aspect).

        So, Adam may have existed before the animals were made and I believe may have existed on day 3 before the grass was made based on Genesis 2:5-7 (I have heard of other arguments that are good arguments that Adam was made after the grass but I am saying even if he was made on day 3 that the image of God is not yet fully created being male and female and the two becoming one and being made in God’s image, so Adam could have existed before day 6 as Genesis 2 may indicate as not fully in the image of God yet since the female has not been made and then day 6 and Genesis 1 are focusing on man being created in the image of God as male and female in the day THEY were created as opposed to just Adam before day 6.

        So, the “contradiction” is not a true contradiction if it can be understood in a non contradictory way.

        Like

      10. Yep, you don’t believe it. that doesn’t magicall make them not contradictory. Your ignorance doesn’t change reality. You simply choose to lie about what your bible literally says.

        Yep, genesis 1 notes male and female created together. Genesis 2 says that man was created first and women after since this god was too stupid to know the other animals couldn’t be Adam’s mate. It’s great how you simply ignore Genesis 2. Yep, Genesis 5 forgets Genesis 2 also. It is well known that Genesis is a mash-up of different stories. Here’s what the Wikipedia entry on Genesis says:

        “According to the documentary hypothesis, J was produced during the 9th century BC in the southern Kingdom of Judah and was believed to be the earliest source. E was written in the northern Kingdom of Israel during the 8th century BC. D was written in Judah in the 7th century BC and associated with the religious reforms of King Josiah c. 625 BC. The latest source was P, which was written during the 5th century in Babylon. Based on these dates, Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch did not reach its final, present-day form until after the Babylonian Exile. Julius Wellhausen argued that the Pentateuch was finalized in the time of Ezra. Ezra 7:14 records that Ezra traveled from Babylon to Jerusalem in 458 BC with God’s law in his hand. Wellhausen argued that this was the newly compiled Pentateuch. Nehemiah 8–10, according to Wellhausen, describes the publication and public acceptance of this new law code c. 444 BC.[13][15] There was now a large gap between the earliest sources of the Pentateuch and the period they claimed to describe, which ended c. 1200 BC.[17]
        Most scholars held to the documentary hypothesis until the 1980s. Since then, a number of variations and revisions of the documentary hypothesis have been proposed.[18] The new supplementary hypothesis posits three main sources for the Pentateuch: J, D, and P.[19] The E source is considered no more than a variation of J, and P is considered a body of revisions and expansions to the J (or “non-Priestly”) material. The Deuteronomistic source does not appear in Genesis.[20] More recent thinking is that J dates from either just before or during the Babylonian Exile, and the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or soon after.[21] The almost complete absence of all the characters and incidents mentioned in primeval history from the rest of the Hebrew Bible has led a sizeable minority of scholars to conclude that these chapters were composed much later than those that follow, possibly in the 3rd century BC.[22]
        As for why the book was created, a theory which has gained considerable interest, although still controversial, is that of Persian imperial authorisation. This proposes that the Persians of the Achaemenid Empire, after their conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, agreed to grant Jerusalem a large measure of local autonomy within the empire, but required the local authorities to produce a single law code accepted by the entire community. The two powerful groups making up the community—the priestly families who controlled the Second Temple and who traced their origin to Moses and the wilderness wanderings, and the major landowning families who made up the “elders” and who traced their own origins to Abraham, who had “given” them the land—were in conflict over many issues, and each had its own “history of origins”. However, the Persian promise of greatly increased local autonomy for all provided a powerful incentive to cooperate in producing a single text.”

        Your imaginary friend really needs an editor.
        As always, you make up more excuses to try to hide how ignorant and contradictory your myths are. Genesis 1 has everything made and then humans. Genesis 2 has that Adam alone was made, and then animals and then woman. Your attempts to ignore what your bible literally says is a great example of deceit being needed for your religion. It is a true contradiction since you must invent things that are not mentioned make it non-contradictory.

        Like

      11. I don’t believe I need to add anything to my comments. I see something there and you don’t, and so I will just leave it at that.

        I did want to point out that the documentary hypothesis, as noted above, is a changing hypothesis with variations and revisions. Makes me wonder what it’s going to change into down the road. But I suppose you would say I’m lying and am a fraud of some sort. Anyhow, take care…

        Type at ya later I’m sure

        P.S. – Concerning the documentary hypothesis and a discovery that may cause another revision you can check out:

        https://youtu.be/vsrLNn1g2uU?si=QM_BmEw-EuMza4pX and the other parts are quite the narrative. God bless

        Like

      12. I’m sure you don’t believe in a lot of very stupid things, dear. Nothing new there.

        I do enjoy how you can’t answer my questions, and you have to keep trying the same sets of lies. You are quite the fraud per your own bible since you can’t do what jesus promised to his true followers.

        that video is hilarious. it shows just how desperate christains are. I do enjoy how worthless a little metal curse tablet is when you try to show your imaginary friend exists, TJ.

        that written language was around earlier than thought does nothing when it comes to your god existing.

        Like

      13. Well, thanks for watching anyways. And how they found the tablet and how this site convinced a renowned agnostic archeology of the Old Testament accuracy check out:

        Like

      14. yep, still no evidence for your imaginary friend. and yet more videos that fail. Yep, agnostics and atheists can be stupid and fall for cults. That still doesn’t make your cult’s lies true.

        Like

      15. Or sometimes agnostics and atheists come to conclude that the evidence is consistent with Scripture and not with what they at one time thought. That “worthless” little tablet is a piece of evidence that is not consistent with the documentary hypothesis, by the way. Take care…

        Like

      16. Unsurprisingly, since there is no evidence, that isn’t true. That it shows that one hypothesis about how your ignorant myths were written doesn’t show that your myths are true.

        Like

      17. But it does show that the evidence is consistent with one hypothesis over another. This curse tablet is evidence that is not consistent with the documentary hypothesis and is consistent with a plain reading of Scripture. Take care…

        Like

      18. the tablet only shows that hebrew was around longer than was thought. Still no evidence for your imaginary friend.

        unsurprisingly, there is no such thing as a “plain reading of scripture” since each of you christians claim that only your version is the right one, where you pick and choose what you want to believe and ignore the parts you don’t.

        Like

      19. AND AND AND that the word for God and Yahweh are inscribed right next to each other pre-dating the expectation predicted by the documentary hypothesis! Those two names together are not supposed to be together that early according to the documentary hypothesis but are claimed to be together according to a plain reading of the Scriptures!

        Like

      20. Funny how there is still no evidence your god exists. Curious how we have writings that have names of gods in them so by your ridiculous claim, those gods are just as real as yours.

        it’s notable that there is quite a bit of controversy about this item:

        “hotos of the outside of the curse tablet were published on social media and subsequently in mass media before the peer review process. This type of behavior has been criticized by Israeli archaeologists and historians in an open letter.[12]

        After the peer review article was published, The Times of Israel asked multiple archaeologists and epigraphical experts for comment, but the only two who agreed to give their opinion stated that they did not believe the article was convincing. Christopher Rollston wrote: “This article is basically a text-book case of the Rorschach Test, and the authors of this article have projected upon a piece of lead the things they want it to say.” Aren Maeir only said: “I don’t accept all the interpretations that were suggested in the article, and I plan to publish a different opinion in an academic journal”.[7]

        Much skepticism and support of the discovery has been exacerbated by Biblical connections to Mount Ebal, which was the site of a supposed altar built by Joshua around the same time that the artifact has been dated to.[13]

        Three articles published in Israel Exploration Journal in late 2023 attacked the claims of the original researchers.[8] Christopher Rollston and Aren Maeir argued that there was no writing on the artifact at all but just random bumps and scratches, arranged in a haphazard fashion that didn’t match the published drawings.[8] Amihai Mazar identified the object as a sinker used in fishing nets.[8] Naama Yahalom-Mack, though agreeing with the Greek origin of the lead, noted that the mine was also in operation much later than the alleged date.[8]

        Around the same time, Raz Kletter also published a paper which criticized both Galil for purportedly inventing the inscription, and Maeir for misguided criticism of Galil’s character, rather than the contents of his publications.[14]

        In early 2024 Mark Haughwout proposed that if the artifact wasn’t simply an old piece of lead, it was more likely to be from the Roman period, perhaps an ancient theater ticket (which were often made of lead and folded after admission).[15] Scott Stripling and Peter van der Veen published an online point-by-point response to Haughwout’s article” – Mount Ebal Curse Tablet, wikipedia.

        Like

      21. Most of the claims in this wikipedia article is responded to here at https://www.patternsofevidence.com/2024/06/07/scott-stripling-responds-to-curse-tablet-criticism/ and here at https://www.patternsofevidence.com/2024/06/14/scott-striplings-curse-tablet-criticism-responses-part-2/.

        I would like to qualify something here. We have been talking about alot of things and I want to correct myself. I originally brought this up as noted above with these remarks: “Concerning the documentary hypothesis and a discovery that may cause another revision you can check out:” and then the curse tablet video and so we started into this discussion. I want to be sure you understand that this may turn out to be evidence that is consistent with Scripture and contradictory to the documentary hypothesis. It is as it stands in the peer reviewed paper evidence but there may be upon further review differing interpretations, but it seems the epigrapher stands by his expert opinion that the word for YHW is indeed clear to him and if this turns out to be the case is going to cause the documentary hypothesis some revision and is clearly evidence not consistent with the documentary hypothesis (DH) current standing. Bear in mind the DH has already been revised plenty of times as you already noted in your quotes concerning the documentary hypothesis. So, I don’t believe you are justified in your confidence in this hypothesis with such certainty as you did above when we were discussing my view that Adam was created before the animals and even maybe before grass.

        Take care for now….

        Like

Leave a comment