tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post5691017828894754177..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: Off-topic: Archaeologists Carbon-Date Camel Bones, Discover Major Discrepancy In Bible Story?Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-77760815466753567012014-02-14T10:36:13.313+08:002014-02-14T10:36:13.313+08:00PS: Apologies to those who follow my posts and com...PS: Apologies to those who follow my posts and comments for my several attempts to get the above comment right.<br /><br />PPS: I am preparing a response to the recent flurry of news items on: "<a href="http://www.livescience.com/43276-ancient-earthquake-shroud-of-turin.html" rel="nofollow">Shroud of Turin: Could Ancient Earthquake Explain Face of Jesus?</a>"<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-69774143167805111922014-02-14T10:26:53.262+08:002014-02-14T10:26:53.262+08:00>But they simply cannot countenance those proph...>But they simply cannot countenance those prophecies predating 167 BC, so they will push anything in defiance of the facts, no matter how ludicrous, to avoid it. <br /><br />Yes, because of their prior commitment to <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ynzpwh" rel="nofollow">Naturalism</a> ("nature is all there is - there is no supernatural"). To Philosophical Naturalists (PNs) supernatural predictive prophecy is apriori impossible. Therefore they must find the best (i.e. least worst) naturalistic explanation.<br /><br />So it is with the Shroud. The evidence is OVERWHELMING that the Shroud of Turin is the very burial sheet of Jesus. While it is not impossible for a Philosophical Naturalist to accept the authenticity of the Shroud (e.g. Delage, de Wesselow), so strong is the evidence of its authenticity) they will always be a tiny minority. <br /><br />That the Shroud is the very burial sheet of Christ and bears His image on it, is too close to the bone for most PNs. The vast majority of PNs will continue to deny the Shroud is authentic and cling like the drowning men they are to what few straws of evidence they can find which supports their PN, e.g. the D'Arcis memo, the 1260-1390 C14 date, etc.<br /><br />There is a branch of Christian PNs, or rather MNs (Methodological Naturalists), which I came across in my Creation/Evolution/Design debates. They claim to be Christians, but they argue for a type of Theistic which is indistinguishable from fully Naturalistic (i.e. Atheistic) Evolution. <br /><br />Intelligent Design advocate Prof. Phillip E. Johnson coined the apt but oxymoronic term, "Theistic Naturalist" for them. Few (if any) of the TNs I encountered in Internet debates I considered were fellow Christians. Most (if not all) I assumed to be among the "many" who Jesus warned, THOUGHT they were Christians, but were not, because Jesus never knew them personally (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/lvu6aqg" rel="nofollow">Mt 7:21-23</a>). <br /><br />Indeed, in the ~11 years (1984-2005) I was debating C,E&D, one of the TN leaders, a science professor at a conservative Christian college, came out and announced that he was no longer a "traditional Christian" (i.e. who believed in the Virgin Birth, miracles and Resurrection of Christ). I would not be surprised if others among those TNs have since apostatized.<br /><br />There is a parallel in the Shroud. There is a tiny but loud minority of those involved in the Shroud debate, who are aware of the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, and who claim to be Christian (I do not mean those Christians who are, like I was, against the Shroud through prejudice and ignorance). <br /><br />Their thinking is, like the TNs I encountered, taken captive by Naturalism (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Col+2%3A8&version=ESV" rel="nofollow">Col 2:8</a>), without them realising it. They either reject the authenticity of the Shroud outright, or sit on the fence not committing themselves to its authenticity, while attacking those like myself for their strong and unequivocal defense of the Shroud's authenticity.<br /><br />I'm OK with that. I am conscious of Jesus' support when I am attacked for defending the authenticity of His burial sheet. It's my attackers who I feel sorry for, for they will, like us all, soon stand before the One whose image is on the Shroud (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/m4qyl5t" rel="nofollow">Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5</a>). I would not like to be in their shoes!<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-82663683612505317032014-02-13T23:26:16.847+08:002014-02-13T23:26:16.847+08:00Stephen:
Agreed. See my "Daniel's 70 `we...Stephen:<br /><br /><i>Agreed. See my "Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!". The language and other evidence is that that the Book of Daniel, including his 70 `weeks' prophecy was written by Daniel in the 6th century BC. But because that conflicts with Naturalism (which has taken over many (if not most theological seminaries), Groupthink underestimates the evidence for the Book of Daniel containing genuine predictive prophecy and overestimates the evidence for it being 2nd century BC pious fiction.</i><br /><br />Indeed. The reason I gave Daniel in particular as an example is that I've been researching it recently, so it was fresh on my mind. Amazingly, there seems to be something nearing a consensus now that the "court tales" of Daniel 1-6 date back to the 4th century at least, simply because the linguistic and historical evidence contained within the Aramaic is so ironclad that it leaves the critics no choice (and the Hebrew 1st chapter clearly sets up the rest, eg. introducing the Hebrew temple treasures that Belshazzar later brings out for his party).<br /><br />But, of course, they need something to cling to, so now they try to separate the Hebrew prophecies of 7-12 from the rest, even though 7-12 forms a unity with the rest, even though it would've been bleedingly obvious to the Jews if someone suddenly tried to attach a bunch of new "prophecies" to ancient stories they'd had for centuries (prophecies that, according to the critics, were quickly proven false within a year or two), and even though the <a href="http://www.christianthinktank.com/qwhendan3b.html" rel="nofollow">other data</a> basically <a href="http://www.christianthinktank.com/qwhendan3a.html" rel="nofollow">makes it impossible</a> for 7-12 to be Maccabbean as well.<br /><br />But they simply cannot countenance those prophecies predating 167 BC, so they will push anything in defiance of the facts, no matter how ludicrous, to avoid it.The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-10885632532406652382014-02-12T10:06:40.513+08:002014-02-12T10:06:40.513+08:00[continued]
>(John's authorship of his own...[continued]<br /><br />>(John's authorship of his own Gospel being an example where they deny the undeniable in the face of an insurmountable mountain of evidence against them; <br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />>another being their denial that Daniel's prophecies predate the Maccabeans). So, imo, they simply have little to no credibility, and that should be kept in mind when dealing with their attempts to deconstruct things that are more ancient and harder to prove.<br /><br />Agreed. See my "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/llq9kfs" rel="nofollow">Daniel's 70 `weeks': Proof that Naturalism is false and Christianity is true!</a>". The language and other evidence is that that the Book of Daniel, including his 70 `weeks' prophecy was written by Daniel in the 6th century BC. But because that conflicts with Naturalism (which has taken over many (if not most theological seminaries), Groupthink underestimates the evidence for the Book of Daniel containing genuine predictive prophecy and overestimates the evidence for it being 2nd century BC pious fiction. <br /><br />>In this case, it makes perfect sense that Abraham and Jacob would have camels, but that camels wouldn't become common in the area until much later. <br /><br />If camels ever were common in settled hilly Israel. I would have thought that asses and donkeys would be the transport animal of choice for most Israelites after the patriarchal era.<br /><br />>In fact, it matches what the Biblical record suggests, as you pointed out. Abraham, after all, was a nomad, who came from outside Canaan (and would've traveled near the north of Saudi Arabia on his way), and who moved around quite a lot, including his trip to Egypt. It also makes sense for Jacob the runaway, who went back to Abraham's hometown before returning to Caanan, and so would've retraveled the same route twice.<br /><br />Agreed. Camels would be the transport animal of choice for long-range trade across arid stretches. E.g. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ks8orv2" rel="nofollow">Gn 37:25</a>. "Then they [Joseph's brothers] sat down to eat. And looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing gum, balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry it down to Egypt."<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />---------------------------------<br />Reader, if you like this my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin </a> blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank" rel="nofollow">Google PageRank</a> number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-57242655255660528282014-02-12T10:05:36.551+08:002014-02-12T10:05:36.551+08:00The Deuce
Good to hear from you again.
>It...The Deuce<br /><br />Good to hear from you again.<br /><br />>It's amazing the lengths that critics will go to manufacture contradictions where there are none. <br /><br />As the Bible says, "... FOR THOSE WHO ARE PERISHING, because THEY REFUSED TO LOVE THE TRUTH AND SO BE SAVED. ... God sends them A STRONG DELUSION, SO THAT THEY MAY BELIEVE WHAT IS FALSE, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/l867ovb" rel="nofollow">2Th 2:10-12</a>).<br /><br />>They'll deny anything that isn't 100% nailed down and undeniable, and often they'll still deny it even then<br /><br />Agreed. Their (i.e. the atheist/agnostic scientists and journalists) shared <a href="http://tinyurl.com/qk7xr" rel="nofollow">Naturalistic</a> ("nature is all there is - there is no supernatural") worldview, coupled with Groupthink:<br /><br />"Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or CONFORMITY in the group results in an INCORRECT OR DEVIANT decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision WITHOUT CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE IDEAS OR VIEWPOINTS, and by isolating themselves from outside influences. Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the `ingroup' produces an `illusion of invulnerability' (an INFLATED CERTAINTY that the right decision has been made). Thus the `ingroup' significantly OVERRATES THEIR OWN ABILITIES in decision-making, and significantly UNDERRATES THE ABILITIES OF THEIR OPPONENTS (the `outgroup')." ("<a href="http://tinyurl.com/6omfc" rel="nofollow">Groupthink</a>," Wikipedia, 29 January 2014)<br /><br />leads them to overestimate the importance of their findings and underestimate the veracity of the Bible.<br /><br />In science, groupthink corrupts peer-review because the peers are all in the same group. It seems to me that the majority in Biblical Archaeology these days is strongly anti-Bible and anti-Christian.<br /><br />The article, Sapir-Hen, L. & Ben-Yosef, E., "<a href="http://tinyurl.com/kr8doc4" rel="nofollow">The Introduction of Domestic Camels to the Southern Levant: Evidence from the Aravah Valley</a>," Tel Aviv, Vol. 40, 2013, pp.277–285, is either dishonest or incompetent in ignoring the rock art evidence of camels ~4000 years ago in nearby Saudia Arabia. A <a href="http://tinyurl.com/mm73z7t" rel="nofollow">Google Scholar search on "Jubbah rock art camels"</a> turned up a number of hits in archaeology journals.<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-14479784826345896172014-02-11T22:41:51.143+08:002014-02-11T22:41:51.143+08:00It's amazing the lengths that critics will go ...It's amazing the lengths that critics will go to manufacture contradictions where there are none. They'll deny anything that isn't 100% nailed down and undeniable, and often they'll still deny it even then (John's authorship of his own Gospel being an example where they deny the undeniable in the face of an insurmountable mountain of evidence against them; another being their denial that Daniel's prophecies predate the Maccabeans). So, imo, they simply have little to no credibility, and that should be kept in mind when dealing with their attempts to deconstruct things that are more ancient and harder to prove.<br /><br />In this case, it makes perfect sense that Abraham and Jacob would have camels, but that camels wouldn't become common in the area until much later. In fact, it matches what the Biblical record suggests, as you pointed out. Abraham, after all, was a nomad, who came from outside Canaan (and would've traveled near the north of Saudi Arabia on his way), and who moved around quite a lot, including his trip to Egypt. It also makes sense for Jacob the runaway, who went back to Abraham's hometown before returning to Caanan, and so would've retraveled the same route twice.The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.com