One of the articles with pictures is about the Reed Sea Crossing.
Look under the part about "The significance of the Wheels" (the chariot wheels from Pharoes army), and you will see a diagram of the topography of the surface that the Children Of Israel crossed over on.
This is kinda old now. We hashed this over several months ago, maybe even a year or so.
The parts that kinda set off my B.S. meter are the numbers. The 600,000, IIRC, pertains to only the MEN who were in the group. The actual number of people, again, IIRC, was something like 2.5 million. If that's correct it would sorta skew all those accurate calculations he made, wouldn't it?
The other thing was the amount of time it took to figure this out. The "Russian Scientist" who's supposed to be some sort of ocean hydrologist or some such took 6 MONTHS to figure out the sealevel? Why wouldn't a specialist such as this have a computer model that could spit out the answer in a couple of minutes?
Of course, if it took six months, it would be much more accurate, wouldn't it?
Like so much of this stuff, for the true believer it's a "gee whiz!" moment and for the skeptic, it's just more blather...
quote: The study, which took almost six months to complete, is titled "Modeling of the Hydrodynamic Situation During the Exodus" and was published recently in the Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences."
Just goes to show you that even Russians get funding to do "stupid studies".
Well, first, as usual, it "proves" nothing. Just so we're clear.
It makes it a possible answer, but not proof.
And for that matter, when we look at things scientific, and I mean anything scientific, it is most reliable when it is published in a reputable scientific journal. The studies published in these journals have been given a peer review to filter out the hogwash. Now some "scientists" think they are right in spite of the peer review and publish elsewhere. That in mind, many reputable and unreputable are repeated numerous times so that we won't be fooled into thinking things are proved by one person. For that matter, things scientific are not usually proved.
Thankfully, this sort of thing is taught in almost all colleges these days, even in communitee colleges.
So, Bible fans, don't be duped by the words "study" or "clinical trial". You need to dig deeper to find out whether an idea is one you can hang your hat on.
...so, since, according to the title of this thread, you believe that the Red Sea crossing has been proved, and that if it can be proved it's not a miracle, according to your last post, then you don't believe that the Red Sea crossing was a miracle ;)-->
I believe miracles that can be proved, aren't miracles at all.
Hmmmm. I can't go along with that, unless you define a miracle as something that cannot be explained - rather than something that has happened that was unexpected.
If a medical "miracle" takes place, the "proof" is there in the healed patient, and that doesn't negate the fact that something happened, reguardless of whether you can explain (or not) the unexpected that took place.
And as far as the Red Sea crossing, I will continue to believe it happened, just the same way I believe Jericho's walls fell down -- with or without proof. If "proof" of any OT or NT "happenings" is found, fine. It doesn't validate, or negate what is already written in the Word. To be honest, I guess I would question the "proof" more than I would the event, so I think we're in agreement about that.
To be sure, miracles usually transcend man's validation, but as the saying goes -- "Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut".
I can't speak for def, dmiller, but a miracle (according to most definitions) goes outside or beyond the normal rules of nature, so that a proof that uses five-senses criteria could not, by definition, prove that a miracle took place.
Just for the record, I believe that miracles do take place, but like the agnostic that I am, I don't feel that I can define when they have taken place and under what circumstances.
For example, let's take your example:
quote:If a medical "miracle" takes place, the "proof" is there in the healed patient, and that doesn't negate the fact that something happened, reguardless of whether you can explain (or not) the unexpected that took place.
I disagree that the absence of the medical problem indicates a miracle. It could be a remission, a spontaneous natural recovery, the effect of some treatment or environmental condition that was not known to have the indicated healing affect...or...it was a miracle: God did it. I do not believe, despite the large number of people who "know" that God did such-and-such, that you can every be 100% sure.
That being said, I don't think it really matters all that much. Obviously you don't get a miracle whenever you think you need one, or get the answer to prayer that you wanted every time. No matter what your religous outlook, that's inarguable. I believe the key is to be thankful when the good stuff does come along, whether it's God, or New Age healing, or just the way our bodies were designed (or evolved).
Just for the record, I believe that miracles do take place, but like the agnostic that I am, I don't feel that I can define when they have taken place and under what circumstances.
As usual, Oak, you make a ton of sense.
I didn't mean to have it sound like miracles could be proved, nor did I mean to make it sound like they should be proved, but I guess what I was trying to say was -- if someone comes up with "proof" of something classified as a miracle, it shouldn't be discounted as a miracle, just because someone came up with some hard data about it.
I for one, am more skeptical of the "proof" aspect of any given "miracle" since the person offering the "proof" is working backwards (facts after the fact), leading to the original occurrance.
I also don't think proof is neccesary to "validate" miracles, or any other "un-explained phenomenom", yet if someone finds a few facts here and there that do seem to do so, so be it. And then you said --
quote: I believe the key is to be thankful when the good stuff does come along, whether it's God, or New Age healing, or just the way our bodies were designed (or evolved).
As I said earlier -- you make a ton of sense!:)-->
Recommended Posts
valerie52
If you go to www.wyattmuseum.com
You can see all kinds of stuff.
One of the articles with pictures is about the Reed Sea Crossing.
Look under the part about "The significance of the Wheels" (the chariot wheels from Pharoes army), and you will see a diagram of the topography of the surface that the Children Of Israel crossed over on.
really cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Def,
This is kinda old now. We hashed this over several months ago, maybe even a year or so.
The parts that kinda set off my B.S. meter are the numbers. The 600,000, IIRC, pertains to only the MEN who were in the group. The actual number of people, again, IIRC, was something like 2.5 million. If that's correct it would sorta skew all those accurate calculations he made, wouldn't it?
The other thing was the amount of time it took to figure this out. The "Russian Scientist" who's supposed to be some sort of ocean hydrologist or some such took 6 MONTHS to figure out the sealevel? Why wouldn't a specialist such as this have a computer model that could spit out the answer in a couple of minutes?
Of course, if it took six months, it would be much more accurate, wouldn't it?
Like so much of this stuff, for the true believer it's a "gee whiz!" moment and for the skeptic, it's just more blather...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
...or an abacus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Geo
I understand, my BS meter goes off in the same way when I hear atheists and agnostics spout off on things they have no clue about.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Just goes to show you that even Russians get funding to do "stupid studies".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Well, first, as usual, it "proves" nothing. Just so we're clear.
It makes it a possible answer, but not proof.
And for that matter, when we look at things scientific, and I mean anything scientific, it is most reliable when it is published in a reputable scientific journal. The studies published in these journals have been given a peer review to filter out the hogwash. Now some "scientists" think they are right in spite of the peer review and publish elsewhere. That in mind, many reputable and unreputable are repeated numerous times so that we won't be fooled into thinking things are proved by one person. For that matter, things scientific are not usually proved.
Thankfully, this sort of thing is taught in almost all colleges these days, even in communitee colleges.
So, Bible fans, don't be duped by the words "study" or "clinical trial". You need to dig deeper to find out whether an idea is one you can hang your hat on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I believe miracles that can be proved, aren't miracles at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
...so, since, according to the title of this thread, you believe that the Red Sea crossing has been proved, and that if it can be proved it's not a miracle, according to your last post, then you don't believe that the Red Sea crossing was a miracle
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
No I was referring to the title of the article.
You and I need to lighten with each other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Agreed...note the "winK'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmmmm. I can't go along with that, unless you define a miracle as something that cannot be explained - rather than something that has happened that was unexpected.
If a medical "miracle" takes place, the "proof" is there in the healed patient, and that doesn't negate the fact that something happened, reguardless of whether you can explain (or not) the unexpected that took place.
And as far as the Red Sea crossing, I will continue to believe it happened, just the same way I believe Jericho's walls fell down -- with or without proof. If "proof" of any OT or NT "happenings" is found, fine. It doesn't validate, or negate what is already written in the Word. To be honest, I guess I would question the "proof" more than I would the event, so I think we're in agreement about that.
To be sure, miracles usually transcend man's validation, but as the saying goes -- "Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I can't speak for def, dmiller, but a miracle (according to most definitions) goes outside or beyond the normal rules of nature, so that a proof that uses five-senses criteria could not, by definition, prove that a miracle took place.
Just for the record, I believe that miracles do take place, but like the agnostic that I am, I don't feel that I can define when they have taken place and under what circumstances.
For example, let's take your example:
I disagree that the absence of the medical problem indicates a miracle. It could be a remission, a spontaneous natural recovery, the effect of some treatment or environmental condition that was not known to have the indicated healing affect...or...it was a miracle: God did it. I do not believe, despite the large number of people who "know" that God did such-and-such, that you can every be 100% sure.That being said, I don't think it really matters all that much. Obviously you don't get a miracle whenever you think you need one, or get the answer to prayer that you wanted every time. No matter what your religous outlook, that's inarguable. I believe the key is to be thankful when the good stuff does come along, whether it's God, or New Age healing, or just the way our bodies were designed (or evolved).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
As usual, Oak, you make a ton of sense.
I didn't mean to have it sound like miracles could be proved, nor did I mean to make it sound like they should be proved, but I guess what I was trying to say was -- if someone comes up with "proof" of something classified as a miracle, it shouldn't be discounted as a miracle, just because someone came up with some hard data about it.
I for one, am more skeptical of the "proof" aspect of any given "miracle" since the person offering the "proof" is working backwards (facts after the fact), leading to the original occurrance.
I also don't think proof is neccesary to "validate" miracles, or any other "un-explained phenomenom", yet if someone finds a few facts here and there that do seem to do so, so be it. And then you said --
As I said earlier -- you make a ton of sense!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I believe in miracles. I believe in being thankful for the good things that happen to me and for the bad (See James' letter).
Trials help us grow.
What I discount are all the attempts by theologians to come up with valid or plausible scientific scenarios to explain the miracles of the Bible.
This thread is a classic point. If a natural cause is found for the crossing, that could negate the spiritual aspect of the event.
Doesn't have to, but it does have the potential for becoming a superstitious myth.
Too often the natural explanation is sought as a way to give credence.
I believe God can manipulate His creation to do anything He wants. (Jonah's fish) (the fish with the coin).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Hey! How did we all get on the same side of this discussion?
-->
Youse guys is alright
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
It's a miracle!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
def59: Prove it.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Sorry
I am one of the faithful, I don't have to prove it. Just tell everyone about it.
The burden falls on your shoulders.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.