Religions > Atheism > How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Opie" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2005 02:26:26 PM |
| Object: |
How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
|
| User: "Dore" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 04:32:49 PM |
|
|
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com...
Just wondering
Because Israel has very strict rules for archeology, especially their grave
sites and only allow very limited diggings. Many Biblical character's
graves are historical places already marked as such.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com...
Just wondering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 05:54:29 PM |
|
|
In article <5wx7f.8867$%A1.7169@trndny01>, Dore said...
Because Israel has very strict rules for archeology, especially
their grave sites and only allow very limited diggings.
You make it sound as if Israel discourages archaeological field
work for the periods in question. In fact, Israel actively
promotes such research, though it takes great care to see that
digs are conducted professionally and that artifacts aren't
removed from the country without permission.
Many Biblical character's graves are historical places
already marked as such.
Many of those sites have been identified according to tradition,
not archaeology. That's not always reliable. The "true cross,"
if reassembled from the chips and splinters claimed to be part
of the original, would tower above the Empire State Building. :)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dore" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 09:44:23 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dc881b3351e3fb19898f5@newsgroups.comcast.net...
You make it sound as if Israel discourages archaeological field
work for the periods in question. In fact, Israel actively
promotes such research, though it takes great care to see that
digs are conducted professionally and that artifacts aren't
removed from the country without permission.
They strictly prohibit digs in the most desirable places in Israel, such as
under the Dome of the Rock, near the temple wall, and in the areas close to
Jerusalem, where the most notable discoveries could be found.
Many of those sites have been identified according to tradition,
not archaeology. That's not always reliable. The "true cross,"
if reassembled from the chips and splinters claimed to be part
of the original, would tower above the Empire State Building. :)
Well of course they are, most people bury their dead and mark their graves
respectively. Archeologist's don't dig up George Washington, to see if in
fact, he is the one who is buried there, do they? Of course not. In most
countries, the graves of the dead, especially famous ones are sacred and are
NOT something for scientists to go digging around to satisfy their own
interests.
The supposedly reassembled splinters of the cross was merely Roman Catholic
exploitation and has NOTHING to do with scientific discovery, which
certainly have nothing to do with this discussion.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dc881b3351e3fb19898f5@newsgroups.comcast.net...
In article <5wx7f.8867$%A1.7169@trndny01>, Dore said...
Because Israel has very strict rules for archeology, especially
their grave sites and only allow very limited diggings.
You make it sound as if Israel discourages archaeological field
work for the periods in question. In fact, Israel actively
promotes such research, though it takes great care to see that
digs are conducted professionally and that artifacts aren't
removed from the country without permission.
Many Biblical character's graves are historical places
already marked as such.
Many of those sites have been identified according to tradition,
not archaeology. That's not always reliable. The "true cross,"
if reassembled from the chips and splinters claimed to be part
of the original, would tower above the Empire State Building. :)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 01:32:47 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 25 October 2005 10:44 pm
dorewilliamson@verizon.net wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dc881b3351e3fb19898f5@newsgroups.comcast.net...
You make it sound as if Israel discourages archaeological field
work for the periods in question. In fact, Israel actively
promotes such research, though it takes great care to see that
digs are conducted professionally and that artifacts aren't
removed from the country without permission.
They strictly prohibit digs in the most desirable places in Israel, such
as under the Dome of the Rock, near the temple wall, and in the areas
close to Jerusalem, where the most notable discoveries could be found.
And yet archaeologists have dug under the temple, and in and around
Jerusalem as recent discovery of the well shows. How do explain that?
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 11:10:30 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Dore
(dorewilliamson@verizon.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
Many of those sites have been identified according to tradition,
not archaeology. That's not always reliable. The "true cross,"
if reassembled from the chips and splinters claimed to be part
of the original, would tower above the Empire State Building. :)
Well of course they are, most people bury their dead and mark their
graves respectively. Archeologist's don't dig up George Washington, to
see if in fact, he is the one who is buried there, do they? Of course
not.
But then again, we have hard evidence GW existed.
In most countries, the graves of the dead, especially famous ones
are sacred and are NOT something for scientists to go digging around
to satisfy their own interests.
Except for ancient ones like Tutenkhamen. He's recently done a gig in
West Hollywood - quite a shot from Ancient Egypt, wouldn't you say?
Imagine the crowds the remains of Jesus Christ would pull. Especially
since if they actually found anything it would debunk the concept of the
Resurrection...
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Today's warm fuzzy example of Christian Love:
"I told you many times that you should thank Christian Americans that
they gave you a free place to live in Texas and a welfare so you could
buy food to eat you fucking filthy Jew !!!! If America did not give you
billions of dollars every year your fucking Jewishstan could be a history
like it was for a thousand years. Shame on you, you fucking dirty, ugly
and barbaric Jew !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go to hell you shitted Jew." -- Andy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 04:49:13 PM |
|
|
on 25 Oct 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Dore
(dorewilliamson@verizon.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com...
Just wondering
Because Israel has very strict rules for archeology, especially their
grave sites and only allow very limited diggings. Many Biblical
character's graves are historical places already marked as such.
Well, they wouldn't want someone digging there and finding nothing, would
they? Then again - and I wouldn't put it past a person who feels no
remorse burning another person at the stake - who's to say the marked
remains are authentic? If someone claims to have found the Holy Grail,
what means do we have to authenticate it, other than his word?
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Today's warm fuzzy example of Christian Love:
"I told you many times that you should thank Christian Americans that they
gave you a free place to live in Texas and a welfare so you could buy food
to eat you fucking filthy Jew !!!! If America did not give you billions of
dollars every year your fucking Jewishstan could be a history like it was
for a thousand years. Shame on you, you fucking dirty, ugly and barbaric
Jew !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go to hell you shitted Jew." -- Andy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Methulesah" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 02:32:38 PM |
|
|
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com...
Just wondering
Maybe they're buried at Roswell, NM with the other aliens.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dore" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 09:46:17 PM |
|
|
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com...
Just wondering
Peter, the disciple of Christ is buried beneath the Vatican. Paul is buried
on an island near Italy. Science doesn't go digging around sacred grave
sites.
--
Dore
www.dorewilliamson.com
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com...
Just wondering
.
|
|
|
| User: "Methuselah" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 06:03:26 AM |
|
|
"Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Z5C7f.9261$%A1.3454@trndny01...
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com...
Just wondering
Peter, the disciple of Christ is buried beneath the Vatican. Paul is
buried on an island near Italy. Science doesn't go digging around sacred
grave sites.
--
Dore
How do you know that?
www.dorewilliamson.com
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com...
Just wondering
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 12:24:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 02:46:17 GMT, "Dore" <dorewilliamson@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com...
Just wondering
Peter, the disciple of Christ is buried beneath the Vatican. Paul is buried
on an island near Italy. Science doesn't go digging around sacred grave
sites.
"Science" can't dig anywhere for anything.
Archeologists, grave robbers, and so on can dig "sacred" grave sites,
and regularly have.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 11:12:42 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Dore
(dorewilliamson@verizon.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com...
Just wondering
Peter, the disciple of Christ is buried beneath the Vatican. Paul is
buried on an island near Italy. Science doesn't go digging around
sacred grave sites.
If it *was* allowed, perhaps some light would be shed on those *****
claims of yours.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Today's warm fuzzy example of Christian Love:
"I told you many times that you should thank Christian Americans that they
gave you a free place to live in Texas and a welfare so you could buy food
to eat you fucking filthy Jew !!!! If America did not give you billions of
dollars every year your fucking Jewishstan could be a history like it was
for a thousand years. Shame on you, you fucking dirty, ugly and barbaric
Jew !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go to hell you shitted Jew." -- Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 01:39:17 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 26 October 2005 12:12 am
address@withheld.com wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet Dore
(dorewilliamson@verizon.net) made the light shine upon us with this:
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com...
Just wondering
Peter, the disciple of Christ is buried beneath the Vatican. Paul is
buried on an island near Italy. Science doesn't go digging around
sacred grave sites.
If it *was* allowed, perhaps some light would be shed on those *****
claims of yours.
Not only was it allowed but examination of the bones showed they were an
admixture of 3 humans and some pig bones thrown in for good measure. No
wonder Peter agreed to get rid of kosher laws, otherwise they would not
have been able to give him those operations repairing him with pig parts.
It becomes a real problem with modern anthropological and forensics methods.
If they continue to allow such examination, soon they won't have any relics
left.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 12:12:32 PM |
|
|
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com...
Just wondering
because dinosaurs existed and biblical characters didn't?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 05:51:58 PM |
|
|
In article <vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com>, Opie
said...
Subject: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but
never the bones of biblical characters?
Just wondering
To be fair, the odds of finding any *particular* dinosaur would
be small indeed. If you specified that you were looking for
Clyde the Compsognathus, who hunted around a particular water
hole on a particular continent during a particular period of 15
years, I doubt you'd find him. :)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 12:13:44 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dc8811677ee5d289898f4@newsgroups.comcast.net...
In article <vm1tl15hd9lo8dl7iktfscspr172tueqka@4ax.com>, Opie
said...
Subject: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but
never the bones of biblical characters?
Just wondering
To be fair, the odds of finding any *particular* dinosaur would
be small indeed. If you specified that you were looking for
Clyde the Compsognathus, who hunted around a particular water
hole on a particular continent during a particular period of 15
years, I doubt you'd find him. :)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Poor poor Clyde :(
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 10:58:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:26:26 -0500, Opie <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com>
wrote:
Just wondering
That's a pretty silly question. A dinosaur is obviously a dinosaur,
but how can you tell whether a 5,000 year old human skeleton unearthed
in the Middle East is Moses or Achmed the Camel Fucker?
.
|
|
|
| User: "eddie wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 11:47:19 PM |
|
|
Achmed was much shorter than Moses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 01:01:32 AM |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005 21:47:19 -0700, "eddie wilson" <rquigney85@rcn.com>
wrote:
Achmed was much shorter than Moses.
Hmmm... Achmed's wife said the same thing..... <G>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 12:56:12 AM |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005 21:47:19 -0700, "eddie wilson" <rquigney85@rcn.com>
wrote:
Achmed was much shorter than Moses.
How could he reach the camel, then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 07:52:47 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:6j6ul1lld1qpsva8hlp7tjkrvk1937oapa@4ax.com...
On 25 Oct 2005 21:47:19 -0700, "eddie wilson" <rquigney85@rcn.com>
wrote:
Achmed was much shorter than Moses.
How could he reach the camel, then?
Step stool? ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 09:46:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:52:47 -0500, Robibnikoff wrote
(in article <3s9cgvFmuo9uU1@individual.net>):
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:6j6ul1lld1qpsva8hlp7tjkrvk1937oapa@4ax.com...
On 25 Oct 2005 21:47:19 -0700, "eddie wilson" <rquigney85@rcn.com>
wrote:
Achmed was much shorter than Moses.
How could he reach the camel, then?
Step stool? ;)
Hey, when you are around camels for any length of time, you do tend to step
in stools at least once in a while. Just like being on a farm, though there
it tends to be either bull or chicken stool.
;-)
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
Cthulhu saves souls and redeems them for valuable coupons later.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 07:40:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:46:47 -0500, Harry F. Leopold
<hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:52:47 -0500, Robibnikoff wrote
(in article <3s9cgvFmuo9uU1@individual.net>):
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:6j6ul1lld1qpsva8hlp7tjkrvk1937oapa@4ax.com...
On 25 Oct 2005 21:47:19 -0700, "eddie wilson" <rquigney85@rcn.com>
wrote:
Achmed was much shorter than Moses.
How could he reach the camel, then?
Step stool? ;)
Hey, when you are around camels for any length of time, you do tend to step
in stools at least once in a while. Just like being on a farm, though there
it tends to be either bull or chicken stool.
;-)
You'll find exactly the same stuff in Congress.
(Political, not sexual)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
27 Oct 2005 02:33:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:46:47 -0500, Harry F. Leopold <hleopold@coxyx.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:52:47 -0500, Robibnikoff wrote
(in article <3s9cgvFmuo9uU1@individual.net>):
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:6j6ul1lld1qpsva8hlp7tjkrvk1937oapa@4ax.com...
On 25 Oct 2005 21:47:19 -0700, "eddie wilson" <rquigney85@rcn.com>
wrote:
Achmed was much shorter than Moses.
How could he reach the camel, then?
Step stool? ;)
Hey, when you are around camels for any length of time, you do tend to step
in stools at least once in a while. Just like being on a farm, though there
it tends to be either bull or chicken stool.
;-)
The sexual life of the camel
Is stranger than anyone thinks.
At the height of the mating season
He tries to bugger the sphinx.
But the sphinx's posterior sphincter
Is all clogged by the sands of the Nile,
Which accounts for the hump on the camel
And the sphinx's inscrutable smile.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 11:11:10 AM |
|
|
In article <6j6ul1lld1qpsva8hlp7tjkrvk1937oapa@4ax.com>, Michael
Gray said...
On 25 Oct 2005 21:47:19 -0700, "eddie wilson" <rquigney85@rcn.com>
wrote:
Achmed was much shorter than Moses.
How could he reach the camel, then?
Spring-board.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 01:42:47 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 25 October 2005 11:58 pm
nunya@biziniz.net wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:26:26 -0500, Opie <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com>
wrote:
Just wondering
That's a pretty silly question. A dinosaur is obviously a dinosaur,
but how can you tell whether a 5,000 year old human skeleton unearthed
in the Middle East is Moses or Achmed the Camel Fucker?
Achmed would obviously be much, much larger than Moses to have been able to
copulate with the camel.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 02:10:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:42:47 -0400, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 25 October 2005 11:58 pm
nunya@biziniz.net wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:26:26 -0500, Opie <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com>
wrote:
Just wondering
That's a pretty silly question. A dinosaur is obviously a dinosaur,
but how can you tell whether a 5,000 year old human skeleton unearthed
in the Middle East is Moses or Achmed the Camel Fucker?
Achmed would obviously be much, much larger than Moses to have been able to
copulate with the camel.
Don't anybody mention the "ship of the desert" joke.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 05:32:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:58:12 GMT, John Baker <nunya@biziniz.net> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:26:26 -0500, Opie <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com>
wrote:
Just wondering
That's a pretty silly question. A dinosaur is obviously a dinosaur,
but how can you tell whether a 5,000 year old human skeleton unearthed
in the Middle East is Moses or Achmed the Camel Fucker?
Shhhhhh. Maybe he hasn't thought of that.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
26 Oct 2005 05:14:08 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:26:26 -0500, Opie <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote:
Just wondering
The dinosaurs weren't buried in tombs with their names on them.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 05:07:43 PM |
|
|
Opie <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> writes:
Just wondering
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/book/aug29.html
....
In the early 16th century, a visitor to a monastery in France was shown
what the cleric said was the skull of St John the Baptist. "Ah! The
monks of another monastery showed me the skull of John the Baptist
yesterday," said the visitor. "True", said the cleric, "But those
monks only have the skull of St John when he was a young man. We have
the skull of John the Baptist when he was much older and wiser."
Or, so it is said.
....
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: How come science has found the bones of dinasaurs but never the bones of biblical characters? |
25 Oct 2005 03:13:24 PM |
|
|
Opie <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote:
Just wondering
New Testament literalists cling to the notion that the absence of Jesus'
mortal remains at least can be accounted for by the idea that he ascended
bodily into Heaven. At first glance it appears to be a clever "heads I
win, tails you lose" position, since if he is found they can claim the New
Testament is true, and if he is not they can still say it is true.
I am inclined to believe that literalists usually totally miss the point,
and I see no reason to believe that Christ's case is any different.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
