Science once again confirms the Bible's accuracy

[The Laughing Man]

The Bible actually is an accurate historical document (a collection of documents, in fact)? Imagine that...

Radio-dating authenticates Biblical tunnel (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994156)

Biblical accounts of the construction of an ancient underground tunnel below Jerusalem have been verified by dating the material lining its walls.

The books of Kings and Chronicles report that the Siloam tunnel was built by King Hezekiah, ruler of Judea 2700 years ago. Its aim was to provide a secret source of drinking water should the city face a siege by Assyrian assailants. Even today, the tunnel delivers water from the Gihon Spring to the Siloam Pool, 500 metres away.

Some scholars have questioned the biblical account, suggesting that the tunnel, which is up to 30 metres below ground, was built 500 or so years later. But a team led by Amos Frumkin of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has now settled the argument by radio-dating the tunnel's lining.

Frumkin says the tunnel, just 60 centimetres wide and between one and five metres in height, is the first biblical structure dating from the Iron Age to be authenticated.

Many similar sites are impossible to visit and take samples from, he told New Scientist, either because they are so deteriorated or for religious and political reasons.


Uranium and thorium

Frumkin and his colleagues found plant material in the plaster lining the tunnel, and stalactites that began to grow from the ceiling shortly after its completion.
They then used radio-isotope dating to establish how old they were. This exploits the fact that the half-life for the decay of a radioactive element is fixed. Measuring the proportions of the radioactive element and its decay products therefore gives an estimate of age.

For the plants, carbon dating was used, measuring the carbon-13 isotope and is decay product carbon-12. For the stalactites, isotopes of the elements uranium and thorium were measured.


Meandering paths

"They're two complementary methods," says Frumkin. Taken together they indicate that the tunnel originated about 700 BC, as stated in the Bible. "It verifies the biblical account, and that King Hezekiah was responsible."

Frumkin says that an inscription had been left on the tunnel wall, commemorating the meeting of the two teams of diggers approaching one another from opposite directions. "But it doesn't say who dug the tunnel, so it remained a mystery," he says.

Equally mystifying, adds Frumkin, is how the teams found each other given their meandering paths. But somehow they managed, and the inscription describes how they could hear each other when they were about 1.5 metres apart.

:teeth:

Gosh, I wonder what else that skeptics doubt is actually true... :hehe:

[chickenman]

radiodating is flawed according to creationists

[The Laughing Man]

Thank you for the straw man.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 12:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208535#post208535)
chickenman:

radiodating is flawed according to creationists
Not all of it. There are many kinds of radiometric dating. Unfortunately, the ones that are most reliable are frequently thrown out in favor of the ones that give archaeologists and geologists the answers they expect based on their presuppositions.

[chickenman]

Not all of it. There are many kinds of radiometric dating. Unfortunately, the ones that are most reliable are frequently thrown out in favor of the ones that give archaeologists and geologists the answers they expect based on their presuppositions.

you mean, methods which point to the age of the earth and geological strata being older than 6000 years are flawed, but those which support biblical archaeology are A-OK

this is all part of the grand conspiracy of atheist geologists I presume?

[HRG_new]

Today @ 07:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208530#post208530)
Jinx72:

The Bible actually is an accurate historical document (a collection of documents, in fact)? Imagine that...



You mean like the Ilias is an accurate historical document (including the participation of Ares and Apollon in the Trojan War) because of the recent excavation of the Skaean Gate ?

A man claimed to have caught a 500-pound trout while fishing close to an old willow. When asked for evidence, he showed them the old willow.

Regards,
HRG.

[Dr.GH]

The U/Th date is a bit more reliable if only because of the C14 calibration difficulties between ~800BC and ~400BC (see the link below). Additionally The U/Th date was ~300BC. Now, for various reasons YECs have insisted that stalactites form very rapidly, and that C14 dates are invalid, so I am sure that they are ready to accept the 300BC U/Th date over the 700BC C14 date. Not to mention that this is a bit closer to the epigraphic date.

Actually, I want to read the original Nature. My password is messed up again. I wonder how they are sure that the carbon from the plaster, and limestone didn't contaminate the plant material, calcium carbonate readily disolves and reprecipitates depending on humidity and this was a water tunnel. There are also question I have about the U/Th date: the dating of precipitated carbonates is based on the differential solubility of uranium and thorium compounds. Uranium compounds (particularly oxides). In a sense, the U/Th date is the last time the tunnel was flooded, and from the geological and archaeological context was probably near to when it was constructed. The other posible U/Th problem is measurment sensitivity after only 2300 years of even 2700 years there will be very small amounts of Thorium.

If it holds up, it will be a very interesting result.

http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/c1k_0kbc.gif

[The Laughing Man]

Of course, the fact that non-Creationist skeptics don't doubt the reliability of... well... pretty much anything should mean that they must accept the biblical account of the building of this tunnel (and much more). Of course, that's just not possible for them to do, since they are prejudiced against accepting almost everything in the Bible as anything other than "mythology." This is pretty much the typical skeptic response when something from the Bible is proven to be true. They tightly shut their eyes, cover their ears and scream "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" at the top of their lungs.

Freethinkers, indeed! :ahem:

[Dr.GH]

The closer to the events are to when the Torah was compliled, the more likely the events occured as described. The difference is determining just which events occured when.

Something like this will be pushed very hard by BAR Herchel Shanks because he was so humiliated by the 'bone box' hoax.

But, consider; the tunnel existed and it had to be built at sometime. The word "built" is important here, as we are not talking about some sort of divine intervention being carbon dated.

I have paid for carbon dates from older fireplaces, and I have no porblem with dates in general, nor this tunnel in particular. How ever, just a few weeks ago there was an extended discussion in which a YEC "Ted" "had to laugh" because C14 dates were used to attest to the age of something or other.

So, Jinx, what's it going to be? Dates are good, or dates are bad?

[The Laughing Man]

So, Jinx, what's it going to be? Dates are good, or dates are bad?

I'd rather know the answer to that from skeptics, along with an answer to the question, "So what's it going to be: biblical account is good or biblical account is bad?"

[gcomeau]

Today @ 12:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209408#post209408)
Jinx72:

I'd rather know the answer to that from skeptics, along with an answer to the question, "So what's it going to be: biblical account is good or biblical account is bad?"

Both. It gets some of the historical setting right, that doesn't mean we have to believe the supernatural storytelling which is taking place in that setting. Or as HRG has pointed out, do you believe the Illiad is a "reliable historical document" because IT gets some mundane details right?

Your turn to answer. Is radiometric dating reliable or isn't it? Do note that the rationale for the "both" answer doesn't work the same way here.

-Grant

[Dr.GH]

"I'd rather know the answer to that from skeptics, along with an answer to the question, "So what's it going to be: biblical account is good or biblical account is bad?"

Well, that is a very easy question for me: no document that lacks externally confirmable, independent support can be taken at face value.

But, have you ever watched a movie that changed the way you thought, or felt? Of course you have. And the fact that the movie was totally fiction did not necessarily make your reaction invalid, or phony. That is the way I read most of the Bible.

As far as the C14 data on this tunnel go, I think that they are OK, if the questions I have are answered in the actual scientific paper. I would have liked a closer result between the U/Th and C14 data because I have a project in the works to use both methods on beach algal tufa deposits. I want to read the Nature article for this reason as well. They NOW say that my subscription has expired! I should have until the 15th + I am sure I renewed.

So, Jinx, C14 is cool, right? Or, are you just flogging your keyboard?

[Pilgrim]

Let me point out here that the Bible is not a single document testifying to itself. It is a collection of documents gathered together. And the said documents haveing different authors and different dates of composition.

Sort of like an anthology. Get it?

[AdvocatDiaboli]

Yesterday @ 07:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209368#post209368)
Jinx72:

Of course, the fact that non-Creationist skeptics don't doubt the reliability of... well... pretty much anything should mean that they must accept the biblical account of the building of this tunnel (and much more). Of course, that's just not possible for them to do, since they are prejudiced against accepting almost everything in the Bible as anything other than "mythology." This is pretty much the typical skeptic response when something from the Bible is proven to be true. They tightly shut their eyes, cover their ears and scream "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" at the top of their lungs.

Freethinkers, indeed! :ahem:

My humble opinion is that even if some historical parts about the Bible were true, alas, they would not prove that Jesus could do miracles or that God exists.

:shy:

[The Laughing Man]

Yesterday @ 02:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209456#post209456)
gcomeau:

Both. It gets some of the historical setting right, that doesn't mean we have to believe the supernatural storytelling which is taking place in that setting.

So exactly how much historical, "mundane" parts of the Bible need to be proven factual in order for you to start wondering about the supernatural parts? Or do you just automatically discount those parts no matter what?

Or as HRG has pointed out, do you believe the Illiad is a "reliable historical document" because IT gets some mundane details right?

Except, of course, that comparing the Iliad to the Bible is comparing apples and oranges. The former was written as a work of fiction and the latter was written as a historical text.

Your turn to answer. Is radiometric dating reliable or isn't it?

Both. :teeth: There are known, proven problems with it for certain circumstances.

Do note that the rationale for the "both" answer doesn't work the same way here.

:huh: Why not? Radiometric dating gets some datings right, but that doesn't mean we have to believe every dating that is determined (particularly when the problems I mentioned above exist).

[chickenman]

how do you decide which datings are correct and which are incorrect?

whichever ones support your current worldview?

[The Laughing Man]

how do you decide which datings are correct and which are incorrect?

How do you? Are shells from marine life that has just died really thousands of years old? Are new lava flows in Hawaii really millions of years old? If people hadn't actually known the circumstances surrounding each, what do you think they'd have concluded based on radiometric dating alone?

whichever ones support your current worldview?

In regards to the tunnel, think about it. Radiometric dating has provided a certain date. We have a historical account (in the Bible) that scholars have determined to be from a certain date. Each of those matches the other. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's obvious that it is not an elephant.

[chickenman]

In regards to the tunnel, think about it. Radiometric dating has provided a certain date. We have a historical account (in the Bible) that scholars have determined to be from a certain date. Each of those matches the other. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's obvious that it is not an elephant.

if it supports the bible, and I believe the bible to be true, its obvious that it is true

To be clear, I have no problem with the accuracy of the dating of the tunnel construction

I just have a problem with fundies who reject parts of science when they disagree with fundie beliefs, but who embrace the same science when it confirms their beliefs

[geochron]

Today @ 05:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=210868#post210868)
Jinx72:



How do you? Are shells from marine life that has just died really thousands of years old? Are new lava flows in Hawaii really millions of years old? If people hadn't actually known the circumstances surrounding each, what do you think they'd have concluded based on radiometric dating alone?



Pathetic nonsense.

The excess argon 'problem' responsible for the false ages of recent lava flows was first identified by real scientists working on ancient lavas. So yes, they would and do get the right age.

Sorry if that doesn't fit in with the rubbish you've been told, but we all should face reality from time to time.

So would you like to answer the question? Our resident creationists like to tell us that 14C gives false old ages a lot of the time. So why isn't this one of them?

[DivineOb]

Today @ 08:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=210940#post210940)
geochron:
So would you like to answer the question? Our resident creationists like to tell us that 14C gives false old ages a lot of the time. So why isn't this one of them?

Indeed. Since radiometric dating methods give false ages, why shouldn't this recent dating be taken as evidence *against* biblical chronology?

[Archimedes]

The more historical and, from a theological point of view, inconsequential details of the biblical record are confirmed by mainstream archeology, the more it highlights the lack of evidence for the supernatural claims of the bible. I mean, if we can date tunnels and bone boxes with decent accuracy, why isn't there a shred of evidence for parting of oceans or global floods?

[HRG_new]

Today @ 04:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=210855#post210855)
Jinx72:

Except, of course, that comparing the Iliad to the Bible is comparing apples and oranges. The former was written as a work of fiction and the latter was written as a historical text.

You could not be more wrong. The Iliad was as real to the Greeks - with the exception of a few godless philosophers :) - as the Bible is to you. The texts that Homer compiled were regarded as describing historical reality, including the various divine intervention. We are comparing apples with apples.


Why not? Radiometric dating gets some datings right,

... for values of "some" rather close to 100% ...

but that doesn't mean we have to believe every dating that is determined (particularly when the problems I mentioned above exist).

The Bible gets some events right, but that doesn't mean we have to believe every story it tells. In soccer, you would just have - with verve and aplomb - deposited the ball in your own goal :)

Regards,
HRG.

Supernatural: a synonym for "claims for which it's rude, crude, and bigoted of us to insist on applying normal standards of logic and evidence." (Steven J.)

[gcomeau]

Yesterday @ 08:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=210855#post210855)
Jinx72:

So exactly how much historical, "mundane" parts of the Bible need to be proven factual in order for you to start wondering about the supernatural parts?

Irrelevant. In order to start considering the supernatural parts the supernatural parts need to be proven... not the mundane parts. The quantity of the mundane parts proven has no bearing on the other consideration.

Except, of course, that comparing the Iliad to the Bible is comparing apples and oranges. The former was written as a work of fiction and the latter was written as a historical text.

It was written as a religious text. The historical part is incidental in it's storytelling and certainly not it's primary purpose.

Why not? Radiometric dating gets some datings right, but that doesn't mean we have to believe every dating that is determined (particularly when the problems I mentioned above exist).

You didn't mention anuy problems above. You just claimed they existed without naming a single one. Usually when that happens I assume it's because the person making the claim knows what will happen if they actually have to get specific.

-Grant

[blackthorne]

Ooh ooh! My turn, my turn! :teeth:

How do you? Are shells from marine life that has just died really thousands of years old? Are new lava flows in Hawaii really millions of years old? If people hadn't actually known the circumstances surrounding each, what do you think they'd have concluded based on radiometric dating alone?

You might know the answers to these questions if you spent more time reading the relevent (as in "peer-reviewed") literature. Perhaps you can provide us with valid reasons for doubting the constancy of the radioactive clock? To clarify, I'm thinking more along the lines of a lack of sufficient insulation of the nuclei of atoms on behalf of its orbiting electrons, and less along the lines of Noachian deluges. :teeth:

In regards to the tunnel, think about it. Radiometric dating has provided a certain date. We have a historical account (in the Bible) that scholars have determined to be from a certain date. Each of those matches the other. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's obvious that it is not an elephant.

Of course...you seem to think these little tidbits of accuracy lend more credance to its more supernatural aspects. They don't. It's one thing to be skeptical of someone merely reflecting upon the historical setting of their time. It's entirely another when it comes to bodily resurrections, global floods (depending on your particular harebrained exegesis), talking animals, and post-resurrection zombie carousals. Placing these extraordinary (or supernatural) claims in a historical setting validates them no more than "a man who claims to have caught a 500-pound trout while fishing close to an old willow, who, when asked for evidence, points to the old willow." Thanks HRG. :teeth:

[Dr.GH]

Would some clever person tell me how to post a .gif file? There is a table I would like to post that you won't be able to see without a subscription. This is well within "fair use."