beautiful.

Civilisation as we know it began with the discovery of agriculture about 9000 years ago.

Where as previously people had lived a nomadic lifestyle and were constantly on the move tracking game and hunting, agriculture caused people to for the first time settle in villages with fields and even irrigation.

Agriculture meant that one man could produce enough food to feed many people, freeing others to specialise is trades such as carpentry. They produced goods and the settlements quickly grew as they attracted trade. The rest, as they say, is history.

I guess this must have been one of the first settlements. The Babylonian tribes are thought to have settled around about the same time around the Euphrates river in what we now call Iraq.

Now I'm off to play Civilisation 4. See you in 12 hours!

Wait your source is "wikipedia"? tsk tsk

edit.

no no this will just bolster the belief that the descendants of Noah settled here after the ark came to rest on that mtn in Iran or Turkey.

BIBLE RAPER!

I notice ancient skeletons were usually in the fetal position. I wonder if they were buried that way to save space.

despite the fact that god created the world only 6000 years ago

lol

Where are the dinosaurs living along side the humans? or is that what the second to last photo is?
</sarcasm>

I've visited the site -- it leaves an impression on you being so viscerally close to the earliest known human settlement. Surely there were others before it, however 10k years is a really long time.

>> ^Xax:

despite the fact that god created the world only 6000 years ago

>> ^dannym3141:
So you're making your own religion up..? Since when was religion a pick and choose kind of thing?

Do you believe everything that has ever been written is to be taken literally? Have you not heard of simile, analogy, metaphor, etc.? To assume that every author of the Bible was writing literally seems foolish.

So no, I am not "making my own religion up." When science indicates that the world wasn't created in 168 hours, you have two options: ignore science and yell "la la la la la I can't hear you", or consider that not every single written word in the Bible is to be taken literally, which is a more than reasonable consideration. To do so isn't blasphemous or "picking and choosing"; it is to recognize the truth of things.

Here's the thing that bothers me, I have heard that the bible is "the word of god given to man". so if that is the case, then isn't it blasphemy to NOT take the bible literally? because god is omniscient, omnipresent and other omnis right? so he knows better than us as to the correct behavior, so we should stone our neighbors if they are wearing more than two types of cloth.

>> ^anti-mammon:
Here's the thing that bothers me, I have heard that the bible is "the word of god given to man". so if that is the case, then isn't it blasphemy to NOT take the bible literally? because god is omniscient, omnipresent and other omnis right? so he knows better than us as to the correct behavior, so we should stone our neighbors if they are wearing more than two types of cloth.


Is there anywhere in biblical scripture that specifically states that 100% of the Bible is the word of G-O-D? I'm not an expert on said text, but maybe someone can clarify this for me.

>> ^Xax:
>> ^dannym3141:
So you're making your own religion up..? Since when was religion a pick and choose kind of thing?
Do you believe everything that has ever been written is to be taken literally? Have you not heard of simile, analogy, metaphor, etc.? To assume that every author of the Bible was writing literally seems foolish.
So no, I am not "making my own religion up." When science indicates that the world wasn't created in 168 hours, you have two options: ignore science and yell "la la la la la I can't hear you", or consider that not every single written word in the Bible is to be taken literally, which is a more than reasonable consideration. To do so isn't blasphemous or "picking and choosing"; it is to recognize the truth of things.


For the record, i never said what you accused me of saying. I was putting up conjecture based on what i thought to be true, to be answered by someone more informed than myself, and if i gave any other impression then i apologise.

I thought that was pretty clear from the qualification at the end - it IS just a matter of opinion, because since my first post on this video, i have asked 2 christians and been told that yes, it is a matter of opinion, and some would say that changing a detail of christianity would no longer be christianity, you don't get to pick and choose. Some wouldn't - you clearly included - and i make no allusions as to who is right or wrong, or whether there IS a right or wrong. But like it or not, some people do think that.

Anyway, back on topic, i'll answer your question;
No, i don't believe everything that has ever been written is to be taken literally. But i also do not believe in anything i have no proof of, and that makes me a different person to you and therefore i can't make any judgements on what you would/wouldn't believe, and neither should you.

That's TOTAL bullshit -- they didn't have digital cameras 9,000 years ago!

Interesting site, but crap video... we don't need to see the guy with the stupid glasses at the beginning and and end, we could do with some more explanation of what we're seeing and why it's amazing, we could generally just do better than a bunch of photos from an expedition.

No. It doesn't say that anywhere.

The Bible we know was passed down through many generations and translated from language to language over the years. Many other writings, traced back to ancient times, can be translated to read differently than do the many versions of the Bible in English today.

Here's one example of how certain things are lost over time. None of the Scrolls of Enoch (Fragments were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls) are included in the Old Testament, but Enoch is mentioned in the Bible as a Prophet who was taken up to return with God because he was so righteous. Why weren't his writings included in the Bible? All but a few of his words were lost.

I believe the original texts of the Bible (as written by the prophets) to have been 100% accurate. It is no longer 100% accurate due to error and corruption by man. Any logical human can see that there are many metaphors, similes, and fables in The Bible. 1000 years in Bible time could represent any length of time. Who knows how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden as immortals?

>> ^poolcleaner:

Is there anywhere in biblical scripture that specifically states that 100% of the Bible is the word of G-O-D? I'm not an expert on said text, but maybe someone can clarify this for me.

A friend of mine clarified this whole Christianity thing up for me. He clued me into the fact that Jesus was actually a blacksmith, not a carpenter. Makes much more sense now, don't it?

A blacksmith...

Bible, hahahaha. How about the island of MU or Ataist??? "Only" 30,000 years old those are!

>> ^spoco2:
Interesting site, but crap video... we don't need to see the guy with the stupid glasses at the beginning and and end, we could do with some more explanation of what we're seeing and why it's amazing, we could generally just do better than a bunch of photos from an expedition.


i agree, but this was the best video i found about ths excavation i'll keep my eyes out for something better, a news report or something with a better narrative.

Is there anywhere in the bible that says 1% of the Bibile fact?

>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^anti-mammon:
Here's the thing that bothers me, I have heard that the bible is "the word of god given to man". so if that is the case, then isn't it blasphemy to NOT take the bible literally? because god is omniscient, omnipresent and other omnis right? so he knows better than us as to the correct behavior, so we should stone our neighbors if they are wearing more than two types of cloth.

Is there anywhere in biblical scripture that specifically states that 100% of the Bible is the word of G-O-D? I'm not an expert on said text, but maybe someone can clarify this for me.

I was watching Oz the other night and they had a brilliant little exhange. The white supremist leader guy (think his name is Shillinger) or something was having a conversation with another prisoner about Jesus. The other prisoner commented that Jesus was more than likely someone who looked like an Arab. The white supremist guy turns to a page in his bible and points at a picture of a blond, aryan lookin Jesus and retorts "See, the bible clearly shows he's white" or something like that.

It astounds how anyone, and I mean anyone, distinguish between a splinter "cult" from any so-called major religion. It's all the same, just with different degrees of suspension of disbelief.

This whole concept that some people are "picking and choosing" is bunk because ALL religions are based on picking and choosing. It assumes that there is one "correct" religion, which there clearly isn't. Even amongst Jesus nuts you have so much variety that it would be impossible to discern a "true" Christian church.

Not sure about that? Well, just look at the wars wages between Protestants and Catholics. Jesus is supposedly about love, and yet, Protestants and Catholics have killed innocent people with bombs in the name of fighting a war based on the differences between them...

So in summary, anyone who thinks that they have a "true" religion, yeah, face it, you are uneducated and a nutjob.

>> ^deedub81:
I believe the original texts of the Bible (as written by the prophets) to have been 100% accurate. It is no longer 100% accurate due to error and corruption by man. Any logical human can see that there are many metaphors, similes, and fables in The Bible. 1000 years in Bible time could represent any length of time. Who knows how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden as immortals?


So you're saying that God (who was pretty interactive early on) no longer cares that His words are 100% accurate? That seems pretty odd that He would no longer care.

Now, if you want to do a quick test of morals then you can also think about the concept of Hell. Most of us tend to think of torture as wrong. So why is it OK to let God send those that didn't follow His rules to Hell and suffer torture for eternity when we can pretty much universally agree that a human torturing another human is wrong?

How much you want to bet that the Creation Museum will soon set up a room dedicated to this find, as proof that humans walked with Dinosaurs. If they are lucky, they may find 'evidence' of Noah's Ark with enough room to spare for a couple of Brontosaurus.

Of course.. they'll still need to explain the existence of genetic diversity even among an individual species and how such variety in genetic type could have come to pass in a mere 6000 years.

Snakes can talk, people can fly, and a man named Jesus lives in the sky!

>> ^thinker247:
BIBLE RAPER!
I notice ancient skeletons were usually in the fetal position. I wonder if they were buried that way to save space.


Those were people that fell in the toilet (and died).

Fact.

THIS IS CATALHOYUK!!!!!!

(if anyone is with me on this one, bless you.)

Oldest city in the world is a bit of a stab in the dark - there are a few contenders out there.

DOWNVOTE!

Why would I want to see a bunch of pictures about where McCain graduated?

Is there anywhere in that statement that tells us that you proofread your comments before clicking "submit new comment?"


>> ^millertime1211:
Is there anywhere in the bible that says 1% of the Bibile fact?

I believe that God is still very "interactive." He cares about us more than any of us can know.

As to your second paragraph, I believe that:

1) God does not torture. He is perfect.
2) Very few people will end up in Hell.
3) God doesn't "send" people to Hell. People have free will. We all make our own bed and we, therefore, must lie in it.

(This is only a very short explanation of a few of my beliefs on Hell)



>> ^sawtooth:
>> So you're saying that God (who was pretty interactive early on) no longer cares that His words are 100% accurate? That seems pretty odd that He would no longer care.
Now, if you want to do a quick test of morals then you can also think about the concept of Hell. Most of us tend to think of torture as wrong. So why is it OK to let God send those that didn't follow His rules to Hell and suffer torture for eternity when we can pretty much universally agree that a human torturing another human is wrong?

Which you have made up and mean nothing.

god tortures, alughters, plagues, smites etc lots, unless of course the bible is wrong
(one of the) god(s) in the oldest writing is a very typical nature religion type god, perfectly fine to interact with, and he cares deeply about things like division of lifestock and similar. hell is a much more advanced topic for a religion, and is not introduced until the captivity in babylon. so neither El nor Yahve would send anyone to hell, because it wasnt a part of the religion yet.
i think more modern christians view of god and hell is a seperate tradition very much developed "outside the book".

Sorry. You're wrong and I didn't make anything up. I can reference scripture for all my beliefs.

God cannot spare any man punishment for wrongdoing unless they are willing to repent through the Atonement of Christ. Wrongs must be made right. It's an eternal principle, like gravity or the fact that 1+1=2. Man brings consequences upon himself by his own actions, whether they be good or bad. In short, we are punished by nature. We determine the outcome of our life by the choices that we make.


>> ^gorillaman:
Which you have made up and mean nothing.