Skip to comments.Jesus Tomb Film Scholars Backtrack (Discovery's "Lost Tomb of Jesus")
Posted on 04/11/2007 8:56:08 PM PDT by Reaganesque
Several prominent scholars who were interviewed in a bitterly contested documentary that suggests that Jesus and his family members were buried in a nondescript ancient Jerusalem burial cave have now revised their conclusions, including the statistician who claimed that the odds were 600:1 in favor of the tomb being the family burial cave of Jesus of Nazareth, a new study on the fallout from the popular documentary shows.
The dramatic clarifications, compiled by epigrapher Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem in a paper titled "Cracks in the Foundation: How the Lost Tomb of Jesus story is losing its scholarly support," come two months after the screening of The Lost Tomb of Christ that attracted widespread public interest, despite the concomitant scholarly ridicule.
The film, made by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and Emmy-winning Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, prompted major criticism from both a leading Israeli archeologist involved in the original dig at the site as well as Christian leaders, who were angered over the documentary's contradictions of main tenets of Christianity.
But now, even some of the scholars who were interviewed for and appeared in the film are questioning some of its basic claims.
The most startling change of opinion featured in the 16-page paper is that of University of Toronto statistician Professor Andrey Feuerverger, who stated those 600 to one odds in the film. Feuerverger now says that these referred to the probability of a cluster of such names appearing together.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
...hmm- I’m surprised they didn’t stand their ground and claim that there was a ‘consensus’ in the scientific community that it was Jesus’ tomb...
You should have seen the documentary Discovery aired a couple of days before Easter. Jesus, as a small boy, used His mojo to make another child disfigured because he had the audacity to bump into Him in passing. Then, when a playmate fell off a rooftop, and Jesus was blamed for his death, Jesus jumped from the top of the roof and raised the kid from the dead and demanded that the kid tell them the truth of what had happened. Finally, as Simon went to help Jesus carry the cross, Jesus did a Freaky Friday on him, so it was Simon who was really crucified while Jesus looked on and laughed. There was also something about Jesus becoming a giant after the Resurrection (wait, I thought it was Simon who died). No word on if he stomped Tokyo.
You mean like the “consensus” of 4 who support Global Warming in snow covered Chicago?
The Drive-by media pulled this sham during Lent and they don’t even get questioned about it. The Drive-by media has become a sad joke.
What data did Discovery use to support this oh-so-obvious malarkey? I’m very curious about this. It kind of reeks about End Times stuff when somewhat respected media starts blatantly spewing such garbage.
Bttt for marker...
Check out this BS...
Global BS is much more threatening than global warming.
really? I hadn’t thought of that.
They said it was authenticated text from around 133AD. If truly authenticated, they discovered early anti-Christian fiction. They had the audacity to refer to them as Gospels.
This is apparently what I saw part of:
They originally ran this on Christmas Day. They reaired it right before Easter. Nice.
“Claiming themselves to be wise, they became as fools.....”
— St. Paul
O Timothy, keep what which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: (1Tim.6:20)
While floating along in the Ark, Noah was attacked by PIRATES.
I am not making this up.
There's even an English folk song, "The Bitter Withy", I used to sing it quite a bit when I taught a history of ballads course . . . The Virgin has to go out, and she tells Jesus "let me hear no ill of you when I come home." He is playing with a couple of rich kids who mock him for being "but a poor boy, born in an asses stall", so he makes a bridge out of the rainbow and runs across it. The kids try to follow him and of course fall and are killed. And when the Virgin gets home, she pulls a withy (willow branch) and whips Jesus within an inch of his life. So he curses the willow tree - "Oh bitter withy, oh bitter withy, that caused me so to smart. The withy shall be the firstest tree to wither from the heart."
It's actually an interesting area of folk legends and ballads.
Those folk legends are why the Church is valuable in separating accepted scripture from fiction, which often I think were the medieval versions of super hero comic books.
Much of these stories are heresies from around the same period - Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary, etc. Some manuscipts have turned up in Egypt and are very old. I think it is definately legit to have a show toalking about this stuff but they always time it around christian holidays which is a pretty big slap in my mind.
Of COURSE these stories are medieval superhero comic books or dime store novels!
thanks go to GoLightly and xcamel for compiling the list (thus far) of such topics, and to whomever started the handy keyword:
Sorted this to chrono order:
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
I find that some of the dumbest people are scientists who think they know so much but are simply being used unwittingly by the darkside. It happens everyday in the public school system with the false evolution teaching being foisted onto kids without the whole truth about it being shown. And then many adults wonder why there is such a high drop out and crime rate! How about teaching the whole truth rather than one side. The darkside loves to cast doubt to make us fall and feel meaningless.
ROTFLMAO! This is a first: "Evolution causes drop outs and crime rates". HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Aren't you aware that before Darwin, every person on earth had a Ph. D. in multiple disciplines? That crime started in 1859? Racism, too. This proves how evil Darwin's theory was: it took only a year after the theory was published for the American Civil War to break out.
being dishonest to students and not allowing a full disclosure about all of the holes in the evolution theory and not allowing competing scientific theories of creationism and ID is all meant unwittingly to cast doubt about God. If you don’t think that adds to a feeling of hopelessness and despair you need to wake up. It’s so obvious.
Thanks for the ping!
Here’s another interesting article related to this piece of news :
THE TOMB THAT BOMBED
and not allowing a full disclosure about all of the holes in the evolution theory
Name them. Ond once you've done that, show how these alleged "holes" would support anything else.
and not allowing competing scientific theories of creationism and ID
Neither of those is a scientific theory.
is all meant unwittingly to cast doubt about God.
Usually it's called deliberate. You're quite kind. But nothing in science is meant, wittingly or otherwise, to cast doubt about God. It's meant to advance human knowledge.
If you dont think that adds to a feeling of hopelessness and despair you need to wake up.
To what point in history to you want to roll back science? The TOE dates from 1959. Let's see ... germ theory is out, so I hope you like being helpless in the face of infectious disease. Women routinely died in childbirth. How glorious. Heavier-than-air flight is impossible, and so is the internet. Did you write your post with a quill pen? How did it get to my house?
Its so obvious.
Well, well, well. What a surprise.
Comedy, my friends. Pure comedy.
Only off by a century. What's a hundred years more-or-less?
I don’t want to roll back science at all but toe is simply bad science. The proposed transitional fossils are not clearly so at all and even many anthropoligists admitt that there just are not any transitional fossils. If there were there would be no debate whatsoever. The gradual morphing of many different animal forms into other animal forms are not in the fossil record. That is a fact...not wishfull thinking and pure conjecture as some toe scientists use to their own foolishness. You stated that ID and creationism are not theories which shows a complete lack of honesty on your part. Either that or you are very badly misinformed. Can’t really have a meaningful debate with someone who doesn’t even acknowledge the very viable alternative theories. I hope you will open your mind a little bit and be more honest.
Kindly state your criteria for good vs. bad science. If there are any entries on the list about agreeing with your interpretation of your religion, it's not scientific in and of itself.
The proposed transitional fossils are not clearly so at all and even many anthropoligists[sic]admitt[sic] that there just are not any transitional fossils.
This statement only seems plausible if you know nothing about paleontology and get your information from creationist websites. You might try consulting archeologists as well as paleontologists.
If there were there would be no debate whatsoever.
There is, in fact, no debate whatsoever among people who actually know the science involved. The only "debate" is between science and people utterly ignorant of science.
The gradual morphing of many different animal forms into other animal forms are[sic] not in the fossil record. That is a fact...not wishfull[sic] thinking and pure conjecture as some toe[sic] scientists use to their own foolishness.
You continue to expose your ignorance. Again, try books, websites, magazines, anything written by people who know what theyre talking about when it comes to archeology and paleontology. Your local creationist crank probably knows less about these subjects than he (she), does about brain surgery.
You stated that ID and creationism are not theories which shows a complete lack of honesty on your part.
Next time, try reading for comprehension. I said neither one is a scientific theory, which happens to be accurate. Actually, you yourself used the term "scientific theory" before. Are the goal posts moving or don't you know the difference?(In order to be considered scientific, a theory must be capable of disproof. How would you go about disproving either ID or creationism?).
Either that or you are very badly misinformed. Cant really have a meaningful debate with someone who doesnt even acknowledge the very viable alternative theories. I hope you will open your mind a little bit and be more honest.
There are no other viable scientific theories, and Im not interested in debating theology. You cant have a meaningful debate with someone utterly ignorant of the topic at hand, either. Dont assume that because I dont agree with your religion, Im dishonest.
you are sadly so full of yourself with what you believe to be scientific it is really sad. ID and creationism are indeed scientific theories and are acknowledged thus by many scientists. Because it may not fit into your narrow definition of a scientific theory does not in anyway discount it. You guys tend to try and reframe certain definitons to exclude viable alternatives to toe. It may work in public schools but it’s not reality. And you continue to expose your lack of understanding about the reality of the debate between creationism and evolution theory. If you honestly believe that the debate is over you are really way too lost in your “scientific” thoughts. There are so many very reputable scientists on both sides that engage in the debate all the time. To characterize creation websites and their authors as cranks shows a kind of prejudice not unlike any other predjudice which is motivated by a kind of anger. You probably don’t see that...too wrapped up in your head knowledge. Hope you wake up a bit and stop being so narrow minded. Who made you so bitter towards religion?
Its not what I believe to be scientific, its what science is. You are aware that Michael Behe stated under oath in a court of law that for ID to be considered a scientific theory, the definition of what is a scientific theory would have to change? Even Behe admits that as things stand now, ID is not a scientific theory. QED.
And by the way I'll reiterate, this was Behe's own sworn testimony, not a holding of the court. You can't lay this off on an "activist judge."
You are aware that he ALSO admitted that if the definition were changed enough to include ID, it would be vague enough to include astrology? You can be as sad as you like about what I consider to be science, but, unfortunately for your feelings, Im the one using the correct definition according to science.
ID and creationism are indeed scientific theories and are acknowledged thus by many scientists.
Kindly name them, and show us where they make these statements. Ive already shown the contortions Behe had to go through.
Because it may not fit into your narrow definition of a scientific theory does not in anyway discount it.
Like I said, its not my definition.
You guys tend to try and reframe certain definitons[sic] to exclude viable alternatives to toe.
Science defines science; your religion does not, and Webster's does not. Or do you think scientists named the different quarks by tasting them? (I really want to see an answer to this one).
It may work in public schools but its not reality.
Sorry. It is reality.
And you continue to expose your lack of understanding about the reality of the debate between creationism and evolution theory. If you honestly believe that the debate is over you are really way too lost in your scientific thoughts. There are so many very reputable scientists on both sides that engage in the debate all the time.
What I said was, and what you left out, was that within science there is no debate about creationism or ID with regard to the TOE. Everyone working in the field accepts one variant or other of the TOE; the debates are about details. You can probably find someone Behe comes to mind who will carry on about the scientific nature of ID, but when it comes to testifying under oath, it becomes readily apparent that Behes assuming some definition of science no one in the field accepts.
To characterize creation websites and their authors as cranks shows a kind of prejudice not unlike any other predjudice which is motivated by a kind of anger.
What youve just shown is your continuing inability to read with comprehension. Heres what I wrote:
You continue to expose your ignorance. Again, try books, websites, magazines, anything written by people who know what theyre talking about when it comes to archeology and paleontology. Your local creationist crank probably knows less about these subjects than he (she), does about brain surgery.[Underlining added].
Got that? Your local crank.
Its right here in this thread. Im amazed at the audacity with which youve attempt to distort something right here for everyone to see! No complex "click on this link" activity required!
You probably dont see that...too wrapped up in your head knowledge. Hope you wake up a bit and stop being so narrow minded.
Coyoteman has repeatedly posted a list of terms as used in science, and hes just as often noted that the creationist websites are not doing science, theyre doing apologetics.
If you want apologetics, fine. Just dont pretend its science.
Who made you so bitter towards religion?
Youre very droll. Why would you assume that because I dont accept your version of your religion and the notion that it and it alone should control science, that I am bitter towards all religion? Do you accept the many religions or versions thereof that have no problem whatever with the Theory of Evolution? If they are in error, please convince them first.
In any case, Im not bitter, I am wary. Are you aware that weve got fools right here at FR who post radical Islamist propaganda because it attacks the TOE? And when informed that theyre posting radical Islamist propaganda, they cyber-shrug and say they do it because the bits they like attack science and agree with their religion!
Call them Islams Useful Idiots.
Can you answer any of the questions I've posted to you in this thread?
Sorry, but it looks rather that you are the one who is misinformed.
Here are some definitions of terms as used by scientists. These may help straighten out your confusion. Pay particular attention to the definitions of theory, hypothesis, and belier:
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from it seems to be correct to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that its use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 9/26/06]
O please...local or not, the point I made about you using the term crank along with creationism shows a prejudice you have which taints all of your “knowledge”. You are a confusing person and are trying to split hairs and narrow true defintions. I don’t know about Behe but am more familiar with creationism theory and the fact that it has much more evidence to it than evolution. Actually, macro evolution of one species turning into another has never been observed so it fails one of the tests of a true theory.
It is simply a fact that creationism is a viable theory and for you to try and deny that is dishonest. And Websters most certainly does have true definitions...give me a break. They don’t neccessarily fit into your viwe of science but science in fact does include so much more than the natural world. I have a fairly long list of scientists who believe in creationism theory...some of whom used to be fooled by the false evolution theory. I need to find it and will send it to you. You really need to be more honest in the debate and stop trying to stifle it by denying a true theory. Here is a good site that demonstrates some of creation theories very valid points. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
I checked out your link. I examined the section on radiometric dating, and in particular the subsection on radiocarbon dating.
It is a pile of misrepresentations and conjecture masquerading as pseudo-science, most likely in hopes of being mistaken for real science by those who don't know any better.
Any scientists who produced work of that quality would be laughed out of their profession.
I hope this one section, with which I have some familiarity, is not representative of the site as a whole; but I have my doubts.
If you disagree, pick what you think is the strongest point arguing against the accuracy of the radiocarbon method and let me know. I'll see what I can provide as a response.
Sorry, that happens not to be the case.
The issue of transitionals and gradual change has been addressed in detail in many previous posts, three of which I have linked below. (There are many more examples.)
DANGER! Science alert! Click at your own risk!
And as an added bonus, a picture of a transitional! Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
what is really conjecture is your idea of transitional fossils. Those skulls are simply different types of primates and humans. Your side has a bad history of being awefully creative with the fossil record...I’m sure you are aware of some of the frauds presented as our ancestors. Where are the many thousands if not millions of clear examples of one life form morphing into another? They simply aren’t there but you guys desparetly cling onto a failing theory regardless. It’s really too bad because the many observable facts presented by creationism are so much more interesting.
Can you tell me which are primates and which are humans?
And please, provide some basis, other than personal opinion, for your answer.
it is absolutley conjecture to say those are transitionals. And no other bones provided. Come on...something’s fishy here! Of course there were huge primate type animals in history and actually still in present. Many reputable people have seen a bigfoot type creature which if the skull of one were discovered you might claim as a transitional life form. TOE is a failing theory and the plain facts show it just as many facts of creationism point to an author of life. It is partly faith as it should be but science does back up faith to a large degree.
One needs much more faith to believe toe...a doubt type of faith though.
Huge primates? What does that have to do with anything?
Many reputable people have seen a bigfoot type creature which if the skull of one were discovered you might claim as a transitional life form.
Bigfoot, if it exists, is most likely a descendant of Gigantopithecis. What does that have to do with what I posted? (I studied under the leading bigfoot expert, so if you want to debate bigfoot bring it on.) But, we were discussing transitionals, a subject you seem to have forgotten.
TOE is a failing theory and the plain facts show it just as many facts of creationism point to an author of life. It is partly faith as it should be but science does back up faith to a large degree.
Show me the evidence. Show me the facts. You are batting zero so far, so forgive me if I don't just take your word for this.
One needs much more faith to believe toe...a doubt type of faith though.
I am not sure what you mean. I do science, what has faith to do with science? Could it be you are doing apologetics?
well, how about the dna evidence for creationism. The dna code has a numberic system to it and is as complex or more so than a computer code. It is certainly responsible for much more complex activities than a computer code. To say that it has come about by mere chance and evolved through millions of years does take a sort of faith...although a doubt type. What I mean by that is it defies logic and reason. For every logical discovery there is an opposite doubt about it which is proposed by the darkside. You are falling into it’s “knowledge” trap thinking that you have the truth.
I am not sure what you mean by that.
As far as I have read, DNA supports the theory of evolution.
There are two sites in western North America spanning the date generally given for the global flood (ca. 4300 years ago). One example dates to 10,300 years ago. The second, from my own research, dates to 5,300 years ago. In both cases there is genetic continuity from these early dates to living individuals.
These examples show that mtDNA does not support the overall creation/global flood scenario.
There is also genetic evidence from a variety of primates, as well as some fossils, which suggests you are not correct in your statement.
regardless of the timing...who programmed the dna code? It simply cound not appear by itself. Imperical evidence for a Creator.