|
Post by Roy on Jul 23, 2006 14:23:40 GMT -5
I find it a joy to have found a site that presents the Bible happenings on a timeline: www.olivetree.com/history/ Click on a screen resolution for the actual site. Then click on the tabs at the bottom of the screen to see more. It defaults to Paul but you can add others and remove others at will. Great site! Hope you enjoy as I did!
|
|
|
Post by quick look on Jul 23, 2006 15:39:17 GMT -5
I find it a joy to have found a site that presents the Bible happenings on a timeline: www.olivetree.com/history/ Click on a screen resolution for the actual site. Then click on the tabs at the bottom of the screen to see more. It defaults to Paul but you can add others and remove others at will. Great site! Hope you enjoy as I did! I am not sure I would put a lot of stock in this software. A really quick look shows Matthew being written years before Mark and this is not generally considered tha case by most scholars.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2006 18:57:10 GMT -5
rats.... we don't have Java Support. I am sticking my neck out and commenting on a web site I haven't seen - but yes, it is believed that Mark was the first of the four gospels - whatever that means. Just wondering how the site would have listed when Daniel was written?
|
|
|
Post by Roy on Jul 23, 2006 19:56:23 GMT -5
Bert, Load up Java on your browser. Are you saying there is a whole bunch of untruths out there? And a whole lot of people trying to support those untruths? lol
|
|
|
Post by Not Mentioned on Jul 23, 2006 20:00:10 GMT -5
rats.... we don't have Java Support. I am sticking my neck out and commenting on a web site I haven't seen - but yes, it is believed that Mark was the first of the four gospels - whatever that means. Just wondering how the site would have listed when Daniel was written? Daniel is not mentioned on the chart (at least that I could see.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2006 20:50:02 GMT -5
Roy - hi, yeah, got to get all that sorted out - but I have to completely reformat Prue's computer and she won't let me - we either have a bad device driver or that wonderfully worded malware on the computer. Yes, there is an enormous amount of untruth in biblical history studies. Daniel is interesting as a test case for any check... the standard theory is that Daniel was written during the time of the Macabees, centuries after any real Daniel lived.
|
|
|
Post by getting it right on Jul 23, 2006 21:18:03 GMT -5
Faith based biblical scholarship will always come up with findings that are acceptable to the fundamentalist. Faith based "creationism" will always come up with findings that are pleasing to the faithful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2006 21:22:29 GMT -5
Some of biblical historical studies is based upon faith, ie the faith that no God is needed to explain the events, or lack of events, in biblical times. For instance the story of the Exodus is disbelieved because it is not possible to march two million through the wilderness for 40 years. Someone pointed out there is a site on the Jordan where it appears the tabernacle was set up - and mentioned that not one scholar had bothered to mention it (regardless of whether the site was fake or otherwise.) The bible is not evidence based. Out of curiosity, what does your own faith lead you to believe?
|
|