Archaeologists discover remains of 2500-year-old advanced civilization in Russia

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Yep. Stories 100% bogus.

Archeologists found traces of many religions here-Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Especially considering Christianity is younger than 2500 years old, Judaism yes, Christianity no. And unless I am mistaken Islam is younger than Christianity.

Ok just to play devil's advocate for a moment here... but isn't it possible that this story is real and maybe the reporter just screwed up on some detail or another? Or maybe the item in contention is a cross of some sort. Isn’t it also possible that the cross, saying that both the story is true and that it was a cross found at the site, was used in another religion prior to being adapted and indoctorated into the Christian religion? And it’s only the archaeologist’s or reporter’s personal beliefs claiming it as an artefact of Christianity?

Personally speaking I am reserving judgement on this, mainly because a 396 word article isn’t nearly enough information to base a clear and fair opinion on something like this. More so, when it is possible that human error is at fault and not fraud. … That being said I find it odd that the reporter misspelled no less than five common place words, I am guessing that whoever wrote this doesn’t use spell-check.

i was doing some reading on another subject today and came across an artical written about the remains of a fishing boat that was found in the mud of the lake/sea of galilee after a sever drought in 1986---the boat was carbon dated to 40 ce give or take 80 years in before or after that date for a swing for accuracy--i have yet to find out if that can equate to 200% (example 2000 bce assumed date=1000bce or 4000bce) or acutal 2x either way for the "assumed" date ?sure would be nice if scientists would speak plain english instead of beating around bushes !

reply to post by looneylupinsrevenge



Eh. Make whatever decision about it you like of course. But the whole thing sounds a bit contrived to me. After all if they said crucifix(es) rather than Christian I wouldn't have a problem, except when I can't think of a religion that includes the crucifix as a holy symbol other than those (un at times) lovable Christheads. =)
That and isn't Islam younger than Christianity?