Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
ad hominem
this thread is becoming disappointing, facts out the window and resulting in logical fallacies.
please let me in on this amazing reality,that can change creation accounts that differ greatly and change time and wording of them and go back in time and make one copy the other [yet change the whole thing,point,topic etc] i call it a fantasy,faith,not sure what,false maybe?.
It would be hard to charge you with logical fallacy. One would have to sort through your numerous grammatical fallacies first before one can make out what kind of logical argument you're trying to put forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
OK, who gave TR the link to the logical fallacies?? :stare:
"showing hebrew was first": Non-sense
Basic archaeology: Stones tools were invented and used before the Iron one because it is more simple to make tools from stone than from iron as iron needs the development of several technology and knowledge.
It is the same for the material where we can write. Caves wall are perfect but can't be moved. So humans founded new media, and the Clay tablets being one of the media. Clay tablets were used before papyrus or Animals Skins as it is easy to write on it, and to shape. And when baked, it stay as new for a long time (if not broken by pillaging barbarians)So, when you find a library full of Clay Tablets that means it is older than a library full of papyrus.
We don't have any Clay Tablets with texts from the Bible. We have Clay Tablets for the book of Gilgamesh. So, Book of Gilgamesh is older than Bible, like a Bronze axe is older than Iron axe but newer that a Stone axe.
Before you ask, the older Jewish Clay Tablet is dated from the 14 Century BC, which is after the fall of the Sumerian Civilisation (oldest Sumerian Clay Tablet is 6000 BC). The book of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the oldest written story on Earth. It was originally written on 12 clay tablets in cunieform script (somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE).
TR, you are aware that you are the one making a claim that "the flood" existed.
Thus, it comes to YOU to prove it.
Be my guest.
The idea is quite honestly laughable.
There is an old argument about a flood existing, originating from Babylonian mythology and there was some evidence. However, it was a large localised flooding, nothing global spanning.
Yepp, don't get me wrong. I am sure that somewhere in history a local area was flooded. We see it every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Now, as to a world wide flood... And an Ark... <- It is, to put it very mildly, rubbish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
while i indeed say yes to a global flood [with large amounts of evidence] i never said it on my op, that is for next thread. So stay tuned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
do you not see your assumption even assuming all you say is true? There are civilizations around today that dont have technology of USA or europe, yet are older. There are cases of people losing technology and going "backwards", so your dating is based 100% on assumptions [even if generally true] are not absolute. No to mention going off what we do have in archaeology does not equal what we dont have. There is famous saying in archaeology [forget who dont ask] said absence of evidence is not evidence against.
but i am glad to see you have moved the goalpost, you no longer defend isreal copying in 6th century bc it seems. That is the date that is important, did jews creation acount predate this time period that it is claimed they copied, the answer is yes, for the many reasons i gave earlier you ignored [or at least did not respond to]. Not to mention the whole idea of coping either jews were worse in world, or they never did [something your worldview cant accept]. To anyone who reads the text in full, i cant help but think they are not so willing to believe your claims as yourself.
“you no longer defend isreal copying in 6th century bc it seems” Err, I never gave a date as it is, first, irrelevant, and, second, I have no indication of when the Jewish Script(s) decided to incorporate the Sumerian Myth in the Bible.
“There are civilizations around today that dont have technology of USA or europe, yet are older.” True, but irrelevant. If theses civilisations want to reach the level of Europe or USA, they will have to learn and developed the same skills. So, they will still have to learn the several technologies to make possible the development of a new technology.
“absence of evidence is not evidence against.” Nice try. Do try this in a Court of Justice. I have no evidence you kill your neighbour, doesn’t prove you didn’t kill him/her. In our case, even if the neighbour is still alive.
All early civilizations arose around a river. They were based on the annual flooding, but a larger-than-normal flooding would spell doom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
It's no surprise that you'll find myths concerning a giant flood in each of these civilizations. It was the ultimate fear of these civilizations.
Nonsense. Again, don't play with fallacies until you're older, son. Ad hominem is concerned with an argument. More specifically, it is when someone tries to disquise an attack upon a person as an argument against their case.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Pannonian made a remark on your person which he did not try to disguise as an argument against your case. Thus, this is not an example of an ad hominem argument.
Anyway, you wrote in your OP:
I have attempted to debate this point, but you refused to comment on the contradictory statements of Matthew and Luke concerning the date of Jesus' birth. So, I'll try another:Quote:
Originally Posted by TR
The exodus is a made up story. The Jewish people were never held in captivity in Egypt. The story is not found anywhere else than in the bible, and the Egyptians were very keen on recording their history. There is no mention of hardships for Egypt in the time the plagues supposedly took place, nor is there a reference to an army being lost. There is no archeological evidence of any Jewish presence in Egypt, and there's a wealth of evidence saying the Jews were in palestine the entire time. The places the jews supposedly stayed at during their 40 years in the desert did not exist until centuries later than when it supposedly took place. The bible, usually extremely anal about naming people, does not name the chief antagonist of the story, the Pharaoh.
In conclusion, the story was made up at a later date to justify jewish dominance over palestine. It is a political, not a historical, story.
I am a Catholic. The largest Christian denomination on the planet earth accepts the theory of evolution. Most other denominations that I know of do as well. Likewise, the big bang theory is accepted. Science explains the how, my faith explains the why.
If anyone here has theological questions, your best bet is to sit through a Mass or service and listen to the homily. I recomend that you do this with a single question per week for the rest of your life at a church that provides you with peace. You should also speak to scholars from other religions for a deeper understanding.
The answers from people who don't despise the Bible will be very different from the answers provided on a Total War forum.
So.... anyone else like basket weaving? I'm really thinking about getting into that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
well since you seem unaware of your own claim [not a surprise given you never read accounts] i shall enlighten you.
The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC. But the internal evidence shows no sign of this, and every sign of being written for people who had just come out of Egypt. The Eurocentric inventors of the Documentary Hypothesis, such as Julius Wellhausen, thought that writing hadn’t been invented by Moses’ time. But many archaeological discoveries of ancient writing show that this is ludicrous..
so if not than when did they copy from them? jews copied a story from enemies at a time they were separate because?
civilizations
missed whole point, when is what is important,age, you own statement proves what i said to be true. That technology does not equal perfect age.
“absence of evidence is not evidence against
that is why i said in archaeology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
coming from someone who has committed many logical fallacies [53] than claim i committed a strawman [64] warned me to wait till i was older to use logical fallacies. Only to than admit you were wrong and i did not commit it [80] claimed another logical fallacies goalpost [74,refuted 80, showed you dont read post b-4 commenting] than commited one more on 114 that i did not even feel needed responding to.
ad hominem
while i agree with what you said, if you read post 159 [this seems common you always miss what starts discussion and come to wrong conclusion]. he was using the personal attack [spelling grammar] as a response to what i had sed in argument against brenus i believe that he quoted.
I have attempted to debate this point, but you refused to comment on the contradictory statements of Matthew and Luke concerning the date of Jesus' birth. So, I'll try another:
This is a contradiction claim,not archaeological claim.
The exodus is a made up story.The exodus is a made up story. The Jewish people were never held in captivity in Egypt. The story is not found anywhere else than in the bible, and the Egyptians were very keen on recording their history. There is no mention of hardships for Egypt in the time the plagues supposedly took place, nor is there a reference to an army being lost. There is no archeological evidence of any Jewish presence in Egypt, and there's a wealth of evidence saying the Jews were in palestine the entire time. The places the jews supposedly stayed at during their 40 years in the desert did not exist until centuries later than when it supposedly took place. The bible, usually extremely anal about naming people, does not name the chief antagonist of the story, the Pharaoh.In conclusion, the story was made up at a later date to justify jewish dominance over palestine. It is a political, not a historical, story.
I agree 100% with you actually. That is because you follow the traditional timeline current held by most, if true i agree than that would make your whole point good and valid. If the traditional timeline [that is unknown by created and built on assumptions and has horrible problems etc] than the time of the exodus is wrong. I am busy now to get into details i will leave you some references to look over at moment. I believe once the current chronology is changed by 150 or maybe 350 years [it has been awhile] the evidence for the exodus goes from zero to amazing. More and more secular archaeologist and universities are teaching the reduced chronologies such as Cambridge and others.
Egyptian dating
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
this would be good for exodus
Dr. Bryant Wood presents evidence that refutes five criticisms of the Bible. Criticism #1: There is no evidence for the presence of the Israelites in Egypt. #2: There was no capital at Rameses for the Israelites to depart from. #3: There is no evidence for the route, date and nature of the Exodus. #4: Jericho was not occupied when the Israelites entered Canaan. #5: The city of Ai recorded in Joshua 7-8 shows no evidence for destruction as the Bible records it
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/book...ct.aspx?id=129
Unwrapping the Pharaohs
http://www.amazon.com/Unwrapping-Pha.../dp/0890514682
No way, that's not how things are run here.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
You cant make idiotic claims, completely unsupported, and expect people to move on with a vague statement of "future thread".
Your threads SO FAR have been laughed out because of their absurdity, and your lack of understanding when questioned upon them. Is the future thread you talk about of the same quality?
Your style of argumentation is completely idiotic, rinse and repeat and MAYBE I start taking your seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
here is from a catholic creation site, would be good for you.
The Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation
http://www.kolbecenter.org/the-tradi...e-of-creation/
Evolution and Revisionist Catholicism
http://www.kolbecenter.org/evolution...t-catholicism/
WHY FAITHFUL CATHOLICS SHOULD OPPOSE EVOLUTION
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt28.html#II
your denomination makes no claim and says either creation/evolution could be true.
you said
Science explains the how
I agree fully, this is better for another thread though. It is science that caused me to become a creationist and reject evolution.
You should also speak to scholars from other religions for a deeper understanding.
I do,but what understanding do you believe they have? is it not a false understanding?
The answers from people who don't despise the Bible will be very different from the answers provided on a Total War forum.
I agree with that, but i go places people hate god [twc,here other places] on purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
sorry you feel that way, but when people say things [no evidence for flood etc] i simply tell them of a future thread coming if they are interested that disagrees with them and can come and talk etc. I think it is a good idea to stay on topic of thread it may be crazy, but that i think is the general idea of having a topic and op of a thread. If things are indeed run different here [please link rules for forum] let me know and i will change.
The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
AGAIN, your last threads have been shot down, argumentatively speaking. So it's not like you have some stellar history that leaves some room for doubt.
On the contrary, people expect to read lunatic ramblings from a madman when opening up your threads. So show the cards you have, or shut up and leave the game.
How does this thread have nine pages?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.
apply to yourself, someone claims no evidence for noahs flood,no global flood, yet does not provide anything for claim. I say there is, that leads us off topic for a future great thread.
The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.
you claim my past threads have been shot down. Please apply here, please show me on any thread [on the thread you claim] were it has been shot down as you baseless claim.
you wont be able to support any of your claims without not responding and ignoring refutations. That is why any claim you make of my threads being shot down, i can just show counter post you ignored or did not read.
The rest is just clear case of you wanting me to shut up, given your history on my threads i dont blame you one bit.
lol, this is just too funny. As I have said several times already, don't play around with fallacies until you're older. It would be preferable for you to get some knowledge of mathematics and/or logic before you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
You could say that Brenus' comment of your struggles with reality was an ad hominem attack. Pannonian's comment, however, was simply an expansion of Brenus' attack on you, while not dealing with any of Brenus arguments at all. It is thus a pure personal attack, and so fails the definition of an ad hominem. It was nothing more than an assertion of your complete lack of education.
If I were you, I would also focus on actually reading the posts made by others, instead of trying to figure out whether or not someone else is reading them.
Moving the timeline by 150-350 years moves the exodus from the category of "impossible" to "impossible and absurd". Congratulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
The main facts are:
1. There is no evidence whatsoever of any hebrew presence in Egypt
2. There is no evidence of over half a million people milling about the Sinai for 40 years, nor is there any evidence of the major incidents mentioned, like the demise of Pharaos(who is "curiously" not named) army
3. There is plenty of evidence of a continued Hebrew presence in Palestine.
The exodus is a clear political document, made up to justify all the raping, pillaging and slaughtering committed by the israelites when they asserted their dominance in Palestine. In that regard, it is similar to other claims, like Rome's claim of a Trojan beginning.
I would strongly suggest you get some education before you try to deal with tricky subjects like archeology, history and biology.
“i shall enlighten you.” When did I give a date? Copy and paste, you know how to do it.
“The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC” You assume I took it from your source, but no, and I assume nothing. I find it all by myself (just reading things and thinking. You should try). Don’t assume what, how and from where others take or reach conclusion, this would be a good start.
Note: To highlight stupidities doesn’t make them realities. A succession of absolutes lies or refusal to recognise archaeological finding doesn’t make a lie true. I gave the dates, proved by sciences, you come-up with verbs.
"I would strongly suggest you get some education before you try to deal with tricky subjects like archeology, history and biology." and others...
I don't make arguments about Genesis or Exodus. I take the Bible as an extremely important book in understanding the nature of man with the inspiration of God as the source, recorded with man's hand. Inconsistencies don't keep me up at night and do not pre-occupy me. Again, reason is extremely important in Catholic Theology and the Church that I know is open to knowledge and understanding.
Biblical fundamentalism is alien to me. I have only ever met one person who believed that God or Satan planted dinosaur bones in order to trick us into old earth heresy. That person had a fist sized piece of their brain removed. I do not hold such arguments in high regard.
I believe that God directs our lives in mysterious ways and that we are only privy to a tiny piece of truth. More, if you use your mind and the minds of others to reason.
You want me to supply evidence... That there are no evidence...? Are you on drugs!?!?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Have you heard of Russel's Teapot? He answered your line of thinking way better than me.
But long story short, YOU are the one making a claim something exists, thus YOU have to provide evidence for it. Would you believe it fair if I stated that Invisible Unicorns exist, and then expect you to PROVE me wrong? Of course not!
You think your previous threads have been successful? Re-read them, everyone is absolutely laughing themselves to bits over your line of reasoning and argumentational skills. Just like now.Quote:
The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.
you claim my past threads have been shot down. Please apply here, please show me on any thread [on the thread you claim] were it has been shot down as you baseless claim.
you wont be able to support any of your claims without not responding and ignoring refutations. That is why any claim you make of my threads being shot down, i can just show counter post you ignored or did not read.
The rest is just clear case of you wanting me to shut up, given your history on my threads i dont blame you one bit.
Sorry to bail mid-discussion but I have had to switch to Firefox to get this forum working.
If you will forgive my selective quoting here, this for me is the crux of the matter. It is one thing for the scientific establishment to hold their hands up and say "we don't know", but it is another to allow huge apparent contradictions to exist between different disciplines and maintain them both to be compatible and true. Anthropology doesn't match up with biology for me, because 99.9999999% of evidence for the the former shows about 10-15,000 years of human presence on the planet, whereas the latter claims hundreds of thousands. There is no evolutionary, social, demographic, environmental (etc) explanation as to why humans left mountains of evidence of their existence for the last 10-15,000 years, and not the hundreds of thousands of years before that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
Also, if I may stick up for TotalRelism on the Egyptian dating point, I also have noticed this and bookmarked a BBC article from a few months back. I don't understand how people can be so confident that archeology disproves the Bible, when they can so flippantly change their whole analysis of something like that by half a millenia. Evidently, their own understanding isn't that well consolidated and is highly prone to wild changes, as I noted earlier.
....And how does not the same apply to biblical literalism...? How can someone believe the bible to be an inerrant history book, when we continually discover facts which disprove it, and extremely rarely discover something which supports it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The brilliant thing about science, however, is that we actually do change stuff. A biblical literalist does not change his position, ever. Give strong evidence to a scientist, and he will discard his old view. Give strong evidence to a biblical literalist, and he will conjure up some pseudoscience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
knowledge of mathematics and/or logic before you do.
what does math have to do with logical fallacies?I have show your logical fallacies over and over and that the ones you claim of me are not, and you respond with telling me to wait till i am older? instead next time please try to logic thought them. also if i should not point out yours, than you really should wait till your older, i differ in opinion, i think all should use sound logic.
Pannonian's comment, however, was simply an expansion of Brenus' attack on you
would that not just make brenuses attack on me faulty as well.?
I would also focus on actually reading the posts made by others
I cannot agree more if applied to you, if i have not read or made a mistake in someones post, i hope they would show it to me.
Moving the timeline by 150-350 years moves the exodus from the category of "impossible" to "impossible and absurd". Congratulations.
The main facts are:
1. There is no evidence whatsoever of any hebrew presence in Egypt
2. There is no evidence of over half a million people milling about the Sinai for 40 years, nor is there any evidence of the major incidents mentioned, like the demise of Pharaos(who is "curiously" not named) army
3. There is plenty of evidence of a continued Hebrew presence in Palestine.
It has been awhile, i could [most likely am wrong] on it being 150 or 350 years off. That is why i said its been awhile and i was not sure and gave references.
your baseless claims
1- false,need more education and learning, right time period there certainly is.
2-false see above
3-agreed
the rest is your baseless opinion driven by your worldview not facts. If anyone is interested for the evidence of a shorten chronology that brings bible [and Israelite in egypt exodus etc] in unity with Egyptian history,look to references on post 173.
The last comment sadly shows what some will resort to when evidence is needed instead of their position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
date came with your claim of them copying from other account, otherwise how,why,when did they copy?.
The last comment sadly shows what some will resort to when evidence is needed instead of their position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
that is great, i think all churches should be, sadly some here and other churches [atheistic materialistic minded people] do not hold this, they online indoctrinate and alienate anything against their beliefs. Anyone who reads the bible should be open to knowledge and understanding, we are commanded to, that is why almost all branches of sciences were started by Christians.
wow Biblical fundamentalism is alien to me, so let me get this right, they believe old god or satan planted dinosaur bones in the ground to trick us in a old earth?. ouch, they must not have read the bible were it says god cannot deceit or Satan cannot create. They must have gotten that from ancient Greece who believed in a god that tricks and is deceitful in all he does [this was a belief that this originated from] it was not just fossils but all things. I Cant blame you for not holding that argument in high regard. In fact, how just do dinosaur bones make one think the earth is old? see that did not come till 17-18 hundreds. People are indoctrinated to day to believe such things, to view a certain way and not think for themselves [more on this in future thread].
So you are saying that my example did not have a firm hold of facts or logic? Also, are you saying that dinosaurs roamed the earth within the past 20k years?Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
HT i agree 100% how could someone believe something show false [evolution will be future thread] many times over?. I would not believe the bible if it were shown false over and over,the assumption being,it has been proven false over and over. no dout you can find claims luke census,no evidence in egypt, than run with it because you like the conclusion, but never question it as you do. Or you can watch debates,study and find at the end the bible was right all along, you could start with the references i gave you, we both know you wont because your not after truth.
as for evolutionist, when i do my thread if you watch debates and references, you will see over and over evolutionist wrong, evidence against their position yet they still believe. They will change how evolution happened, but wont question materialistic/naturalistic assumptions and that evolution happened no matter what. All people are worldview driven, I will show studies and evolutionist who admit to just what your saying of them being fully false. But that would be to off topic here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I agree fully with you, please tell brenus that. But you have misunderstood i think, i said making unsupported claims and think people to buy into it. I never thought or expect you to believe there is evidence for noahs flood because i say so. That is why i said future thread,.
Shot down to me means disproved,refuted etc not peoples opinions. You will find with me opinions mean nothing, if all disagree with me i am 100% ok with that, that is not how truth is measured. But if anything of my prevoius op's has been refuted factual, than please show, we know you cant as none has. Successful,no, shot down no.
I have no idea about the Biblical fundamentalism you speak of, if they believe this factual than it is a great ideas not to listen to them, instead listen to the bible imo. Dinosaurs will be addressed in future thread, and age of the earth please re-read my op.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
So basically, you are a fanatic of the most stupid and dangerous kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAQuote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Logic is mathematics. Or rather, a mathematical way of arguing. See what I meant earlier when I told you not to dabble with things you do not understand?
An ad hominem argument is not "faulty" as in "false". Rather, it exists besides the debate in which it is put forth, and has nothing to do with it. So, the fault of the ad hominem is that it fails to engage an argument, but that does not mean what is said is not true. As Pannonian did not attempt to engage in any of your arguments, applying the ad hominem label to his reply makes no sense. As for Brenus, his personal attack does not render the rest of his statement untrue. Not to mention that even an ad hominem can be considered true, like in this situation. I'll explain:Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
1. You are uneducated.
2. You construct scientific arguments you would need to have some education in order to understand.
3. When someone then points out that your argument is most likely untrue because you are uneducated, this is not irrelevant to the argument. In fact, it makes perfect sense that an uneducated person will make incorrect arguments when dealing with complex issues. Thus, pointing out your lack of education is an attack upon your person rather than your argument, but it is by no means invalid to your argument. We can safely assume that given your low level of education, you are very likely to make mistakes, and so we can safely disregard your arguments.
Ad hominem is considered faulty because the person making an argument is generally considered unimportant. This is not always the case. It should be noted though that this is still a weak argument even if it isn't an outright faulty one, since "a blind chicken may find corn" and all that.
There is a grand total of 0 evidence in that post, just a reference to videos by rabid evangelicals.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
You can put the exodus story in any time frame you wish, and it still won't make any sense at all. There is no evidence at all of Pharaohs army at the bottom of any sea, nor any evidence of Hebrews in Egypt.
I really do hope you're going to show me that "chariot wheel" at the bottom of the sea though....
The simple fact is that you are uneducated, and you are trying to debate with educated people here. And it shows. Massively. I would advise you to get some education before you attempt to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Just a simple bachelors(anyone get one these days...) would do the trick. At least you'd learn the basics of reasoning and interpretation while writing your paper. Not to mention grammar, structure and punctuation.
Perhaps you will also discover why "watching debates" is a horrendously poor way of gaining any knowledge.
Right, but if they are having to discard their own views so often, maybe they should not be quite so confident in them. The same theories that the Egyptologists used to disprove the Bible in recent decades have themselves been proved to be nonsense by modern Egyptologists. Their beliefs are so flimsy that a few months ago they stated that they had in fact been half a millenia out of whack with what is currently believed to be the historic reality. And yet a few months back you would have been proclaiming that as scientific fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
There was never any evidence used to disprove the exodus story. That story is disproved by a complete lack of proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
History is living and changing. That's a good thing, not a bad one. There will always be discussions concerning dating, and no date(except those we can calculate) is a given, we always deal with estimates. Rather than "being proven wrong", we are constantly refining our knowledge.
And when that compares to the bible the simple truth is that science has always moved away from the "bible is historical proof"-thingy, not towards it. Whatever we discover, we always seem to discover something which makes the biblical account even less likely to be the true one.
Why that should surprise anyone is beyond me though. The bible is concerned with detailing how your soul can be saved and you can reach a happy afterlife. When its purpose is to save the souls of mankind, why on earth should it bother with an anal account of getting the correct King X raping King Y in the year Z?
Except, we have very limited evidence of ancient Egyptian society in general, as is testified by the fact that we are still constantly and dramatically changing our understanding of it. Our understanding can barely date things to within the right millenia. So if you can hardly make an even near-accurate claim about the ancient Egyptians, I hardly expect there to be much knowledge about a sub-group living within their society at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
And I think there is some evidence that could at least be interpreted as evidence of Hebrew presence in ancient Egypt. For example the early Semitic/Proto-Hebrew inscriptions inside pyramids.
Given that we know of Semitic Pharaohs, that's hardly a surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Also, it must be stated(though it should be obvious, really) that the new chronology is far from accepted; it is considered fringe science. The loonies have, unsurprisingly, jumped on the bandwagon, but that doesn't change the fact that Rohl's chronology is not in any way an accepted chronology.
The vast majority stick with the standard one, with the predictable furious arguments over minor details.
Classic Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. :sneaky:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Indeed, so a powerful Hebrew advisor, or a Hebrew child being raised in the Pharaoh's court, or Hebrew workers making the pyramids and leaving their inscriptions are all in fact quite plausible given the evidence...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Sigh....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Alright, I'll be more accurate: it is not proven true because of a complete lack of any evidence.
Feel better now?
Since when did Semitic equal Hebrew, Rhy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
It's like saying Caesar must be Norwegian because he's European.
Anyhoo, if you happen across any actual evidence of Moses and his crew, please let me know. I won't be waiting by the phone, however....
“date came with your claim of them copying from other account, otherwise how,why,when did they copy?” How to copy? You do it all the time, come on: You read a text, you copy. Easy. Why: They like the story and though it was a good one with minor adaptations. When, I can’t know and it is irrelevant.
I was more specific than that. To go into even more detail, the article says it is Proto-Canaanite - the precursor to Hebrew and some others, but distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic, and many others. So, by your analogy (not exactly but you will get the point), we've at least narrowed it down to Scandinavian.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Well, the original manuscripts from which the Pentateuch is derived are historic sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What did you learn in school about relying on a single source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The Egyptian sources tell a different picture. The Jews simply told a story to justify their presence in Caanan(promised land, etc). It really isn't much more to it than that.
...For starters:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The older a thing are, the more rarely it's preserved. It's an exponentional curve. In most places, by 5,000 years a well preserved skeleton is a place where you can see that there been a skeleton because of a typical kind of soil. You'll never find a trace of a skeleton as old as 15,000 years there.
Humanity has relativly low genetical variation due to a bottleneck of some type. That means two things. One, the population has been very low so you don't have that much people, and/or current humanity is decendants of a population that had an explosive population growth. That one is much earlier than 10-15,000 years ago and coincides with the "cultural explosion" about 50-45,000 years ago. Even African tribes that has an older divergence at about 90,000 years ago, were only isolated until those 50-45,000 years ago.
A 15,000 year flood would give an entirely different bottleneck btw.
When you start to make stone buildings, they are quite a bit more prone to be preserved. Incidently, one of the more common older sign of human activity is the remains of stone making. The Amazon forest had cities inside that literally disappeared in a century after they got abandoned. Hunter gatherers today doesn't leave much traces either.
Agriculture is pointless unless you're close to the population cap for millenia. By default, that means that any previous population can't been close to the limit for a long time, and that the population will grow rapidly after the invention of agriculture.
That's not counting that a proper scientist will always answer. "I don't know, but the these are the theories we have".
A Christian divine inspiration theory would be. "God gave this information to different people at a several thousand years interval and decided to not give this information to most people. He also decided that the Chinese would dominate, but changed his mind after having a discussion with Jesus for many centuries." I'm not feeling that it improves anything.
There's quite a diffference between: "My research shows that the timeline is different, thus the alibies for the murder won't hold." to "The only sign of murder is your word. We got no sign of it on other sources, even the ones that should tell about a murder."Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
What do you consider as a single source? Anything written by a Hebrew?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Hebrew tradition would be one source, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Just like we don't entirely trust the picture painted of Sparta, since we rely so heavily on Athenian sources(one source, even though it's several writers).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
you could chose to see it that way, i simply dont care of opinions, but why people have opinions. If you can give me a good reason why this is bad, let me know. If i went off majority opinion all the time
[majority opinion
In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."]
I would be in alot of trouble imo. If that makes me stupid,dangerous etc than that just makes me even more convinced not to listen to opinion's such as yours.
Socrates said
“ that no one is to be preferred to truth”
Saul Alinsky’s RULES FOR RADICALS:
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions …# Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] has two meanings: first, it describes the use of valid reasoning in some activity; second, it names the normative study of reasoning or a branch thereof.
logic was established as a formal discipline by Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy
logic
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
logic
a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : relevance, propriety
c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
that should do.
Pannonian -
ad hominem
while i agree with what you said, if you read post 159 [this seems common you always miss what starts discussion and come to wrong conclusion]. he was using the personal attack [spelling grammar] as a response to what i had sed in argument against brenus i believe that he quoted.
your Ad hominem on me
please prove premise 1] also please show specific example as well.
2] please show were lack of education caused a faulty argument i have made
3]faulty, unless you can show were this has happened with all my arguments, or at least the one you discard. Not to mention no argument i make will not in some way be supported by well educated [phds in specific area] in the area.
nor any evidence of Hebrews in Egypt or the exodus story
This is my fault, i should have been prepared. However your claim is false, i shall show, give me 2 weeks [maybe less]. I need to go back over my stuff as i said before its been awhile. I would like you first to explain [so we can come back to your opinion] and tell me how well educated and freethinking you are on this subject. Than tell me all the ways this disproves the bible,how it is inconstant with it and what evidence is lacking please. I would just like it all in one statement.
I would call the rest a
Red Herring Fallacy
ad hominem
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
majority opinion
In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
Socrates said
“ that no one is to be preferred to truth”
yes fringe archaeologist like England's top archaeologist professor Colin renfew of Cambridge supports the reduced chronology of Egypt and in his book centuries of darkness said “That a chronological revolution is on its way”
http://www.amazon.com/Centuries-Dark...rchaeology/dp/
I will post some more for people to see and understand why some reasons people reject current accepted chronology.
Egyptian dating
the Egyptian dating is always being lowered to a earlier date. It cannot match up with other countries writing with its current extended date
-the Egyptians did not record history they get it from temple walls
-there are 5 kings list which contradict each other and all have gaps as well
-manethos king list is not chronological, there are many at same time overlapping, it was several kings reining at the same time In different regions. -He assumed the pharoes reigns were consecutive coming to a extended chronology. But some of these kings were ruling at the same time butdifferent kingdoms. The upper,middle and lower kingdom, sometimes fathers and sons reigned together for long periods of time.
-A few recent books have been written challenging current accepted date to shorten Egyptian dates.
-Cambridge is now teaching reduced age and other scholars are as well
-link below shows many problems with Egyptian chronology and why it needs to be shortened
-many countries match up, but than differ with Egypt current extended age
unmasking the pharoahs david down 2006
-Ancient nations histories were recorded well after the events took place, first historian to write ancient Egypt was herodotus 484-425 b c
-early historians did not use absolute dates until 250 b c before they marked time by reigns of kings
LOWERING THE DATESThe very earliest Egyptian date would be the one assigned to the beginning of its first dynasty. Menes was the first king. Cerem, in his Gods, Graves, and Scholars, tells us that the date assigned to that earliest Egyptian event, as estimated by several scholars, has gradually lowered with the passing of time: Champollian - 5867 B.C. / Lesueur -5770 B.C. / Bokh - 5702 B.C. / Unger - 5613 B.C. / Mariette - 5004 B.C. / Brugsch - 4455 B.C. / Lauth - 4157 B.C. / Chabas - 4000 B.C. / Lapsius - 3890 B.C. / Bunsen - 3623 B.C. / Breasted - 3400 B.C. / George Steindorff - 3200 B.C. / Eduard Meyer - 3180 B.C. / Wilkinson -2320 B.C. / Palmer - 2224 B.C.
At the present time that earliest of Egyptian dates is considered to be c. 3100 B.C., with some considering 2900 B.C. still better.
"In the course of a single century's research, the earliest date in Egyptian historythat of Egypt's unification under King Meneshas plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C. and not even the latter year has been established beyond doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?" Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204.
Ancient Egyptian Chronology and the Book of Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...nology-genesis
#The analyses suggest the rise to statehood occurred between 200 and 300 years faster than previously thought, beginning between 3800 B.C. and 3700 B.C., rather than the past estimate of 4000 B.C.#
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/who-r...yet-8C11071362
http://creation.com/timing-is-everything good article on Egyptian dating
some books on chronology problems and reduced chronology
Ages in Chaos
Immanuel Velikovsky
The foreword to this book was written by (then) Professor Renfrew, who is the leading archaeological scholar at Cambridge University. He wrote in part:
"The revolutionary suggestion is made here that the existing chronologies for that crucial phase in human history are in error by several centuries, and that, in consequence, history will have to be rewritten. ... I feel that their critical analysis is right, and that a chronological revolution is on its way."
Centuries of Darkness pp XV, XVI.
Centuries Of Darkness
Peter James
A Test of Time
David Rohl
Sir Alan Gardiner, an authority on Egyptian history,
Even when full use has been made of the king lists and of such subsidiary sources as have survived, the indispensable dynastic framework of Egyptian history shows lamentable gaps and many a doubtful attribution …What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters
Gardiner, Allan Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 53, Oxford University Press, London, UK, 1964.
David Down
Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline
archaeologist at ABR such as http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
Dr. Bryant Wood
DR Scott Stripling
Dr. David Livingston
and others
some more issues that question the tradition chronology
Manetho perfect source?
1] Manetho was writing hundreds, even thousands of years after many of the actual events.
2] none of Manetho’s writings exist. The only source we have for Manetho’s writings are some of his statements that have been quoted by much later historians such as Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus.
Q: Have you found in your researches in archeology anything that has contradicted the biblical account in a definite sense?
A: There have been plenty of claims that things contradict the biblical account, but the Bible has a habit of being proved right after all. I will remember one of the world’s leading archaeologists at Gezer rebuking a younger archaeologist who was ‘rubbishing’ the Bible. He just quietly said, ‘Well, if I were you, I wouldn’t rubbish the Bible.’ When the younger archaeologist asked ‘Why’?, he replied, ‘Well, it just has a habit of proving to be right after all.’ And that’s where I stand.
http://creation.com/archaeologist-co...-and-the-bible
I know of no finding in archeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.
Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, being interviewed by radio by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR radio transcript No. 0279–1004
Dr. Clifford Wilson His Ph.D. is from the University of South Carolina, and included ‘A’s for field work in archaeology undertaken In association with Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
so at some point some Hebrews could not come up with their own creation account [not sure why], so traveled down to their enemies and copied there's. Just the type of stuff the books of moses tell isreal not to do [follow customs beliefs etc of surrounding nations]. But than interpreted it in their own beliefs [mono thesis etc] so as to change it so much its not recognizable [as when i posted both together] to than have a creation account of their own, copied that does not read like the people they copied from. Am i right so far? this of course avoids all evidence i posted b-4 that you ignore. Such as earlier text from those the jews copied with monotheism belief so if any copied it was the later Babylonians from earlier account. But you are sure the jews copied, just dont know when.how, we just know they did [with no supporting evidence of course]. I think there is no longer any reason to discuss, i am going to know go focus on exodus.
I hope you will support this on the creation thread.I look forward to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I find the second part funny, because that is what your accepted Egyptian dating does not do correct, it does not match up with multiple other countries that do match up at various time periods. Yet you accept it. the bible however does not, here is the OT kings list, no question you will ignore and come up with some faulty logic why.
josh mcdowell kings list OT reliability video free online video on reliability of bibles kings list
http://www.josh.org/site/c.ddKDIMNtEqG/b.HYPERLINK "http://www.josh.org/site/c.ddKDIMNtEqG/b.4172663/k.624E/Can_I_Trust_the_Bible.htm"4172663HYPERLINK
Cheers, at least we agree then.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Yes, as I said: mathematics.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
I do find it both hilarious and cute that you believe you can grasp a concept just by looking up the term in a dictionary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
See the complete lack of any reference to any of Brenus' arguments? Pannonian simply made a comment on your lack of spelling ability. He did not attempt to support Brenus' arguments in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You do not have any education beyond compulsory schooling. You have not attended an accredited college and/or university. How much more specific do you want it?Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
I'm just cherry-picking the two most obvious lies here. Cambridge does not teach the chronology you promote. They teach the one which puts the exodus squarely in a time of great Egyptian expansion. Did you ever check up this claim you have obviously copied from some hacks website? Fortunately, Cambridge has their Egyptology resources available online. Go to their website, and see for yourself which timeline they're using.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Colin Renfew does not support the reduces chronology. In fact, Colin Renfew does not use any timeline at all. Colin Renfew does not exist.
Colin Renfrew, on the other hand, is a British archologist. Unfortunately for you, he supports the current chronology. I believe the "mix up"(or lie) leading to the claim that he supports a reduced chronology comes from his work with carbon dating, where he has refined several historical dates. Still, he does not use the chronology you promote.
All in all, you've got jack shit. And you resort to lies in your attempt to prove your argument.
“Such as earlier text from those the jews copied with monotheism belief so if any copied it was the later Babylonians from earlier account. But you are sure the jews copied, just dont know when.how, we just know they did [with no supporting evidence of course].”
TR, I work in the Crown Court (Criminal Court). When somebody kills a baby 3 months old, we don’t care why he did it, or when. The only matter is he did it.
I am not here to explain why the Hebrew copied the text, and when. That is a smoke screen tactic. I don’t care, perhaps laziness, perhaps lack of imagination... The only thing real, as proven by the comparison of the 2 texts (quite easy to do), is they did it. They didn’t copy from a monotheist text, they did it from Gilgamesh book (see chapter about pattern).
“all evidence i posted b-4” If you call this evidences, I understand why you prefer faith…
“I think there is no longer any reason to discuss”: Of course, as I “predicted” earlier.:yes:
THE PROPHECY HAS BEEN PROVENQuote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I hereby declare Brenus to be the official God of the Backroom. Convert, ye unbelievers!
ALL HAIL BRENUS :bow:
Hey, I have another prediction as predictable: Tomorrow, the sun will rise.
We'll see, we'll see. Right now it's not something I'll put my money on. (Oh and if the sun does not rise - we'll burn you at the stake for heresy).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Harsh!!! Every body has the right to do mistake...
If you were a proper inquisitor you would burn him at the stake if the sun did rise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
I woke up today to heavy rains... seems we need to stoke that pyre.
That's an unfair statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Considering where you live, you always wake up to heavy rains...
You don't have to be a prophet to predict rain here... But actually seeing the sun... I had such secret high hopes for this one (can't show it in public). Damnable. Just another quack. "Stoke the pyre Sigvart!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
As if you can get a fire going in Bergen....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
They do indoor pyres. Even if the building catches fire, there's no risk of it spreading.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Hey, I think there is a general misunderstanding here. When I said sun, it was more in the meaning light, after the darkness will be the light… And the one(s) who are denying the FACT (see post 211) is just indoctrinated by materialism and evolutionism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Very important notice, urgent need of you to respond on exodus/Egypt, you have made much of this and i would love the statement here.
I would like you first to explain [so we can come back to your opinion] and tell me how well educated and freethinking you are on this subject. Than tell me all the ways this disproves the bible,how it is inconstant with it and what evidence is lacking please. I would just like it all in one statement, thanks
I know we have been arguing but it does not mean we cant get along so i wanted to same something nice. I like how much trash talk you do online on a forum when arguing, i played alot of sports and have played with allot of trash talkers. I have picked some up myself. When i argue online i think or say stuff like that as well, but i keep it in my head. You have no hold back, anytime you think you make a great argument or refute something out comes "All in all, you've got jack shit." or "Wait till your older son" etc. I have never met someone so open with online trash talk [not emotional outburst and attacks on person some do, i don't see you doing that] I think if we had same worldview we would most likely get along.
Logic
Ok i can see what your saying on logic, certainly one way to put it.
Pannonian
technically true i will give you that, but me thinks you know just how he was using it.
your argument put fourth quoted on post 206
your Ad hominem on me
please prove premise 1] also please show specific example as well.
2] please show were lack of education caused a faulty argument i have made
3]faulty, unless you can show were this has happened with all my arguments, or at least the one you discard. Not to mention no argument i make will not in some way be supported by well educated [phds in specific area] in the area
But lets try it on you.
1] you are uneducated compared to the phd's you disagree with on Egyptian chronology [and many other areas exodus etc]
2]. You construct scientific arguments you would need to have some education in order to understand.
3]When someone then points out that your argument is most likely untrue because you are uneducated, this is not irrelevant to the argument. In fact, it makes perfect sense that an uneducated person will make incorrect arguments when dealing with complex issues. Thus, pointing out your lack of education is an attack upon your person rather than your argument, but it is by no means invalid to your argument. We can safely assume that given your low level of education, [compared to specialized phd you disagree with] you are very likely to make mistakes, and so we can safely disregard your arguments.
colin renfew of Cambridge
he indeed teaches a reduced chronology in lectures at Cambridge were he was professor [see below].
some books on chronology problems and reduced chronology
Ages in Chaos
Immanuel Velikovsky
The foreword to this book was written by (then) Professor Renfrew, who is the leading archaeological scholar at Cambridge University. He wrote in part:
"The revolutionary suggestion is made here that the existing chronologies for that crucial phase in human history are in error by several centuries, and that, in consequence, history will have to be rewritten. ... I feel that their critical analysis is right, and that a chronological revolution is on its way."
Centuries of Darkness pp XV, XVI.
Centuries Of Darkness
Peter James
A Test of Time
David Rohl
Sir Alan Gardiner, an authority on Egyptian history,
Even when full use has been made of the king lists and of such subsidiary sources as have survived, the indispensable dynastic framework of Egyptian history shows lamentable gaps and many a doubtful attribution …What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters
Gardiner, Allan Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 53, Oxford University Press, London, UK, 1964.
David Down
Unwrapping the Pharaohs: How Egyptian Archaeology Confirms the Biblical Timeline
archaeologist at ABR such as http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
Dr. Bryant Wood
DR Scott Stripling
Dr. David Livingston
and others
some more issues that question the tradition chronology
Manetho perfect source?
1] Manetho was writing hundreds, even thousands of years after many of the actual events.
2] none of Manetho’s writings exist. The only source we have for Manetho’s writings are some of his statements that have been quoted by much later historians such as Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus.
I dont really disagree, i am glad you brought up court. If someone did the crime it matters not why, same here if jews did copy it matters not why we both agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
SO lets see your case for copying, you said
"I am not here to explain why the Hebrew copied the text, and when. That is a smoke screen tactic. I don’t care, perhaps laziness, perhaps lack of imagination... The only thing real, as proven by the comparison of the 2 texts (quite easy to do), is they did it. They didn’t copy from a monotheist text, they did it from Gilgamesh book (see chapter about pattern)."
so your case has no motive [why] i gave multiple reasons why they would not. You place the supposed guilty person at the scene of the crime [when,were]. You have no direct evidence to confirm your [as you even said] imagination, your god like ability to go back in time and know who copied from who and know that one copied from the other. If you were on a jury and told the judge he just needed more imagination when he asked for positive evidence, would that work well?. I think nothing can be a better refutation than comparing the documents as i did b-4.
the case against your imagination
segments of Samaritan
Apsu, the freshwater ocean male deity, mates with Ti’amat, the saltwater ocean goddess, yielding offspring which are a host of lesser deities representing various aspects of nature. However, Apsu becomes irritated with their noise and resolves to destroy them, but he fails, and is killed by Ea the god of wisdom (l.68–69). Ea in turn fathers the god Marduk (figure 4). Ti’amat becomes enraged, and gives birth to a host of dragons to fight Marduk; but Marduk, not intimidated by Ti’amat’s threats, gathers the other gods together in a great banquet, and they resolve on war with Ti’amat, with Marduk as their representative. So a great war erupts, from which Marduk emerges victorious by killing Ti’amat. He first splits Ti’amat’s skull open with his mace, and then splits her whole body. The upper half he makes into the sky; the lower half into the earth. From this chaos comes order: the sun, moon, and stars appear, and the calendar is formed. Finally, there is Qingu, Ti’amat’s general. Marduk speaks to Ea of his desire to make man, who will wait on the gods so that the latter can rest. Marduk addresses both the Igigi (sky gods) and the Anunnaki (underworld gods), and the Igigi reply that since Qingu started the war, he should therefore pay the penalty. Marduk slays Qingu, takes his blood and some earth, and makes man. Then the Anunnaki toil to create Babylon, and the Esagila, one of the prime temples in Babylon. Finally, Tablet VII relates the fifty names of Marduk in order to exalt the patron deity of Babylon:With fifty epithets the great godsCalled his fifty names, making his way supreme
now read Genesis
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV
-why would jews adopt views of their enemy, when there own history/culture says it wrong? multiple gods etc
-it starts with the assumption, there is no biblical god that could revel his truth of creation to moses and earlier jews [adam,noah abraham etc] so then who even cares, if we start with assumption of no god, than if the jews copied or not does not matter as genesis would not be divinely inspired, the very question at hand.
-the further back to creation you go the more the similarities in creation accounts.Writings from 2600 b c 1,000 years before moses
biblical creation account must have been derived before older and different sources than Sumerians
halloww 1970 antediluvian cities journal of cuneiform studies 23,65,66
- Samaritan copy of jewish Pentateuch is written in ancient form of Hebrew that proceeds exile in 6th century.
-most ancient copy contains over 2,000 corruptions from original jewish manuscript, very unlikely to make copy soon after return.
-unlikely Samaritans would make a copy of Jewish writings at all, hostile between the two.
- Marduk is a fashioner, not a true creator
-The final overall point concerns the chronological setting of what we might call “origins literature” in the Ancient Near East. K.A. Kitchen argues that this is clearly the early 2nd millennium BC, as opposed to later periods of Near Eastern history.He then concludes:
“In short, the idea that the Hebrews in captivity in Nebuchadrezzar’s Babylon (6th century BC) first ‘borrowed’ the content of early Genesis at that late date is a non-starter.”
the early second millennium BC (and earlier) is the period for Mesopotamian—and Hebrew—‘origins literature’, and not later.
Battle elements. Genesis does not envision creation as a war of the gods.
Pantheistic elements. Genesis does not talk about natural elements as gods.
Creative activity as sexual activity. Genesis does not describe God’s creation in this way.
Poetic language. Genesis does not have “synonymous parallelism” (restating the same idea in two ways) in every description.
Reference to time. Genesis speaks of creation “in the beginning” and “days,” contrary to myths, which speak more about seasons.
Leroy Waterman, “Cosmogonic Affinities in Genesis 1:2,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 43, no. 3 (April 1, 1927): 181. Waterman argues that Genesis is unique in that it depersonalizes all the forces of nature. An easy-to-read reference is John Oswalt’s The Bible among the Myths (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009).
Jakob H. Gronbaek, “Baal’s Battle with Yam-A Canaanite Creation Fight,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (1985): 27–44.
-The first observation is that this is a political document, setting forth why Babylon is the pre-eminent city in the world with its pre-eminent deity, Marduk, as opposed to Anu or Ea or whoever. As such it constituted part of ritual for the Akitu new-year festival which re-confirmed the kingship for the coming year. Genesis 1 has no such function, and assertions to the contrary—commonly alleged by critical or secular scholars—are merely circular reasoning.
-Fourth, Enuma Elish has no six-days-plus-one format. The seven tablets of the epic are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with days (or long periods either, for that matter). In this respect (among many others) Genesis 1 stands alone and unique in the ancient world.
-Second, it is a theogony rather than a cosmogony, that is, its basic intent is to explain the origin of gods rather than the origin of the universe, where the latter is more of an afterthought. Thus the major part of Tablets I–V relate the generation of gods and their fierce battles, with a small section at the end of Tablet IV (figure 2) about the creation of the cosmos. The main part of “creation” story occurs in Tablet VI, relating the origin of man and the establishment of the various temples. In fact, Stephanie Dalley of Oxford University argues that the original story was not a creation story at all—that element was incorporated later.
Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford, pp.233–77, 1988.
assuming genesis was written after [ i dont believe so].
Maybe it was done so to correct the false teachings of other nations, to show the correct account.
If any copied it was the samaritains who had earlier monotheistic beliefs. Likely they were going off account that changed passed down through generations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
13- What about the crusades,witch trials,inquisitions and other “crimes” of Christians throughout history.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t-5&highlight=
Just in case anyone is interested, many claim the bible has been disproved by archaeology regarding the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, the battle of Jericho, the book of judges. One thing they all have in common is the evidence all matches up....... the time is corrected, all stems from a reduced chronology of egypt. Also in past there has been dozens of claims from archaeology [i may list them soon] that have been refuted with time, all claim the bible was false only for later info to show it true.
Q: Have you found in your researches in archaeology anything that has contradicted the biblical account in a definite sense?
A: There have been plenty of claims that things contradict the biblical account, but the Bible has a habit of being proved right after all. I will remember one of the world’s leading archaeologists at Gezer rebuking a younger archaeologist who was ‘rubbishing’ the Bible. He just quietly said, ‘Well, if I were you, I wouldn’t rubbish the Bible.’ When the younger archaeologist asked ‘Why’?, he replied, ‘Well, it just has a habit of proving to be right after all.’ And that’s where I stand.
Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology
Bollocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
“I think nothing can be a better refutation than comparing the documents as i did b-4.” You refutation is like linking a message from our Kurdish Friend to “prove” that the Holocaust didn’t happened
“so your case has no motive [why] i gave multiple reasons why they would not.” I can give a lot of reason why someone didn’t commit a crime. However they did it. So these reasons are irrelevant: Same for yours.
“You have no direct evidence to confirm your [as you even said] imagination” Err, that was a lack of imagination or laziness from the Jewish Scripts, not from me: They copy the Book od Gilgamesh because laziness, lack of imagination, the why they did it is not my problem.
“your god like ability to go back in time and know who copied from who and know that one copied from the other.” Err, not mine, archaeological evidences prove that Book of Gilgamesh was written before Bible… Illustration of what was the start of this conversation: denial of reality when doesn’t fit the need of belief.
http://www.la-bible.net/page.php?ref=ressourcesnbs_at2
I give you a link. Work on your French (and I choose a “Christian” site) and you will see the obvious link between the two texts.
That someone who identifies as a young earth creationist supports such a position is very unsurprising. That his education comes from a bible college is even less surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Anyway, presenting him as a "former director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology" is highly disenginius to the point of lying. He held that position for three years in the late 60's. It does not at all represent the opinion of the institute.
Anyway TR, I see that you have now downgraded your statement on Cambridge from "Cambridge teaches this" to "One guy at one time used to teach this stuff at Cambridge". Good. Nice to know that you are aware that Cambridge does not teach this chronology. Anyway, Colin Renfrew (Colin Renfew still does not exist) still doesn't use the chronology you promote. It is true that he is critical of the chronologies which have been used, and that he believed several dates should be pushed further towards the present. However, this was way back in the 70's, and the chronology we use today is not the same as the chronology used back then. In fact, the current chronology has been made because of Renfrew's work with carbon dating. He argued for a revision of a former chronology, not the current one. He still doesn't argue for the chronology you're advocating for.
He is also, naturally, arguing for the earth being billions of years old, with humans having been around for millions. Since you use him as a source of truth, I assume you also agree with him on this?
As for my education, my degree includes the following relevant for the topics discussed in this thread:
1. Natural science
2. Mathematics
3. Social science
4. Scientific method courses required for writing bachelors and masters degrees
The first three consists of two full semesters, while number 4 is one full semester combined. Further, there are others who have replied in these threads with a much higher level of education than me. For example, I believe PVC has more than a masters degree in european history.
Your education? Nothing. And that's why you fail at understanding what these educated people you are reading are talking about. In particular, you fail to understand the theory of how knowledge is formed and created, underlined by your use of quotes. Lastly, almost all of the quotes you have mined are in the category of statements(and on its own, that means they are worthless).
Educated people haven't done too well in answering questions coming from me, a nobody. There remains no explanation for the birth of civilization within a old-earth framework, and that for me is a pretty important piece of the puzzle that needs to fit.
IMO the scientific establishment is great at establishing isolated facts, but far less adept at making sense of them. I think this is because of the tendency for scientists to be specialized and isolated in particular disciplines. Norms from one discipline are taken for granted by those in another. An anthropologist will always be biased by the assumption that the earth is billions of years old because a geologist says so, for example. The fact may be true, but it will always influence the athropologist's understanding of the facts he uncovers in his own field, thus he can never be entirely unbiased, even if he influenced by something he does not even understand.
People have so much trust in the scientific establishment, and yet I am amazed at how lacking it is in some fundametal areas. How can the discipline of 'big history' only be 20 years old? How?! For all the facts we have, attempts to piece together the human story remain incredibly speculative and diverse. IMO we do not have anything near the understanding we think we do, and there is a lot of misplaced confidence in our knoweldge.
Well Rhyf, all I can say is: The more you learn, the more you will understand the perspective of people who has not learned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Not that you agree with them, you just understand where they are coming from.
You are obviously a very intelligent guy. Your analysis of science being to spear-headed goes right along with my view of it. I guess that is why I consider you a very intelligent guy!!
Personal love aside though, I would love it if you start your own thread, bringing up your own religious questions. I very much respect you as a christian, but honestly, you jumping in to a TR thread, randomly waving your sword around, doesn't make the thread justice.
Heck, it doesn't make YOU justice.
But then, I am just a silly old ski instructor :clown:
"Educated people haven't done too well in answering questions coming from me, a nobody. There remains no explanation for the birth of civilization within a old-earth framework, and that for me is a pretty important piece of the puzzle that needs to fit."
Guns, Germs and Steel is a fairly accessible book and Jared Diamond is a good communicator who doesn't smear his opposition. He also goes into detail why some places could become farmers and others had virtually no chance to do so.
The short answer for the book is that plants and animals are grown in an particular environment and it is much easier to transplant the same foods in the same environment ie humdity and temperature range. The same environments are on the same latitude.
So if you want to duplicate a food set it is much easier to move it on an East-West axis then a North South one. So the place with the longest axis gets civilized faster ie Europe to Asia vs the Americas or Africa purely because Eurasian can share the most food crops by foot.
Was Agriculture Impossible During the Pleistocene but Mandatory during the Holocene? (pdf)
Constraints on the Development of Agriculture (pdf)Quote:
Nonetheless, we propose that much about the origin of agriculture can be understood in terms of two propositions: Agriculture Was Impossible During The Last Glacial. During the last glacial, climates were variable and very dry over large areas. Atmospheric levels of CO2 were low. Probably most important, last-glacial climates were characterized by high-amplitude fluctuations on time scales of a decade or less to a millennium. Because agricultural subsistence systems are vulnerable to weather extremes, and because the cultural evolution of subsistence systems making heavy, specialized, use of plant resources occurs relatively slowly, agriculture could not evolve.
Quote:
The development of agriculture was limited by external constraints, mainly climate, before the Holocene and mainly by social institutions after that. Population size and growth was important but ultimately did not determine where and why agriculture evolved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
not at all, its like referencing original story lines and accounts on how they differ to disprove your similarity claims, of course if i am wrong you could point that out [had you read either bible or account your refer to].
Just as i said, you have no motive[ important in court] i have many reasons why they would not have motive to do so, you offer nothing but imagination [you admitted] to support they do.
ah ok my bad on lack of imagination. But so know were actually suppose to believe that the jews copied from their enemies, traveled all the way down there, because they were lazy............ oh than change the crap out of it to fit their own beliefs, yet to lazy to come up with their own account,perfect response thanks.
You keep saying when,why they did etc does not matter only that they did [you have no evidence for] the only thing that matters is they did. Have you ever heard of Begging the question? Please read all your statements on your claim you may indeed find your faulty logic you apply.
You said " archaeological evidences prove that Book of Gilgamesh was written before Bible" this commits the logical fallacy of reification
please read up
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...es-reification
you cannot know they copied, what we do know is they both have accounts that are both similar and different. It is only [in your mind] a god like ability that can go in the past and know that the jews copied from they [no wonder liberals dont believe in god, they think they are]. Even in your link there are great differences, on post 223 you will see many more.
But besides showing your claim false on 223, let do it once more. I wont even point to the differences this time. Brenus, there are many accounts that are more similar to the flood and creation of bible from places such as north america [Indian legends] . What is the conclusion there? There are more similar flood accounts around the world [many of them] that have similarities that your account does not have with the bible. If similarities prove copied, than please explain. We must have had allot of lazy people traveling all over the world copying other people lol. Know this wont fit your worldview, but what if the creation/flood account was true, and all people spread out with the account mostly intact,than told the story to the next gen etc would we not expect similar and different accounts worldwide? that is what we find, your explanation of laziness [actually lazy would be coming up with your own instead of traveling thousands of miles to fond someone account] cant exspalin the data. I say denial of reality.
Crap i change my mind brenus is right
clouds 100% water water melon 97% the jellyfish 98%- that just proves it, the jellyfish must have copied from the cloud, but changed slightly to fit his own water habitat, he was lazy and left ocean to find create himself. But by all means the cloud did not copy from the fish, nor was there something they both copied from, that cannot be true, because i say so.
Finally you are trying to prove a positive, you cannot rule out the other explanations given, and cant defend why your is false. So your claim is imagination at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Very important notice, urgent need of you to respond on exodus/Egypt, you have made much of this and i would love the statement here.
I would like you first to explain [so we can come back to your opinion] and tell me how well educated and freethinking you are on this subject. Than tell me all the ways this disproves the bible,how it is inconstant with it and what evidence is lacking please. I would just like it all in one statement, thanks
"this was way back in the 70's, and the chronology we use today is not the same as the chronology used back then. In fact, the current chronology has been made because of Renfrew's work with carbon dating. He argued for a revision of a former chronology, not the current one. He still doesn't argue for the chronology you're advocating for."
please read his interview with archaeologist David down. Also why if the chronology keeps being shortened,vastly over the last 100 years, and contains inconsistencies and problems, why are you against a shortened chronology so much?.
He is no source of truth in all things.
your education
so applying your own logic i showed false against me, when applied to you works, so according to your own logic we must discard anything you say and your arguments. As noone on this forum is educated to a phd on Egyptian history and chronology, as are the phd who produced those books, you all must shut up and we cant listen to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
sorry who is lying?
Dr. Wilson obtained his M.A. in archaeology from the University of Sydney in Australia (1958), his B.D. from Melbourne College of Divinity (1968), and his Ph.D. in psycholinguistics from the University of South Carolina (1972). His Ph.D. included "A"s for field work in archaeology undertaken in association with Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem. He explored many of the Mideastern archaeological sites, and in 1969 served as area supervisor of the excavation of Gezer in Israel.
as i posted
formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology
Hore Tore did not say that you lied, simply that the presentation of Wilson is somewhat disingenuous. I do not think that it is deliberately so, but he is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
The Australian Institute of Archaeology, for all its official sounding title, is actually a fairly small beast: it is certainly not the major association of archaeologists in this country (that would be the Australian Archaeological Association). It is also something of a misnomer: Australian Institute of Biblical Archaeology would be more to the point. It does (part-)fund an annual lecture on the subject in Melbourne, which coincidentally is next week: delivered by a Professor of Religion from the USA. Among its listed aims are: ' to facilitate and monitor the scientific study of the Biblical period....to encourage an informed understanding of the Biblical story, which is integral to many aspects of civilisation as we know it...'. This is fair enough, so far as it goes, and the organisation now certainly seems to support a balanced view of how archaeology in the Near east should be practiced.
However, in the 1960s and 1970s, even persisting into the 80s and 90s in some cases, the prevailing purpose of Biblical Archaeology was to prove the veracity of the Bible, from the archaeological evidence, rather than to assess the evidence on its own merits to acquire a more informed view of the Biblical period and its wider context.
In other words, by citing Wilson (not to mention Wood), TR, you are appealing to an outdated authority. Almost exactly what you are criticising HT for with Renfrew. As an aside, I am pretty sure that Hore Tore is right, and Renfrew does not support the chronology that you are claiming. I can check with the Near Eastern archaeologists, with whom I share an office, if you would like.
Thanks for your clarifications, Gaius, and it seems I must retract one of my points:
I mixed up the two austrialian organizations, and I checked the Australian Archaeological Association for their current opinion, which was not the one of the guy mentioned by TR.
So, the opinion does represent the opinion of the institute accurately. It's just that the institute itself is a whacko organization....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
wow thank you much for that and correcting me and yes i would love for you to contact him if possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Question begging epithet
when someone imports bias often emotional language to support a claim "ignorant" "dishonest" "stupid" "gullible" or other disparaging remarks
while not mentioned implied
no true Scotsman fallacy
Special pleading
Aimed at those who believe the bible to be what it claims and the data supports. I will show in your future post when you come out clear with it. Actually just tell me your position on archaeologist who accept the bible as 100% accurate.
“Finally you are trying to prove a positive, you cannot rule out the other explanations given, and cant defend why your is false. So your claim is imagination at best.” I understand now why you got everything wrong. You don’t understand what you read.
“[had you read either bible or account your refer to].” I gave you a link. You obviously didn’t read it.
“[ important in court]”; Not. What is important is facts. Motive is use only for sentencing. Yesterday, at the Crown Court, a rapist got 16 years of jail. Jury and Judge didn’t care why he raped his grand-daughter as it is irrelevant. What was relevant was what he did.
“But so know were actually suppose to believe that the jews copied from their enemies, traveled all the way down there” You really have not a clue of what and whom we speak about, do you? The Sumerian Civilisation was extinct and their towns erased from the ground (so the authors of the Book of Gilgamesh) before the Jewish Civilisation even appear on the surface of earth. Sumerians and Hebrews never fight each other’s. The Jews copied from a dead civilisation because the book was transmitted through time by others civilisations…
“[you have no evidence for]”! You really should learn to read, or at least to understand the meaning of what others write.
“your faulty logic you apply.” I don’t apply logic. Where did I apply logic? I refer to Archaeological Evidences, material evidences, object you can see in museums: I refer you to: Clay Tablets of the Book of Gilgamesh, earliest Hebrew clay tablet, papyrus.
“logical fallacy of reification” Before to offer a link, read it, understand what it says, then, perhaps, you will find out it is irrelevant. Your problem is you so much in denial that you try to put your kind of demonstration as universal (by the way, the examples given in you links are rubbish).
“Brenus, there are many accounts that are more similar to the flood and creation of bible from places such as north america [Indian legends]” There is a lot of legend about Heroes killing dragons, that doesn’t make dragons a reality. And no, all floods legends are not similar to the Book of Gilgamesh.
“[many of them” Which one? Because I went to search and no, no much similarities. (600 legends). The vast majority differs on almost every things. The only really close are..... The Bible and the Book of Gilgamesh... Which is normal as the Bible one is largely copied from the oldest book.
Here's another fallacy for TR to digest: temporal fallacy. It goes hand in hand with cluelessness. Eg. The British Empire adopted many of the trappings of the Roman Empire after the British conquered their deadly enemies the Romans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Here is a little gem: Abraham was Sumerian.
"Here is a little gem: Abraham was Sumerian.". I like this one. :2thumbsup: I read it somewhere, and the author(s) even didn't even ask, if so, why the Bible and the Book of Gilgamesh defer in term of number of gods and names.
The problems for the Biblecists have they can't can't answer all questions in a co-ordinate manner. One answer they will give to one point will contradict the answer they give to another point.