responding to common objections to bible part 7

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

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.

---

You want me to supply evidence... That there are no evidence...? Are you on drugs!?!?!?

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!

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.

---

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.

Sorry to bail mid-discussion but I have had to switch to Firefox to get this forum working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

I don't know enough to answer your questions.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

---

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

“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...

---

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

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....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?

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.

---

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].

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

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 HoreTore

....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?

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.

---

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

You want me to supply evidence... That there are no evidence...? Are you on drugs!?!?!?

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

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?

---

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 total relism

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.

---

So basically, you are a fanatic of the most stupid and dangerous kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

what does math have to do with logical fallacies?

---

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

would that not just make brenuses attack on me faulty as well.?

---

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

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.

---

There is a grand total of 0 evidence in that post, just a reference to videos by rabid evangelicals.

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

The last comment sadly shows what some will resort to when evidence is needed instead of their position.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....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?

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.

---

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 Rhyfelwyr

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.

---

There was never any evidence used to disprove the exodus story. That story is disproved by a complete lack of proof.

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?

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

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.

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.

---

Classic Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. :sneaky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Given that we know of Semitic Pharaohs, that's hardly a surprise.

---

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 Sigurd

Classic Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. :sneaky:

---

Sigh....

Alright, I'll be more accurate: it is not proven true because of a complete lack of any evidence.

Feel better now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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...

---

Since when did Semitic equal Hebrew, Rhy?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Since when did Semitic equal Hebrew, Rhy?

It's like saying Caesar must be Norwegian because he's European.

---

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

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....

---

Well, the original manuscripts from which the Pentateuch is derived are historic sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well, the original manuscripts from which the Pentateuch is derived are historic sources.

---

What did you learn in school about relying on a single source?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

---

...For starters:
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

---

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 HoreTore

What did you learn in school about relying on a single source?

---

What do you consider as a single source? Anything written by a Hebrew?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

What do you consider as a single source? Anything written by a Hebrew?

---

Hebrew tradition would be one source, yes.

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

So basically, you are a fanatic of the most stupid and dangerous kind.

---

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

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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:

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.

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.

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.

---

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

Given that we know of Semitic Pharaohs, that's hardly a surprise.

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.

---

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

“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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

---

I hope you will support this on the creation thread.I look forward to it.


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

you could chose to see it that way

Editors note: Then followed insane gibberish

---

Cheers, at least we agree then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

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

---

Yes, as I said: mathematics.

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

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You can't blame total relism for being unfamiliar with reality, as he can't even spell the word.

---

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 total relism

your Ad hominem personal attack, not ad hominem, on me
please prove premise 1] also please show specific example as well

---

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

yes fringe archaeologist like England's top archaeologist professor Colin renfew of Cambridge supports the reduced chronology of Egypt

-Cambridge is now teaching reduced age

---

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.

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: