responding to common objections to bible part 7

[total relism]

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.

“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.

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.

....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].

[ICantSpellDawg]

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?

[total relism]

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.

[HoreTore]

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?

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.

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....

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.