PC Mode
Org Mobile Site
Forum > Discussion > Backroom (Political) >
Thread: responding to common objections to bible part 7
Page 8 of 8 First ... 45678
HoreTore 23:40 03-17-2014
Originally Posted by Brenus:
Of course, as I “predicted” earlier.
THE PROPHECY HAS BEEN PROVEN


I hereby declare Brenus to be the official God of the Backroom. Convert, ye unbelievers!

Reply
Kadagar_AV 00:39 03-18-2014
ALL HAIL BRENUS

Reply
Brenus 08:41 03-18-2014
Hey, I have another prediction as predictable: Tomorrow, the sun will rise.

Reply
Sigurd 09:21 03-18-2014
Originally Posted by Brenus:
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).

Reply
Brenus 20:34 03-18-2014
Harsh!!! Every body has the right to do mistake...

Reply
Papewaio 05:53 03-19-2014
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
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).
If you were a proper inquisitor you would burn him at the stake if the sun did rise.

Reply
Sigurd 09:23 03-19-2014
I woke up today to heavy rains... seems we need to stoke that pyre.

Reply
HoreTore 09:27 03-19-2014
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
I woke up today to heavy rains... seems we need to stoke that pyre.
That's an unfair statement.

Considering where you live, you always wake up to heavy rains...

Reply
Sigurd 11:29 03-19-2014
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
That's an unfair statement.

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!!"

Reply
HoreTore 12:21 03-19-2014
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
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!!"
As if you can get a fire going in Bergen....

Reply
Ironside 12:36 03-19-2014
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
As if you can get a fire going in Bergen....
They do indoor pyres. Even if the building catches fire, there's no risk of it spreading.

Reply
Brenus 20:49 03-19-2014
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.

Reply
total relism 00:37 03-20-2014
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.





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.



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?



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.



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.




Originally Posted by Brenus:
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.
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.



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.









Originally Posted by Sigurd:
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).
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
If you were a proper inquisitor you would burn him at the stake if the sun did rise.

13- What about the crusades,witch trials,inquisitions and other “crimes” of Christians throughout history.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t-5&highlight=

Reply
total relism 00:44 03-20-2014
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

Reply
Kadagar_AV 01:20 03-20-2014
Originally Posted by total relism:
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.

Reply
Brenus 08:53 03-20-2014
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.

Reply
HoreTore 13:43 03-20-2014
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Bollocks.
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.

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).

Reply
Rhyfelwyr 00:21 03-21-2014
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.

Reply
Kadagar_AV 00:34 03-21-2014
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
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.

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

Reply
Papewaio 00:49 03-21-2014
"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.

Reply
CBR 02:27 03-21-2014
Was Agriculture Impossible During the Pleistocene but Mandatory during the Holocene? (pdf)
Originally Posted by :
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.
Constraints on the Development of Agriculture (pdf)
Originally Posted by :
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.


Reply
total relism 11:18 03-21-2014
Originally Posted by Brenus:
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.



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.





Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.

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).

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.

Reply
total relism 11:22 03-21-2014
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.

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.
.

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

Reply
Gaius Scribonius Curio 12:25 03-21-2014
Originally Posted by total relism:
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.

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.

Reply
HoreTore 12:32 03-21-2014
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....

Reply
total relism 12:40 03-21-2014
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio:
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.

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.

wow thank you much for that and correcting me and yes i would love for you to contact him if possible.



Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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....

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.

Reply
Brenus 20:30 03-21-2014
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.

Reply
Pannonian 06:05 03-22-2014
Originally Posted by Brenus:
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 town erase 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…
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.

Reply
Sigurd 12:21 03-22-2014
Here is a little gem: Abraham was Sumerian.

Reply
Brenus 08:46 03-23-2014
"Here is a little gem: Abraham was Sumerian.". I like this one. 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.

Reply
Page 8 of 8 First ... 45678
Up
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO