responding to common objections to bible part 7

[total relism]

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.

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

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.

“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.