bfniii

not only have i now responded to that particular post, i have responded to those points multiple times. why are you unable to admit that i have responded to your points over and over yet you continue to ask the same questions? why don't you address my responses instead of repeating your already-answered questions?

i asked for specfic examples and you only gave one, one that i have responded to. do you not have any others?



what evidence do you think i have overlooked?



first, you can't say that with any certainty. second, what difference does it make? it is clear that many, many, many christians are fully aware of the best available objections to christianity that are so precious and dear to skeptics and yet they remain unconvinced by those objections. the usual pathetic response to this is that religious bias prevents those christians from acknowledging the objections. bias is an intentional disregard for pertinent information. show how i disregarded pertinent information in this thread. show how i outright ignored a point in this thread, or any other for that matter.



show that your postulation is a reality and we might have a reason to discuss such a topic.



not always. sometimes they are absurd.



these forums are not a court of law.



again, show that this is actually going to happen and we might have a reason to discuss it.

bfniii

you have never proven any such thing. if you disagree, make your case.



for the one-millionth time, this is a biblical criticism forum, not an evangelical website.



that is not part of my evidence and i am not here to try to convince people to become christians, as your post seems to imply.



as i have said over and over, personal experience is not debatable. if you disagree, prove it. otherwise, please stop repeating it over and over without proving it.



i have asked multiple times for people to back up this accusation. that has not happened. on the other hand, i make points that don't get responded to, other than in a personal way. a perfect example is post #92. i made points in that post that have yet to be refuted. a refutation is: "this point is false because x, y and z". a refutation is not: "sad fact, it had no useful content".



i have responded to this point many times in several different threads.



and i will patiently remind everyone of how rude it is to repeat already-answered questions and not admit it all the while accusing someone of being evasive.

bfniii

what hypotheses have i made in this thread that you consider ad hoc?



in what way is it established? i don't agree with that at all.



what mistakes?



what makes you think i haven't heard of them? maybe i have heard of them and i'm just not convinced by them.

the previous two points are a disappointing example of a prevalent attitude here at infidels. people make sweeping statements against christianity and the bible and then pretend they are factually true without supporting them with specfics even when prompted for them. why should anyone be convinced of such statements when you aren't willing to support them with specifics?



christians doing bad things does not make christianity bad any more than one bad athlete making all of sports bad. that is the tired cliche i was referring to.

bfniii

from what i have seen, there are people today in the middle east who can make a snake look like rod and then "magically" turn it into a snake.



magicians perform all kinds of tricks and iilusions. why is this illusion impossible?



so there's absolutely no possible explanation for these events?

Johnny Skeptic

Even if the Exodus occurred, then you need to reasonably prove why it occurred. What historical evidence do you have regarding why it occurred? Why couldn’t the Exodus have occurred for secular reasons? What would be evidence for me? I am not sure. Just post whatever evidence that you have and let's see.

I believe that my arguments regarding the Tyre prophecy in other threads have been much better than yours. If you wish to continue debating that issue, I suggest that we continue our debates in the thread that is titled 'Farrell Till embarrasses prophecy buffs.' If you wish to debate the nature of God using your as yet unstated ontological argument, then I suggest that we debate it at the GRD forum or the EoF forum. This thread is going all over the place with irrelevant issues, and part of that is my fault. I suggest that from now own we pick appropriate threads and forums for our debates.

One thing that I would like to ask you someday at the appropriate forum is what evidence you have that free will exists. I doubt that you will ever consent to answer my question.

Anat

Please explain to me then how you interpret the two Numbers censi that I have addressed in my post #529. The numbers for each tribe are presented as X eleph Y. When you add the numbers of 'eleph's you get 5 less then what the text gives for the final number. When you add all the other numbers you get 5000 less. What does that tell you regarding the meaning of the word eleph? How do you read the syntax of the X eleph Y for each tribe and for the whole population?

bfniii

i have seen this theory and realize that it wouldn't be unique. however, it is a theory that is exceedingly difficult to prove.



i didn't say that they had wagons with water jugs. i said that might have been a possibility

to answer your question, maybe they were trying to preserve whatever water they brought with them.



they weren't far from canaan. maybe they found sources there.



this only becomes a problem if the numbers of people reach enormous proportions. let's say that there were hundreds of thousands of people who needed to make sacrifices. are there any verses in the bible that state that they weren't allowed to build other altars or that they didn't build other altars?

bfniii

this upholds the point i was making. any perceived errors are at least debatable.



i don't recall you showing me to be ignorant of anything at any time. of course you are free to cite any examples if you think you know of some.



if you think there are errors, then let's hear them. of course, we've already been through this in the BIBLICAL ERRORS thread, and you were not able to conclusively prove that there were any. you mostly stated the usual misconceptions.



yes it does. as i said, any perceived error only remains to be an error after it has withstood all possible refutations. until then, it's not an error.



which is absolute crap. "plausible" is subjective. who gets to decide what is plausible and what isn't? the answer to that question the person who can show that the refutation of the alleged error cannot possibly be correct.



show that any such "redefinitions" are incorrect.



i supported each one of these cases which you mislabel



this might be true if you could 1) show some examples and 2) show how the proposed interpretation cannot possibly be correct. i notice that this is just an elaborate attempt to avoid proving your case.



i did no such thing. i cited support for the statements i made. you refused to do any research on the matter. have you read the work i referenced? be honest....



i'm not aware of any such occurrence.



there wasn't a blunder there and i'll address that when i get a chance.



lost. that's funny. why do you act like that post hasn't been refuted? it has. why didn't you cite the post where i refuted those points? this is not the first time you have done something like that.



i'll get to that, as usual.



you haven't shown any such lack of knowledge. if you disagree, point them out.

bfniii

that singular response addressed a particular misconception you were having. and by the way, if you read that verse you would know that he was having a dream and was not trying to make a scientific statement about the shape of the earth. sometimes dreams have little to no bearing on reality. that's why they're called dreams.



jack, have you ever tried to concentrate more on accurately representing what i stated instead of prancing around pretending "you won"? knocking down strawmen is not "winning". i didn't evade the issue. i addressed it, multiple times. for you to say otherwise indicates your lack of integrity. at no time was i "cornered". i didn't try to "redefine" anything. we can address the issue all over again since you don't seem to be getting it.



i didn't come up with the idea, jack



i wouldn't listen to reason? i asked you point blank where are the words in the text that describe the time frames involved. you have not once proferred an explanation as to how you arrived at your mistaken ideas. this is no different than your divining of the walls of tyre.



again with the time frames. where in the text does it say that it was necessary that they have them available at that very second? let's see you provide the actual words from the text.

bfniii

see post #410



i have acknowledged that there are multiple theories at this time so your accusation is incorrect. furthermore, anyone who thinks that one particular chronology is correct should have to prove that no other alternatives can possibly be correct. so far, that hasn't happened.



good. perpetuating the personal comments is just more wasting of time.



i agree wholeheartedly. the thread, predictably, has devolved into me asking people to respond to my points in a non-personal way.