Lógos Sokratikós

And no, I couldn't get a bigger map :Cheeky:

RED DAVE

From Dave Reed
Start here.

Remember, Dave, the burden of proof about the Biblical flood lies with the fundies not the archeologiests. The latter have done their work, throughly and well. The former cling to an ancient collection of moralizing legends and politically distorted history.

http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/chronology/index.html

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
From praxeus:
You just ducked the question again, which is what I expect from you.

If you have an article worth reading, why not share it?

I find it bizarre that you post so much on very small points, but on this one, which knocks the entire basis of the Bible into a cocked hat (along with the notion of evolution and the age of the Earth and the Universe), you have to delay weeks or months.

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

And I so plan.
Remember ..

"especially an article that discusses secular chronologies in depth that I should have in a couple of weeks to a month."

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE I find it bizarre that you post so much on very small points, but on this one, which knocks the entire basis of the Bible into a cocked hat (along with the notion of evolution and the age of the Earth and the Universe), you have to delay weeks or months.

I have no idea why you consider what I shared above or here as "bizarre".

To give more backdrop, as I explained, this is not something I normally make a first priority. (And discussions with evolutionists sometimes get bogged down in things like cave paintings that are supposed to be 40,000 years old .. here we are focusing on the more fundamental chronology issues.) So I had some discussions who some folks seem like they have an excellent grasp on the issues.

And it turns out that it will take a little time for the material to be in my hands. And I will study it and then get back to you more, by the grace of God.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
From praxeus:
We will await your posting eagerly.

From RED DAVE:
From praxeus:
You misread me. I said that I find it bizarre that you post so much about small issues, but on this big one, you have nothing to say. And, by the way, I do find your postings bizarre along with your entire belief system. Most people don't join cults.

From praxeus:
Perhaps you should reorder your priorities. Most of us would consider whether or not the whole world was covered with water and all the people and animals killed, within historic times, to be pretty important.

From praxeus:
They will get bogged down when you refuse to accept well-documented scientific results.

From praxeus:
Who were they? I presume they're from an archaeology department at some first-rate university.

From praxeus:
No fax machine? No scanner? No e-mail. What a shame.

From praxeus:
In the meantime, you've ducked the question. If you know enough to consult some experts, you know enough to put up a preliminary answer. The questions are simple. Here they are again.

You knew enough to post, in another thread:
So what’s the problem with narrowing it down a little?

RED DAVE

badger3k

Where are you getting your information? I thought that the Sphinx has pretty much been conclusively shown to have been built around the same time as the pyramids. The "water marks" could have been produced by means other than rain, and the hitorical/archeological record indicates a far more recent date than 10,000 BCE. I thought only the new-age aliens-built-the-pyramids crowd went into the early dates.

To head off questions: At the moment, no, I don't have access to the info - I'll see what I can dig up sometime after work (although I have literally thousands of papers and many sites to research, and not much time between work hours, so it may be a bit).

(To be clear - this point interested me when I heard about it, so I looked into it, and the evidence against it outweighed the evidence for it, for me).

RED DAVE

From Dave Reed:
Dave, you have to start evaluating your sources.

The Sphinx body is not thought to have been carved about 10,000 BC. This is a simplification of the view of one archaeologist, which has been pretty much disputed. When you post ideas like this, check them out. I found this on google in about 30 seconds.

http://www.egyptvoyager.com/pyramids...phinxage_1.htm

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

Hi Dave,

I'm trying to unpack this. Are you aware of my "entire belief system" ? Or do you simply consider any full defense of the Bible as God's word and true as "bizarre" ? And did I "join a cult" (in your view) ? Or are you saying something else ?

Just curious as to what you are trying to say above.

Shalom,
Steven

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
From praxeus:
I think I have a fair idea of where you're coming from.

From praxeus:
Both.

From praxeus:
That you are, essentially, in a cult.

Now that I've answered your questions, how about you answering mine:

Again, just a rough estimate will do.

Please remember, you've basically already answered them.

From praxeus:
All you have to do is confirm this statement of yours

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

So you have made your own personal definition.
Anybody who accepts the Bible as true is in a cult.

Very strange, very self-serving, very much poisoning the well, very mangling of language and very wrong.

On the other aspect of the post .. see above (salvanoot).

Shalom,
Steven Avery