EthnAlln

I'm flabbergasted! This guy has not only found the original Mt. Sinai, the original Noah's Ark, and the original Ark of the Covenant, he's also found the Pharoah's chariots! How much longer before he finds the True Cross, the Holy Grail, and the True Flaming Sword of the Expulsion from Eden?

I want this guy over to my house. I've been looking for my computer glasses for several days now.

RED DAVE

From EthnAln:
If you want him over to your house, you'll have to ask Jesus to resurrect him as he died in 1999. If he does ever show up at your place, please pm me. I'll bring refreshments and Lysol.

Here is a longer list of his amazing discoveries.
Ron Wyatt on Wikipedia

RED DAVE

EthnAlln

Now I'm even more flabbergasted. I never believed I'd find a Biblical literalist so nutty that even the evangelicals would distance themselves from him. This has to be a record.

But then I imagine the Nazi Party is probably looking for ways to distance itself from Ann Coulter.

bfniii

no, you do not. in order for you to prove your point, just show that it has never been used in any other way besides "thousand".



it's the same evasion you showed in that case as well. i have asked you point blank, why is your interpretation the only interpretation that can possibly be correct.



that's the whole point, spin; to find out what the text literally says. since the word is flexible in meaning, we don't know exactly. that's why there is more than one theory on what the word means in that context.



oh good grief. you are fully aware that the translations we currently have were made with much less information than is available to us now, such as the ugaritic discoveries.



but i am sure you can see that several thousand years removed from the instance, people might not know the usage of the word. furthermore, your analogy isn't quite valid because i have already pointed out that it would not be unreasonable to translate the word "troop" especially since it was referring to troops (the census of males who were fighting age).



i didn't get a clear response because it is a pitifully vague response, even for you. it's full of semantics. there is no illusion, spin. it's either yes or no. in post #211, you claimed that it did fit (but that i had to do handstands to make it fit). now you are saying it does not fit. aside from your contradictory statements, it doesn't matter whether you think someone has to do handstands or not. if it works, it works. your perception of how it works is predicated on bias and an inability to prove your case; that your interpretation is the only one that can possibly be correct.



they had camps along the routes. if you don't know the route, you don't know where to dig.



no i am not. i addressed that specifically.



i said "the sites of the camps are not known." now if you disagree, prove your point. we know of a contemporary place called kadesh barnea but that does not guarantee that it is the site of the exodus camp.



interesting comparison, but there are pertinent differences and you should know that. the first is what is expected to be at the camp. none of the structures of the camp were permanent, not even the tabernacle. everything was made to be moved. masada is totally different. herod restored the hasmonean fortification there for the purposes of having a citadel. that is going to leave a completely different footprint than camps in unknown places of an unknown number of people several centuries earlier. also, masada had to be somewhat close to jerusalem. that vastly narrows the scope. the roman camps couldn't have been too far away, right? i realize that kadesh barnea had to be somewhere in the vicinity of canaan, but where? also, you're back to the problem of looking for a few camp trinkets in the desert as opposed to a significantly fortified citadel. you can continue to rail on about kadesh barnea being similar to masada if you want, but even if you were to show that they are identically analogous, that still doesn't guarantee that kadesh barnea should be found at the sime time as masada, or before.



the locations aren't known.



i don't understand why you would cite a work we've already addressed. it doesn't refute the exodus.



i made responses to your points. that's not denial. you have yet to deal with any of those responses which would suggest it is you who are in denial.



really? when did that happen?



spin, you haven't taken anything to task. you make initial statements and then ridicule any objections to those statements. that's not taking something to task. you make points and then assume they are true because they leapt off of your keyboard. i have addressed each and every point you have made (if i skipped any, let me know) and you haven't dealt with my responses other than your attempts to ridicule them. do you not have the ability to address them? if you don't, then save us all a lot of time by saying so and then we can shut this thread down. otherwise, we have to endure more of your posturing.



let's start from the beginning again because you don't seem to be getting it. the hebrews had an unknown amount of time to prepare for the exodus. who knows what preparations they made? second, i have pointed out that they may have had at least 3 sources of water, one of which was an omnipotent God. third, they were only wandering for 2 years. that's it. after that, they were stationary. who knows what provisions they made while there? btw, while they were stationary, they still had access to the omnipotent God.



you don't have a response to my point. that's all you had to say.



you don't have a response to my point. that's all you had to say.



prove it. show how it was impossible, not merely difficult.



no specifics.



which does not mean they were camped there.



this seems to be a tacit admission that you can't deal with the point.



funny. what has been shown is that you make statements and then can't deal with objections to those statements; other than to stoop down to the personal level.



i don't understand why this has to be continually repeated to you but, they only needed two years worth. after the two years of wandering, all bets are off. they were stationary. even during the two years of wandering, they presumably still had access to two other sources of water. i'm sorry you're not getting it.



as i have said, does that make it difficult or impossible?



the article doesn't address the fundamental question i asked.



i have a strong feeling that you can't back this statement up with a poll of every scholar in the world who is working on the exodus chronology problem. by your reasoning, the issue is decided and there should never be another moment spent on the subject forever and ever.



this is a clear indication of your bias. you are operating from the hidden assumption that the "tradition" is erroneous. the whole point of researching the chronologies is to better understand history and find out which documents make sense and which ones don't; to find out what actually happened. what you are trying so desperately to ignore is that there is research ongoing into the issue because the issue isn't decided. in fact, we may never know what happened for sure because we lack a great deal of information regarding the exodus, among other things. but please feel free to continue living as though the account is erroneous, everyone knows it and there are no disagreements about the peripheral history of the events.



evidence. funny. ever heard of plato's cave? you seem to think that the shadow on the wall is your evidence.



well i never thought i would see this from you; posting a theory and proclaiming it as fact.



in order for your point to be correct, you would have to show that they were completely incapable of learning information that would be needed to survive in the desert for 2 years, with water, food and shelter.



the bible records miracles; miracles performed by God. water flowing from a rock at the behest of moses is a miracle. this means that God has chosen to intervene supernatually on occasion. it can't be affirmed or denied by science. it has to be dealt with on a supernatual level. i don't think i can recall seeing you wiggle so much.

why do you say "go against any system he has created"? what makes you think that He is going against the system He created when He is protecting the people He calls the chosen ones?



always resorting to the personal comments when your arguments hit a brick wall. i can give you examples of points made by your cohorts that refute your prior claim that you "work from evidence and what can be checked". in your case, you like to cherry pick one particular interpretation (which conveniently agrees with your worldview) out of the multiple interpretations that can be garnered from the "evidence". furthermore, "what can be checked" is a relative assessment. there are different measurements of "checked".

bfniii

it means that other people didn't take garstang at his word. why isn't the same true of kenyon or nigro and marchetti? why is it ok to question garstang but not the others? it seems a bit hypocritical.

bfniii

it means that other people didn't take garstang at his word. why isn't the same true of kenyon or nigro and marchetti? why is it ok to question garstang but not the others? it seems a bit hypocritical.

sorry about the duplicate. i got an error during transmission so i resent it. i wasn't aware at the time that the original had gone through.

bfniii

and what makes you think that the methods kenyon used to refute garstang won't be improved upon?



this brings up another interesting note that hasn't been discussed. one of the problems at jericho is that over the years, erosion and theft have robbed the site of artifacts. this handicaps exacavations and subsequent conclusions.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: This thread is about the Exodus and the ten plagues. Do you have any historical evidence that those events occurred?

aa5874

Based on the the story of the Ten Plagues written by the unknown author of Exodus, there may still be species of frogs, alive today that were created by magicians. Which leads to another question, of all the species of plants and animals, how much of them did the magicians create?

bfniii

you still haven't responded to my points. more personal comments instead of dealing with the issue



and just what are you referring to specifically?



oh yeah? like what?



total misrepresentation. i have dealt with every piece of "scholarship" that you have tried to advance. the problem is that you aren't equipped to deal with those objections. you take those people's word at face value, presumably because they agree with your worldview.

let me tell you something else. there is a haughty double standard that is prevalent at infidels. it looks all fine and dandy to quote certain people (finkelstein is a great example) to give the appearance of authority. however, i have observed on many occasions that when posters cite scholars who disagree with the resident worldview, they get ridiculed and ad hominem-ed to death which greatly lowers the esteem of these forums. furthermore, it reduces the practice to nothing but name-dropping which is what you would have this topic devolve into.

last, your window dressing is nothing more than appeal to authority, which i'm sure you know is a logical fallacy. if you can't deal with the issues on your own, then say so and we won't have to endure any more of your posturing. the ability to open up a book of your choosing and quote from it doesn't mean that you command the skills to analyze an issue nor does it mean that the people you have tapped are always correct.



this is a great example of window dressing. it's a bunch of flashy words to state that you can't understand how in the future, we might view the knowledge we have now as completely inadequate. therefore, the proper conclusion to draw regarding any part of the conquest is that we don't have enough information at this time to say that there wasn't an exodus or conquest. if there was an exodus/conquest, we don't know which chronology is the most reliable one. that's the reason why there are multiple theories regarding those events. none of the difficulties presented in this thread are a refutation. even their aggregate effect can't wipe out all the alternative possibilities.



this is a strawman. i have not at any point advocated relying on older knowledge. additionally, you're in no position to assess what i have learned because your conclusions have complications of their own.



more ad hominem. still not dealing with the issues.



funny. this is still an attempt to disparage something you disagree with. you still can't deal with the issue. let's try not to focus on where the information came from but what it says.

i'm amazed at how sneaky you try to be. now you've subtly shifted from outright denial of the source to complaining about it's proximity to the subject. do you think that the people who wrote the article are either completely unaware of or purposely ignoring your imagined secondary or primary information? if so, prove it. show how it flies in the face of other information.

rehash. i love it. like you don't rehash.



and i have said that you're trying to play semantics so that you appear to be correct.



more word games. besides, the whole point is the definition of "itinerant". how itinerant were they? is the secretary of donald trump itinerant or on the fringe of society? what about a waiter at the four seasons? people are going to see it differently.



i just don't understand why this concept is escaping you. the analogy has nothing to do with "finite limits". it's about the knowledge we currently have. in the future, scientists may laugh at the methods we are currently using on mars. concordantly, future archaeologists may say the same about our current knowledge just like we are doing now with garstang. the analogy was completely functional and relevant. i'm sorry you aren't getting the point.



i didn't duck and weave. i addressed the topic, as much as i care to, in multiple posts.



wrong. people go to them as a source of information. if they are used as ultimate authority, as you are trying to do, then they are abused. what do you do when different journals disagree? what do you do when a journal rescinds a particular idea? they are a standard, but not the standard you are trying to make them out to be. back to our original point; human knowledge is dynamic, not static. the most you can say about jericho or ai or the exodus or the conquest is "this is how things appear at this time" and even that statement is debatable.



that last statement is not always true. as i said, sometimes journals don't agree on everything. sometimes a journal doesn't even agree with something it published in the recent past. this is merely another form of appeal to authority. journals are written by people who are conveying information. the issue is not books or people or journals. the issue is the information. you are trying to set up your favorite current archaeological information as authoritative and you are in no position to do so. no one is in a position to do such a thing. you are doing so in order to avoid dealing with the issue. you are doing so to create a diversion and look authoritative. as if that wasn't bad enough, whenever i deal with the information, you criticize me for not name-dropping.



since the information you cite is not universally accepted, why do you pretend that it is irrefutable?



it's sad that you can't understand the point i have been trying so diligently to get across to you. you aren't seeing the big picture.



even if there weren't LB walls, there are still multiple exodus chronologies to be dealt with. the situation is much more complex than you are making it out to be. you are masquerading as if it's all figured out and all the possibilities have been eliminated.



i did respond. my response is that, once again, you can't deal with the information. you have to try to ad hominem-wiggle your way out of addressing the information. it seems like what you are trying to do is to get me to drop a name so that you can examine the letters appended to that person's title in an effort to "out-letter" everyone else and claim "see, my source has a longer title than yours. i win."



the whole situation regarding the exodus and the conquest. there is information that pertains to them. different people draw different conclusions regarding that "evidence". you are trying to parade your personal choice as "evidence".



the responses in this post should answer that question for you