Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Anat · 06-20-2006, 10:55 PM

Right, no underwear. That's why they had to make special pants for the High Priest so he doesn't expose himself when he climbs up to the altar.

bfniii · 06-21-2006, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Same old evasive tactics. The only multiple interpretations regarding the numbers regards evasive people who cannot bring themselves to deal with what the text says.

Same old evasive tactics. Thousand means thousand. Hundred means hundred. When you get hundreds added up to get thousands, we have a bfniii suffering from a terminal case of doublethink to avoid the logical consequences. You do not provide evidence that you understand issues. You simply avoid them.

You were asked to deal with the signioficance of the census figures in Numbers. Are you going to continue to be simply evasive? I guess you have no choice. You are not willing to be scholarly about the issue.

The structure of the individual sentences reflect Hebrew reporting of numbers:

Code:

six   and forty thousand and five hundred
$$H   W)RB(YN   )LP      WXM$     M)WT

Stop the blind evasive tactics and do the math. There is no issue about "thousand" here. The fifties and hundreds add up to thousands. These are conceived of by the authors as real numbers not whatever evasive mystification you and your sources are trying to conjure up to avoid the simple meaning.

Of course you do. You can't even read a simple set of numbers without ducking and weaving.

all of the above is merely more posturing about the same issue. your job is simple; show that the one interpretation you are advocating is the only possible interpretation that the author(s) intended. it is well-known that the particular ancient hebrew term in question was flexible, had more than one meaning. you are simply dismissing the fact that there is more than one alternative.

i also don't understand why you are mischaracterizing me. i can cite posts where i have acknowledged and discussed the possibility that the word is used for thousand(s). you are trying to pidgeon-hole me so that you can build a strawman. it's quite clever actually. i have acknowledged that there are multiple expanations so what you are doing is trying to cull together parts of my posts that look inconsistent when compared to each other, but that doesn't represent the whole of what i have posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The scientific approach to things involves trying to get it right though you may make mistakes in the effort.

the "getting it right" is the key. sometimes we don't have enough information to get it right at the time. the problem is you are pretending we do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Any issue is as good as the evidence that supports it.

again, evidence in this case does not mean what you are trying to convince people it means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You need to be able to change your understandings according to the evidence. If you can't, then you have to basis for your understanding that relates to knowledge.

then why can't you incorporate into your positions the fact that the issues are much broader than you are admitting? why the need to mischaracterize and misrepresent me? you stated that i have ignored that the term could mean "thousand" but i have not. you claim that i won't address it because of some bias. i have addressed that issue pointedly. i wonder if you attempting this distraction because you don't want to deal with the fact that i have addressed the issue and that i have acknowledged the flexibility of the term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So far in all the interactions I've seen of yours, your main weapon of understanding is evasion. That's sad. spin

it's sad that you think me presenting and considering multiple alternatives is evasion. in this particular case, you are trying to pretend the author could only have meant one particular thing even though we aren't in a position to know that but that i am evading because i won't acquiesce to such presumption.

what i don't understand is why people here think that because these issues are inconclusive at this time, that this somehow proves that the exodus didn't happen. what's worse is that even after that has been pointed out to them, they continue to carry on in that fashion.

Jack the Bodiless · 06-21-2006, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

response to post #271

bfniii, this is post #353, posted on 21st June 2006.

You are currently lagging 82 posts and 8 days behind in this discussion.

The issue of the numbers has since been raised by several other posters. You are not responding. And, by not responding to their points, you are making yourself look (even more) foolish.

Why can't you just read on to the end of the thread and catch up?

From your past antics, I suspect that you will (eventually) respond by claiming (falsely) to have "refuted this in an earlier post", so that you can evade having to actually add up the numbers as so many here have required you to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

it is well-known that the particular ancient hebrew term in question was flexible, had more than one meaning. you are simply dismissing the fact that there is more than one alternative.

We have seen your misconceptions regarding what is "well-known" before, on other threads. But let's see you add up the numbers without your usual waffle and evasion. Can you yet surprise us all by simply doing this?

spin · 06-21-2006, 07:20 AM

Jack, you might also refrain until he catches up. I don't disagree with anything you've said. It's just that we've seen how he works. He probably won't even read your post for another eight days. There can be no continuity of discussion this way.

Doug Shaver · 06-21-2006, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

show that the one interpretation you are advocating is the only possible interpretation that the author(s) intended.

For the fourth time: What are some of the others?

Johnny Skeptic · 06-21-2006, 08:46 AM

My question is, what ten plagues? At this rate, next we'll be debating Santa Claus.

xaxxat · 06-21-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

For the fourth time: What are some of the others?

Well, if 6 was 9... :devil3:

bfniii · 06-21-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

As a side issue, academic achievements are related to rejection of religion.

garbage. people like newton were trying to lift the veil of mystery from creation to better understand God. i agree that what you say may be true of some people, but certainly not all. are you aware that there are academicians, philosophers and scientists who are christians, even today?

Johnny Skeptic · 06-21-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

As a side issue, academic achievements are related to rejection of religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

Garbage. People like Newton were trying to lift the veil of mystery from creation to better understand God. I agree that what you say may be true of some people, but certainly not all. Are you aware that there are academicians, philosophers and scientists who are Christians, even today?

No one ever said "all." Regarding "Are you aware that there are academicians, philosophers and scientists who are Christians?," even today, sure I am, but there is a much smaller percentage than there used to be. Are you aware that only 7% of the members of the prestigious National Academy of Science (NAS) are Christians, and Christians rarely win Nobel Prizes in science anymore? I suspect that the top 10% of students who take the SAT are much less interested in religion than the rest of participants. Of course, even if that is true, it wouldn't matter to you at all.

I hope you intend to take care of your unfinished business in the thread on Farrell Till and the thread on the Tyre prophecy. We skeptics always enjoy showing the undecided crowd how bad your arguments are and how evasive you are.

I suggest that we get back of topic. What evidence do you have that there was an Exodus and ten plagues?

spin · 06-21-2006, 10:46 AM

Johnny Skeptic, give it a rest, will you? You won't get a response for a week and beating him more will just make him more evasive. He's already dodged answering more questions than you'd think embarrassment would allow, but piling more on will only make them easier to dodge. You're just preparing him for a political career.

06-21-2006, 08:46 AM	#356
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	The Ten Plagues and the Exodus My question is, what ten plagues? At this rate, next we'll be debating Santa Claus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-20-2006, 10:55 PM	#351
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	Right, no underwear. That's why they had to make special pants for the High Priest so he doesn't expose himself when he climbs up to the altar.

06-21-2006, 07:20 AM	#354
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Jack, you might also refrain until he catches up. I don't disagree with anything you've said. It's just that we've seen how he works. He probably won't even read your post for another eight days. There can be no continuity of discussion this way.

06-21-2006, 10:46 AM	#360
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Johnny Skeptic, give it a rest, will you? You won't get a response for a week and beating him more will just make him more evasive. He's already dodged answering more questions than you'd think embarrassment would allow, but piling more on will only make them easier to dodge. You're just preparing him for a political career.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.