Nice Squirrel

The Irish ain't gawds people

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0304/stpatrick.html

WILLOWTREE

Joel:

You need to pass a few competence tests as I have carried you long enough in lieu of the incessant state of subtle rant directed at me.

You didn't know about the different systems and have evaded.

Atheists want it both ways: The MT is correct except when chronology is the issue. When the latter is the focus your only input is one of sabotage/to assert differences in the major texts = Bible is error.

IOW, your ignorance is asserted as fact just because you do not understand.

The MT has been shown to be in error in regards to pre-Exodus chronology.

In post-Exodus chronology, that is from the United Monarchy to the fall of Samaria and Jewish desolation periods the LXX and the MT employ different systems - both are correct.

I have lost track of any initial arguments made except for the fact that you asserted the Bible was a chronological mess. In response, I pointed out about systems and you have evaded and insulted ever since.

WT

WILLOWTREE

Yes, I know atheists will never admit despite the evidence.

How could they lest their worldview be invalidated ?

You have evaded the loose framework of evidence - no need to go any further.

WT

badger3k

Unfortunately, the Celts arrived somewhere in Ireland anywhere from 1000-700 BCE (http://www.visitrannoch.com/celts.htm). Looking at a few other sites, the more recent dates are probably more accurate. A travel site says that by 500 BCE the Celts were dominent in Ireland (http://www.infohub.com/Destinations/...land/74924.htm), and that seems to be agreed upon by other sites (one last example: http://www.irelandseye.com/irish/peo...rs/celts2.shtm). From a few books I have, the earliest information on the Celts in Ireland seeem to be from the 4th century BCE.

I'm far from a celtic scholar, so I am sure others can put more (and more accurate) information than I can, so I'll stop there.

The idea that the celts and druids had relations with Egypt isn't new (although it is New Age). I've never heard a Christian want to use that idea. I guess from your Flood myth, you would agree with the Mormon assertion that the native Americans were part of some lost tribes of Isrealites?

Considering the Celts were first encountered (ie recorded) north of the Danube, and migrated throughout Europe, the ruddy complexion can simply be explained through environmental factors.

As for more on the "Ruddy" topic, the only information I can find on the web dealing with that seems to be racist or white supremacist information. The typical claim is that Adam had a ruddy complexion, and that the "true" Israelites were white people. Hopefully you aren't falling for that c$#p.

WILLOWTREE

IOW, just because you have no idea and because you can't find it on the Internet this means what I posted is not true = typical yuppie ignorance thought of as fact and research.

IOW, you are a Bible evading atheist.

Nazi's committed the Holocaust armed with ToE.

Hope you aren't falling for that.

But we know you have = your hillbilly logic.

WT

badger3k

My, my temper temper. Getting so defensive and arrogant can't be good for your health, and further reduces what little credibility you have.

Considering I was born in the mid-west and have always been middle (or even lower class), and the fact that we used to make fun of the "yuppies", I think you widely miss the mark there.

Now, I suppose stating what I know and what little I can find is a confession of ignorance. Well, it is. It means I am unaware of certain facts, and am showing what I can find. Namely very little that supports any concept of a "ruddy race". I did mention what I found, and asked a question. Interesting fact, sitting at home with a fever is not conducive to going out to a library and doing research, and my books don't deal with race, since it's been irrelevant to me. Oddly enough, I don't find it embarassing to admit ignorance in an area I am unfamiliar with. Others do seem to have problems with that.

Edit - I have to add that just because I could not find anything on "ruddy races" does not mean what you posted is not true. However, what I know of and what I can find on the Celtic Race and their origins can show that your ideas are not true, especially when they contradict what you seem to suggest. See Question 1 below.

Also, I've stated before I am not an atheist. Miss two. Can you hit any target?

Nazi's also commited the Holocaust armed with Christian faith and theology (http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm for but one example). Since you can't seem to separate the use of something from the theory itself, perhaps you'd care to explain how the Christianity is bad because the Nazi's used that?

Can you answer a question? Do you believe that the original Israelites, the "true" people of your god, were white? Simple yes or no.

Other than that, let's see. I was born in Chicago, Il to people who had lived there all their lives. My more distant ancestors eventually came to the US via Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and a few other places. Since no one that I know of in my family ever lived in the hills of the SE United States, I doubt that "hillbilly" applies to anything I do.

So, care to adress the issues, instead of responding with insults? I'll restate the questions for you:

1) Do you believe that your Israelites somehow became the Celts, who moved from Egypt into N/C Europe, then traveled over until entering Ireland approx 700 or so BCE? If so, do you have any evidence to support your conclusions?

2) Do you believe that the Isrealites were a "white" (ie causcasian) race?

3) Do you believe that Christianity, since it has been used to commit genocide, not only during the Nazi period, but throughout the ages (ie, the crusades, esp the Albigensian, the Inquisition, the massacres throughout the New World in Mexico and Peru), as well as support such things as Slavery, is good? If so, how is this different than Nazi's using evolution to support their twisted views?

Three relatively simple questions that I doubt you'll answer. I expect either more silence, or else more insults. So which will it be?

Celsus

:rolling: :rolling:

Sorry Willow, but remember how you mentioned something about 3145 BCE, Rutherford, and how you figured it all out? Ever since then, I've been asking you to demonstrate this chronology, and you have just been coming up with generalisations about MT this and LXX that, not to mention the countless times you accused me of a position I haven't argued. You haven't demonstrated any familiarity with the numbers at all, while I have handed you some simple numbers on a platter to get you started. So it's pretty clear who's the one doing the evading. I won't be wasting my time further till you fill in that table, or give us your promised chronology that you have yet to show.

Good luck, and thanks for all the laughs. Remember, we're still waiting.

Joel