Jack the Bodiless

Dave, you will never begin to make any sense until you realize that:

NOT A SINGLE CIVILIZATION EVER UNEARTHED IS EITHER "PRE-FLOOD" OR "POST-FLOOD".

And why are you still citing a known crackpot whose theories don't support your position anyhow (requiring you to abandon the Biblical timescale entirely)?

You think we don't KNOW this stuff already?

Even though it KEEPS coming up?

Are you hoping we'd somehow forget?

Roger Pearse

I was wondering whether archaeology can tell us that a culture is monotheistic or polytheistic. Aren't statues etc dumb? Can we tell if these are deities unless they tell us so, in writing, somehow? This means epigraphic or literary evidence, not just archaeology. Or am I missing something?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dave Hawkins

It is the height of closed-mindedness to hold the position that there was no Global Flood. Few (if any) events of antiquity have more evidential support -- both literary and physical -- than this event.

notta_skeptic

Dave, Dave, Dave.......do you think repeating your beliefs often enough will make them come true? If there's evidence of a global flood, where's the layer of similar sediments all over the world? And why did the Chinese not notice? Their writings extend farther back in history than your flood could have occurred.

Jack the Bodiless

Nope.

But, actually, it's not the (claimed) positive evidence that really matters: there are plenty of snippets of information which, in isolation, could be interpreted either way. The clincher is the contradictory evidence.

...Which disproves the Flood.

And which you will never address.

VoxRat

And yet, you had that debate , wherein you, presumably, presented the very best of this evidence in an uncluttered, "Formal Debate" format, and convinced no one. So you're saying the reason for that is only the very most closed-minded of closed-minded individuals could possibly not be persuaded by the evidence you presented? And that this extreme minority of the most closed-minded of the closed-minded is represented in the readership of that debate (and here, and everywhere else you've tried to take on the real world) to the tune of something like 99%?

Clinicians have words for this kind of delusion.

VoxRat

And just what is it that qualifies this as a "scholarly work"?

Jack the Bodiless

Hmm. There must be some mistake. Merely hovering my mouse over Dave's link reveals that it's an AiG article.

Got any scholarly sources for this "scholarly work", Dave?

Derec

What are their first names so that I can look them up?

Same thing for him. H.H. is not enough to pin him down in google.

No, you cannot claim that since you haven't shown that the Flood had occurred in the first place.

Noah is a myth, rather than a monotheist.

As shown earlier in the thread, there is ample evidence of Hebrew polytheism well into the late monarchic period.

Evidence for the Flood again, is what exactly?

As claimed by David Rohl, maybe. Interestingly, he is the only one I was able to look up. His redating of Egyptian chronology is not well accepted, by the way.

Scholarly work published by AiG? You must be jesting.

Lucretius

Am I the only one here who finds the name Ginger Tong Chock hilarious ?

Sorry but I am beginning to feel a bit hysterical perhaps after reading other stuff here on the B.C.& H. forum I think