bfniii

you said 90% and you listed one. i have made over 800 posts so far. you're short quite a few examples.



could you tell me what about those points has been discussed since #92?



of course it does. many things about ancient history are in the "might" pile.



i could say the same thing to you. prove that the hebrews were never in egypt without resorting to argument from silence, or drop the point. additionally, i am pretty sure that you cannot quantify that "virtually all scholars" believe unequivocably and scientifically that the hebrews were never in egypt.



you brought up the point so i am going to respond. the time of the hebrews in egypt has not been determined. there are several theories regarding their captivity. if you, or anyone else disagrees, then prove the point, or drop it. furthermore, the periodic waning of documentation from ancient history underscores the wanton selectivity of peoples regarding the documentation process.



once again, check post #92. i outline several reasons that answer this point. if you disagree with them, state your reasons.



i am not trying to connect the hyksos and the hebrews, certainly not as the same peoples. what i have said is that they might have more easily facilitated someone like joseph coming to power in egypt.



up to this post, not one person has been able to advance an irrefutable reason why the term must be interpreted in only one way. besides, i have addressed either alternative and you would know that if you were truly reading my posts. you would also know that i have not tried to make the hyksos and the hebrews the same people.

BrianJ

They already have been improved upon. However, I was only answering your question about why excavations continued at Tell es Sultan.

I know there has been some erosion, do you have info on thefts from jericho?

Thanks

Brian.

Sven

Oh, and this is your new tactic to evade concession that you don't cite sources?
OK, try this: Each and every post by you lack sources. If you like to prove me wrong, post ones which give sources - peer-reviewed ones, not enzyclopedia articles.

[snip more evasions - this is just silly]

This is also silly. You have not provided anything about dating, whereas others in this thread have (Ramesses II) and have given their reasons. So it's your turn, not mine.

I see no need to repeat what others have said already five times. This thread is long enough, and the percentage of actual content is low enough.

I don't think that this was your original point, but I certainly don't care enough to wade through hundreds of posts and 17 pages to prove you wrong. So please be happy about having made a point.

*yawn*

Why do I still bother?

Johnny Skeptic

Bfniii is obviously a chicken. In my post #408, I said:

Bfniii has had a habit of deliberately avoiding my posts for a number of months. The Tyre prophecy is just one of a number of examples. I don't blame him for not wanting to embarrass himself any more than he already has.

xaxxat

2-3 million people spend 38 years at Kadesh Barnea and no one can find one fucking flip-flop left by the Hebrews...

It didn't happen folks...

bfniii

care to go into detail? i had already reponded to your posts at the beginning of the thread.

forgive me for not being impressed by your posts. i just read through the first 150 posts of the thread and you make alot of generic, sweeping statements. i just don't find that convincing.



i did and responded to them. the sea of reeds is just one theory regarding the parting of the sea story. explain how "no evidence" is not merely an argument from silence.



could you elaborate on specifically how the desert leaves conspicuous traces?

Doug Shaver

Well, if you think the definition of "cyclical" has anything to do with "credible," it's no surprise if you think the word "thousand" is ambiguous.

Doug Shaver

Can you quote anyone on this board saying it was not OK to question Kenyon, Nigro, or any other archeologist?

bfniii

it's not a dodge. i have made this point countless times. each person is convinced by different "evidence"; different amounts of it, different types of it.



i am trying to establish a standard with you. it's not a reversal. in order for criteria to be met, it must first be established.



what is disappointing is that i have covered each one of these requests. why don't you address my responses to these instead of just bringing them up again?



and who specifically would you be talking about?



this is not an accurate representation of the situation. there is evidence that corroborates these stories. i realize you might not like it or are unconvinced by it. furthermore, some posts in this thread have focused on evidence that is either not likely to be found at all or shouldn't exist at all. last, it is also possible that there is still evidence to be found that will further affirm or deny the stories.



not all of them have failed. i have addressed why certain information is going to be difficult or impossible to find.



and what if your doubt is based on a unreasonable goal that can't possibly be met? maybe it's not the information that needs to be re-evaluated, but your standards.



it wasn't a strawman because you implied that it did. you opposed "conquest" with "gradual". a conquest can be gradual.



how so?



not all people draw that same conclusion. also, what do you think is the time frame for the conquest?



i don't recall ever saying anything about probability of the entire sequence of events; plagues, exodus, wandering, conquest. in fact, i think they are highly improbable. that's what makes the story remarkable. however, probability is also affected by the fact that an allegedly omnipotent God stepped into the story at key points rendering some of the events less improbable. my main point all along in this thread is that some of the objections are unreasonable. there are plausible alternative explanations that should placate the objections.



this is exactly my point. i have made responses to each point advanced. what happens after that is that my objections to the original points are not debated, they are merely dismissed or ridiculed. so it would seem that the people who you think have "discussed" my solutions need to take your advice and not merely repeat their original objections to the story when confronted with a rebuttal to their objection.



like what specifically?

bfniii

SO WHAT? are we on some kind of time schedule? is this thread going to turn to dust at daybreak?



do you know of an example of me claiming that i already responded to something when i actually didn't?