Constant Mews

I foolishly failed to spot the usual Dave equivocation.

Dave, he did not say that you said that the DH must be wrong. He said that your world requires that the DH be wrong.

When you respond to posts, it would help if you would respond to what is actually posted. Your usual practice of ignoring other posters actual wording in favor of strawmen is... does not contribute positively to the conversation.

Gressil

This is what is so funny, I have said that I knew nothing about the DH or the tablet theory before Dave and Dean started talking about it (I think you said the same thing but I'm not going back to check). I had no preconceived ideas about which theory is the most likely to be correct and nor did I really care, but having read every single post in this thread I must admit that the DH makes much more sense and seems to be supported by evidence.

Dave, you have failed utterly to convince me.

Cege

Is a "partial Christian" something like equaling a toledoth to a colophon?

Constant Mews

No, it means you're only Christian from the acromion on down.

VoxRat

WTF???

You "see no evidence" ???

You've read Dean's posts???

And you "see no evidence"???

You don't just raise (specious) objections to the evidence; you actually "see no evidence" - at all???

And - speaking of substantive "polite" posts - what about that whole falling out of your chair laughing, but never getting around to explaining why?
That wasn't very polite - or substantive - now, was it?

Cege

I had to look up "acromion" but I'm glad I did.

Gressil

Now all you've got to do is engineer a conversation around to a topic where you can drop it in

-Jay-

Bwahahahaha!
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

regards,

NinJay

shirley knott

Not the first time, and it won't be the last.
It is, in point of fact, based on the evidence, the only choice in his behavioral repertoire

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Mike PSS

NOTHING Dean Anderson has posted has even caused you to re-examine your initial understanding of the DH? NOTHING?
You have yet to respond to:
-The linguistic facts of the DH books.
-The duplication of textual messages that the DH solves.
-The stylistic differences (other than your own hand-waving excuse of "What stylistic difference).
-Numerous other points.

Your only response has been to attempt to discredit the original creators of the DH hypothesis. However, the validity of the DH stands on its own regardless of its originators.

Don't you see that?
And what little evidence you've brought forward has been eviscerated in this public forum. And your evidence hasn't spoken to; linguistic style, contradictory passages, language use, 2=7=14, etc.
As for CM using the bible as a basis for his belief, do you have an answer for that?

See Dave, I'm not here to bash you or your ideas, just your poor attempt at argument and discourse. It's just that your arguments tend to not be sensible, consciliant, or factual. They are primarily personal opinion or derived from suspect sources whose facts are usually incorrect. Like CM I would like to see you correct these definciencies, but you have not exhibited any improvement in style or substance since I first read your posts last year at AtBC. An entire year of free education and yet you continue to use the same discredited sources, quotes, and ideas. One can only hope that you will never use your McNeil quotemine ever again. Or Ayala. Or even my past post in the HLA-B discussion where I (***choke***) congradulated you for some reason.