FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-02-2007, 10:04 AM   #531
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant Mews View Post
.... I am engaged in a discussion right now with a colleague about where this might fall on the Autism Spectrum.

....
Please do not insult those on the Autistim-Asperger's spectrum.
I'm not quite sure how to take that. If I have offended anyone, I apologize. :huh:
Constant Mews is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:18 AM   #532
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

It was a bit sarcastic, but I don't think that Christians who witness are autistic. I think that the act of witnessing may look anti-social to those being witnesses to, but there is a lot more to autism.
Toto is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:33 AM   #533
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seven Popes View Post
Learn to google. Stupidity can be expensive.
As most of the scholarly work rests in books though and much of the material on internet highly suspect, isn't googling a formula for remaining stupid?

It was the internet that got him into this trouble, for where else did he find this outdated colophon crap. He didn't suddenly get an illumination from god to say that he had to read Air Commodore P.J. Wiseman's work -- which hasn't been in scholarly literature in the past 50 years.
spin
Getting his information from the Internet is not Dave's problem per se. It's possible to get valid information from the Internet if you are capable of making credibility assessments.

Dave is not.

And it's not just that he's getting his information from the Internet. It's that he's getting it from sites like AiG and ICR, which are jokes. But they're jokes that Dave agrees with. That's why he ends up citing texts from the 19th century all the time.
ericmurphy is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:35 AM   #534
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by afdave View Post
CHAMPOLLION'S BIG MISTAKE PROVIDES KEY TO 'MISSING' ISRAELITE ACTIVITIES
Dean made a post recently providing supposed evidence against the Mosaic authorship of the Penateuch. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...05#post4823205 His most important point was
Quote:
Evidence that Moses did not write the majority of the Torah

(Note: The biggest piece of evidence that Moses did not write the Torah is the archaeological evidence that there was no Exodus or Conquest, and therefore that it is incredibly unlikely that Moses ever existed. However, for the sake of argument, I am assuming in this thread that Moses did exist, and therefore my evidence and arguments here do not presuppose that he was merely a legendary figure.)
I will deal with Dean's other points later, but I want to address his most important point first.
How can you say something this stupid, Dave? Look at that bolded part, because obviously you missed it the first time round.
ericmurphy is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:38 AM   #535
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
It was a bit sarcastic, but I don't think that Christians who witness are autistic. I think that the act of witnessing may look anti-social to those being witnesses to, but there is a lot more to autism.
Of course. I apologize if that was the meaning you took from it.

There are characteristics, however, of the Witnessing behavior which involve the failure to 'read' reactions. I find these the most interesting part of the Witnessing problem.
Constant Mews is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:45 AM   #536
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 4,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucretius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinJay View Post
Here's the contact information for the original publishers:

Thomas Nelson, Inc.
PO Box 141000
Nashville, TN 37214

They could probably tell you who currently owns the rights and whether they have any plans for a re-issue.

regards,

NinJay
As Donald J Wiseman is still alive and living in Australia, I would imagine that as he edited his late fathers work he would have some sort of copyright to the 1985 version at least.
Perhaps Dave would like one of us to look up Wiseman's address.

Here's a place to start...

Does anyone know if Wiseman maintains an active interest in the Tablet Theory? The only references that I can find to the original book with a very quick google search are from YEC pages, and a quick JSTOR search failed to turn up any journal cites of it.

regards,

NinJay
-Jay- is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:53 AM   #537
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NinJay View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucretius View Post

As Donald J Wiseman is still alive and living in Australia, I would imagine that as he edited his late fathers work he would have some sort of copyright to the 1985 version at least.
Perhaps Dave would like one of us to look up Wiseman's address.

Here's a place to start...
Now, now. You're not implying that Dave might have trouble using the internet to find an address, are you?

Quote:
Does anyone know if Wiseman maintains an active interest in the Tablet Theory? The only references that I can find to the original book with a very quick google search are from YEC pages, and a quick JSTOR search failed to turn up any journal cites of it.

regards,

NinJay
As indicated, it's not considered viable and dropped without a ripple.
Constant Mews is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 11:15 AM   #538
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by afdave View Post
Why does this matter? It matters because now, with Rohl's New Chronology, the Biblical accounts of the Israelites are confirmed as historical by the findings of archaeology. The Bible is a real history book which relates real activities of real people. It is not a "Bronze Age myth" as skeptics like to say. In fact, it is the most accurate history book in the world ... which makes sense that it would be if it truly is the Message of the Creator to Mankind.
Not even close, Dave. Real history books, which talk about real history, do not state as fact events, such as the creation myth and the flood myth, which cannot possibly be true. Both the creation myth and the flood myth are known to be myths, because for either one to be true would require multiple gross violations of natural law.

Whether the Bible is accurate in relating this or that historical event does not counterbalance the vastly inaccurate account it gives of both creation and the "flood," both of which are entirely fictional.
ericmurphy is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 11:20 AM   #539
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 4,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant Mews View Post
Now, now. You're not implying that Dave might have trouble using the internet to find an address, are you?
Who? Me? :devil:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constant Mews View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinJay View Post
]Does anyone know if Wiseman maintains an active interest in the Tablet Theory? The only references that I can find to the original book with a very quick google search are from YEC pages, and a quick JSTOR search failed to turn up any journal cites of it.
As indicated, it's not considered viable and dropped without a ripple.
That's about what I thought - it's obvious it isn't a contender to knock off the DH, but I wasn't sure if it had more traction within the YEC community than it appeared to in my quick check. Thanks.

regards,

NinJay
-Jay- is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 11:35 AM   #540
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,027
Default

I'm still waiting for Dave to actually address the issue of the 2 vs. the 14. I really want to see his argument how one instruction to gather up two of every sort of animal (including, specifically, cattle, which are classified as "clean") is not inconsistent with a second instruction to gather up two of all "unclean" animals and fourteen of all "clean" animals.

If I were Noah, I wouldn't know whether I was supposed to bring two cows or fourteen cows, and I'm very interested to see what Dave thinks is the right number here.

Anything to say, Dave? If you think you've already "addressed" this issue (as distinct from merely claiming you would at some point in the future address it), I'd appreciate a link.
ericmurphy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:18 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.