bfniii

fudging? you can call it that if you like. what you really mean is that i interpret it differently than you do. but feel free to continue using your word-games. in the meantime, perhaps you could address the response instead of this attempt at distraction.



wait, does it fit or not?



no, i addressed it specifically. i will repeat:

is there any roman equivalent to the exodus? i don't know of one. an unknown number of people wandering in a rugged environment, taking a path not known to us at an undetermined time.



you're missing the point. we know much more about where the romans were. we know next to nothing about where the hebrews were during the exodus.



this is a repeat of your previous, unspecific statement. i am asking for specific logistics and i hope they are different than all the ones i have already addressed (but i have a feeling you are about to just repeat what has already been discussed).



the question is where should everyone be looking?



good for him. the location of kadesh barnea is not known with certainty at this time.



sigh. you don't even address the point i raised.



i have addressed several "logistics" brought up in this thread. go back and read it again.



i didn't think you could respond to the points. if you could, you would have already. instead, you issue a customary distraction.



you state that i didn't but then cite that i did.



now if we knew the exact time of the exodus, that might be relevant. even if we did, that doesn't mean that there wasn't any water to be had or that there wasn't enough water to be had.



i addressed 3 ways they might have gotten water and oases were only one of those 3.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: You still haven't provided any credible evidence at all that there were any plagues and an exodus.

spin

Have you got a better word for the sort of linguistic abuse you seem to imply for when the actual words don't suit you?

What I mean is that you aren't interested in what the text actually says, for when it is inconvenient, you disown it.

It depends on perspective, like an Escher drawing. But then Escher is only illusion of functionality.

It doesn't matter how often you appeal to irrelevant concerns. Long term camps leave traces, as the Roman examples show.

The texts tell us clearly at times where they were supposed to have been. The archaeology disproves these indications.

Supplying water to over 2 million people and their animals in extremely hot dry conditions (requiring several litres each person per day), supplying food for over two million people and their animals, supplying shelter for over two million people and their animals, supplying sanitation facilities for over two million people and their animals, supplying clothing for over two million people, supplying tools and implements for over two million people. You have not attempted to deal with the logistics implied by the vast numbers of people in the small area of the Negeb. You have happily ignored all the logistic implications, stringing together fanciful irrelevances.

Umm, Kadesh Barnea, oh, but they've looked and there are no remains. Umm Arad, oh, but they've looked and it wasn't occupied at the time.

Ah, the old disown scholarship when it doesn't suit you trick. But of course Kadesh Barnea is where they've looked. Jerusalem wouldn't be where they looked if you had the necessity to attempt that one as well. Places don't change position radically over thousands of years. Dream on.

You haven't raised any point. You've only pretended that there is one. Either do the linguistic work and present a case or drop it.

Rubbish. You have avoided every plea for rationality so far.

It is a normal response for you to ignore refutations of your stuff and obfuscate.

I can understand your confusion smilie. A general analysis which doesn't consider the fact that at the time we are referring to there was a region wide drought. You seem to have retention problems. You do not deal with the drought. Your general comment about water obviously dealt with a different era.

It simply had to be after the Ramses II city of Raamses. You're snookered.

Such as the farce about the water they brought with them!!!!!!!!!!! You should be embarrassed about even thinking of that one more than a few seconds. How much water can you carry with you through a desert and how long does it last??????????? ROFL. Then we come to the skyhook, water supplied by god. You may as well also try water supplied by Martians. We work from evidence and what can be checked. Your participation in a conversation with other people suggests that you accept the rule of evidence, otherwise you'd have no means of communication with the others. Please be fair and consistent.

How were the over two million people and their animals kept alive with water, when even modern cities without adequate safe water systems struggle to quench the thirsts of their inhabitants?


spin

Julian

Just for the fun of it, here is my first post ever on IIDB, and it was on this very topic:

Ah, a blast from the past...

Julian

bfniii

i have addressed that point (none) and the other (enough)



according to the people you like to cite. why don't you tell everyone how theirs isn't the final say or how they aren't infallible?



i am not misrepresenting anything, as i said when i mentioned that i don't dispute what they found. what i am saying is that when people look at the puzzle pieces, they all get different pictures. why haven't you told everyone that?



i'm not hedging anything. you have yet to show that this point is applicable to all habiru. i showed that some weren't on the "margins". you then tried to play word games.



you are distracting from having to show brittanica is wrong.



brtiannica isn't scholarly. right. if this isn't the most hypocritical statement of all time on infidels. skeptics LOVE to quote brittanica when it suits their purposes.



they may be the greatest archaeologists of their time but as i have said repeatedly, they aren't infallible nor are they the final say. if you know one iota about archaeology, then you know this is true.



no, i did not.



you are presumptuous in citing archaeolgoical work that agrees with your worldview. old, old, old ploy.



archaeologists of the world, spin says jericho is finalized. call off all the digs from now until forever. let's see how long that lasts....



and you're even less authoritative than you pretend to be.



for those who are scoring at home, this is spin-speak for "i'm out of arguments, i'm relying on people who agree with my worldview to distract readers".



nice. good ole' ad hominems. leave it to skeptics at infidels to resort to this when they can't bully people, even the revered spin.



trying? what you really mean is that the issue isn't decided. it's long from decided. that's why there are still archaeologists digging in the middle east.



why don't you get the idea that archaeology was around long before you came along and it will be around long after you are gone? through it all, there will be people who disagree about the information.



i disagree.



i haven't refused anything at all. what i have done is to not submit to myopia like you have, and then pretend like it's "final".

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: If their was an exodus, it would have just been ordinary secular history. However, if the plagues occurred, they would had to have been caused by someone with abilities beyonds those of humans. Do you have any evidence that the plagues occurred other than "the Bible says so."?

xaxxat

bfniii... quit dodging and show us your numbers.

Johnny Skeptic

Xaxxat, over a number of months in various threads I have discovered that bfniii will debate certain topics at length until he gets into trouble and doesn't want to embarrass himself. His least favorite topics are the nature of God and his personal experiences. The same is true of many other conservative Christians. Bfniii always refuses to debate those topics except to make a very brief evasive statement. That is understandable. Those topics are not logically defensible with any kind of objective evidence, and can only be supported by idle speculation and guesswork.

xaxxat

I see that with bfniii, Patriot 7, one allegience, lee merril and Patriarch Verlch and others. They must've all gone to the same school...

I assume that trying to pin these guys down is an exercise in "nailing jello to the wall"?

Blui

It seems to me after reading so many of your posts Bfniii, that your core excuse is that for whatever evidence contradicts your claim, you say 'it could be wrong' and thus your claim somehow is still valid.

I would like to ask, lets say that in a hypothetical situation, a court found DNA, fingerprints and videotapes of someone committing a crime.

Of course there is the astronomical probability that all this is somehow wrong, for instance, some supernatural entity could have fooled us.

So then, is a courts ruling that the criminal is guilty more rational or less rational then say, someone claiming the criminal is innocence without evidence to support this?