Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 06-09-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

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

If you feel happy... it doesn't matter. You're not thinking. You're not dealing with anything. You are going through the motions as though they are meaningful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

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 cite the people who did the work. But if you're happy...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

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?

Why don't you tell yourself when you dig down to the right level and don't find walls, there's no puzzle at all. There are no walls. But if you're happy in this sorry avoidance...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

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.

Which Habiru do you want first? Can you cite any specific Habiru that interest you that are mentioned in the ancient literature? No, but if you're happy with that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

you are distracting from having to show brittanica is wrong.

You don't cite non-scholarly works and expect the rubbish that they say to be worth anything in a discussion which requires real evidence. The Amarna letters quite clearly show the status of the Habiru as being outside society, of people who have left society to become Habiru. You have already disregarded this a number of times, but if you're happy withthat approach,

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

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.

People like you quote it here. You admit that it isn't scholarly, so drop it. But if you're happy with information whose value you cannot ascertain...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

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.

If you knew one iota about archaeology, you would know the stratigraphy of Jericho shows that there were no walls. But you don't know anything about stratigraphy and you are happy to remain that way. So, if you're happy...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

no, i did not.

So, you want us to ignore the stuff about the Palestinians? Or are you happy thinking one thing but not admitting it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

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

One cites the scholars who have done the work, like the Italians, or the Israelis. It doesn't matter who they are, if they have done the work and submitted it to peer-reviewed scholarly publications, where refutation is available for any errors. This doesn't mean anything to you, but if you're happy to stay that way...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

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....

As you know nothing about archaeology, this theatrical statement should be clear to you is worth just that, nothing. There are a lot of things to be discovered about Jericho, but the Late Bronze lack of walls is not one of them. But if you are happy denying the fact, be my guest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

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

This is meaningless here. You are supposed to be trying to deny that the lack of walls in the Late Bronze stratum of Jericho means that there were no Late Bronze walls, but if you're tired of the denial and you're happy with this empty response...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Even Kenyon who wrote the book on stratigraphy had to fudge over the lack of walls. It's dead. I know you don't understand, but then you would benefit from a little generic reading on archaeological methodology.

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".

If you don't want to try to account for the lack of walls in the stratum and you're happy with that smokescreen...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

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.

If you don't like the term "whacko", why don't you cite from reputable scholars who participate in scholarly pursuit at a scholarly level writing scholarly papers about their scholarly research? If you're happy in your alternative reality...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

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.

Do you see anyone in the scholarly archaeology world -- you know people who are producing scholarly works in peer-reviewed scholarly journals -- who are jumping on your alternate reality Ai? Of course not. But if you're happy with that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

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.

Stratigraphy is very hard to disagree with when the relevant stratum doesn't have walls. So you are in denial about the evidence, but if you're happy in denial,...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

i disagree.

If you took a poll of all the readers of this thread, how many do you think would agree with you? Yup, probably none. But if you're happy...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Your approach has been to refuse to accept the evidence whenever it doesn't suit your religious tendencies.

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".

What is hard for you to understand about stratigraphy? Is it the dating of the stratum? Is it the isolation of the relevant stratum? Is it the fact that if a stratum doesn't contain something as obvious as a complex defensive ring wall, it is tantamount to it not having been there? What exactly is hard for you to see that one can make certain definitive statements in archaeology? The scientific method says that repeated results strengthen the results. Kenyon found the LB layer of Jericho and showed that there were no walls in the sections she made. Nigro and Marchetti have displayed nice clear photographs of the cross-section of the walls of various periods and noted that there were no walls where there should have been walls. Ask an archaeologist what that means.

Myopia here is not looking at the evidence. You have asiduously avoided anything that could be construed as evidence and apparently attempted merely to ignore it with the hope that it might not be so, so it is not so. If you are happy to lie in that sty of contentment and you know it, clap your hands.

spin

spin · 06-09-2006, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

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

bfn3 is still several posts before the numbers issue gets opened up in a big way. I think he'll eventually get there.

xaxxat · 06-09-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

bfn3 is still several posts before the numbers issue gets opened up in a big way. I think he'll eventually get there.

I can hardly wait.

Sven · 06-09-2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

perhaps you could provide some examples of this?

Easy: About 90% of your posts.

ETA: A good example is post #166.

Sven · 06-09-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Which work quite well as long as there should be evidence.

i have addressed this point.

Where?

Quote:

making up? i don't recall doing that.

This is just ridiculous.

Quote:

you must be unfamiliar with the lack of egyptian records from the hyksos period. apparently, the egyptians didn't take too kindly to being ruled by foreigners.

I've no idea how the Hyksos period is relevant to the Exodus, which occured (according to almost all scholars and non-scholar Christians) several hundred years earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

If it describes events which should leave evidence and no such evidence can be found, this is a contradiction.

Quote:

no, that is incorrect.

Why?

Quote:

what you are describing:
1. doesn't address the fallacy that there should be some type of evidence

Please explain why it's a fallacy.

Quote:

2. doesn't address when the hebrews were supposed to be in egypt

Ask scholars and non-scholar Christians. They point to the time of Ramesses II. *shrug*

Quote:

3. doesn't address the varying interpretations of the numbers of hebrews

How can there be varying interpretations? Don't you believe your own bible?

bfniii · 06-12-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

No. We mean suggest that they meant something besides what they wrote.

you seem to be denying that the word(s) have not been used with various meanings. if so, that would be a major development in the understanding of ancient hebrew. do you have some support for this case?

bfniii · 06-12-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

What do you mean "more?" I'm not aware of any hard evidence that supports the Exodus.

i guess you haven't read much of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

In all of the study I have done on this subject, I have yet to see an apologetic defense of the plagues or the exodus that does not rely precisely what you have been doing this whole thread, i.e. raising possible explanations for why the historical record does not match the biblical one.

what information do you know of that outright contradicts the biblical record?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Sure, they're possibilities, and I admitted that some time back. But regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not, many of the events described in the biblical account would have left some evidence,

i've discussed that issue in detail in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

and the likelyhood of ALL of it disappearing is pretty remote. Not impossible, but why is it not justified to doubt something happened when there is no evidence that it did?

there is evidence that corresponds to the biblical accounts.

bfniii · 06-12-2006, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

And I have asked already: show me one that is consistent with *all* the numbers in the Bible and a reasonable scenario of desert survival (including things like access to water).

why not just read back through the thread? it would answer your own question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Oh, but the numbers need to be big enough to necessitate a conquest, considering that the land was settled rather sparsely in the LB.

if the land had been settled sparsely, big numbers wouldn't be as important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

It took Egyptian soldiers a few days to cross. Heck, their own ancestors crossed it fast enough to get grain in a time of famine. Consider that by what was supposed to be the second year of the famine they had been back and forth twice and returned with their families.

what is your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

If the camp site is 4 square miles it means anyone at the center would have a long trek each time s/he needed to defecate. Or gather firewood.

i understand. is that impossible?

furthermore, you are assuming the camp was set up in such a way that it would be difficult, like in a square or a circle as opposed to a rectangle or a crescent which obviously would have been easier. i think they knew about rectangles and crescents back then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Look, you have one generation leaving Egypt. By divine decree they all die in the desert, and the next generation enters Canaan, and their numbers are roughly the same. That means if X people left, ~X people had to die and ~X had to be born, within the specified time span. And all the required life cycle ceremonies were supposed to have been performed.

what is your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

(And since almost all the deaths would have occured in Kadesh Barnea we would expect to find their cemetary by now, in addition to the waste trenches and middens.)

i have addressed this with spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

How many altars was Moses instructed to build? How many sacred tools?

iirc, two; one for burning incense and one for burnt offerings. one set of sacred tools for the burnt offerings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

You mean they were so disobedient that they found a better and safer way than the one God commanded them, thus overcoming a problem that would have ensued had they followed God's commandment?

i didn't say better or safer (it was suggested that they might go in the camp area). i meant different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

And where are the remains?

i don't know. where is the holy grail?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

How would such wagons have crossed desert terrain anyway?

wheels?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

What did they do with them when they entered Canaan?

had a bonfire? whittled some knick-knacks?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

The same number of people entered Canaan as had left Egypt. Yes, lots of people died, but they were supposedly replaced.

ok. what is your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

How did they access the wells?

they walked up to them i guess

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

How many at one time?

how big are the wells?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

How much water can be drawn in a day?

as much as people wish, i guess. how many people needed that water at that time? how big were their buckets?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

You don't even notice how ridiculous the scenarios you offer are.

respectfully, these questions seem to have elementary answers.

bfniii · 06-12-2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

ok, bfniii, please explain exactly how you understand the figures in the pentateuch which add up the number of able-bodied men over 20 years of age from to various tribes to be over 600,000.

i have already stated that there are multiple interpretations. as of now, it is not possible to irrefutably ascertain the original intent of the author. why is that such a problem for you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Are we not to read the passages literally? (If not, how exactly should they be read?)

you can read it however you like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Why do you have problems with a literal reading of the bible?

i don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Why can you never have the strength of character to give a clear precise response? spin

one of these days you might realize that it is presumptuous to make a statement seem certain when there are multiple ways to interpret the event. why can you never have the strength of character to avoid presumption?

RED DAVE · 06-12-2006, 11:50 AM

From Anat:

Quote:

And where are the remains?

From bfniii:

Quote:

i don't know. where is the holy grail?

That is a fundamentally dishonest answser. The holy grail never existed. The remains, according to your belief system, must exist. The lack of their existence can't be wished away with a wise crack.

RED DAVE

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.