bfniii

those myths aren't the subject of the forum and there's no reason to get sidetracked into discussing them.

i agree that myths usually have some elements that can be corroborated and i'm sure that some people believe wholeheartedly that they are true. i think two main ways that christianity differs from myths is the spiritual aspect we have already discussed and the fact that there are multiple documents that claim to be written by or dictated from eyewitnesses.



no, it doesn't. if you could prove that, you would provide some sort of list that can be verified. you can't provide such a list.



i don't think so, but nice try. you can't even verify your own claim first. btw, i have mentioned before that there are academicians from multiple disciplines who are christians. additionally, there are plenty of people in the world who are familiar with history, having read books or whatnot, who are unconvinced by objections to christianity.



and many people disagree with your statement.



christianity has not ever been disproved by anyone. by contrast, a concept such as gravity is something that has been observed to be true by many people for many years. that's something that would be considered a proof, or the closest we can come to it. therefore, your ridiculous statement is profoundly erroneous and is typical of you unnecessarily elongating threads.



what in the world are you talking about? how do you get this mess from my reply?



who made you the judge of ignorance or delusion?



you keep telling yourself that.



did you not read my post? in it, i stated that i probably didn't see anything new or unique, meaning the issue is just as i stated; inconclusive.



the nkj believer's study bible notes says "the flood cannot be precisely dated". the notes are composed by at least 40 biblical scholars only 4 of which were not at the doctoral level at the time of the composition. i am positive that those 40 scholars are more familiar with the biblical geneaologies than the combined knowledge of them possessed by you and your claque. furthermore, it stands to reason that the idea would not have made it into the notes if it were not agreed upon by many other biblical scholars.



you can continue to live in a fishbowl if you desire. in the meantime, there are plausible theories as to the dating of the flood that exist out there, should you ever want to come out of your fishbowl existence. since you obstinately defy learning about them or the fact that it is presumptuous to attempt to date the flood, your "triumph" is empty. congratulations.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
You own failure to address my challenge is noted.
When have I ever denied that there are academics who happen to be Christians? There are plenty. But that doesn't mean that they claim to have been converted by the historical evidence, nor does it mean that they are inerrantist Christians.
The claim is, nevertheless, entirely false.

If Christianity could be corroborated, it would be the scholarly consensus. But it can't, and honest Christian scholars don't try to pretend otherwise.
Nope, my statement is entirely accurate. But I note that you again "forgot" to distinguish between mainstream Christianity and fringe crackpottery.

Have you noticed that the many Christians on this forum haven't exactly been flocking to your aid? You do not speak for them.
You've gotten lost again?

We were discussing your bogus claim that Christianity differed from other myths in this respect. Your attempted obfuscation failed.
...Except that they are all mistaken. Which makes me wonder if you are misrepresenting them. Genuine Bibilical scholars (rather than fundies with degrees from unaccredited "Bible schools"} would be well aware of the fact that there was no Flood, the fact that the myth was borrrowed from pre-Judaic religions, and the fact that IF the story was based on a real event (a local flood), THAT event cannot be historically dated. They would also be aware of the fact that Biblical genealogies are a mess of contradictions. But, if they're genuine scholars, they won't be inerrantists. IF the Bible is assumed to be inerrant (an assumption no competent Biblical scholar would make), THEN the genealogies do indeed allow the Flood to be accurately dated.
Projection, as usual. YOU are the one in the "fishbowl". YOU are the one who was afraid to come out and debate.

Awmte

Jesus, I've actually read all 20 pages.

In the name of humanity, someone please take this thread out back and put it out of its misery...

Amaleq13

I don't know if that deserves an award or an immediate psychiatric evaluation.

Maybe both.

I'm reporting it for mod discussion.

Jack the Bodiless

I would have no objection to a closure. I think I've made my case, many times over.

Toto

This thread is finished. Thanks to all for your participation.