Sheshonq

you seem to ignore the facts that:

1. the Israelites would do the same thing - so in order to support your claim of accuracy, you'd need some third method or piece of evidence to back that up - typically, you've utterly failed to provide any third piece of evidence;

2. you claimed that the stone validated the excerpt from 2 Kings. Clearly it does not validate it at all; it CONTRADICTS it.

Which is irrelevant, since

(a) they disagree on the major critical details and

(b) it doesn't get you any closer to providing independent proof of a covenant - remember? That pesky thing you *claimed* to have, but still haven't produced yet?

ROFLMAO!
:rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:

What an incredibly stupid comment - and your attempt to change the subject won't work.

I haven't indicated which one is more accurate. I'm merely challenging your hasty and typically ignorant claim that the Mesha stele corroborated the bible. As I've shown, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about - it doesn't corrobate 2Kings; it CONTRADICTS it.

1. The citation above isn't my "rant". It's Wikipedia.
2. Farrell Till does not support your claim either - he clearly says that the truth of events may never be known.

blastula

Yeah, plus the Bible version has to be the true account because it's inerrant, and the Moabite Stone isn't.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Even if you conveniently refuse to reply to this post that I have posted before, it will not do you any good since I will still continue to repost it so that I can show new readers how evasive you are, and how your debate tactics are unfair.

But I have been discussing your favorities arguments all along, and you usually refuse to discuss my favorite arguments. Whenever I adequately refute your arguments, which I have done in a number of threads at four forums, you always refuse to discuss them anymore. As I said in my post
#1052, "Here is the way that things are going to be: If you refuse to directly reply to all of the arguments in this post, I will ignore whatever you say and repost this post until you directly reply to all of the arguments in this post. I will not allow you to be a bully. The undecided crowd are not impressed with your evasiveness, and for the most part, they are the only crowd who both sides have a chance to influence. It will be quite interesting to see how you will deal with being treated the same way that you treat skeptics."

This will be my standard reply from now on unless you directly reply to my arguments. If all other skeptics adopted my new policy, which I suggest that they do, you would have to directly reply to skeptics' arguments if you wanted skeptics to reply to your arguments. Your approach to debating is not fair.[/quote]

Johnny Skeptic

Here is proof that arnoldo contradicted himself at the GRD Forum:

That contradicts the following argument that arnoldo used in another thread:

arnoldo

I think we have to look at both sides of the issue objectively. There is a plethora of archaelogical evidence which gives evidence of events which occured in ancient Israel. Many of these Israeli prophets also warned the jews that they would be dispersed into all the nations only to return at an appointed time. The State of Israel is a great sign to all nations.

"House of David" inscribed on a victory stele Tel Dan, Israel Israelite period, 9th century BCE

blastula

And it's not like the Moabite Stone account was written on stone....

Sheshonq

BWAHAHAHAHAAA!

The poster who wants to claim divine inspiration for his beliefs has the nerve to invoke the word "objective"!

ROFLMAO

You've shown no ability to be objective - especially since you claimed evidence for some "covenant" that you've been unable to produce.

No there is not.

Yeah and they got that wrong as well. Check out the "seventy years" of exile which wasn't seventy years. And since most of the Jews don't even live in Israel, you can't claim that they have "returned" anyhow.

Not really, since the current state of Israel isn't the same as the old one, and since most Jews don't live there anyhow.

Which proves zero. Congrats!
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Please make a post in my new thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=237996 at the Evolution/Creation Forum. The title is 'Inerrantists, YEC's, and flood advocates are not really interested in science.' That goes for advocates of intelligent design too.

angelo

In other words, one night after to much wine Abrahm had a dream in which he imagined a god talking to him with instructions to do certain things. Like go and live in another locality, the grass is greener there. That this little tribe's legends were recorded, means that among them there must have been a very good literelist, or today we would call him an acomplished author with a great imagination. Just like the posters on this thread who insist that the nation of Israel is proof of ''God's'' existence. No matter how hard you try, you cannot turn fantasy into fact.

arnoldo

Sir, I have already posted for your consideration the tomb of ABRAHAM. Also other archaeological evidence indicates that Israel is a very ancient nation. Keneth Kitchen agrees that archaelogy matches the bible "remarkably well."

Source: Extraordinary insights from archaeology and history by Jeffery L. Sheler

I think the title of his book says it all: Kenneth A. Kitchen On the Reliability of the Old Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk)