Doctor X

I will recognize this as the concession it is:

I never considered the Society of Biblical Literature a "fringe group;" thought perhaps all things are relative.

Furthermore, we have had no rebuttal to the scientific discussion, the discussion of myth . . . indeed there is less here than with the previous attempts of the individual to make the mauling of children by bears a minor incident. Unfortunately, Roy Horn's enounter with a tiger rather lays to rest that madness unless, of course, the individual wishes to delude himself that a mauling by a bear is far less catastrophic than that by a tiger.

--J.D.

Cross Examiner

Not familiar with sarcasm, eh? In your own mind, you may recognize whatever you wish.

I infer you are a member of some sort. When you exegete, do you speak on behalf of the Society of Biblical Literature? Would there be dissenting voices from yours within the Society of Biblical Literature? Do your views reflect the consensus opinion of Society of Biblical Literature? Thanks.

'Rebuttal to the scientific discussion?' Hm. Maybe you haven't been reading my posts.

The bear thing. You can go 10 rounds with Glen Miller over this then. Best of luck. Let us know how things turn out.

Regards,
BGic

Kosh

Cross Examiner

Your fellow non-theist, ‘rainbow walking,’ asked me to 'set up a debate’ between himself and Alvin Plantinga. 'Rainbow walking' vs. Alvin Plantinga at the Mandalay Bay ... this Saturday, Saturday, Saturday! Too funny. Good guy all-around but he was serious about this, that's the kicker for me. Hm. We've got the main event, all we need now is an under card bout. How about a tag-team match? 'Kosh and Doctor X' versus Gleason Archer and John Warwick Montgomery in the Exegetedome Cage Match of Death! You guys are indefatigable in your self-estimation, all of which reminds me of Doherty – endless amusement for all.

Regards,
BGic

Kosh

IIRC, the topic of this post is how to reconcile the written histories of cultures which existed both before and after the alleged Flood.
Do you plan on actually rebutting any of those claims, or will you just continue practicing Argumentum ad Akido?

Hugo Holbling

I seem to recall already having asked for the bickering to stop, so this will be the last time i ask again.

Cross Examiner

Asked and answered, my good man, asked and answered.

Regards,
BGic

Kosh

Are you saying that you think you've rebutted it already? Where? All I've seen is a few links doing some rather poor justification for Flood evidence. That's not what we're talking about here. The question is how can the Flood, according to the calculated date available from OT information, have occurred right smack in the middle of Egyptian (and others) written history, without them noticing?

Do you agree that this has happened? If not, please explain why you think we are wrong.

Cross Examiner

I'll be explicit. Please see this. And, along those lines, I'll also not use my time to explain why Jesus does not advocate the dishonor of one's parents and family members (e.g. Luke 14:26). Gotta love that skeptic's annotated Bible website ...

Regards,
BGic

Sandslice

"Many are familiar with Talk.Origins, counted among the top pro-evolution sites on the Internet. Most of the people running it are ostensibly atheistic. Many had a Christian upbringing and are using evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their apostasy. But they realise that rank atheism is repugnant to many, so they publish articles claiming that you can believe in God and evolution. It’s quite a sight to see people, known personally to us as rabidly hostile to Christianity, yet who are eager to assure inquirers that many Christians accept evolution. It reminds me of Lenin’s strategy of cultivating useful idiots in the West, who were too gullible to realise that they were undermining their own foundations."

First paragraph... four ad-hominems and a poisoning the well.

I should point something else out about Genesis i.9; look at a globe. All the oceans are connected, as though they are a single superbody of water; yet the land is not similarly connected. Therefore it does NOT follow that there was an antediluvian Pangaea.

I did attempt to read the rest of this, particularly the total of at least twenty ad-hominems in this fairly short work. In addition, the flood hypothesis does not explain why we only find the fossils of arctic-adapted critters in arctic climes. That is, the great elks, mammoths, woolly rhinos, and other similar creatures. This includes not only critter fossils themselves, but also teeth and antler shavings peculiar to these extinct animals.

And, somewhat related since Sarfati did reference the Chinese claim, this was written to a Chinese fellow who gave a refutation to this argument (the one that says that Biblical accounts are found within the Chinese script)

Like Christianity?

The Bible has been described as a sword. (Eph. vi.17; Rev i.16) I rest my case on that one.