Steviepinhead

If you don't know enough detail to defend Rohl, then you have no reasonable basis for relying on his revised, contra-to-mainstream dating. If you don't have any reasonable basis for relying on his dates, then you don't have enough time to pack in the mini-Ice Ages, Babel, the re-peopling of the world, and the building of the pyramids in between the Flood and the mainstream chronology of Egypt.

This kicks yet another pier out from under your suspension bridge ("Dave's Leaps'O'Logic) of getting from the high-tech pre-Flood patriarchs to the Great Pyramid...

Along with your utter silence about Philitis--the Egyptian-Palestinan-Israelite sheperd-prince-architect-HiTech wizard, who is your only link from the arcane knowledge allegedly encoded in the GP back to the patriarchal carriers of that knowledge--your inability to deal with the required resource inputs for your plucked-from-the-air population figures, your inability to locate any archaeological support for the existence of Babel (much less the required infrastructure of roads, workers' quarters, quarries, etc., even though all these have been found for the pyramids), your inability to point to a distinct worldwide flood layer, etc., etc., ought to suggest to any sincere, evidence-respecting seeker of knowledge that perhaps your faith in your hypothesis should be--if not outright rejected--at least temporarily suspended until you DO acquire sufficient evidence, detail, and knowledge in the relevant fields...

Why won't I be holding my breath waiting for your announcement that you are going to "suspend" your hypothesis whilst you pursue the details...?

Care to comment, dave?

Dave Hawkins

Simple. My hypothesis is far better supported than the "conventional" hypothesis even without confirmation from Rohl's work. Rohl is just icing on the cake. Johnny, I can't prove the 10 plagues happened. The only way we know that any supernatural events occurred is if we see an effect and we know that there is no naturalistic explanation for it. Such as OOL. There is no natural explanation for the OOL, so it is most logical to conclude that life required an intelligence. Why? Because life resembles hi tech human technology but much higher tech and we know that human technology required intelligence, so biological technology likely required a much higher intelligence ... i.e. something supernatural. As for things like Jesus walking on the water, the 10 plagues, etc. we have no visible effect from which to infer possible causes. All we have is a written report. But we can evaluate the likelihood of the author being reliable and this we do. We can also realize that ... IF ... there is a God, then it is quite logical to assume that He would perform what we view as miracles from time to time in His universe. You see ... IF there is really a God, then what appears to be a miracle to us lowly humans may be no big deal at all to God. I'm quite sure He knows some scientific laws and properties of matter that we do not know about. So it really boils down to this. Do you believe that there is a Creator behind the universe? Or not? If so, then you have no problem with miracles. My purpose on this thread is to help people realize that the Bible is accurate after all. The skeptics were wrong. If the Bible contains inaccuracies and fairy tales, how can it truly be inspired by God? It cannot. So I am working to remove the objection that skeptics incorrectly raise that the Bible is supposedly inaccurate.

Pappy Jack

And why not respond to JS's points regarding the observable consequences of the ten plagues? Again, you confuse proof with evidence. You may also want to consider the arguments I made in my post #212.
Exactly.

Keith&Co.

Well, would any of the plagues leave evidence? Any evidence at all? WHich may or may not have a naturalistic explanation BUT still conforms to the events described in The Books?

What about the deaths of all the cattle in Egypt? What sort of evidence might archeologists find for that? Is there any?
Some of the plagues were might damned flashy and affected a whopping great part of the population of the time. Anyone unearth that story depicted on the side of a tomb?

You opened this thread to say that archeology confirmed Exodus. Mighty big claim, mighty empty confirmation offered.

Well, there ARE naturalistic explanations, you just reject them in favor of ones that make your skybeast necessary.


So, now you claim that archeology CAN'T validate Exodus?

shirley knott

How do you know, dave?
You haven't even read the "conventional" hypothesis or the evidentiary basis for it, have you?
And somehow despite thousands of pages of posts on this and related topics, you've never yet presented any evidence that seriously challenges any conventional scientific hypothesis, nor have you ever presented any evidential support for your absurdly silly little notions.

But no one has seen any effect that can only be explained supernaturally. There is no supernatural, dave. Get over it.
And even more pointedly, NO ONE has seen ANYTHING that requires acceptance of the 10 plagues lie to be understandable or comprhensible.
There is ZERO reason to beleive or even think for a moment that the 10 plagues occurred.


Qute simply absurd dave.
That there is no current fully worked out explanation does not, in any way shape or form imply that there cannot be such an answer.
Meanwhile, there is precisely zero positive evidence for the so-called supernatural, nor is there any reason to think such a notion is coherent or applicable in any case whatever.

Worse than absurd.
Technology is noatural through and through, and serves as no kind of anaogy or evidentiary support for the non-concept "supernatural'.
"Supernatural" is a meaningless term dave, inherently contradictory.
And you hvea been schooled repeatedly on how there is no meaningful similarity between organisms and technological artifacts.
Stop misrepresenting reality.

But dave, we know God is not realible, we know the Bible is not reliable, and we know YOU are not reliable. You at least are real, in some sense of the term, and the Bible exists.
But teh reliablity of the Bible, on any matter whatsoever, is substantially lower than the reliability of the Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings books.
Your claims to logic and what follows logically from what quite clearly show that "logic" is another word you have not the faintest clue about the meaning or applicability of.

no hugs for thugs,
and with total ccontempt for the pseudo-concepts "supernatural" and "god"
Shirley Knott

Stephen T-B

"I am working to remove the objection that skeptics incorrectly raise that the Bible is supposedly inaccurate." (afdave)

As we're all too painfully aware.

This amused me: "I can't prove the 10 plagues happened. The only way we know that any supernatural events occurred is if we see an effect and we know that there is no naturalistic explanation for it." (afdave)
One way we might know a supernatural event occurred is if we had extremely strong evidence (it'd need to be extremely strong to convince us sceptics that it didn't have a natural explanation) that it had.
And a story in a book which talks about day and night being created before the sun and the earth, about all creation happening in six days, and all the animals being made to pop out of the ground fully formed and ready to go (along with a great deal more nonsense) is only evidence of how fertile the human imagination is.

-Jay-

Suppose, just for a moment, that God created the universe, Earth, and people, wanted to give them some guidance, but basically wanted to give them a go at it on their own abilities and intellects. Why not suppose that the book containing His words might be full of metaphor and figurative language and stories intended to convey moral points and a sense of place in the world in a way that people at the time could understand. To declare that one knows the mind of God is near the ultimate in hubris.

You've presented a false dichotomy here. A revealing false dichotomy, but false nevertheless.

regards,

NinJay

Jack the Bodiless

No, it isn't.

You don't know how well the "conventional hypothesis" is supported, and you don't know (and don't want to know) about the contradictory evidence that has disproved your hypothesis.
Correction: Dave Hawkins is personally unware of a natural explanation for the origin of life.
...Whereupon we discover that the Bible is wrong about many things.
No, you're not. The Bible does indeed contain inaccuracies and fairy tales, and you will not address the evidence that this is so.

You avoided numerous threads in E/C regarding the evidence that we should find if there was a global Flood (but which does not actually exist). You won't discuss the sequence of the fossil record. You won't discuss Biblical failed prophecies (or provide even one single example of a verifiably-successful prophecy). You can't explain all the "antediluvian" archaeological evidence that should have been "buried under 2 miles of sediment". Your "accurate history book" requires us to ignore or radically re-date civilizations that go back far beyond even your revised (and un-Biblical) Flood date. And so it goes...

deadman_932

Dat's some wack-a-doo shit, Dave. Congrats.

Lucretius

Having re-read this thread I see that Dave's "archaeological evidence" of the Exodus still seems to consist of :-

"In the past some people lived in Egypt ,there were some slaves who may or may not have been Semitic in origin,some people died and were buried in a mass grave,Exodus was written about in a book "
Not ONE of these actually says anything at all about the Exodus.

Following that line of logic I can now show "archaeological evidence" that King Arthur existed :-
"In the Middle Ages some people lived in England,there were some knights who wore armour,some of them were killed in battle and the Knights of the Round Table were written about in a book"