spamandham

"good" in what sense, historical accuracy? Not generally. Web design? It's pretty juvenile. Apologetic arguments? Sure, they are good in the sense that they allow the sheep to keep blissfully sleeping. They are bad in the sense of being supported by anything of substance.

As an example, take his stupid quiz for skeptics. Most of the answers are obviously intended to be silly to make a point with the "right" answer even provided by a link. Near the end, I guess he either got tired or figured no-one would bother to actually read through all that crap. Look at this question and the provided answers:

In Numbers 31, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females, but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. This means:
A. Moses was a perverted sicko, and so is God, and so are you for believing this stuff.
B. Israel was letting little girls join the army.
C. The Israelites needed someone to cook dinner for them after 40 years of manna.
D. The Israelites were mercifully absorbing these young girls into their population. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html

His answer is "D", based on the link, which provides an elaborate apologetic argument that amounts to "they needed killin'". The right answer, for a group led by God himself and under his protection, is 'A'. There is no possible Biblical justification for such behavior, which is why the link appeals to pragmatic secular arguments instead.

Roger Pearse

(Reiteration snipped)

You must pardon me if I direct you to my previous response. After all, if you didn't read that or understand that -- and plainly you didn't -- then there is hardly anything more for me to say.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I'm always glad to help. It's what I do, in my humble way, if I have the materials to hand.

I wish more people did. I've been trying to get hold of a reproduction of the public domain translation of Herodian, for the usual evil purposes. I wrote to Leeds University Library, who have a copy; they ignored my email. I wrote again, and this time they declined, adding that they had no obligation to supply such. I responded to this 100% tax-funded institution, as politely as possible, by saying "Of course I understand that you have no obligation to the general public." I hope that that was enough to make a, clearly sorely needed, point to them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

John Kesler

I understood you just fine, thank you--your assertion that I "plainly" didn't not withstanding.

If this is what Turkel meant, then aside from being unclear, he is making an assertion not supported by the text. Genesis 28 says nothing about a 430-year period or Egypt, and verse 15's statement that Yahweh would, "bring [Jacob] back to this land" means that Jacob's exile from his family (he was fleeing Esau after tricking him out of Isaac's blessing) would be temporary, and that Jacob would return to Canaan.

And you are quite right about Paul's intentions, Don. Paul is following the LXX of Exodus 12:40, which counts the time Israel was in Canaan as part of the 430 years. The issue of how long the Israelites lived/were enslaved in Egypt is one of the most rock-solid contradictions in the Bible, and apologists can't even agree about how to resolve the issue. As we see in this thread, Larsguy47 opts for the 215-years-in-Canaan solution, which conflicts with Genesis 15's promise of 400 years of enslavement in Egypt. Turkel agrees that the Israelites really were enslaved for 400 years, so he must assert that generations in the Exodus 6:16 ff-genealogy were skipped, and he must interpret Galatians 3:17 as he does since he opts for the MT reading of Exodus 12:40, which says that all 430 years were spent in Egypt. Neither solution is satisfactory, and it is easy, using the Bible, to show that even if it is granted for argument's sake that Israel was in Egypt for 430 years, it could not have been afflicted for 400 of those years.

John Kesler

No one has challenged my assertion or asked for proof, but I thought that it might be helpful to expound on my answer in case anyone needs to counter an apologist's claim that Israel was afflicted 400 of the 430 years it was in Egypt. Since this thread is about Tektonics, I'll quote from that site:

On this page, three times Turkel makes the claim that the Israelites were oppressed for 400 of the 430 years. Richard Packham's words are in regular print, with Turkel's response in bold:

Turkel repeats the 400-years-of-enslavement claim here:

And here:

Some basic math is all that's needed to show that this claim is inaccurate:

Genesis 41:46 states that Joseph was 30 when he came to power: "Joseph was thirty years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh king of Egypt." Genesis 50:26 says that he died at age 110: "And Joseph died, being one hundred ten years old..." Joseph, then, ruled for 80 years (110-30=80). After Joseph rose to power, there were seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine (Genesis 41:29 ff), and the Israelites entered Egypt two years into the years of famine (Genesis 45:6-12), which would be the ninth year after Joseph rose to power. 80 years of Joseph's rule, minus nine years before the Israelites arrived, means that for at least 71 years the Israelites lived in Egypt without being enslaved (see Exodus 1:6 ff). 430 years for the sojourn minus 71 years means that at most, the Israelites were enslaved for 359 years--and this calculation doesn't even attempt to reconcile these figures with the genealogy in Exodus 6:16 ff, which could reduce the number even more.

jjramsey

I'd say that J.P. Holding is a mixed bag. He is very good at attacking bad counter-apologetics, especially with regards to the Jesus-myth stuff, and the references that he cites can be good leads for further research. If there are any real weaknesses in an argument, he will usually expose them. However, he is in no uncertain terms an apologist, and like all apologists is prone to using distortion to make his case. If all he has to offer to a particular counter-apologetic is ridicule and distortion, that's a pretty good sign that it's a good counter-apologetic.

Holding is often useful, but do not trust him.

RAFH

He's referring to old Tyre, you are referring to new Tyre, of course.

spin

That's just more apologetic. Old Tyre was the island. They didn't move there from a land town. They overflowed onto the mainland. You see the Phoenicians built on islands and peninsulas -- not pleasant places like the mainland colony, where people like Nebuchadnezzar could easily destroy --, it was for protection.

The formulator of this stuff ought to find something else and forget this. It's ignorant BS.


spin

BrianJ

Hi,

Even if we ignore all the problems that you pointed out and went with the Israelites being in Egypt for 430 years with 400 as slaves, it still doesnt make any sense at all.

We are told that the reason why the Israelites were enslaved was:

Ex. 1:9 "Look," he said to his people, "the Israelites have become much too numerous for us.

Now only 70 Israelites went in to Egypt and, according to this scenario that would have been 30 years before they were enslaved.

We have a rough idea of the popualtion growth rate at the time:

In the 10,000 years prior to the birth of Christ, during which Neolithic civilisation spread from the Near East and Upper Egypt, the rate increased to 0.4 per 1,000 (which implies a doubling in less than 2,000 years) and population grew from several million to about 0.25 billion. This rate of ncrease, in spite of important cycles of growth and decline, was reinforced during the subsequent 17 and a half centuries. The population tripled to about 0.75 billion on the eve of the industrial revolution (an overall growth rate of 0.6 per 1000). p.32

Livi-Bacci, M. (1992). A concise history of world population. Cambridge, Mass ; Oxford, Blackwell.

If we apply the 0.4 per 1000 to the 70 Israelites, then, with a bit of luck, there would be 71 of them 30 years later.

Pharaoh wouldnt even have noticed them.

Clivedurdle

Like he didn't notice the flood!

Going back to Holdings beliefs, what he thinks about Christ's return is actually quite important! I of course was brought up on an earlier attempt at this - Dake.

Has Holding commented on Dake? What do Praxaeus and Roger think of Dake?

http://www.dake.com/

(The world's best reference bible!)

http://www.dakebible.com/Catalog/Dak...-chart-big.htm

(The Plan of the Ages Chart)