Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 03-04-2004, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Unless you can prove that it's implausible that Paul's ship would have taken 14 days to get to Malta fighting against a storm, you've got nothing.

If around 14 days is the normal time, shouldn't we expect it to take longer given opposition by storms, winds, and wrecking?

Layman · 03-04-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
If around 14 days is the normal time, shouldn't we expect it to take longer given opposition by storms, winds, and wrecking?

You guys are not reading my posts.

If the storm and winds were driving them away from Malta, perhaps. Though sailing is hardly a mode of transportation that produces specific trip planning. The winds change, the crews have different abilities, captians make different decisions, the ships are different or carry different cargo, and probably many other factors that reading Horatio Hornblower novels has not informed me of. And we are comparing this trip to a sample size, apparently, of two.

But we do not even have to recognize the above once we accept that Paul's ship was not headed for Malta. The ship was driven to Malta by the wind and storms. It only reluctantly gave way to the storms and the wind.

Kingdomovehearts · 03-04-2004, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
We had a long thread on this a while back if only the search engine were working. . . .

Anyhow, Paul's journey may well have come from an accurate description of such a journey - taken by someone else.

But there are no poisonous snakes on Malta.

And there is this astute comment on the Paasgard site from Ken Olson on Crosstalk (responding to Nomad's reference to that site): here :

So all in all, key parts of this tale of adventure on the high seas do not check out.

Sorry but this refute isn't going to pass here: I don't even think this guy read the whole passage of Acts 27.

Concluding Quote from your site:
"Paul's voyage of 476.6 miles over 14 days at 1.42 mph
is quite comparable. Perhaps the most miraculous thing about the story in
Acts 27-28 is that, despite storm and shipwreck, the ship Paul is sailing on
still makes it to what was presumably its intended destination in about the
usual time it would take to get there."
I know your alot smarter than to try to pass this off as a refute. Ive just read it twice - it doesn't come even close to refuting 1% of my claims. Wheres the anchor ?

In breif - this sorry excuse for a refute says: with a shipwreck it took Paul the same time it would take normal vessels to arrive there. This holds no grounds as Malta was not their intended target in the first place. They were headed far north of Malta and landed there by total accident. Its completely possible to drift there within 14 days with gale force winds at below 2 mph.

Toto · 03-04-2004, 04:19 PM

Kingdom - You didn't exactly post anything that needed to be refuted. Are you trying to claim that an anchor proves something?

Kingdomovehearts · 03-04-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Kingdom - You didn't exactly post anything that needed to be refuted. Are you trying to claim that an anchor proves something?

Okay, you guys totally missed my point.. Paul dropped four anchors and they found the anchors directly where Luke had give specifications of where Paul dropped the anchors in Acts 27. Since I thought your post was a refute, I commented on it...

(Read Acts 27:38-39 for the map thing)

Kosh · 03-04-2004, 04:27 PM

I wonder why that site doesn't show any pictures of the anchors? Even Ron Wyatt had pictures of his artifacts to show. Do you have any links to pictures of the anchors?

Kingdomovehearts · 03-04-2004, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh
I wonder why that site doesn't show any pictures of the anchors? Even Ron Wyatt had pictures of his artifacts to show. Do you have any links to pictures of the anchors?

http://www.visitmalta.com/en/what_to...-dvs_0020.html

I will show you more once I get them.

Kosh · 03-04-2004, 04:41 PM

Let's take a look at exactly what the BASE site claims, in context

Quote:

Once on-site in Malta, our multiplied hours of research really began to pay off. Through an amazing series of "coincidences" on Malta, we located, interviewed, and went diving on-site with a local spear fisherman who several years ago stumbled across four lead anchor stocks in the precise location, and at the precise depth, our research had already predicted. Even more amazing, because he had no idea what he had found, the diver passed along one of the anchor stocks to a friend of the family - who now kept it on display in her local villa!

Having confirmed Luke's precise details of the anchors' location - a "bay with a beach" (v. 39), a place where "two seas meet" (v. 41), the depth of "fifteen fathoms" (v. 28) - we then secured permission to examine the anchor stock itself (note: the anchor was not discovered in situ, and not with 3 other anchors). What we found was a classic first-century Roman anchor, as used on Alexandrian ships sailing on official Roman business in Paul's day. Then, with detailed photographs and videotapes in hand, we consulted a scholar from the local university (note: no actual reference to the scholar or his area of expertise is given), who confirmed what we already knew. The evidence we had personally discovered fit every detail of Luke's description of the anchors Paul's ship left in the sea.

Excitedly but deliberately, we took inventory. What had our expedition yielded? We had an impartial eyewitness to the existence of four Roman anchors (note: NO anchors found in the ocean, only heresay) in a location precisely matching the Bible's description. We had instrument readings showing they were left in the sea at the precise depth recorded by Luke. We had a shoreline matching every detail of the eyewitness account in Acts 27, including a bay with a beach, a location where "two seas meet," and a sloping reef between the anchor site and the shore. And - most important of all - we had photos and videotape of a physical, verifiable artifact which, with all reasonable certainty, we could identify as having been specifically mentioned in Scripture!

Emphasis mine, my comments in italics

So despite what you think this page is claiming, what it actually says is that a single anchor was found in a villa, which a fisherman claims was with 3 others. But it was not found in situ, and the other three have not been found. The photographs are not even claimed to be of the anchors in situ. And why couldn't the fisherman take them back to where he found them? How does he know there weren't six (or more) anchors there, and he only saw 4? And this "scholar" is unnamed!

This is starting to sound like the ossuary!

Kosh · 03-04-2004, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kingdomovehearts
http://www.visitmalta.com/en/what_to...-dvs_0020.html

I will show you more once I get them.

That anchor in the picture looks a LOT like a tourist diver!

Kingdomovehearts · 03-04-2004, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh
That anchor in the picture looks a LOT like a tourist diver!

He was looking at the anchor...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-04-2004, 04:19 PM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Kingdom - You didn't exactly post anything that needed to be refuted. Are you trying to claim that an anchor proves something?

03-04-2004, 04:27 PM	#16
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	I wonder why that site doesn't show any pictures of the anchors? Even Ron Wyatt had pictures of his artifacts to show. Do you have any links to pictures of the anchors?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.