Toto

Moderator note:

1. It is against the rules to discuss moderation issues in the thread in question.

2. "Bogus" is not a forbidden word when applied to a theory. It means counterfeit, but also useless, unworkable, incorrect. It is not by itself inflammatory.

Amedeo

If you read my # 135 above, and other posts, you will realize that this is the logic in question:

The Table of the Nations was composed [regardless of the writing down] AFTER all those nations were established (at least initiated).

Now, we are not too sure of the identity of all of those nations, but certainly we can identify some of them from OUR knowledge of history [historical researches and archeology]].

Since we know that some of the listed Nations were actually founded around 1700 B.C., the account of the Nations could not have been composed BEFORE the real founding of listed nations./No conjectures. I have to refine my calculations through more investigations of the real beginnings of the listed nations. (It may turn out that the Table is actually from after the Santorini explosion.)

Steven Avery

The first definitions are often fraudulent, counterfeit, spurious.

Clearly a very charged word.

So my request stands.
Either attempt to support the accusation, modify it, or retract it.

Integrity first.

Shalom,
Steven

RED DAVE

Derail. If you want to start a thread on your assertions about the Exodus and Saudi Arabia, do so. If you don't want to answer the questions below, or you can't, why not just say so?

In any event:

Waiting.

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

So please do the following.

1) Give the specific Bible references that you believe could not refer to people or nations or tribes or events before 1700 B.C. The exact names.

2) Give the evidence that these tribes or nations had no existence before that time.

1) and 2) are necessary to demonstrate your terminus post quem of c. 1700 bc for the writing of the scripture.

3) Explain the exact linkage about the third generation reference and what we know today of 1700 BC. Precisely.

Then I can try to understand your thinking here. The gaps are too great to even deal with until you spell out some hard info.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

No Dave. You made the accusation, on this thread that my contentions or references or something on Arabia and Exodus were bogus, meaning fraudulent, counterfeit, spurious, sham.

You have a responsibility on this thread where you made the accusation to either :

a) attempt to support the accusation.
Very precisely - what exact words were "bogus" and why.

b) modify your words removing the integrity component. You could simply say I discussed issues where you contend my position was wrong.

c) retract the accusation (which overlaps with b)

Do one of these.

Once you do your part the issue is over here (especially if you simply take b or c) so your accusations of "derail" are only a transparent method to dodge the integrity question.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hex it is very tacky to claim a position for me that is 100% false. On the thread I very earnestly gave a strong variety of historical and scholarly references about the Exodus and Arabia and you now have the chutzpah to claim that I think it is "junk science" ? To falsely put words in my mouth is the absolute worst type of posting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex .. using what amounts to junk science to posit that the Mt. Sinai of the Exodus is in Saudi Arabia. You refered to non-archaeologists as archaeological experts,

Please stop fabricating words I have not spoken. Error begets error. False accusation begets more false accusations.

If you claim I said something give the quote.
Precisely who did I refer to as an "archaeological expert" ?
Josephus ? Hershel Shanks ? Frank Moore Cross ? Lennart Müller ? Paul ?

In fact Shanks and Cross have indicated the significance of the Arabia-Sinai theory that RD calls "bogus". However you may make up your own set of "experts" .. for convenience.

The super-irony here is that I pointed out very carefully that your supposed "archaeological experts" in the field have done nothing in Arabia vis a vis looking for the Exodus evidence. (Not necessarily their own fault, political considerations abound.) This archaeological omission was even acknowledged, albeit with difficulty, by the posters, and my assertion of lack of looking by your acclaimed experts was never contradicted.

Making the OP mute from the get-go. How can you find evidence if you look in the wrong place? This was one major point of my posts (remember that was the theme of the thread, archaeological evidence). And now you fabricate words and twist simply to try to support Red Daves false accusation of "bogus". Two more pea-pods.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Gracchus

Praxeus: You keep demanding answers but you won't answer two simple questions.

:wave:

Steven Avery

Hi Gracchus,

Not "demanding answers". Simply requiring accountability on integrity accusations and then the follow-up additional totally false statement about what I had said. A very low form of posting.

(In fact the thread on the Exodus was quite amazing for how completely refuted was the OP .. once it was agreed that the archaeologists hadn't even looked in Arabia it was obvious that the claims of the thread itself were the only thing that could conceivably be called a sham ...
"No evidence ! No evidence !
.. .oh, oops .. but we have nobody who ever looked in Arabia." )

The way these skeptics support each other to avoid simple accountability is rather fascinating.

Why not simply address the RedDave bogus-counterfeit-fraud accusation.
And the Hex claims that I said and thought things that I never remotely said or thought.

Integrity first.

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
Probably away in a few for the shabbat and most of the weekend. So take you time and hopefully upon return this will have been addressed properly.

RAFH

Hey, Praexus, I just popped back into this thread after weeks away, and guess what, the standing unanswered questions then are still unanswered.

Answer Dave's questions. Or admit you won't or can't. This precedes any issues you have otherwise. So just answer them.

I'll check back in another couple of weeks, but I doubt if these questions will have been answered by then, then again, maybe you will prove me wrong by stepping up and answering the questions or admitting you won't or can't.

You have to realize the longer this goes on the sillier and more disingenuous you look.