Biblical prophesy

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Please quote my position on the Exodus myth.

The fact of the matter is this:

you simply engage in cheap, sophomoric posturing without a clue anent my position on the Exodus.​

So rather than playing imply then deny... how about you just tell us your position on Exodus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So rather than playing imply then deny... how about you just tell us your position on Exodus?

He was just stirring the pot so that he could accuse others of his faults. Nothing more than rather trollish behavior. Rude, slightly against the rules here, but from looking at some of his other posts not worthy of a response once exposed.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

He was just stirring the pot so that he could accuse others of his faults. Nothing more than rather trollish behavior. Rude, slightly against the rules here, but from looking at some of his other posts not worthy of a response once exposed.

I think you are likely correct, but in the event of genuine misunderstanding I like to try to help resolve it if possible. Of course, as often as not the "misunderstanding" is quite contrived, as you suspect in this case.

 

[dianaiad]

Excessively breaking up a post is rude. Try again. There were only two response to your longer screed. Three is the max.

Who made that rule?

 

[74x12]

You should not use phrases that you do not understand.

Ha. Ha.

You should not use phrases that you do not understand.

Do you have to believe the Grecian myths to understand them? Do you need to believe the Norse myths to understand them? I don't think many people would make that error. Why do Christians always think that others have to believe their myths to understand them? They seem to forget that many atheists use to be Christians and became atheists due to a better understanding of the Bible.

If anyone is guilty of circular reasoning here it is you.

This is more circular reasoning. You're assuming you're right. And most atheists have obvious misconceptions and misunderstandings of the scriptures.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I already responded to this when I explained that it was off topic since it does not real with prophecy. But I did some digging for @Armoured and found that he was a failed archaeologist. His dating for the proposed city of Jericho was off by a significant amount:

Bryant G. Wood - Wikipedia

"Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 BC). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with thye Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected.[6]"

Wood had a degree in canaanite pottery. His work corrects bad assumptions by typical liberal archeologist

In reality Jericho does concern a prophecy, given Hiel of Bethlehem and the loss of his children
at the rebuilding of Jerecho in the days of Ahab and was recorded so

 

[whirlingmerc]

So are you now claiming that you were just being a jerk when you posted this:

"Just out of curiosity, what are your three favorite texts on Syro-Palestinian archaeology?"

Not quite as bad as asking for favorite texts on why the Earth is not flat, but in the running.

There is substantial evidence that large numbers of Jews lived in Egpt and propserered at first then enslaved

I particularly like the Brooklyn Papyrus which lists names of slaves with very Jewish names like Issachar Zebulen.... etc... sadly most are women names as the baby boys were likely killed at birth... which supports the Biblical account

I also like the 12 tombs found for the 12 brother, where the largest (Joseph's) is missing the body
appropriate as Joseph's body was sent to Canaan

 

[whirlingmerc]

Nah, you are conflating him with Ron Wyatt. Wyatt was a pretend archaeologist. Bryant Wood is a real archaeologist, but a failed one:
Bryant G. Wood - Wikipedia

The late Ron Wtyat was problematic. Bryant Wood is quite accomplished. If he failed, he failed to go along with bad assumptions

One such would be Kathleen Kenyon's assumption that Jericho should be dated differently because her imported expensive Phoenician pottery was missing (she dug in the poor section of the Jericho) Wood dug in the rich section of Jericho and surprise surprise expensive imported pottery found.

Who failed?

 

[sojourner]

Circular reasoning.

Nope. It’s not. Belief =bias, and bias is counterproductive in exegeting ancient texts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who made that rule?

I did. When people are rude it helps to keep them honest and polite. Breaking up a post excessively is a mild attempt at quote mining. It is not an honest debating technique. It demonstrates that the person cannot properly refute another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha. Ha.

You used the phrase "circular reasoning" improperly.

This is more circular reasoning. You're assuming you're right. And most atheists have obvious misconceptions and misunderstandings of the scriptures.

No, it was an observation. You need to learn the difference. I am not assuming that I am right. I can demonstrate that I am right. You made a rather ignorant claim that one had to believe the nonsense of the Bible to understand the nonsense of the Bible. That would be worse than circular reasoning on your part. I even gave you examples that you could not respond to. This tells me that you know that you were wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wood had a degree in canaanite pottery. His work corrects bad assumptions by typical liberal archeologist

In reality Jericho does concern a prophecy, given Hiel of Bethlehem and the loss of his children
at the rebuilding of Jerecho in the days of Ahab and was recorded so

Nope, his works were shown to be wrong. The simple tool of C14 dating alone proved him wrong about the date of "Jericho".

You made another error here, you assumed that those that opposed him were "liberal" while forgetting that Wood has already proved himself to be a loon.

And no, finding what may be "Jericho" only shows that a city roughly matching the Bible story existed in roughly the correct time. It is extremely weak "evidence" for any prophesy.

 

[sojourner]

Wood had a degree in canaanite pottery. His work corrects bad assumptions by typical liberal archeologist

In reality Jericho does concern a prophecy, given Hiel of Bethlehem and the loss of his children
at the rebuilding of Jerecho in the days of Ahab and was recorded so

“Typical liberal?” There’s a reason why liberality is typical in academic endeavors. Because it helps to keep an open mind and to shy away from bias in research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is substantial evidence that large numbers of Jews lived in Egpt and propserered at first then enslaved

I particularly like the Brooklyn Papyrus which lists names of slaves with very Jewish names like Issachar Zebulen.... etc... sadly most are women names as the baby boys were likely killed at birth... which supports the Biblical account

I also like the 12 tombs found for the 12 brother, where the largest (Joseph's) is missing the body
appropriate as Joseph's body was sent to Canaan

Do you have a valid source that supports this claim? I can tell you that I have never seen such a source. Christian apologist sites are not valid sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The late Ron Wtyat was problematic. Bryant Wood is quite accomplished. If he failed, he failed to go along with bad assumptions

One such would be Kathleen Kenyon's assumption that Jericho should be dated differently because her imported expensive Phoenician pottery was missing (she dug in the poor section of the Jericho) Wood dug in the rich section of Jericho and surprise surprise expensive imported pottery found.

Who failed?

You failed, as usual. Yes, Ron Wyatt was more than a few French fries short of a happy meal. He found modern day brass valve wheels and called them "chariot wheels" and other acts of idiocy.

Wood failed because of his terrible bias and ignorance. His claims were refuted by the reliable test of C14 dating. The objects being dated were well within the limits of the method. Why are the others wrong and Wood "right"?

By the way, you may not have like my claim that Wood was a loon, but that is a demonstrable fact. He is a self admitted Young Earth Creationist. One has to reject all of the sciences to be a YEC. One can do some work in the sciences while being one, but when it comes to defending YEC beliefs they have to throw science away.

 

[74x12]

Nope. It’s not. Belief =bias, and bias is counterproductive in exegeting ancient texts.

Believing the Bible is false and then going off that assumption to disprove it is circular reasoning.

 

[sojourner]

Do you have a valid source that supports this claim? I can tell you that I have never seen such a source. Christian apologist sites are not valid sources.

I’ve never seen such a source, either. The best biblical archaeology to which I was privy in seminary showed that no such evidence exists in the Record. And no, apologist sites aren’t valid.

 

[74x12]

You used the phrase "circular reasoning" improperly.



No, it was an observation. You need to learn the difference. I am not assuming that I am right. I can demonstrate that I am right. You made a rather ignorant claim that one had to believe the nonsense of the Bible to understand the nonsense of the Bible. That would be worse than circular reasoning on your part. I even gave you examples that you could not respond to. This tells me that you know that you were wrong.

You do not have to believe the Bible to understand the Bible. That's in fact not what I claimed. You have to have the Spirit of God helping you in order to understand the Bible. You will not and may not know the things of God without God showing you.

Maybe I missed something. Show me again what example you provided me with.

 

[sojourner]

Believing the Bible is false and then going off that assumption to disprove it is circular reasoning.

The Bible contains verifiable fact and verifiable fiction. “Believing the Bible is ‘false’ is as biased as “believing the Bible is ‘fact,’” believing the Bible and then going off that assumption accomplishes the same type of reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Believing the Bible is false and then going off that assumption to disprove it is circular reasoning.

Now you have changed your claim to "Believing the Bible is false". You base your posts on beliefs, others base their posts on knowledge. Learn the difference.