Jonah and the whale - It happened!

To Thingschange:What you are referring to is Biblical exegesis.If you go to a search engine and type in Biblical exegesis you will find you answer regarding literal versus non-literal. An example of non-literal is the Bible talking about the trees clapping their hands.To Brian:I can see I need to pin you down further. If you find this string boring then why do you continue to post to it? You do not have to reply to this question. I will take your silence as being evidence of your continued boredom.To others:I do not know how remote the possibility of natural explanations may be. So far nobody has responded to the questions I raised regarding the natural aspects. It seems as if some of the skeptics want to automatically say naturalistic explanations are remote without addressing the questions I raised.Secondly, it seems by ignoring my questions I raised regarding the naturalistic explanations some skeptics want to prematurally slam the door regarding further research. It seems to me that many skeptics use speculative science as an excuse to ignore the Bible but at the same time wish to slam the door on future naturalistic research regarding the Jonah issue. I have suspended judgement as far as the naturalistic/supernatural aspects until I get more clarification from the original creator of the essay or I may seek other sources if he/she has other priorities.Thirdly, you seem to say that I start of with a conclusion and then find evidence for it. Well, that assertion is a double edged sword. I could say the same about the gentleman who said this about me. Since I am guessing none of us are mind readers we should stick to the facts.Fourthly, there is the historical information I provided which gives support to the Jonah account.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-20-2004]

To the string participants:Please stay on topic. I have no wish to debate whether there is or isn't evidence of flood geology, young earth creationism or the evolutionary ideas and everything and the kitchen sink. I know that skeptics often have a habit of trying to expand a debate especially when they are losing a particular debate but let us please stay on topic.If you feel you have a compelling case for there being no evidence of a flood or old earth macroevolutionary ideas or marxism or UFO's or for Big foot or a whole host of other issues then open a string on those topics. I have no desire to debate anything and everything under the sun. I think some of those ideas that are outside of this strings topic have no merit and I simply believe there are tons of forums that are discussing them.Yes, I am a creationist but I have no desire to endlessly debate skeptics who have a serious problem of staying on topic.Sincerely,the author of this string, Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-11-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-11-2004]

Dear NosyNed:Thank you for agreeing with me that the string has gone off topic and should anyone want to discuss other topics they can open another string.Sincerely,Ken

To readers:I was at a eating establishment today and overhead a game of trivail pursit being played. Now according to the game "Trivial pursuit" a huge percentage of animals have gone extinct. Why is this important to the JOnah debate? Here is something I just read at another site:"Nothing in the biblical account demands that the creature be a whale. It could be an extinct marine reptile or any one of the thousands of species of marine life that has gone extinct in the last few thousand years. It may have even been a fish..You may think to yourself: "but fish don't get that big". If you believe that, you should visit more museums. - I recall staring in amazement at the Ann Arbor Museum of Natural History as I stood next to a fossil skull of a fish named dunkleosteus.Dunkleosteus This skull was about three and a half feet tall. Its body length would be incredible. This huge fish would be a fright to anyone who saw it. It's mouth hung open and it was more than big enough to swallow me....I am not saying that this was for sure the fish that swallowed Jonah. I am merely saying that fish like this did exist."taken from: Jonah whale fish bible book of Jonah Scientifically Plausible? can a man fit in a whales stomach giant fish great fishSincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-11-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-11-2004]

To Nosyned:I studied the topic of geology at my university. I also read some geology material subsequent to my graduation from my university.In addition, I did well in science in school at physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy and other science topics. Those topics have always interested me. Geology is less interesting to me. I have no interest in joining the flood geology string.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-12-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-12-2004]

Dear Readers:I thought the most interesting part of the jonah essay written by the author I cited was this part of the essay:"Pinney (1964) quoted the Director of a Museum of Natural history:"Many people asked me if the Bible story of Jonah is true. Could a man be swallowed by a whale? So I pushed my body partly down the throat of a dead sixty foot sperm whale. I could just squeeze through. A fat man couldn’t have made it." "I thought this was the most interesting because most people are under the impression that a sperm whales gullet is impossible to fit a man through and I believe this is a modern myth with no basis in fact.I thought the rest of the article raised some interesting questions. I also do not rule out the supernatural in this account since the account clearly has two cases of God intervening in the Jonah account. I also do not rule out some naturalistic explanations as well. So far nobody has attempted to discuss the questions I raised regarding the naturalistic explantions. I am not disapppointed about this but it is regrettable.When I posted this information I did not expect professed atheists to do cartwheels and become Christians. I did expect some Christians to find some details interesting and so far I have had Christians favorably respond to the essay.I chose the title, "Jonah and the whale. It happened! Believe it" as a title for Christians to identify the essay as a Pro-Bible essay via the search engines. It worked.To the atheists I say what Ripley said to his readers. As you may recall the publication that Ripley published was called: Ripley's Believe or not. If you choose to not believe the Jonah account that is regrettable but that is your choice. I did not expect this piece to cause a revival on EVC Forum, however among the professed atheists.Lastly, I would continue to ask for the post to remain on topic.

Dear Readers:I did some additional research. The beginning of the string has been revised.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-16-2004]

To Everyone and Thingschange:I believe in a very recent posting I explained why I gave the piece the title I did (see post 66 regarding the title: "Jonah and the whale: It happened." Professed atheist have no absolute proof it did not happen. Christians who believe in the accuracy of the Bible have no absolute proof it did happen. I did offer some inductive proof that it did happen and raised some questions in the scientific realm that nobody seems to want to discuss. It seems until they discuss the questions I raised they have not earned the right to say that the Jonah account is improbable.I have nothing further to say I believe until further research is done. I plan on doing further research.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-12-2004]

To Everyone:I revamped my essay after doing more research. Above you will see the additional research I did.To ConsequentAtheist:Your complaint would be far more convincing if half of my new links were working when I posted. Due to technical difficulties they were not. Now 100% are working. Not even a complaint of broken links![This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-12-2004]

I did some more science and historical research. The information is now revised at the very beginning of the string.Sincerely,Ken DeMyer[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-16-2004]

To ConsequentAtheist:Again, when I wrote this piece I did not expect professed atheists to do cartwheels and declare themselves Christians after reading my research into this matter. In short, I am pawning off nothing.The information I have given including the expanded historical information speaks for itself. If you reject it, I am doing no arm twisting. Especially, when you are asking such a broad question. I do not even believe you read the material carefully or you would have complained about the broken links in a prior post.In summary, I have no desire to wrangle with you.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-16-2004]

To ConsequentialAtheist:The whole first post to the string is material to base inductive reasoning with.I still have no desire to argue with a contentious person. It still seems as if you are not looking at the material because I removed one last dead link a minute ago. In short, I am not going to argue with someone who is not carefully reviewing the material.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-16-2004]

To: BrianYou assert I need to do some (or additional) theological research but you do not say why. It is a time honored tradition in debate that he who asserts must prove. You never did that. Secondly, you wanted to interject the Jonah debate in my hare/cud piece despite the fact that I clearly indicated from the beginning of that post string that I wished to stay on topic. I find such behavior rude. I also ask that in the Jonah string the discussion does not stray so please do not make the same error twice. Thirdly, I see more inconsistency on your part. You say you are boored by this string yet you continue to post to it. Either it bores you or it does not. Please make up your mind.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-17-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-18-2004]

To Brian:Perhaps I should have been more clear. You seemed to indicate my theology was poor in regards to the Book of Jonah and I needed to do ADDITIONAL research. Again he who asserts must prove. Of course, an understanding of theology is helpful in gaining a fuller understanding of the Book of Jonah (Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com defines theology as: "The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions'). As a result, I see that as a strawman.I never said that you are not responsible for not overlooking the debate as a moderator. I realize you are responsible and do not deny that in any way. I see that as another strawman. I did say why do you keep posting to the string (in a non moderator capacity!) if you find it so boring. I see this as inconsistency. Again, please make up your mind. Either it is boring or it is not. But to keep posting to it in a non moderator capacity while decrying it as boring is inconsistent. For some reason, you do not want to come to terms with your inconsistency. In your most recent post you now say there is something interesting in this post string BUT YOU NEVER SAY WHAT IT IS! I find this humorous to say the least. Again, please do not feel an obligation to respond to this post. I will take it as a sign of true boredom with the string and not merely faux boredom. If you do decide to post to the string again in a non moderator capacity please show proper courtesy and stay on topic. I know this is a reasonable request.I also categorically deny your assertion that I am somehow ignoring your questions. I distinctly remember answering some of your questions that you had in the beginning of the post string. You seem to have conveniently forgotten that.Lastly, if ConsequentialAtheist has a problem with my essay he should be more specific. Asking me to regurgitate the whole essay because he asserts there is no real evidence is unreasonable and a pointless request. I also see his lack of complaining of bad links when there were bad links as evidence that he may have never even read it! I did answer the reasonable questions of Yaro in my hare/cud piece.I would also argue that if you have a problem with the historical and science evidence I offer then please address it. You seem to want to dodge that evidence rather than address it. I would say the same in regards to the theology.TO Phatboy:The point of my essay was to offer science,historical, and Scriptural (Biblical exegesis) evidence to support the Book of Jonah account and let the readers form their own conclusions.The skeptics have whined about my essay but have not made a scratch or dent in it. The skeptics seem to prefer to whine about it for 6 pages of post entries. They seem to have forgotten the purpose of debate is to discover and refine the participants and publics knowledge regarding a topic. I think the skeptics time would be better spent doing additional research on the matter or spending their efforts on other topics/matters.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-18-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-18-2004]

TO Consequentatheist:Since you love bravery so much then I suggest you tell me what specifically you find wrong in the material I present in my very post to the string. I do not think you love bravery as much as you assert you do. So what specific thing do I say in my very first post to the string that you find objectionable and please fully support why you find it objectionable.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-18-2004][This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-18-2004]