Jonah and the whale - It happened!

If I'm reading the topic correctly, the proposition being debated is: "Jonah and the whale - It happened!" So far you've managed to demonstrate only that, according to some, it 'could' have happened, particularly given that 'whale' didn't necessarily mean whale and 'belly' didn't necessarily mean belly.The obvious question is: So what? The 'possible' forms a near unbounded class of mundane and fantastic. It includes Unicorns, Alien abduction, and the ever-lovable Yeti.So let us accept, for the purpose of debate, that the Jonah story is every bit as theoretically possible as is the proposition that Unicorn poop clears warts. Does this, in any way, serve as affirmative evidence for the proposition: "Jonah and the whale - It happened!"? Not in the least. And yet, somewhat pathetically, it's all you have. Please let us know when you have something of worth.

Rubbish. You've offered nothing but sophistry. What, specifically, are you seeking to pawn off as "inductive proof"?

I made no complaint. I made an observation: one obvious to anyone following this thread, and one which you obviously hope to evade. Again, what, specifically, are you seeking to pawn off as "inductive proof"?

Again, what, specifically, are you seeking to pawn off as "inductive proof"?

Stop embarrassing yourself. Your evasions are getting tiresome. What, specifically, are you seeking to pawn off as "inductive proof"? No, cowardly.

Do you have an inductive proof or don't you?

Speaking of time honored traditions, please supply the "inductive proof" you claim to possess.

I have a problem with intellectual cowards. What is your inductive proof?[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-18-2004]

What is your inductive proof?

Then it should be trivially easy for Kendemeyer or you, his perceptive lawyer, to outline his inductive proof of the historical accuracy of the Jonah narrative. You apparently see proof everywhere. And his inductive proof? And what do you think? Do you see any basis whatsoever to accept such silliness as inductive proof?

Perhaps he left because it did.

Therefore?

Absolute rubbish: you demonstrate that you haven't a clue what "historical and archeological research" is all about. You confirmed? How? Specifically:

• What were these "several reference and website sources"?
• What are your credentials for evaluating such sources?
• What is your reason for concealing them?
• What is Al Maxey?
• What are his credentials in the field of archaeology and history?
• What is Homer Hailey, quoted by Brother Maxey?
• What are his credentials in the field of archaeology and history?
• What is Maxey's evidence for "a religious awakening"?
• What is his basis for saying "This may have been the result of Jonah's preaching"?
• What is your reason for rejecting that 'it may not have been the result of Jonah'?
• What is his basis for saying "Through the preaching of Jonah ... the city was spared at this time."?
• What does any of this prove about "Jonah and the Whale"?

This is very much like presenting a jumble of folklore, quack science, and weather reports on tornadic activity in Kansas, and then pretending that you've proven the historicity of the Munchkins. So what? People back then, much like some fringe fruitloops today, believed all types of absurdities. You are living proof of that capacity (which, by the way, is the only probative evidence you've offered so far).Based on DSS evidence, the Book of Enoch was quite popular. I'm more than willing to stipulate that the two books are equally accurate. What about you?kendemyar, you have, in fact, offered not one piece of probative evidence supporting your position. It is difficult to determine whether you are too arrogant, too deluded, or too young to recognize this, but your effort thus far barely achieves the level of a very, very bad Junior High School paper.Where is the inductive proof of Jonah and the Whale?[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-22-2004]

Reading you has many of the tiresome qualities of seeing a sequel to "Dumb and Dumber". Specifically:

• a copyright says absolutely nothing about the quality of a piece of work,
• there is zero indication that this is an academic paper
• there is certainly no indication that it is a peer reviewed offering in the field of history and/or archaeology
• there is, likewise, no indication that Nate Wilson has any credentials in these fields, or that his speculations have any worth whatsoever
• there is less reason to believe that what you feel about fringe apologetics merit consideration
• finally, there is absolutely nothing in the paper that serves as evidence for "Jonah and the whale"

You are making a fool of yourself.

Yes, you are. What it says, specifically, is: "This project is an assignment for a seminary course in Hebrew Exegesis". Your point? Predictable.