Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO
Hydarnes
Inactive Member


Message 524 of 860 (129213)
08-01-2004 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by Gwyddyon
07-29-2004 1:53 AM


Re: Why has a Ron Wyatt fraud got 400+ posts.
quote:
Who would want to, though?
People interested enough to see for themselves instead of sitting back and assuming presumptuously that Wyatt is a fraud.
quote:
You want archaeologists to get expeditions approved (these things aren't cheap), then go out and spend a few months examining Wyatt's/Moller's finds when A)
Lame and you know it. None of the ones who have seen these discoveries for themselves would spend a fortune to visit sites that they know are fake. Enough evidence has been provided to excite an interest in it.
quote:
Wyatt's associates have a history of witholding vital evidence from the scientific community
You are so full of it. To begin with, you must think that money just falls from the sky to support private and small scale expeditions (you even admitted that it’s expensive for organizations)? Do you have no regard for the difficult and adverse circumstances that such a limited number of researchers must be subjected to for this kind of expedition?
Needless to say, it is vastly easier for reputable organizations to present a satisfactory amount of data for an expedition than for a team of unrecognized archaeologists to supply equally acknowledged information. Without any of the protection or support inherently granted in large scale expeditions to a foreign country, how do you expect them to have the ability to preserve every piece of evidence they find without disturbance or hostile circumstances to contend with? How callous and unsympathetic of you to pretend that these expeditions should afford equal luxury.
You don’t seem to have a remote clue about how these men have dedicated their lives, finances and untold effort trying so perseveringly hard to show the world these things, only to be carelessly disparaged by those who are unwilling to investigate for themselves the substantial evidence to be had.
Much crucial information for a number of these sites was lost due to robbers and militant men that are rampant in these countriesnot to mention a host of other things that I don’t have time to elaborate on in a detailed fashion.
Again, you should realize that it is much easier for organizations to protect their material. How do you expect independent researchers to preserve everything without even sufficient protection in an unstable region? But notice that if they DON’T give everything on a silver platter (something virtually impossible to do without the proper means), the larger organizations dismiss them as fraudulent and unworthy of their time. Why are you so unwilling to see this?
The fact is, ENOUGH evidence and video has been presented that should stir more of an interest in these finds, instead people like you resort to the most prejudiced assumptions by insinuating that perhaps all these finds were fabricated. What a crock of foolishness and you know it.
quote:
Have a history of using extremely questionable, if not outright laughable techniques (the divining rod) C)
I think the above exemplifies all too strikingly well how grotesquely misconstrued and uninformed your arraignments are becoming.
Contrary to your beyond words the evaluation and ultimate identification of the site was confirmed repeatedly via the latest (up-to-date) and most advanced equipment then in availability. The site was also tested and verified by a number of independent archeological research organizations, including a completely unaffiliated Turkish funded one. They were also followed closely by ABC’s 20/20, and the data was presented as worth considering. ALL of the sources PROVED that the object WAS and IS indeed the remains of a huge ancient boat. The minor instance where the divining rod was employed (merely used in addition to the host of professional tests that were conducted) had NOTHING to do at all with proving the identity of the site. The actual occurrence of these legitimate procedures can be thoroughly documented with sources. I don’t know exactly when I can get this for you, as much of the info is provided on video and will need to be transcribed to a document-- but I suppose it could be collected with some effort---if you’re interested and sincere enough to know the truth about these discoveries, rather than clinging on to a bunch of mendacious second-hand accusations you’ve been so willing to disseminate without even carefully researching the matter for yourself.
quote:
Will continue to refuse the release of information given the reasons Lys has passed along for that refusal. So, in other words, experts should spend time and money to help people who are likely cons prove that finds they claim to have made are real, and then NOT PUBLISH VITAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA because Wyatt's people don't want it released. The scientific community would therefore gain absolutely nothing (still vital data missing) and expend resources to do so.
Again, all of your specious accusations don’t take into consideration any of the above in order to construct a legitimate case against these discoveries. The Likely cons insert only further demonstrates the persistence to excuse yourself from responsibility by invoking a prejudiced assumption in order to NOT have to investigate the matter further. This is not even to mention the fact that a HOST of solid archaeological evidence has been provided for EVERY discovery made by Wyatt (with the exception of the Ark of the Covenant, which has yet to be ratified) and by those that have contributed to the finds (keeping in mind your incessant denials and adamant insistence otherwise).
Ah, but it’s so much easier to take a detractor’s word for it than to actually apply yourself to honest verification. Why can’t you just be truthful to yourself and everyone here by just admitting that you don’t really have a leg to stand on.
quote:
Wow.
Wow is right. Words can’t do justice for my indignation at how untenable everything you’ve spouted has actually been. It doesn’t even endure under the most basic scrutiny. And pretending to know what you’re talking about only makes your case worse.
Last suggestion: Next time think before making such a perfect travesty of your reliability.
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-31-2004 11:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Gwyddyon, posted 07-29-2004 1:53 AM Gwyddyon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by Gwyddyon, posted 08-02-2004 6:31 AM Hydarnes has not replied

Hydarnes
Inactive Member


Message 525 of 860 (129215)
08-01-2004 12:43 AM


Buzsaw, I would just like to briefly commend you for your efforts in this thread, they have and are being appreciated.

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by Buzsaw, posted 08-01-2004 11:07 AM Hydarnes has not replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4307 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 526 of 860 (129227)
08-01-2004 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by Buzsaw
07-31-2004 11:04 PM


Right, when one can't do the job, blame someone else.
quote:
So far as I'm aware, National Geographic's Dr. Ballard, world famed marine explorer and scientist, has never investigated the site. Why not?
Why ask us? Ask him or Moller.
It really does not advance your cause to make these wild accusations without support. What did Moller send to Ballard? What was Ballard’s reply? For all we know Ballard was interested, and is waiting for someone else to get their act together.
quote:
They don't want their pet ideologies destroyed or damaged by what their research would likely produce.
Even if some of ‘they’ don’t, the others simply wouldn’t care. Asserting that all archeologists hold the same pet ideologies is not unlike stating that all Republicans support the same exact issues. Do you really believe that well-trained Chinese archeologists all are aware of the pet ideologies of Egyptologists, let alone that they support all these so-called pet ideologies?
Even if all archeologists held all the same exact pet ideologies they would still be able to conduct basic research. What seems unreasonable is that with all these books, videos, and DVDs being sold, that one would be able to hire a properly trained staff. Completely unreasonable is that after 25 years, not a single proper scientific paper has been produced, let alone published.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by Buzsaw, posted 07-31-2004 11:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Hydarnes
Inactive Member


Message 527 of 860 (129230)
08-01-2004 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Prince Lucianus
07-30-2004 11:01 AM


Re: Clear Evidence
quote:
The visible wheel is very very likely not Egyptian (have seen no prove of the contrary) The bones cannot be attributed to anything without C14 dating. The animal bones specifically can not be Egytptian, according to the bible.
That assertion certainly isn’t sanctioned by anything more than your own arbitrary [mis]placement of the chariot wheel as most likely not Egyptian.
Not only does our knowledge of Ancient Egyptian chariot wheels from the 18th dynasty contradict your less than cogent appropriation for the gold veneered wheel in question, as we shall discover, but it seems that your anxiety to disprove these findings are premature and demonstrably a priori.
Denying the fact that ancient Egyptian chariot wheels varied substantially in their design is to oppose the data. Let’s take a look:
We have this 18th dynasty mural painting on a tomb wall, which depicts six-spoke wheel with both thin rims and spokes. But to conclude (myopically) by this and other select depictions that all chariot wheels were of this nature is to clearly ignore other designs present during the New Kingdom.
And here we have a slightly differing design, apparently thicker at the rims.
Yet here we have a relief showing Egyptians building chariots, and we can clearly see that the design for these four-spoke wheels do not exude the same thin characteristics manifested by other versions in simultaneous use. SOURCE: J. G Wilkinson (1837) Manners and Costoms of Ancient Egyptians, London, England.
Here we have the precise reproduction drawing versions of the parallel 18th dynasty four-spoke wheels shown above (the two right compared to the one found in Aqaba). SOURCE: (M. Healy and A. McBride) (1992) New Kingdom Egypt"--Osprey Publishing Ltd, London, England. (I’ve personally read this book)
Notice the striking resemblance between the gold-veneered wheel found at Aqaba and this Egyptian chariot wheel:
Notice some striking similarities between the middle design, as well as the almost parallel detail in the spokes beginning thicker from the center and slightly tapering to a thinner look. Further observe also that the centered chariot wheel illustration in the figure above, also seems to clearly resemble in the middle and rimmed portions.
The apparent discrepancy observed in the lack of segments for the Aqaba version as compared with the description could very well be accounted for by the wheel resting on its opposite/inner side.
(And now the above wheel illustration and inscription together: )
(Sources previously provided)
For larger version: http://img.photobucket.com/...hariotwheelcomparisonlarge.jpg
Furthermore, there is an inscription concerning Thutmosis III (18th Dynasty) which records the existence of golden chariots in many different circumstances. This is reiterated several times in the document.---SOURCE: J.K Hoffmeier (1976) Observations on the Evolving Chariot whWheel in the 18th Dynasty, JARCE, 13.
Ipso facto, there is clearly no merit to the purportedly exclusively thin designs claim you’ve attributed to Egyptian chariot wheels.
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 10:25 AM
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 10:27 AM
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 06:07 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Prince Lucianus, posted 07-30-2004 11:01 AM Prince Lucianus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by Prince Lucianus, posted 08-01-2004 7:43 PM Hydarnes has not replied

Hydarnes
Inactive Member


Message 528 of 860 (129231)
08-01-2004 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 519 by Trae
07-31-2004 9:45 AM


Re: I am not doing wheelies over the so-called evidence.
Trae,
quote:
The one ‘gold’ wheel that is shown the clearest does not seem to representative of an Eqyptian chariot wheel. The sources seem to be in agreement that a defining characteristic of Egyptian chariot wheels are thin spokes.
Does not seem my foot. Whoever you are, you’re clearly only parroting the mislead conclusions raised by certain other individuals already in this thread (namely, Lucianus). And your assertions rest on the same unfounded weaknesses.
quote:
The video doesn’t present the evidence well.
BAH, I highly doubt you’ve even seen it before masquerading in here as though you know what you’re talking about.
Read my response to Lucianus’ false claims, and deal with it.
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 01:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Trae, posted 07-31-2004 9:45 AM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by Trae, posted 08-01-2004 5:25 AM Hydarnes has replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4307 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 529 of 860 (129260)
08-01-2004 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by Hydarnes
08-01-2004 1:53 AM


Re: I am not doing wheelies over the so-called evidence.
quote:
Does not seem my foot.
Well as long as your foot is certain, I guess that closes the case.
quote:
BAH, I highly doubt you’ve even seen it before masquerading in here as though you know what you’re talking about.
I haven’t seen it. I even gave the reasons why people like me don’t need to see it. If you disagree with those reasons then feel free to correct me.
I said:
The video doesn’t present the evidence well. It won’t convince those that require scientific evidence to be presented scientifically and with peer review. Still, few documentaries reach that level of presenting evidence. Anyone who watches documentaries should consider further research and anyone making a documentary to persuade others should always make real research available and should make it relatively easy to get a hold of that research. The very least Moller should do is prepare a web site to in depth present his claims and counter those of his critics.
I have been to the web site and from there and what has been said here I have no reason to believe it is different than any other documentary. Documentaries as science suck in my opinion. One-sided documentaries sucketh even more so.
http://EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO -->EvC Forum: "THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO
quote:
Here we have the precise reproduction drawing versions of the parallel 18th dynasty four-spoke wheels shown above ...
Reproductions taken from what souce? What is the primary source material? You have to realize that a 64pg pulp book by an author with a Master’s degree in Political Theology isn’t enough for the level of evidence we ask for around here. Don’t get me wrong, what you posted is interesting; so please now bring us the original evidence/sources.
quote:
The apparent discrepancy observed in the lack of segments for the Aqaba version as compared with the description could very well be accounted for by the wheel resting on its opposite/inner side.
I don’t see how that would be possible. Seems that the wheel, spokes, and hub, were sectional and then the whole thing was fitted together. Not sure how one would be able to do that on one side without the wheel segments tending to bend. Not that this changes much, there may be segments and joins there, I just don’t think from the images we’ve been presented with we can say yet.
quote:
Notice some striking similarities between the middle design, as well as the almost parallel detail in the spokes beginning thicker from the center and slightly tapering to a thinner look. The apparent discrepancy observed in the lack of segments for the Aqaba version as compared with the description could very well be accounted for by the wheel resting on its opposite/inner side.
There may be slight tapering. I can certainly see where people looking at the image would believe so. I’ll make later post on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by Hydarnes, posted 08-01-2004 1:53 AM Hydarnes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by Hydarnes, posted 08-01-2004 10:03 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied
 Message 535 by Buzsaw, posted 08-01-2004 11:27 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 530 of 860 (129273)
08-01-2004 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 523 by Hydarnes
08-01-2004 12:34 AM


Re: Picture
You've made yourself very clear.
At least you have finally admitted that you were the one trying to score a cheap point. And as I said it was the entiiryty of your post - while the issue you picked on was only a small part of my response to a single point. And that really shows up your whole tactic. Accuse others of acting as you do.
For instance in your "MAJOR DISTORTION MISREPRESENTATION #1" you carefully omit your question:
"So is she [Tyldesley] to be granted more credence than the majority?"
while quoting the answer - which you then call ambuiguous. Of course if you take the answer out of context by ignoring the question it addresses it will naturally be harder to understand.
Then as is quite clear you attempted to change the point by ignoring the major part of my response to the point Lyssimachuis was attempting to make. Of course you did not jump on Lysimachus when he appealed to uncertainty to attempt to rescue one of his points. Exactly the same behaviour as you complained of in Crashfrog.
And then again you accuse me of non-sequiturs on the basis of omitting the point - in this case the entire post I was responding to:
"The fact is, you apprently just said it so you could have something to dispute on and add ammo to your morass of skeptical questions."
post 493
As to your secodn accusation you have confessed to attempting to change the subject withput indicating that you were doing so. Moreover you have chosen to repeat baseless accusations against me.
Your bully boy tactics don't work on me. If you want to stop this then stop your misrepresentations and unfounded attacks. I will not stop defending myself so you can claim some false "victory" with your amoral tactics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Hydarnes, posted 08-01-2004 12:34 AM Hydarnes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by Hydarnes, posted 08-01-2004 10:15 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 531 of 860 (129274)
08-01-2004 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by Lysimachus
07-30-2004 10:32 AM


Re: Picture
Guess that you didn't notice that the "semantic jargon" was a quote of Hydarnes own words. Even after I pointed it out.
You really are getting desperate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Lysimachus, posted 07-30-2004 10:32 AM Lysimachus has not replied

Hydarnes
Inactive Member


Message 532 of 860 (129286)
08-01-2004 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by Trae
08-01-2004 5:25 AM


Re: I am not doing wheelies over the so-called evidence.
quote:
I haven’t seen it. I even gave the reasons why people like me don’t need to see it. If you disagree with those reasons then feel free to correct me.
What "reasons"? The echoed objections you spewed out about the chariot wheels?
quote:
Reproductions taken from what souce? What is the primary source material? You have to realize that a 64pg pulp book by an author with a Master’s degree in Political Theology isn’t enough for the level of evidence we ask for around here. Don’t get me wrong, what you posted is interesting; so please now bring us the original evidence/sources.
I provided the source loud and clear, something you shouldn't have missed if you were doing more than a cursory examination of my post.
P.S. You might be overjoyed to know that the book is solely dedicated to Egypt's military and non-theological in nature.
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 09:27 AM
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 11:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Trae, posted 08-01-2004 5:25 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

Hydarnes
Inactive Member


Message 533 of 860 (129288)
08-01-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by PaulK
08-01-2004 8:35 AM


Re: Picture
The accusation of your first statement was already addressed repeatedly. I will only deal with the relevant ones:
quote:
For instance in your "MAJOR DISTORTION MISREPRESENTATION #1" you carefully omit your question:
"So is she [Tyldesley] to be granted more credence than the majority?"
while quoting the answer - which you then call ambuiguous. Of course if you take the answer out of context by ignoring the question it addresses it will naturally be harder to understand.
I omitted nothing of relevance. That statement was merely advocating the same point (not actually questioning you) about your comment.
quote:
Then as is quite clear you attempted to change the point by ignoring the major part of my response to the point Lyssimachuis was attempting to make. Of course you did not jump on Lysimachus when he appealed to uncertainty to attempt to rescue one of his points. Exactly the same behaviour as you complained of in Crashfrog.
To tell you the truth, since I know this hypothesis well enough, I haven't been reading in entirety all of Lysimachus' posts pertaining to that issue, so I really wouldn't know precisely what phraseology he's using.
From what I do know, he's ADMITTEDLY promoting a HYPOTHESIS. A hypothesis is naturally full of speculation.
quote:
As to your secodn accusation you have confessed to attempting to change the subject withput indicating that you were doing so. Moreover you have chosen to repeat baseless accusations against me.
What was the "baseless accusation"?
quote:
Your bully boy tactics don't work on me. If you want to stop this then stop your misrepresentations and unfounded attacks.
I'm still waiting to hear about these "misrepresentations" and "unfounded attacks".
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 11:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2004 8:35 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2004 4:27 PM Hydarnes has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 534 of 860 (129296)
08-01-2004 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by Hydarnes
08-01-2004 12:43 AM


Buzsaw, I would just like to briefly commend you for your efforts in this thread, they have and are being appreciated.
Thanks Hydarnes. I would also like to thank you and Lysimachus ever so much for coming aboard and expending all the time and work into the thread. No matter how much evidence is provided for these folks, their secularistic bias rejects the notion of the supernatual dimension in their narrow view of the universe. Even things like this which can be seen and touched if the science community were objectively interested in the truth are purposfully ignored and denied. Your last few posts summs it all up well as to the attitude of our counterparts. There are, however readers as well as posters, I'm sure, who quietly read, and who's minds and hearts are convinced by the reading and viewing of all this that all of this has much to do with verifying the historical accuracy of the Biblical record. Some of our posters are apostates from Christianity and the Bible. Hopefully this will cause them to wisely reconsider such a foolish gamble. Hopefully for others, this will be another crack in the hard secularistic shell that encases their minds.
This boards needs more posters like you and your brother to represent the creationist views. I certainly hope you will continue to bless us with your wisdom and knowledge. I hope Lysimachus is mending from the accident well with no lasting disabilities from it. May God richly bless you both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by Hydarnes, posted 08-01-2004 12:43 AM Hydarnes has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 535 of 860 (129300)
08-01-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by Trae
08-01-2004 5:25 AM


Re: I am not doing wheelies over the so-called evidence.
I have been to the web site and from there and what has been said here I have no reason to believe it is different than any other documentary. Documentaries as science suck in my opinion.
That's understandable. Documentaries such as Moller's are impossible to explain away on paper by doing the math with obscured theories about alleged happenings scores of millions to billions of years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Trae, posted 08-01-2004 5:25 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

Hydarnes
Inactive Member


Message 536 of 860 (129301)
08-01-2004 11:29 AM


You really have to wonder though, is the density genuine? Or just feigned in order to not be publicly compelled.
BTW, my rebuttal to Lucianus was updated with a little extra info and according sources, in case you might want to give it another perusal.
This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-01-2004 10:34 AM

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 537 of 860 (129354)
08-01-2004 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by Hydarnes
08-01-2004 10:15 AM


Re: Picture
SO lets get this straight. You failed to quote a point I was replying to. As a result of this failure you claimed that my response was a non-sequitur. And you say that you did not omit anything of relevance ? And you expect people to beleive you ?
No, both the items I quoted were directly relevant - and you omitted both.
ANd you miss both the other points I mentioned.
1) Lysimachus tried to argue that there were missing mummies - and that this supported Wyatt's claims. When it was pointed out that the identification of the mummies did NOT support Wyatt's claims (e.g. accordign to an article Lysimachus himself referred to the mummy of Tuthmosis IV was one of the more certain identifications) he appealed to problems identifying the mummies. That is exactly the same tactic you are trying to accuse me of - a misrepresentation you repeat over and over again.
And if you are waiting to hear about things you have already been told then I suggest that you consider paying attention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by Hydarnes, posted 08-01-2004 10:15 AM Hydarnes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by JimSDA, posted 08-01-2004 7:19 PM PaulK has not replied

JimSDA
Inactive Member


Message 538 of 860 (129394)
08-01-2004 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by PaulK
08-01-2004 4:27 PM


Re: Picture
TO ALL:
It's very interesting to see this forum topic go to 36 pages -- Lennart Moller's/Ron Wyatt's material about the Exodus deserves a sizable discussion, because this is the first time in human history that we have ever had physical evidence and solid proof for the route of the Exodus!
My name in Jim Pinkoski and I worked with the late Ron Wyatt for 10 years, and from 1994 to 1996 I managed Ron's 1st museum that was located inside the Gatlinburg Passion Play Complex in Tennessee -- I also helped Ron publish much of his material, did 2 magazines for him that explained the S&G discovery and Ron's interpretation of the Genesis story of Creation -- so I knew Ron very well!
Ron was a simple man, an amateur archaeologist -- but God likes to use the "simple" things and "simple" people of the world to periodically confound the wise -- so I was extremely pleased to see someone of Lennart Moller's professional stature come along and help us out with studying and verifying Ron's discoveries! Lennart Moller is in no way "simple" -- he works in Sweden where they award the Nobel Prizes!!
Folks, you've got to remember that all this is "a work in progress" -- it's not completed, it's not finished yet, it's been going on since 1977! But all the evidence that we have accumulated over the past 25+ years has proven that more work and more serious investigation should be done on every one of Ron's discoveries!
I have heard all the complaints and all the criticisms about both Ron and about the discoveries -- and I am not going to get involved in re-answering them on this forum -- all I am going to say is that if you folks want to take an honest look at the 7 major biblical archaeological discoveries that on display in our museums and see how I worked with Ron for 10 years, take a look at my website:
Pinkoski.com – Works of Jim Pinkoski
Just remember, I have no intention of arguing about all this -- look at the discoveries or don't, and if you disagree with it, fine -- just try to keep in mind that more answers will be forthcoming in the years ahead as more and more people see Lennart Moller's book and video, so just try to be patient and wait and see what develops!
Fair enough?
PS -- As you will see on my webiste, for a brief time back in 1987 I did cartoons for the late Carl Sagan! See my write up about it and my comments about Sagan's attempt to deal with "science and religion," because in some ways I agreed with him! And you can see Carl autographing one of my drawings!
Page not found – Pinkoski.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2004 4:27 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by CK, posted 08-01-2004 7:23 PM JimSDA has replied
 Message 543 by Prince Lucianus, posted 08-01-2004 7:50 PM JimSDA has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024