The Amalekites are destroyed again and again and again.....

Ya know. I'm inclinded to agree with Buz on this. He says there ain't any out there. So he can't show it too you can he?

---

Common sense isn't

Except for one thing you are overlooking Buz, it is YOU that made a claim, not Brian. You didn't state a belief you made an evidentiary claim. You were asked what other mythologies and genealogies you compared with the bible. You then stated that you HADN'T done any research on this.No one asked you to verify that "There are no....". No one asked you to research every piece of mythology that exists. You were asked specifically which ones you yourself had researched to reach this conclusion.Buz darlin', I try very hard not to show partiality when in Admin mode, and I hope that you will continue to call me on it if you believe I am. The main reason I am bringing this all up is that I know that Percy has discussed with you the reasoning behind "who verifies what"

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Hi Ned,Buz wasn't asked to show us everything he claims "isn't there". He was asked which ones he himself had researched to make this claim. He answered that he did not have the time to research this. Leading me to the belief that he had no reason to make this claim, leaving this a bare assertion.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Asgara, madear, I didn't research anything, nor did I claim to have. It's just that I know there's soooo much of this in the Bible that the amount of it we're talking would be nonsensical to mythology. We did the Odessy and the Illiad in high school lit way back when and it was boring enough to me without a mess of senseless geneology. For anybody who's at all familiar with the Bible, this oughta be a no brainer and I think Brian, Paul and you are trying to rough me up here with forum rule threats for naught. Brian's just seems to be disgruntled that I scored a point for my argument and you seem to be moderatingly helping him out a tad.Btw, Asgara, having said the above, I know it must be quite a chore to do your job and I do appreciate the overall good job you and the other moderators (including Brian) do.

Thanks, Ned for the forthright judgement here, regardless of our differences in ideology.

HI Buz,This is really wild Buz, you seriously cannot see the fault in your argument can you?Look at what you are saying. You say that nothing compares to the Bible's detail, then you say you haven't looked at any other material, so you really do not know if there is anything that compares or not do you? Buz, you are assuming that this is so, you do not know if this is the case or not.Buz, if I said that you were totally and utterly wrong and that the Bible's genealogies are childish compared to some other ancient texts, would you expect me to identify these other ancient texts?Brian.

Well I think you are complaining about being "beaten up with the rules" because you don't have a point.The facts are:
You have no idea if your claim is true or not. If ANYTHING is a "no-brainer" it should be that you can't know the results of a comparison without actually doing it ! But you claim that the results should be obvious.You haven't offered any explanation of how your claim is supposed to support your conclusion. Nor indeed what features are supposed to do so. You have rejected the comparison with the Edda without reading it or offering any valid reason to do so.You haven't answered the comparison I produced with the Edda which has more historical support than you have produced for the relevant chapter of Genesis (which is easy because you haven't produced any - you said that you had it so where is it ?).Well I think it is clear. Even you should realise that your point has not been made and in fact is in desperate need of support you refuse to give it.

Yes, that is a claim, and an unfortunate one as well. Any assertion that begins "There is nothing ... that compares" is in for trouble. As such, 'prove it' has a bit of the quality of a cheap shot. If s/he's wrong, would it not be far more effective to simply disclose this 'comparable mythology'?In the meantime, buzsaw, I have yet to hear why detail, something found in any non-trivial piece of fiction, should prove anything whatsoever. Because of the centrality of kinship, geneologies such as the Sumerian king list were apparently a big thing back then, serving to legitimatize the people to authored them. Why would anyone be surprised that the Israelites would mimic that pratice, and why should that in any way legitimatize the mythology and folklore conflated with this geneology?

I'm sure that by now if you or any Bible skeptic had some literary work anywhere near the Bible on frequency and quantity of geneological data it would be showing up so as to debunk ole buz which you'd surely love to do here. If we were physically in communication, I'd confidently wager a hundred $$ that you can't produce.

Well *I* am confidant that if you had a case you would have made it in the thread. And if you could have dealt with the examples that WERE produced in the thread you would have done so. You haven't done either.So all you have produced is another post of empty bluster

Hi Buz, Buz, I dont have to debunk you, you debunked yourself when you admitted that you had not researched the subject.Here is a nice analogy of your argument:Mr. X was talking to Mr. Y about a horse that Mr. X owns.Mr. X 'My horse is tha fastest horse on the planet'Mr. Y ' It must be really fast then!'Mr. X 'Yes, it is the fastest on the planet, no horse can go faster than my one.'Mr. Y 'So it has won all its races then, it has beaten all its opponents'?Mr. X 'I haven't raced it against any other horse yet'.Mr. Y 'Oh! So there may be a horse that can beat your horse'?Mr. X 'No. I don't need to race my horse against any other horse to know that my horse is faster.'Mr Y 'You are an idiot Mr. X'Brian.

Brian, it was neither necessary, logical or possible for me to go researching a bunch of everybody's literary work to make my point. I made the statement that it would make no sense for mythology or other similar stuff to include anywhere near that amount of geneological information that is in the Bible. Who would care to read it and for what purpose should it be there? You seem to ignore that point. I'm claiming it doesn't exist. If you think it does, or give good reason why there should be why can't you produce evidence that it does?Your analogy which implicates me as an "idiot" is meanspirited, unfair moderation and totally ridiculous.Here's the more analogical analogy:Buz: There are more Christian evangelical books in the library of Falwell's Liberty University than in any of the secular universities of America.Brian: Buz, you've made the claim. Have you checked all the secular universitys of America to document your claim?Buz: No. Why should I?Brian: Because forum rules say if you claimed it, you prove it.Asgara: Yah, Buz, we're not asking you to go to all the secular Universities and count, but since you didn't, you've no right to make the claim.Paul: Yah, Buz. You've proved nothing.Ned: "Ya know. I'm inclinded to agree with Buz on this. He says there ain't any out there. So he can't show it too you can he?"Buz: It simply wouldn't make sense for secular Universities to have as many Christian evangelical books in their libraries as Falwell's Liberty University, so Brian, if you think there's a Secular U out there with as many of these as Liberty, you should be the one to refute my logical claim. It would be a waste of my time to spend all the time which would be required to prove my logical claim.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you've mistaken Brian's point. He's not trying to argue the point that you're wrong. He's simply pointing out that you don't know that you're right.Simply saying "it would make sense of such a thing was so" doesn't make it so, and isn't evidence that it is true. Things don't have to be in a way that makes sense to you, Buz.Anyway, the Lord of the Rings is myth, and there's some pretty deep genealogical data in there, isn't there? Or somewhere in Tolkein's writings?Honestly I find all the analogies given pretty silly. What's sillier, however, is relying on your own potentially errant reasoning instead of actually verifying a fact. And sometimes the facts are surprising. For instance a secular college might very well have a larger collection because of the increased purchasing power of their better-funded library.

Hi CA.It appears that less than half of your link page is geneological data.I see no comparison atol as to frequency and quantity of genological material here that there is in the Bible relative to claimed history.

LOL!! That's ridiculous, CF. There's absolutely no reason any secular university would waste either space or money for that many evangelical books. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it. Likewise with the historical geneologies. Common sense demands that there's no literary work that has the frequency and quantity of that data as the Bible has. There's no reason, porpose or motive for it in other than reference books. It's every bit as illogical as my analogy.I can't believe the debth you people go to avoid allowing the Bible any credence.