|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is this the funniest 'apologetic'? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
ROFLMAO
You really have to read this from J P Holding (or Robert Turkel)and this guy is serious!! http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_04_04.html This has so many absudities that it is difficult to know where to start demolishing it. I don't think I have found one sentence in the article that makes any sense! This is the dork that issues 'The Chicken Challenge' LOL Holding (Turkeybrain) says this: 'The challenge is simple: Pick up any essay of mine and refute it. Contact me for terms of exchange. And if I hear nothing, I'll guess I'll just have to assume that no one can respond to my material.' Maybe he should assume that he is too insignificant to bother with, I mean anyone reading this article would think a 10 year old had written it. This guy almost makes Kent Hovind appear academic. The weird thing is, some people actually think Holding (Turkel) is a scholar! ROFLMAO Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to hear some forum members' 'favourite' apologetics. This, of course, could be a successful apologetic from our creationist friends. Brian. ------------------Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing! [This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 02-07-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6133 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
You appear to be privy to some knowledge of error within the essay mentioned. If this is so, allow me to ask you two questions.
First, have you contacted the author to inform him of his mistakes? Second, would you be willing to state those mistakes in this forum? I would also like to state that while I do not wholeheartedly endorse Mr. Holdings web site, I was rather frustrated to discover your misrepresentation of his challenge; and I request that you post a link to the challenge itself to enable the other members of this forum to readily assertain whether your posting is indeed a misrepresentation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I think we could start with his calculation of the growth of the tribe of Israel in Egypt: he doesn't appear to allow for any deaths, including infant mortality. What do you think the latter might be in a slave class in 1800 BC in a near-tropical country?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi W-Fortneberry,
'You appear to be privy to some knowledge of error within the essay mentioned.' I would like to think that any person over ten years of age could find multiple errors within this essay. 'If this is so, allow me to ask you two questions.First, have you contacted the author to inform him of his mistakes? Myself and James Patrick Holding aka Robert Turkel are engaged in discussions over this matter. 'Second, would you be willing to state those mistakes in this forum?' Sure, here are a few to be going on with, I have so far listed over 50 errors in the first part of the essay but I'll just give you a few to chew on. 1. First of all the author starts with a conclusion rather than an introduction, for example, he states '..the Exodus, although an event blessed often by divine intervention, does not in and of itself beyond that offer any scenarios that are unreasonable or impossible.' This is more suited to a conclusion as the author has not presented any of these 'scenarios' to the reader, all the author has done here is to show the bias of his stance. 2. Secondly, apparently the purpose of the essay is to examine common objections to the practical historicity of this event; that is, not issues having to do with archaelogy, for example, but whether such a mass movement of people is people is possible at all within the context of what is claimed in the Bible. This stance is confusing, how can you present an argument to the 'practical historicity' of the event without having knowledge of the social background that these events took place in? To do this you need a good knowledge of archaeology and anthropology, because to give any event a 'practical historicity' it has to be shown that the claims are at least plausible within the settings that it is claimed to have happened in. The author wants to jettison one of the three main sources for recontsructing the background of the Exodus. I'm afraid that by removing archaeology from the list of sources the author is setting himself up to be shot down when the archaeological evidence is introduced. 3. Thirdly, the author says 'We may begin by answering the most fundamental objection of all -- whether indeed that initial clan of 70 could have grown to 2-3 million within the required timeframe.' Most biblical scholars (Alright, Alt, Bright et al) are happy to go with a figure of 2.5 million, so I won't dispute that. What I will dispute is that if Joseph's clan can grow from 70 to 2.5 million in 430 years then surely there is nothing to stop every other man's clan from doing the same. For the ancient near east to support all these people is 'historically impractical', imagine if only 1% of men living at the time reproduced at the same rate! Remember that the author insists that to procreate at this rate is not unreasonable or impossible, it would be reasonable to assume then that Joseph is not the only man that could reproduce at this rate. 4. Fourthly, all through the essay assumptions abound, it is full of unsupported assertions. The first assumption is 'If we assume that there was one female born for every male, we would have 102 children. That comes to a total of 8.5 children per family.' Now why assume this, is it reasonable to assume that families come in packs of one male and one female, does the author have any evidence from the time period that this is reasonable? Also a minor technicality here, 8.5 children per family, surely he means an 'average' of 8.5 children per family, another mark off for poor presentation skills. 5. The author then goes on to use a 'modern day Jacob' to illustrate the possibility of the number in the Exodus group. (I searched the Guiness Book of Records website and found no trace of Samuel Must, so I will take the author's word that this claim is true) What he does here causes more problems that it solves! The strange thing is, he doesnt need to use anyone as an example, we have the stats for Jospeh's family, work the population growth out from there and apply that growth rate across the whole of that area of the world, if it is not an unreasonable scenario then apply it to everyone. What the author seems blissfully ignorant of is that the population growth of today is far higher that it was in Joseph's time, which would have been around 4000 years ago. The population has only grown significantly since the development of large urban centres, and with medical and technological advances. The author makes a gross error by comparing a man from the modern day world with that of a relatively underdeveloped social world of 4000 yeas ago. What he really should do if he wants to take this angle is to compare Joseph to his contemporaries. 6. There are numerous internal inconsistencies within the essay, one example if that the author would like to wipe out an entire generation as soon as their grandchildren are born! However, the person used as an example of a modern day Jacob was alive long enough to see 82 great great grandchildren born! If the author is using a person as an example then he has to be consistent and thus has to have everyone living until at least their great great grandchildren are born. There are upteen more errors that I am going to discuss with the author, and I am sure you can see a few for yourself. This is really a good example however, a good example of how bible inerrantists make the bible into a laughing stock. The authors 'chicken challenge' can be found here: http://www.tektonics.org/masoud01.html I don't see where I have misrepresented the author at all, what he says is very explicit: the final paragraph says: 'And so, since "Huey" has declined to answer our challenge given personally, preferring (apparently) the relative safety of his closed circle on this list of his, we'll re-issue the challenge here, and as a special bonus make it open to everyone -- and thereby express a key theme of Tekton Apologetics Ministries. The challenge is simple: Pick up any essay of mine and refute it. Contact me for terms of exchange. And if I hear nothing, I'll guess I'll just have to assume that no one can respond to my material.' I take it that 'open to everyone' includes everyone ? I think the author is happy to discuss his essays with anyone who is interested in biblical studies. Good Luck to Robert Turkel, he is standing up for what he believes in, and you have to admire that, you dont have to agree with the arguments however. I am not even convinced that even the most conservative bible scholar would entertain this essay for a second, but we will see. Best Wishes. Brian. ------------------Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing! [This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 02-09-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Another major problem with the essay is that the author does not adequately take into account the factors that limit growth rates in real populations-- things like food supply and disease.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iconoclast2440 Inactive Member |
disease especially.
John your bring up some good points. POST noah there ought to have been a near famine. Major questions i have How would all the salt from the water have affected the soil?Was disease simply suspended during this time ? Who's discendants are the egyptians? WHo's descendants were the South American Indians? Did Icarus teach them how to make wings so they could fly over the Atlantic? How many of the descendants of Noah broke off to become the Eyptians?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
There have been several threads in the past that concern just this issue. One of them is this one : [unknown thread]
And this one : [unknown thread] And this one : http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=7&t=... Bumping my favorite topics. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com Edited by Admin, : Rerender to note that two links to old threads have been lost.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4985 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Thanks John,
These posts are interesting, I have only just started to deconstruct this 'apologetic' and the errors in it are amazing. I wrote to the author and actually asked if this was a serious piece of work, and I have his assurance that it is. You won't find this hard to believe but everytime I look at it I find another error lol ! This topic is germane to my masters thesis and there are far better apologetics that have been presented, the author of this one though seems intent on taking a literal bible stance, which is not really an academic stance at all. I can't think of one reputable biblical scholar who promotes a literal bible these days, even the so-called maximilists, the serious scholars and archaeologists, insist that the texts have to be interpreted and cannot be taken at face value because the evidence simply doesnt support it. Reading through your posts, I know that you are well enough informed to know that there are contradictions in the texts, at face value anyway, some do get explained but that involves intepreting the text, adding to the text or manipulating history in some way be it by ignoring or denying conflicting reports. Perhaps the most glaring error that the author makes in this essay regarding the population growth is in his formula. He would like us to believe that an entire generation is wiped put when their grandkids are born! Life just doesnt work like that. and the really funny thing is, LOL check out the two examples he gives in the essay. First, Jacob, now regardless of the different traditions, Jacob goes into Egypt and who is with him in Genesis 46:12?, his great-grandsons Hezron and Hamul, the sons of Perez, who was the son of Judah, who was the son of Jacob. Then, the Guinness book of records guy, who I have been unable to find but I will take the authors word for it,he lives to see 82 great-great-grandkids! The two examples he gives doesnt even fit in with his formula of the grandparents, male and female of course, dying when their grandkids are born. It beggars belief. Just a note, what about people that havent had kids, do they live forever, since they cannot die according to this essay until their grandkids are born. Anyway, I must be off, thanks again for the links. Best Wishes Brian. ------------------Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: oops... now you have to put my name on the thesis too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
judge Member (Idle past 6470 days) Posts: 216 From: australia Joined: |
3. Thirdly, the author says 'We may begin by answering the most fundamental objection of all -- whether indeed that initial clan of 70 could have grown to 2-3 million within the required timeframe.'
Most biblical scholars (Alright, Alt, Bright et al) are happy to go with a figure of 2.5 million, so I won't dispute that. What I will dispute is that if Joseph's clan can grow from 70 to 2.5 million in 430 years then surely there is nothing to stop every other man's clan from doing the same. For the ancient near east to support all these people is 'historically impractical', imagine if only 1% of men living at the time reproduced at the same rate! Remember that the author insists that to procreate at this rate is not unreasonable or impossible, it would be reasonable to assume then that Joseph is not the only man that could reproduce at this rate. Judge:Yes there were 70 direct descendents of Jacob (or was it 75...hmmm), but this does not mean there were only 70 people. Have a look earlier in Genesis. Abraham has 318 fighting men (presumably these men had families as well). All these men entered into the covenant by being circumcised. They were part of Abrahams "household".When the Hebrews went to Egypt they were given the land of goshen. Why would only 70 people need this large area? There was probably thousands of Hebrews in total. [This message has been edited by judge, 02-12-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024