Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 2:31 AM
20 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
22Next
Author Topic:   Dating the Exodus
Rei
Member (Idle past 5186 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 226 of 317 (142968)
09-17-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Cold Foreign Object
09-17-2004 4:45 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Are you going to drop Velikovsky - the source of your sole non-bilbical reference for the exodus - then?

There's nothing left to debate with you if you take Velikovsky out of it - he's the only person you referenced, and he's a complete nut.

Correction: You quoted some Rutherford, too. Do you wish to discuss Rutherford's claims and drop Velikovsky?

This message has been edited by Rei, 09-17-2004 03:55 PM


"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2004 4:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2004 5:17 PM Rei has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1221 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 227 of 317 (142981)
09-17-2004 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Rei
09-17-2004 4:52 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Glad to see you admit to a mistake - no problem.

I will promptly respond to your forth-coming arguments against the evidence I posted in Message 219

WT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Rei, posted 09-17-2004 4:52 PM Rei has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Rei, posted 09-17-2004 5:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 5186 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 228 of 317 (142991)
09-17-2004 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Cold Foreign Object
09-17-2004 5:17 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
I'll only respond to Rutherford, since you've refused to defend Velikovsky.

quote:
Rutherford/Chapter IX "Exodus and Wilderness Journey" pages 627-629:

"The great mass of archaeological information thus unearthed has revealed the destruction of various Canaanite cities in Palestine during the latter half of the 13th century BC.


True, but deceptive. First off, the great mass of evidence unearthed has shown *no* evidence of an influx of a volume of people even a fraction the size of the Israelites, *regardless* of which date you choose. Most notably absent is *any* significant evidence in Sinai, nor any evidence of the supposed Israeli-Egyptian battles as described in the bible. Secondly, the archaeological evidence shows the destruction of various Canaanite cities *all throughout this period*.

In fact, there is much evidence that the story is written later. Egypt is referred to as the "land of Goshen", derrived from Geshem, a 5th century BC Qedarite royal family name. No pharaoh names are ever given, which would be surprising given how much the Pharaos tried to publicize their names. No mention is ever made of the Egyptian forts in the Sinai which, while gone centuries later, were present during the peak of Egypt's power under which the exodus supposedly occurred. Moses is named by the pharaoh's daughter, and yet is given the name because it sounds similar to "I drew him out" in Hebrew (so we have the Pharaoh's daughter speaking Hebrew?). Etc.

Kadesh-Barnea has turned up no evidence of an encampment. Ezion-geber? The same. Tel Arad, where Israel supposedly fought King Arad? Nothing from the late Bronze Age. Tel Hesbon, where Israel supposedly fought the Amorites? Again, nothing from the Bronze Age. Etc. There have been genetic studies on human remains of the people in the region - their genetics don't change. Cultural artifact styles don't change. Etc. There simply was no exodus.

quote:
"The destruction of some Canaanite cities by Joshua was not their final destruction as such. There is no indication of the destruction of Bethel, amongst other places, in the early Israelite conquests, although it was taken by "the House of Joseph" as recorded in Judges 1:22-26. But the excavations carried out at the site in 1934 under the direction of Prof. Albright of America reveal that the city was subsequently destroyed by fire in the 13th century and the final destruction of Canaanite power at that time is confirmed by the Scriptures.

People don't even know exactly where Bethel was. Even seminaries generally freely admit this.

quote:
"The tablets state that the Habiru came to Canaan via Seir or Edom, and this was the very route of the Israelites under Moses, as defined in the Bible (Numbers 21:4).

The Habiru. Not the Israelites. The Habiru, who the Sumerians described as an "unclothed people, who travel in dead silence, who destroy everything, whose menfolk go where they will"? Who, when Habiru soldiers were listed in the Tikunani Prism, had Hurrian names for the most part (a small fraction had semitic names)? Are these the people who you're calling the people of Israel? Suuuure. If they are, than the people of Israel were completely different than portrayed in the bible. Realistically, though, as the Oxford History of the Biblical world concluded, after more texts kept finding "Habiru" living all around the fertile cresent with different descriptions, that they had no common ethnic affiliations, spoke no common language, and were in general a term for nomadic brigands.


"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2004 5:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2004 6:09 PM Rei has not yet responded
 Message 232 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2004 11:09 PM Rei has not yet responded
 Message 237 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-23-2004 3:05 PM Rei has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3110
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 229 of 317 (142992)
09-17-2004 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Cold Foreign Object
09-17-2004 3:15 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
So what?? He was a total flake. He came up with these grandiose theories that not only were there no evidence for, but were physically impossible.

And I should accept him as an authority??


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2004 3:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Asgara, posted 09-17-2004 6:18 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1221 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 230 of 317 (142996)
09-17-2004 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Rei
09-17-2004 5:56 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
Courtesy Notice:

My on-line time for the day has expired and I won't be able to respond until tomorrow/Saturday.

Your consistent evasion of my points about Velikovsky is because these arguments are irrefutable.

Maybe you should create another post as the one I am looking at will take no longer than 15 minutes to refute.

Look for me tomorrow.

WT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Rei, posted 09-17-2004 5:56 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 231 of 317 (142997)
09-17-2004 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by ramoss
09-17-2004 5:57 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
(edited out unnecessary quote)

Hi ramoss, one thing you have to realize about WT is that when he claims no theistic bias on the part of his "authorities" he is claiming that they HAVE to be objective (as if a theistic bias is the only one there is)

He doesn't seem to understand that no one cares about what side anyone is cheering for...it is the material they present and the method used to obtain that material.

This message has been edited by Asgara, 09-17-2004 05:19 PM


Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ramoss, posted 09-17-2004 5:57 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1221 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 232 of 317 (143027)
09-17-2004 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Rei
09-17-2004 5:56 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
True, but deceptive. First off, the great mass of evidence unearthed has shown *no* evidence of an influx of a volume of people even a fraction the size of the Israelites, *regardless* of which date you choose. Most notably absent is *any* significant evidence in Sinai, nor any evidence of the supposed Israeli-Egyptian battles as described in the bible. Secondly, the archaeological evidence shows the destruction of various Canaanite cities *all throughout this period*.

IOW, like my Message 219 says you are simply asserting archaeology to be the objective standard that every other avenue of evidence must fall down and bow to.

Message 219
What we have in the Low-Date Theory is selective capricious extraction of certain quotes from the Bible while conspicuously avoiding what the source as a whole offers.

In other words, they are tethered to a diferent anchor of foundational data from which a 13th century date is chosen. This foundational base then grabs and changes certain passages from the Bible to support their position while ignoring the bulk which harms their date.

From: Cambridge Ancient History, Third Edition, Vol.2, Part 2 [1975] Chapter VII "Archaeological Evidence" pages 331,332:

"One must not forget that the interpretations of these finds {in Palestine} has been and still is largely dependant on the school of biblical exegesis to which the excavator adheres."

Low-Date/13th century theorists are tethered to THEIR interpretations of archaeological evidence as the chief source for an Exodus date.

And as we have already seen they also subscribe to a school of biblical exegesis which can be best compared to a butcher shop.

But archaeology does support 1453 BC as my post shows. Low-Date theorists simply ignore every contradicting piece of evidence and assign the destruction of Palestinian cities to Joshua in the 13th century instead of the Judges.

Kadesh-Barnea has turned up no evidence of an encampment. Ezion-geber? The same. Tel Arad, where Israel supposedly fought King Arad? Nothing from the late Bronze Age. Tel Hesbon, where Israel supposedly fought the Amorites? Again, nothing from the Bronze Age. Etc. There have been genetic studies on human remains of the people in the region - their genetics don't change. Cultural artifact styles don't change. Etc. There simply was no exodus.

Thus asserts REI, we all can log off now.

This topic assumes an Exodus happened - did you read the topic title ?

There is voluminous evidence of the Exodus.

If you want to argue whether it happened or not I suggest you go here and knock yourself out:

http://< !--UB www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=152&p=15 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=152&p=15">www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=152&p=15 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=152&p=15">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=152&p=15< !--UE-->

The Bible was written to record things that the Author wants known. If the Bible did not record such things then they would never be known.

You are exalting an inferior discipline (archaeology) to be THE objective source of truth above all else.

What confirms archaeology ?

And from the Cambridge quote above we see that worldview is the deciding factor in archaeological dating and interpretations.

Your entire approach places the superior source (Bible) to be inferior based upon worldview.

If archaeology isn't confirmed by the Bible then you know why it is just another inferior source of information.

Hydarnes writes:

Message 51 But a lack in archaeological evidence for an Israelite occupation during the 15th century does not automatically prove an absence of such. And it would do skeptics well to remember that the location in Egypt known as Tell el-Maskhouta (identified as the biblical succoth, and the stronghold from which Egypt would launch her campaigns into Palestine and Syria) has yielded no archaeological evidence whatsoever for signs of military buildings, barracks, forts or any other such structures during the 18th and 19th dynasties, notwithstanding the fact that Egyptian records testify to their existence.

The point is just because there may not be archaeological evidence does not mean that the location was not inhabited by certains.

Bible critics constantly chirp about the total lack of Hebrew evidence in Goshen/Nile-Delta.

What they conveniently keep quiet about is the fact that the Nile flooded the Delta regularly thus wiping out the regions ancient history with it. Reasons like this is why the Bible was written - to preserve knowledge that would otherwise be lost. But my post 219 substantiates that archaeology does support the Bible so the point is moot.

The Habiru. Not the Israelites.

This was your first words to my scholarly source confirming the Habiru to be the Hebrews.

May I remind that the OP says concerning this evidence that only scholarly sources will be considered. While your position undoubtedly reflects a school of thought you need to substantiate your dismissal of Habiru not meaning the Hebrews.

The linguistic similarity is not a matter of opinion and it is only rejected because it is so obviously speaking about the Hebrews. Like I've said before the linguistic similarity is a 6th grade IQ test question.

Anti-Bible entities reject linguistic similarity because there is absolutely nothing to gain for their "objective" positions.

and were in general a term for nomadic brigands.

What do you think "Hebrew" means ?

nomad/wanderer etc.etc.

The absolute refusal of opponents to recognize Habiru as the Hebrews is evidence that no amount of evidence will affect them, thus they are not loyal to evidence but dogma.

The Habiru issue reminds me of YEC's and their refusal to accept an old Earth. Creos must bow to an old Earth because the evidence is overwhelming. This recognition does not affect the claims of Genesis but I am off-topic.

May I also remind you that to argue for an Exodus date - any date - AND also take the position "if it happened at all" is a position of paradox.

A paradox is two mutually contradicting realities co-existing at the same time.

IOW, a paradox is a miracle, an indigenous claim of Scripture: Christ: Man and God at the same time in all expressions/Incarnation.
Omnipresence: Two places at the same time. etc.etc.

I find it rather funny that you evos would argue a paradox (if the Exodus happened then....but it really didn't).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Rei, posted 09-17-2004 5:56 PM Rei has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Amlodhi, posted 09-18-2004 12:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 317 (143076)
09-18-2004 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Cold Foreign Object
09-17-2004 11:09 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
quote:
Originally posted by WT

May I also remind you that to argue for an Exodus date - any date - AND also take the position "if it happened at all" is a position of paradox.


No it isn't.

Say a jealous man was investigating his wife's claim that she was shopping at a certain shop on a given Saturday and he was able to ascertain that the shop opened at 10:00 A.M. and closed at 2:00 P.M.

There would be nothing paradoxical about surmising that if she was really shopping there on Saturday (i.e. if it really happened), then it would had to have occurred within a specific timeframe, i.e., a time window compatible with the physical data.

Far from being a paradox, this is simply logical necessity.

Amlodhi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-17-2004 11:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-18-2004 5:22 PM Amlodhi has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1221 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 234 of 317 (143121)
09-18-2004 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Amlodhi
09-18-2004 12:36 PM


Re: EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC
I admit your scenario is not a paradox.

BTW, I have not forgotten about your challenge in the "Genesis 22" topic.

WT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Amlodhi, posted 09-18-2004 12:36 PM Amlodhi has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1221 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 235 of 317 (143124)
09-18-2004 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Brian
09-14-2004 2:01 PM


Re: Not long now !
My thesis is going to the binders on saturday 18th, and then I am going for a well-earned drink or two.

It just hit me.

Is this the same thesis that you mentioned to me many many months ago ?

What is the subject and how can the argument be accesssed ?

Wouldn't mind reading the very latest arguments of the opposition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Brian, posted 09-14-2004 2:01 PM Brian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Nighttrain, posted 09-21-2004 6:21 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2167 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 236 of 317 (143565)
09-21-2004 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Cold Foreign Object
09-18-2004 5:31 PM


Re: Not long now !
Actually,WT, Brian has infallible proof the Exodus crossing took place in the Persian Gulf.:-P
This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-18-2004 5:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1221 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 237 of 317 (144124)
09-23-2004 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Rei
09-17-2004 5:56 PM


HUMAN EVOLUTION and the HEBREWS in SINAI
This is my second reply to the same post, yet Rei has chosen to remain silent after storming the topic will a flood of stale assertions.

Rei writes:

First off, the great mass of evidence unearthed has shown *no* evidence of an influx of a volume of people even a fraction the size of the Israelites, *regardless* of which date you choose. Most notably absent is *any* significant evidence in Sinai

ToE claims that mankind evolved from an animal or whatever. The amount of physical fossil evidence in existence by volume can fit into a foot locker. That is the evidence of transitionals/ missing links is virtually non-existent, and the fossils asserted to be anthropon are greatly disputed.

Yet, society has been hammered with the assertions that evolution is a fact all based upon a paucity of disputed physical fossil evidence.

If man evolved from an animal there shoud be mountains of fossil evidence but this mountain of evidence is in reality a foot locker full.

No evolutionist would dare admit that this paucity of evidence equates to the theory being disproved, yet the very same people who defend mankind evolution scream about the lack of Hebrew evidence in Sinai.

IOW, this blatant double standard can only be attributed to the allegiance to worldview despite the evidence or lack thereof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Rei, posted 09-17-2004 5:56 PM Rei has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Rei, posted 09-23-2004 3:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 5186 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 238 of 317 (144134)
09-23-2004 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Cold Foreign Object
09-23-2004 3:05 PM


Re: HUMAN EVOLUTION and the HEBREWS in SINAI
Sorry, I missed your earlier post. Give me a minute, and I'll take care of it.

quote:
IOW, like my EXODUS DATE: 1453 BC (Message 219) says you are simply asserting archaeology to be the objective standard that every other avenue of evidence must fall down and bow to.

Why are you arguing about the date, when such a thing is evidenced at *no date*?

quote:
"One must not forget that the interpretations of these finds {in Palestine} has been and still is largely dependant on the school of biblical exegesis to which the excavator adheres."

The evidence of an influx of half a million men (plus others) isn't dependent on the school of biblical exegesis you adhere to. It doesn't exist anywhere.

quote:
But archaeology does support 1453 BC as my post shows.

I already responded to your post, and raised a number of criticisms to it - namely, the appalling lack of evidence of a huge number of people moving in.

quote:
quote:
Kadesh-Barnea has turned up no evidence of an encampment. Ezion-geber? The same. Tel Arad, where Israel supposedly fought King Arad? Nothing from the late Bronze Age. Tel Hesbon, where Israel supposedly fought the Amorites? Again, nothing from the Bronze Age. Etc. There have been genetic studies on human remains of the people in the region - their genetics don't change. Cultural artifact styles don't change. Etc. There simply was no exodus.

Thus asserts REI, we all can log off now.


I forgot - you don't address individual points. Silly me. Are you going to tackle *any* of those?

quote:
There is voluminous evidence of the Exodus.

Thus asserts WILLOWTREE, without giving *any* examples, as I did, for which you faulted me.

quote:
If you want to argue whether it happened or not I suggest you go here and knock yourself out:

Not when you're trying to use archaeology to back up your case over here.

quote:
The Bible was written to record things that the Author wants known. If the Bible did not record such things then they would never be known.

The Bible was written because Constantine ordered the printing of 50 bibles, which froze the cannon and declared what was aprocryphal and what was not. The cannon is composed of the old testament plus a variety of different, and sometimes contradictory, new testament books that were followed by sects of Christians living in different regions of the Mediterranean. The Old Testament was a set of stories, some backed by evidence, some blatantly false (for example, off the top of my head, Esther is a glaring example) accumulated on top of the Pentateuch, some for moralistic purposes, and some for historical purposes. The Pentateuch was written to unify the varied stories of the different sects of the Israeli population, including the priestly tradition and the deuteronomic tradition, in addition to the JE epic narratives (Judah and Elohim (northern Israeli tradition)).

quote:
You are exalting an inferior discipline (archaeology) to be THE objective source of truth above all else.

Look, if you want to keep your debate about when the bible says the exodus was out of archaeological facts, then be my guest - I won't interfere. But if you bring up archaeology, I'm going to object when you assert things that are false. Expect it.

quote:
What confirms archaeology ?

Other archaeology from completely different places and sources (including historical records, lists of kings, etc), radiometric dating (often with concordance models), dendrochronology and ice-core dating, and various lines of archaeological investigation (writings, pottery styles, situational features (ash, etc), fossil analysis/genetic study, etc).

quote:
Re: Destruction of Hazor (Message 51) But a lack in archaeological evidence for an Israelite occupation during the 15th century does not automatically prove an absence of such. And it would do skeptics well to remember that the location in Egypt known as Tell el-Maskhouta (identified as the biblical succoth, and the stronghold from which Egypt would launch her campaigns into Palestine and Syria) has yielded no archaeological evidence whatsoever for signs of military buildings, barracks, forts or any other such structures during the 18th and 19th dynasties, notwithstanding the fact that Egyptian records testify to their existence.

A typical Egyptian fortress could hold perhaps a couple hundred people, and usually held far less (excluding the large depots, like at Tharu). You're talking about a bare minimum of half a million people leaving no evidence. *Yeah right* we're not going to find any evidence; it should be littering the countryside. Genetics should be changing. Pottery or other cultural styles should be changing. Etc. It just doesn't happen. It's not there.

quote:
What they conveniently keep quiet about is the fact that the Nile flooded the Delta regularly thus wiping out the regions ancient history with it.

But there *are* a number of archaeological sites in the Nile Delta, and they often show quite a good degree of preservation, so that argument doesn't stand. Heck, many of them were found during searches for confirmation of the exodus, such as Naville's excavations at Saft el Henna and Tell el-Maskhutah.

quote:
May I remind that the OP says concerning this evidence that only scholarly sources will be considered. While your position undoubtedly reflects a school of thought you need to substantiate your dismissal of Habiru not meaning the Hebrews.

Ask, and ye shall receive. Here's a basic primer, with a very long listing of sources. It cites many of the inscrptions involved.

quote:
The linguistic similarity is not a matter of opinion

The heck it isn't! Even the Oxford History of the Biblical World disagrees with you, let alone the vast majority of archaeologists. It most distinctly IS a matter of opinion, and a distinct *minority* one at that.

quote:
and it is only rejected because it is so obviously speaking about the Hebrews.

If you'll agree that the hebrews didn't have semitic names the majority of the time, ran around naked, lived as thugs, and lived all throughout ancient mesopotamia, sure.

quote:
quote:
and were in general a term for nomadic brigands.

What do you think "Hebrew" means ?


Brigands? Who ran around naked, and lived in the whole middle east, and didn't usually have semitic names? Are you serious?

quote:
I find it rather funny that you evos would argue a paradox (if the Exodus happened then....but it really didn't).

It's not a paradox. It didn't happen, at any date. You can hold your own views, of course, but as I mentioned, if you try and back it up with bad archaeology, I'm going to call you on it.

This message has been edited by Rei, 09-23-2004 03:08 PM


"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-23-2004 3:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-23-2004 6:37 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1221 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 239 of 317 (144203)
09-23-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rei
09-23-2004 3:32 PM


Re: HUMAN EVOLUTION and the HEBREWS in SINAI
What does the repetitive responses in this post have to do with the content of Message 237 ?

Regarding post 238:

It is pointless to respond to your quote mining, distortions, and evasion of my points.

You could say that I just don't like your answers.

But anyone reading the exchanges can plainly see how you are guilty of the things I mentioned above.

But I did enjoy our rounds.

WT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rei, posted 09-23-2004 3:32 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3132 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 240 of 317 (144752)
09-25-2004 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Cold Foreign Object
09-05-2004 5:49 PM


Re: A Few Questions
I am preparing a major defense of the 15th century/attack on the 13th century and I would like you to commit to a certain and precise date or at least within 25 years.

plus or minus 25 years is fine with me WT.

What is your date of the Exodus ?

1250 B.C.E.

What do you believe the Bible's/O.T. date to be ?

1446 B.C.E.

A while back you linked me to a post that you wrote about the dating and now I cannot find it. Where is this post ?

Might have been this?

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=60&p=16 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=60&p=16">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=60&p=16

Brian


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-05-2004 5:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-25-2004 7:42 PM Brian has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
22Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019