Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GENESIS 22:17 / NOT A PROMISE GIVEN TO THE JEWS
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6440 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 331 of 337 (152491)
10-24-2004 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by Cold Foreign Object
10-24-2004 12:55 AM


Re: Evidencing the Royal Family lineage claim: Petrie Proves a Vital Link
I do not have the time at the moment to create a master post which summarizes the status of the debate for persons surfing by.
This thread is over the magic 300 mark so I suspect we will be either closed by an admin or disintigrated by software failure soon.
If I get a chance I will post a summary of where I think we've got to as the start of a new thread in the PNT forum. However this may take a while.

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-24-2004 12:55 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3134 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 332 of 337 (152492)
10-24-2004 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by MangyTiger
10-24-2004 1:01 AM


Re: Bump for Common Sense - Please use drugs responsibly
A fish somehow came ashore and evolved into a land animal, then the land animal somehow evolved into a bird with wings.....again I stress SOMEHOW....the actual explanation then requires:
Mangy writes:
I want some of whatever they're drinking or smoking...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by MangyTiger, posted 10-24-2004 1:01 AM MangyTiger has not replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6440 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 333 of 337 (152493)
10-24-2004 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Cold Foreign Object
10-24-2004 12:37 AM


Re: Evidencing the Royal Family lineage claim: Petrie Proves a Vital Link
WILLOWTREE writes:
Now if the Irish are known to be visually described as "red" just like David in scripture was
jar writes:
1Samuel 16:12
12: And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.
And from that you get that he was red.
WILLOWTREE, you have a vivid imagination. LOL
WILLOWTREE writes:
From Dictionary.com
6 entries found for ruddy.
ruddy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rd)
adj. ruddier, ruddiest
Having a healthy, reddish color.
Once again Jar your ability to declare with certainty scraps of fossils to be whatever but how your intelligence ceases when a Bible is open equates to a suspicious objectivity.
Speaking as a Brit I've always thought that when you speak of the Irish as being 'red' it is a reference to their hair (it being quite common in the Emerald Isle) - their skin complection tends to be quite pale. When someone is described as ruddy, however, you are talking about their complection being a healthy reddish.

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-24-2004 12:37 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 334 of 337 (154156)
10-29-2004 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Cold Foreign Object
10-24-2004 12:55 AM


Re: Evidencing the Royal Family lineage claim: Petrie Proves a Vital Link
quote:
Originally posted by WT
I do not have the time at the moment to create a master post which summarizes the status of the debate for persons surfing by.
I can assure you that Asgara always does more than "surf by".
As you have stated, the readers can judge for themselves. Asgara has done just that and (IMO) has judged correctly. There is no mention of Jeremiah in Ireland, either in the bible or in the annals, and descriptions of "Tea" consistently indicate she was someone other than Zedekiah's daughter.
You've had ample opportunity to present your case and, IMO, your case has failed miserably in meeting even basic requirements. Thus, while your belief preferences remain your personal affair, I see no good reason to waste my time reading a dozen more posts repeating such things as how "Pharaoh, king over Egypt" should really be read as "Zedekiah".
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-24-2004 12:55 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2004 2:51 PM Amlodhi has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 335 of 337 (154161)
10-29-2004 2:14 PM


Closing topic notice.
This thread has moved well past the 300 post point and will be closed shortly. If any of the participants wish they can open a part II continuation thread.
Time for final comments folk.

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3134 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 336 of 337 (154169)
10-29-2004 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Amlodhi
10-29-2004 1:54 PM


IOW, you are assuming the atheist trump card position: Assert no evidence at all to exist because there is nothing to gain for your worldview and everything to lose.
"Pharaoh, king over Egypt" should really be read as "Zedekiah".
Nobody claimed this intentionally misquoted nonsense by you.
Every atheist in this one sided debate offered the exact same "refutation" through-out: "What evidence ?" = silent admission to the evidence clearly supporting the claims. These facts once seen are then chosen to not be recognized and instantly treated like they don't exist.
This exposes you to be loyal to your worldview regardless of the evidence which is fine - except for the fact that you claim to be a truth-seeker driven only by facts.
For the record: "Pharoah" in the Irish annals is the title of a king and that persons daughter according to the Bible and archaeology originated out from Egypt. These persons in the Bible and archaeology are Jeremiah and Zedekiah's daughter as the Irish race and their annals are certainly speaking of a fair skinned princess ruddy in description which is the exact description given to David in the Bible.
You perfectly understand all this but refuse to acknowledge it for the reasons stated above. This is not at all complicated unlike obscure fossils and such which your kind have no problem declaring to be transitional = proof of your bias despite the evidence.
The ruddy Irish race descended from ruddy David.
The British Isles fulfill every promise given to 10 tribe Israel, David, and Abraham.
Thomas Paine and Ingersoll the Great Atheist both based their lack of faith on the fact about the British Isles mentioned above. They mistakenly THOUGHT the Jews were promised these promises and mistakenly THOUGHT that all Hebrews were Jews.
The title of this topic and evidence thereof completely exposed the falsehood of those terribly wrong assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Amlodhi, posted 10-29-2004 1:54 PM Amlodhi has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 337 of 337 (154172)
10-29-2004 3:01 PM


Okay, let's close this.
I think everyone has had their say. If not, they can start a continuation thread.

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024