Thread Reopen Requests

it's not a faith issue at all. it's not only the prevailing and educated academic opinion, but has been for nearly 2000 years. evidence has been provided for that in the thread, as well as the basis for establishing its key similarities with hospitality myths, and context of the generalizations used in genesis. (even if his understanding of the social context would otherwise be correct, the text itself would prove it otherwise)on the other hand, contracycle has been shown to be wrong on the existance of myths where inhospitality results in multiple deaths, and refuses to acknowledge this fact, even after it was posted multiple times. he was also shown to be wrong on cultural context for the authorship of genesis, but kept arguing for a context more than 600 years out of date. (also the approximate period of time between the authorship of the book and the first date i could find for the hospitality interpretation)this has nothing to do with faith at all. i'm fine with other interpretations, but contracycle did not want to offer one, in lieu of his overriding belief that such a reading was impossible despite the cold hard literary fact that it is not only possible, but prefered in over 2000 years of jewish literature. nothing to do with that, either. i accept that fact. i never said it was a fair judgement on the part of the writers, just what people have thought that judgement to be for nearly 2000 years.contracycle simply does not wish to debate in good faith, and acknowledge his errors.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-13-2005 07:57 PM

i posted a hebrew source older than the masoretic manuscripts by at least 100 years. yeah, older than the first hebrew-language bible we have.i think flavius josephus should count for something, even if you want to disregard the religious opinions of the talmuds and midrashim.

sorry, the debate had degressed to the point where we were debating what we had actually debated. hard to tell what was actually the subject of the debate. i was just trying to voice my opinion of why the tread should remain closed. thank you.

what?

evidence has been shown in the thread in question, repeatedly. this is not a debate thread.

it has been the decision of multiple admins here not to reopen the thread. i am not really interested in being harassed for evidence that has already been provided.contracycle has been repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong on every account, including the timeframe and context for the authorship of genesis, and the existance of another story that is precisely the same. evidence as to the CONTEMPORAY academic opinion (josephus and the talmud) has been shown.contracycle is not willing to debate in good faith, nor demonstrate any evidence of his own. he just wants to harass, and deny popular opinion and evidence even exists.you have LOST this debate. game over. no more. accept it, and move on. and stop bothering me about it.

i do not wish to carry it all.

please do.contracycle simply does not wish to debate in good faith. i would list my complaints, but i think reading the thread in question will more than suffice.

hey razd, have a look at the "in case anyone was curious" thread for some laughs.i'm not gonna make any complaints yet, unless it gets out of hand.

---

אָרַח

are you counting the recent "in case anyone was curious" thread? because if so, i'm sure that was mostly my fault and brenna's fault.see, she called me an asshole, and i called her a bitch. classic one-two ad hominem return blow. they don't like that here. although if i really wanted to hurt brenna, well, i'd turn around and smack her. however, contracycle did not contribute anything but needless argument to thread. you are correct. in this case, he argued the authority of an open source online encyclopedia against the expert opinion of oxford faculty, stating the prof had missed something that anyone actually reading the post would notice that he had not.and then, of course, the argument spiral out of control, as usual. seems kind of par for the course. is this the kind of debate we want here?

---

אָרַח

i think it would spiral out of control within the first 3 posts, be a breeding ground for hate, and result in several of us getting banned.however, i do wish that certain posters would engage in good debate habits. admit their mistakes when they make them, argue the points instead of resorting to name calling when they can longer defend their argument. admit when the other side has a good point, and, you know, has actually posted evidence. it can't be that hard.my problem is that i'm just as stubborn as they are. i'll keep posting good clean arguments, and usually end up going circles. sometimes when the fail to see the laughably obvious, i let the occasional "ok, now you're being an idiot." slip.this, of course, is hardly the same thing as some of the wonderous masteries on language i've seen fly on this board.however, i don't have several new favourite quotes. i'll leave out the personal insults, although those ARE pretty funny. and i plan to use these at every opportunity available. * this of course after posting page upon page of evidence from several different angles to defend the academic standard opinion, while he posted nothing substantial except two reports about the wrong subject set in the wrong age of history, to argue his indefensible point contrary to even the archaic scholarly work. it's neccessary to fully understand the irony here.

---

אָרַח