Jonah and the whale - It happened!

Dear Readers:I said in my previous post that I did plan on doing more research. I found an academic paper that has sources for those who wish to check the sources.Here it is: DETAILS AS FAR AS THE ASSYRIANS TURNING TOWARDS A MORE MONOTHEISTIC VIEW PLUS OTHER FACTORS THAT WOULD HAVE MADE JONAH'S AUDIENCE MORE RECEPTIVEHere is a copyrighted academic paper that I felt was well done. It speaks on a number of matters including the environment that Jonah would have been preaching in. Please see page 4 and paragraph 4 for details. I offer both PDF and non PDF formats. Please see the links below:Non-PDF format: http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}PDF Format: http://home.att.net/~natespdf/jonah.pdf.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-22-2004][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-23-2004]

Reading you has many of the tiresome qualities of seeing a sequel to "Dumb and Dumber". Specifically:

• a copyright says absolutely nothing about the quality of a piece of work,
• there is zero indication that this is an academic paper
• there is certainly no indication that it is a peer reviewed offering in the field of history and/or archaeology
• there is, likewise, no indication that Nate Wilson has any credentials in these fields, or that his speculations have any worth whatsoever
• there is less reason to believe that what you feel about fringe apologetics merit consideration
• finally, there is absolutely nothing in the paper that serves as evidence for "Jonah and the whale"

You are making a fool of yourself.

Dear ConsequentAtheist:I believe if we are to criticize others we should be careful ourselves -especially if done in the tone you used.In regards to your post which stated:"Reading you has many of the tiresome qualities of seeing a sequel to "Dumb and Dumber"....there is zero indication that this is an academic paper....there is less reason to believe that what you feel about fringe apologetics merit consideration. Finally, there is absolutely nothing in the paper that serves as evidence for "Jonah and the whale". You are making a fool of yourself."On page 8 of the cited work the author says that his work is part of a project that is an assignment for an academic effort in Hebrew exegesis ( I am paraphrasing). Here is the link again:Non-PDF format: http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}PDF Format: http://home.att.net/~natespdf/jonah.pdf.I see the other comments as strawmen. For example, I never said copyrighted material is more credible. I did, however, not want to copy a whole paragraph of his copyrighted material without permission and I am sure the people at appreciate my effort to stay within the law.I also see your heavyhanded criticism of the authors work as being unwarranted and being rather bitter. I will let the various readers of this forums posts determine if they agree with me.In addition, as I stated to AdminAsgara I believe I have good evidence you complained about the insufficiency of one of my post's evidence but had never complained about the several links that were broken at the time. In short, I think there is evidence you complain about insufficient evidence but never truly examine the evidence given at least in one instance. You recent complaint that I did not examine one of the links closely in a very contemptuous manner seems to have backfired on you and has had the exact opposite of the effect you intended because it showed that you did not examine the link closely.I see no reason to make an effort to address your future posts unless I see something that merits it or unless I feel you are unnecessarily clouding the issue of the topic being discussed. I regret this has happened but I do feel that I did make efforts to have a dialogue with you at one point but I felt it was never reciprocated.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-22-2004][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-23-2004]

Yes, you are. What it says, specifically, is: "This project is an assignment for a seminary course in Hebrew Exegesis". Your point? Predictable.

I already made my point. This is what I said regarding your behavior:"In addition, as I stated to AdminAsgara I believe I have good evidence you complained about the insufficiency of one of my post's evidence but had never complained about the several links that were broken at the time. In short, I think there is evidence you complain about insufficient evidence but never truly examine the evidence given at least in one instance. You recent complaint that I did not examine one of the links closely in a very contemptuous manner seems to have backfired on you and has had the exact opposite of the effect you intended because it showed that you did not examine the link closely."I also wrote:"I also see your heavyhanded criticism of the authors work as being unwarranted and being rather bitter."As far as what you did I would further say the following:You wrote:"Reading you has many of the tiresome qualities of seeing a sequel to "Dumb and Dumber"....there is zero indication that this is an academic paper....there is less reason to believe that what you feel about fringe apologetics merit consideration. Finally, there is absolutely nothing in the paper that serves as evidence for "Jonah and the whale". You are making a fool of yourself."You called it a paper and agreed with me. Specifically you said above:"nothing in the paper".The student was involved in a project that was an assignment for a seminary course and that is why he produced the work. It was assigned. I assume it was assigned by a professor/instructor and therefore it is academic in nature. And again, we both agreed already that it was a paper. Therefore, it was an "academic paper".Case closed.I see no point in you raising the fact that I paraphrased. I see no point in the previous post. I am not trying to pile on I just see no point in the previous post.As far as it being predictable that I do not address your future post that seems to be the only point on which we agree. You really did not make a case on why I should address your future post. I believe we both know it is because you have no case given your behavior.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-22-2004]

The system was acting up and I created duplicate post as a result.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-22-2004]{Messages 111 through 117 were the same - To cut down on the clutter, I've deleted 111 through 116 - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-23-2004]

I'm forced to agree. You are simply a pathetic waste of time. Have fun talking with yourself ...

To: ConsequentAtheist:re: your previous postsFirst, you are forgetting the purpose of debate is to increase the knowledge and understanding of those involved and not to see who can cast the most or wittiest insults.Secondly, you criticize the credentials of some of the webpage authors and logicians call this a genetic fallacy (attacking the source of material rather than refuting the content). Also, if you felt the input of very informed individuals was useful you should have cited some from the internet or offered informed written sources like I did.Thirdly, you seem to have thought that saying the mantra I do not think your information is of any value is adequate and is a substitution for refuting the information offered as evidence or clearly demonstrating its lack of relevance. Again, the purpose of debate is to cast light on what is true or untrue.Fourthly, to earn the right to deem evidence insufficient you have to judiciously examine it and weigh it. You never did that as I believe I demonstated.Fifthly, I did not post my material with the primary purpose of debating. I thought intelligent readers could examine my essay and come to their own conclusions. Yes, I do discuss things with people or engage in debate but again I thought mature people could form their own conclusions.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-24-2004]

Hi Ken,I decided to have a closer look at your essay, I thought that you may find a critical approach to your essay valuable, especially as you hope to have this, or something based on it, published. In an attempt to help you, I approached your essay as if it is an essay that one of my students would hand in to me. I hope you find the following comments helpful and that you take my recommendations on board. First of all Ken can I say that the way in which you have worded your essay title is incorrect. The Hebrew does not actually say ‘great fish’, great fish is English, the Hebrew says gadol dag or gadol dagah.Now Ken this was one reason why I said you should do theological research into the Jonah narrative, why should some verses (1:17 & 2:10) use dag , masculine and singular, yet another verse (2:1) uses dagah feminine and plural (I know the plural is debatable but the feminine isn’t)?If you start to question the text before you go off looking for scientific and historical evidence to support the Jonah narrative you may save yourself an awful lot of time, just a suggestion Ken. Here is another problem, you cannot just say something such as ‘some people’ without saying who one or more of the ‘some people are’. This is really a basic part of essay writing Ken, you have to support everything you claim with references. You really should give an example of someone who has dismissed the Jonah narrative on scientific and historical ground who later had to admit that they were unaware of the information that contradicted their work. OK, now we have jumped from ‘great fish’ to ‘sperm whale’ for no particular reason. Your readers would be aware that a whale is a mammal so you would really need to explain the translation details before going on to suggest that the sperm whale was the creature alluded to in the text.You also have to make sure that the page you are referencing immediately follows the information that the page is to support. Here is a major problem with this essay Ken, you are ignoring your essay title. Now I tell all my students to keep a copy of their essay question taped to the top of their computer monitor as this enables them to keep focussed on what the essay is about. Your essay is about how scientifically and historically plausible the Jonah narrative is, your essay title says nothing at all about the plausibility of God’s intervention in Jonah’s life, you are straying off the essay subject. You would be marked down considerably for this if this paper was presented to an academic institution for assessment. Either forget the miracles from God or include somewhere is the essay question that you will also be looking at divine intervention. This should already be addressed before you suggested that the sperm whale swallowed Jonah, it is out of place here and later on. You should include here what these differences are. Who are the people who have had a difference of opinion, what are the differences based on, whose opinion is the more plausible? But you are investigating how scientifically and historically plausible the Jonah narrative is, you keep straying off on a tangent, you are not investigating the miraculous, your essay title doesn’t require that you do this. Well we do actually know, if you take the time to read the entire book you would realise what it is. Lack of air and gastric juices don’t seem to have bothered him for the three days and the three nights before this cry from affliction. You may want to look at the theological side again, compare this to Psalm 120:1 for example. You may want to look at the personification of Sheol as having a belly, you may want to look at why the sailors cry out to God as well.
But if you read Jonah 2:3-6a then you will know what Jonah was being afflicted with. We all know that God can do anything, but you are not investigating God in this essay, at least that is what your essay title claims. Why would air going into the mouth of the whale help Jonah to survive, he was in its belly? More miracles Ken, you should really already know that miracles are outside the realms of scientific and historical inquiry, the methodological approaches of these disciplines do not enable them to verify a miraculous event, so miracles do not belong n your essay. If you want to look at miracles and God saving Jonah then include it in your essay question. You would need to name one or two of the commentators who postulate this and say why they postulate it, when they postulated it and where.
The sign of Jonah is a theological issue, another reason why you should take theology into consideration. Now why don’t you favour it Ken, you cannot continually make pointless claims such as this. You need to say something like ‘I do not favour the resurrection account because..’ try supporting what you believe, it is a basic essay writing requirement. So now you are saying that God definitely intervened! I do not want to be rude Ken but your quality of writing and your investigation skills need quite a lot of work done on them, I have to agree with CA, this work is rapidly approaching the standard of a first year high school essay, and not a very good one at that.If God intervened, why is this going to support a plausible scientific and historic narrative? You keep straying off your essay title. Or sea creature? Ok, so you present evidence that a sperm whale can only swallow objects that are less than a foot and a half wide, that’s fine, so we can assume then that Jonah has to be fairly slim. More evidence that Jonah would have to be fairly slim. I think this is totally irrelevant, the text says that God made the fish vomit Jonah up, it says nothing about the fish dying, you are ignoring the text that you are investigating. Again you are also ignoring the theological implications of the text, God’s command over the natural world might be something you want to investigate here as a reason for the author saying that God commanded the fish to vomit Jonah up. Was the shark less than a foot and a half wide, was the shark still alive, was the shark in the belly for three days and three nights? If you cannot verify any of these claims then this source is worthless. How on earth would fragments of cuttlefish support a man living inside a whale’s stomach for three days and three nights? Now we have the whale being able to swallow a block four or five feet square, this contradicts your earlier claim that a sperm whale cannot swallow anything over a foot and a half wide. Remember the man who could forced himself down the whale’s throat earlier in your essay, well this doesn’t quite fit with a four-five feet square claim you make here. You should perhaps leave the earlier reference out as you contradict yourself by including it. The swallowing really isn’t a problem; it is the surviving that makes this tale unlikely. Were any of these creatures alive after three days inside the whale? Was Jonah’s skeleton found? I really do not see how this helps your cause, if anything it weakens your argument because I doubt that the skeleton was alive. There is a problem here too Ken, these website that you cite refer to recent sightings, none of them claim that sperm whales swam around the Mediterranean Sea almost 3000 years ago, you would really need a source contemporary with Jonah that mentions ‘great fish’ in the area. Just because there are sperm whales found in the Med Sea today doesn’t mean that they were always there. Deary me, your subtitle says accounts of men being swallowed by sperm whales and surviving.. However, Peleg wasn’t even swallowed by the sperm whale so why include it here? He wasn’t inside the whale’s stomach at all, in fact his entire body wasn’t even inside the whales mouth, why have you used this story? And is this the same Peleg Nye, not that it really does your argument any good, but how do you know this is the same guy? No it doesn’t seem that Mr. Nye was inside a whale, read the story, look at the illustration only his legs were inside the whale’s mouth and yes it was not for any extended length of time. Now with this in mind, how does this support Jonah living for three days inside a whale’s stomach? So why on earth did you include it then? The Bartley story is a hoax, here is a letter from the Captain's wife that I photocopied from The Expository Times:Issue 18, October 1906 — September 1907: From Mrs. Killam.
Yarmouth (Nova Scotia)
Nov. 24 1906.

​

We received your letter this week. My husband asked me to write you when we received J. F. Whitney’s letter in the summer, and I fully intended doing so, laid the letter away in the desk, and forgot all about it. There is not one word of truth in the whale story. I was with my husband all the years that he was in the Star of East. There was never a man lost overboard while my husband was in her. The sailor has told a great sea yarn. I wish, if it is not too much trouble to you, that you would send us one of the papers with the yarn in. I asked our bookstore people In try and get it. They tried, but could not. I would like to read what is supposed to have happened on board Star of the East that trip. Trusting this will reach you safely, and that you will pardon my neglect in not writing you before.Yours respectfully, J. B. Killam. So there you have a primary source, an eyewitness account from the captain's wife, that verifies that the Star of the East story was an old sea tale.Ken, this is one benefit of using a decent quality library as opposed to poor quality websites, you can examine the actual sources yourself and come to your own conclusions. You should question everything you read, do not take anyone’s word for anything, use you core skills to form your own work. What you are effectively saying then is that you are going to believe that the Jonah story is true regardless whether you can find plausible scientific and historical evidence or not. You have so far offered nothing at all to support your essay title, you really need to focus your attention on the scientific and historical evidence, the strongest part of your argument is that ‘God did it’ this is not verifiable. Ken I do not think that there is such a creature as the Carcharius vulgaris, can you cite your source for this? Now I am no scientist but I was under the impression that the Great White Shark classification is Carcharodon carcharias, but I could be wrong, but even if I am wrong you should double check your classification. OK, you need to support his too, how do you know that there was a Phoenician whaling industry there, how do you know they caught sperm whales? Now Phoenicians were semitic, is there any language similarities that may cast light on the term used for great fish in the Jonah account? Found dead, why are you citing this evidence, is it purely to support that a shark can swallow something as large as a human without chewing it first? But would the man still be alive? This is total rubbish Ken, and does nothing to support Jonah’s narrative. The shark did not swallow the sailor whole, he was in its throat, he was not in its belly for three days either, he was rescued almost immediately. Haven’t you already said this earlier in your essay? But has any example of a man being swallows whole and being taken entirely into the shark’s stomach ever been witnessed? These references are all useless Ken, you are going to be lucky to pass a test for 11 year olds if this is your normal quality of writing. Why? What evidence have you provided that supports your position because I cannot see any at all? Who would these people be Ken, you have not supported this claim either. Please take my advice here, I am not saying this to undermine your work but for future reference, you must remember to support everything you say. You cannot keep saying ‘some people’, you really need to say ‘some people, such as Mr. XYZ claimed in his book ABC that.Do you understand what I am on about? Why are these people the most knowledgeable, is it because they agree with your biased position, or are they better qualified than your other non-referenced sources? You need to support this claim as well. It may not, so then again it may. What evidence is there that great whites did or did not inhabit the Mediterranean Sea about 3000 years ago? Your sources must have some reason for saying that it may not have lived there. How does it fit the criteria better?You are aware that the shark is as much a fish as the whale? You should really stop using websites for all of your research, try getting off your backside and going to a library and looking up the relevant literature yourself. Where do you get this dating from for Jeroboam II? Whoa, wait a minute here, are you seriously saying that Nineveh was capital of Assyria during the reign of Jeroboam II? I really would love to see where you get this from and I am sure every Assyriologist in the world will get a shock as well, since Nineveh only became the Imperial capital under Sennacherib c.705 BCE. Its (Nineveh) special importance as capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire does not seem to be precisely known to the writer either, for at the time of the historical Jonah, Nineveh was not capital at all. Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III had held court there for a time in the 9th c BCE, but the city was only built up and fortified as the imperial capital by Sennacherib, after 705 BCE. In 612, the city was destroyed by the Medes and never rebuilt. Wolff, Hans Walter Obadiah and Jonah: A commentary. Ausburg Publishing House, Minneapolis 1986 page 99.) You seem to have trouble working out dates Ken, the late 750’s would be 752 or 751, 758 is the early part of the 750’s. Were are talking about before Christ so it is like working with negative numbers. Your proof for this is what exactly? And the point of all this is what? Your mixed up with the dates again, 759 does not follow 756, it comes before 756, did you really take this straight from The Ryrie Study Bible, if you did then it is incorrect. And these are the type of events that historical narratives usually include, that Jonah’s book ignores these events goes against your claim that it is a historical account. Why on earth would this be the case? Well let us see it then Ken, you are actually providing nothing at all here except empty claims, there is nothing worthwhile in your post thus far. Please try to support what you are claiming. Well there is quite a bit of work to be done on your behalf before you get anywhere near claiming this. How do we know this? You haven’t actually proved that they had stopped their sinful way of life. Do you know that what you have included in this paragraph is a theological argument? Well we can only speculate in what Jesus did or did not say but what a group of people believe has no bearing on whether something is true or not.But you also have a problem if you are using the Matthew quote as a support for a historical event rather than its theological intent. Does this quote not better support a resurrection of Jonah rather than a few days alive inside the whale, because Jesus was meant to be dead when he was in the heart of the Earth? Or is it supporting the possibility that just as Jonah was alive in the whale for three days and three nights, Jesus was not actually dead when he was in the tomb?
So you really cannot use what a group of people believed happened as proof that it actually did, all it supports is they believed it happened (possibly). No it isn’t, the Jonah account is absolutely nothing like an historical record, it is full of horrendous historical errors and misinformation. For example, who on earth was the ‘king of Nineveh’? Historical accounts normally include the name of the kings. Do you know that this is historically incorrect anyway, there are no contemporaneous references that support that the term ‘King’ was in use in Assyria at the time Jonah was supposed to have lived. If you have evidence to support your claim please provide it.It lacks every basic component of an historical record and it contains every element of myth and legend. For example, Nineveh is stripped of all historical detail, no geographical details are given and we have stories about a man being swallowed whole by a great fish and surviving, we have God intervening, we have plants that grow in one day, we have a worm that carried out a mission, and most ridiculous of all we have animals that repent! No ken, it is patently obvious that the Book of Jonah is not historical, it is immensely allegorical and legendary.If you had really done some exegesis of the Jonah narrative you would know that it isn’t written as history.This commentary from James Limburg (Jonah, SCM Press LTD, London 1993 pages 22-23), explains nicely that the Book of Jonah is not written as a historical record. The book of Jonah begins with the Hebrew conjunction and verb wayehi, often translated elsewhere as "and it happened" or "now it happened." Eight other biblical books begin with this same wayehi. In each instance that word introduces a narrative book (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Esther, Nehemiah) or a narrative section of a book (Ezekiel). The King James Version translated seven of these eight occurrences as "and/now it came to pass" (all except 1 Samuel). The wayehi the beginning of the Jonah book thus suggests to a reader or hearer that a narrative or storyis to follow. The book of Jonah begins:

​

Now the word of the lord came (wayehi) to Jonah son of Amittai, saying: "Get up, go to Nineveh." . . . But Jonah got up. . . . (Jonah 1:1-3)

​

The closest parallels to this beginning are found in the Elijah narratives in 1 Kings.

​

The Elijah cycle is introduced:
Now the word of the lord came (wayehi to him, saying: "Go . . . ." So he went .... (1 Kings 17:2-5, my translation)

​

The same pattern is repeated a few verses later:

​

Now the word of the lord came wayehi) to him, saying: "Get up, go to Zarephath . . . ." So he got up and he went .... (1 Kings 17:8-10, my translation)

​

The same formula with a command is also found in 1 Kings 21:17 and 28; see also the similar formulation in 18:1.

​

This wayehi formula in 1 Kings occurs in a section of the Old Testament that contains a high concentration of miracle stories connected with prophets, especially miracle stories involving nature: ravens bring food (1 Kings 17:1-8); bread and oil multiply (1 Kings 17:9-16); fire and rain appear (1 Kings 18); wind, an earthquake, and fire come (1 Kings 19:11-12); a lion kills a man (1 Kings 20:35-36); fire comes down (2 Kings 1:10, 12); the Jordan is parted, a whirlwind carries Elijah to heaven, water is purified, bears kill boys (2 Kings 2); oil is multiplied (2 Kings 4:1-7); stew is purified (2 Kings 4:38-41); bread is multiplied (2 Kings 4:42-44); and an axe head floats (2 Kings 6:1-7). The Jonah narrative, with its miraculous events involving the storm, the fish, the plant, the worm, and the wind, fits well with these materials. The Book of Jonah reads better as legend, the fish, the plant and the worm are all mythological elements. It is written in the same style as other mythological narratives, by ignoring the theological intent of the book you are missing out on a great deal.Do you think it is scientifically and historically plausible that a plant that can shadow a man grows in one day and then get killed by a worm? Is it scientifically and historically plausible that animals can repent and not only that, they also put on sackcloth?The size of Nineveh in the Jonah narrative is incorrect as well.Archaeological excavations have proven that the city was nowhere near the size that the Bible claims it was.The Bible says that it would have been a three day walk across the city, this is undoubtedly wrong. Excavations beginning in the mid 1800’s reveal a walled city, somewhat trapezoidal in shape, with a perimeter of about seven and one half miles. (Lloyd S. The Archaeology of Mesopotamia Thames and Hudson, New York 1984 pp187-201) The longest distance across the city was about two and three quarter miles. Limburgh page 78.)There is no way that a three-day walk across a city can only cover two and three quarter miles, the size of Nineveh is greatly
exaggerated for a reason, that reason is the author is not interested in recording accurate history he is only concerned with trying to stimulate his reader’s imagination into thinking about a ‘great city’ and obviously the greater the better in order to show God’s power.This exaggeration undermines the book as a historical record as well.
Wolff provides even more negative evidence to the historicity of the book when he writes: The narrator lends the city specific form by giving it dimensions which were unheard of in the world of the time (the book was of course written up to 500 years after the events it is claiming to present — my addition [Brian]), ‘the extent of three days march.’ This means that the city had a diameter of about 40 to 50 miles. Sennacherib’s Nineveh was 3 miles wide at its greatest extent (from north to south). Attempts to verify these dimensions historically miss the point of what the writer is trying to say. The reader is not supposed to do arithmetic. He is supposed to be lost in astonishment so that he can take in the events that follow in an appropriate way. (Wolff. Page 148) But much of what is written about the other prophets has been proven to be untrue as well. Moses for example, never led anyone through the Red Sea, he never wrote the Torah either. But they are not named in the Book of Jonah, this is another problem with taking the book as an historical record, historical accounts include things such as the genealogy, the place of birth etc. The Book of Jonah does not include these basic historical requirements. You do not even know for sure if they are referring to the same Jonah. But you have no evidence that these people (Jonah and father) actually lived, are you seriously expecting a publisher to allow you to support the historicity of the Jonah account by using another book of the Bible? You are in big trouble if you think this is the case. No it doesn’t, the detail is horrendously incorrect. All the detail in the book informs us that the author wrote the Book of Jonah long after these events were supposed to have happened, he makes far too many mistakes for it to be classed as an historically reliable account. The book is clearly didactic in intent, even Stevie Wonder can see that. Good, remember the word ‘sensibly’ here Ken. You do it again here Ken, who are the critics that argue this, you have to name at least one in order for your statement to be worth anything, without an example this is a pointless claim.I would also like that evidence that Nineveh was capital of Assyria when you think Jonah was there. You actually post a link later in your essay that says Ninveh was not capital of Assyria when Jonah lived, so why are you ignoring your own source? Was it, what is your proof for this? How is this any more barbaric than any other country at the time? Okay, you have a lot of information there Ken, yet you have not supported a single thing in that paragraph, why should we take your word for it, let us have some supporting evidence. Evidence? The Book of Jonah proves that the Book of Jonah is true! My good God Ken, where are your basic skills, this is totally shocking for an adult to write. Reference? Why would they have turned to Jonah’s God, there is nothing there at all to say that they were looking to another god? By whom, who would have told them about Jonah? What eyewitnesses do you have that saw Jonah being swallowed AND being vomited up? And you really think that people deserted their gods as easily as this do you? Do you have any evidence of this happening in any context at all during the period in question? Did the Israelites all desert YWHW when other prophet’s words came true? People thought that their gods could be testing their faith; they didn’t change at the dropping of a hat. Many websites declare many things Ken, but you really do need to visit a good quality library and research this topic yourself rather than simply using information from a handful of websites, do some of your own work. But you have failed totally and utterly to prove a single point Ken. No it isn’t, it lacks every basic element of an historical account. Evidence please, you cannot keep making empty claims like this, it is doing your case no good at all. London is a city, it appears in every James Bond novel, is James Bond then a real person?Have you ever heard of a historical novel? Well this is one possible category that the Book of Jonah can be put into. Dealt with earlier, people’s beliefs do not mean anything is accurate. Did Josephus think that Jonah was a real person, his account in chapter 10 of the Antiquities of the Jews only states that he was recording what he found written in ‘our’ books: It is also related that Jonah was swallowed down by a whale, and that when he had been there for three days, and as many nights, he was vomited out upon the Euxine Sea, and this alive, and without hurt upon his body; and there, on his prayer to God, he obtained pardon for his sins, and went to the city of Nineveh, where he stood so as to be heard, and preached, that in a very short time they would lose dominion of Asia; and when he had published this, he returned. Now I have given this account about him, as I found it written [in our books]. Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews in Complete Works , translated by W. Whiston Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids 1960, pages 207-208.)There is nothing in any of Josephus’ writings that supports your claim that Jews considered Jonah as historical, he was only repeating what could be found in Jewish books. Did it, do you have proof that it did? Why is this an historical record? Where in the Book of Jonah will I find the name of a real king? Jesus isn’t known for being that reliable a source, almost nothing he was alleged to have said has actually happened. I would say that Jesus is not a reliable witness. No, archaeology proves that the Book of Jonah is historically inaccurate, as one of your sources also does. You are using the Bible to support the Bible Ken, you cannot do this. I am shocked you missed Moses out Ken, yet another piece of misinformation; you are not doing too well.Mark 10:5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. What on earth are you on about here, are you implying that the size of the Book of Jonah somehow has an influence on its reliability? Yet the book focuses more on YWHW than it does on Jonah! There is no prophecy except for the prophecy, so there is a prophecy then Ken. This is getting ludicrous. You have to be a lot more critical of your sources. Have you never heard of the term ‘aetiology’? Yes the site declares this but it does not support it at all, the author has clearly not researched the topic. He even says that the city was enormous and yet archaeology proves that it wasn’t anywhere near the size that the Bible claims. You do know that the web page that you use as a source does not have a single reference on it? What does the term ‘cannot tell their right hand from their left’ mean?Can this literally be true, or does it maybe mean that there was 120 000 people that lived there who did not know YWHW?Are you really happy to argue that in Nineveh there used to live 120 000 people who literally could not tall their right hand from their left? And do you have any evidence at all that supports this? Can this large a number of people live in a city one mile wide and 3 miles long? Really, well there really wasn’t that many 19th century archaeologists Ken, so which ones are you talking about, Seetzen, Burckhardt, Layard, Robinson, Petrie, Eli Smith, de Saulcy? Any of these people, or none of them? Do you consider archaeology as being a science?Why is this?It is very interesting that you chose to leave out the word ‘evolutionary’ between the words ‘these’ and scientists’. The exact quote should be: These evolutionary scientists said the Bible's account was pure fiction and unreliable .Why did you leave out the word ‘evolutionary’ Ken, is it because it betrays the bias of the idiot that wrote this article?Also, these anonymous archaeologists/scientists were 100% correct, it was impossible and has been proven so. Who, where and when did they say this? I seriously doubt this claim, you really need to say who these guys were so we can check the accuracy of this statement. Well, as soon as you tell us who these scientists are and where and when they said what you claim they said, then we can look at the evidence. Yeah you would think that the aforementioned ‘mound called "Neby Yunas" ("The Prophet Jonah") for centuries’ would have been a good clue! LOLHowever, you do happen to contradict yourself later in your essay about who discovered Nineveh. How reliable is this website, let us look at what it claims. The first thing that caught my eye was this claim: In other words the Bible said this city was so large that to travel around it, would take a literal journey of three whole days! The Bible does not say this at all, the Bible says it would take three days to walk across the city, your source is incorrect here.Jonah 3b: Now as for Nineveh, it was a great city even in God’s sight, a three days’ walk ACROSS . Do you also notice that this web page also contains no references at all? Why are you continually using sources that are devoid of references? Ken have you actually read this page?It claims that: In fact Nineveh was so laid waste that it was considered a total myth of the Bible throughout most of the recent centuries, that is until it was discovered by Sir Austen Layard in the nineteenth century. How does this fit in with your claim that Botta discovered Nineveh?
You have grossly contradicted yourself yet again, think about what you write before you write it.So who discovered Nineveh, Botta or Layard?This web page is also incorrect when it claims: Austen Henry Layard excavated the Kuyunjik Mound (Nineveh) in 1847, unearthing the magnificent royal residence of king Sennacherib in 1849 with its 71 rooms and the incredible sculptured walls. He also unearthed the palace and famous library of Ashurbanipal with its 22,000 inscribed clay tablets . This is incorrect, Layard did not unearth the famous library, it was his assistant Hormuzd Rassam that discovered the library. On the night of December 20, 1853, H Rassam, a Chaldean Christian associated with the Englishman Layard, began to dig secretly on part of the mound of ancient Nineveh (in modern Iraq) that had been assigned to the French by Sir Henry Rawlinson, a British officer who was one of the first to decipher cuneiform. Two nights later Rassam broke into what turned out to be the library in the palace of Ashurbanipal (668-626 BC), an Assyrian King ( Laughlin C H Archaeology and the Bible Routledge, London 2000, page 3.) You cannot have read this source either!From your source: Assyria’s capital at that time was Kalhu, modern Nimrud, the Calah of Genesis 10:11, which lies 24 miles south of Nineveh on the east bank of the Tigris River in the country today known as Iraq. Your source here contradicts your claim that Nineveh was capital of Assyria in Jonah’s time, good god man will you start reading things and actually try to understand them!Look Ken, if you are genuinely interested in investigating the Jonah account as historically plausible, then I have access to several first class quality libraries and I can give you a hand to collect information. But h

Dear Brian:I think your critique of the writing was way overblown. For example, how specific do you want me to be regarding the "some people" at the beginning of the essay? Do I have to revise it now and mention PaulK for example. I would say the same regarding many of the other nitpicking. I largely see this nitpicking as committing the logical fallacy of criticizing style over substance. Here is an explanation of this logical fallacy in greater depth offered at a website:"While it is true that the manner in which an argument is
presented will affect whether people believe that its
conclusion is true, nonetheless, the truth of the conclusion
does not depend on the manner in which the argument is
presented. In order to show that this fallacy is being
committed, show that the style in this case does not affect the
truth or falsity of the conclusion."taken from: ForbiddenIn short, I see you being picayune in your criticism of my writing style as a way to gain some rhetorical advantage and I believe astute readers will see perceive this so I believe no further commentary is necessary at this time.Second, you complain about me using internet sources which I see as another logical fallacy which is the genetic logical fallacy (attack the source rather than focus on the substance).Third, a good rule of thumb is that you read a essay carefully before critiqueing it. For example, you complained regarding my belly comment but I clearly said the following:"I am not sure what an ancient Jew would have considered to be the "belly" of a whale."Now if you want more specificity I would offer the following website commentary although I would have to fact check this information before giving it my full endorsement:"The Bible phrase "belly of the fish" should not count against this hypothesis since ancient peoples did not distinguish as many internal organs as we do today. In other words the entire front (=ventral surface) of a fish or whale might be referred to as the "belly"."taken from: ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia I also offered further commentary:"Is it possible that Jonah could have stayed in the laryngeal pouch or sinus cavity and thereby avoided the gastric juices (this may not be possible and this is discussed later). I do not think this is a great solution if it was a sperm whale because the Book of Jonah indicates that God had the sea creature vomit Jonah onto dry land. I suppose you could argue, however, that Jonah spent most of his time in the laryngeal pouch or sinus area. I guess if it was in the laryngeal pouch area perhaps vomiting would dislodge Jonah although it would seem less likely."Upon further reflection I would say that Jonah being vomited could indicate he was somewhere from the point beyond the teeth and no futher beyond the belly in the digestive tract.Another major complaint you have is that miracles cannot be evaluated historically and included in historical accounts. I do not see where you proved that assertion at all. If you do offer any commentary on this please tell us if this is a unanimous opinion among historians and if some historians disagree please be very specific regarding who those "some" are if you vehemently believe that is the standard which need to be met and this definitely seems to be the case. Also, if you could say why "some historians" assert miracles can be evaluated and included to be historical events it might be helpful to your readers.As far as the historicity of the Jonah account I would offer some additional commentary:A website declares:"That the Jonah account was intended as history rather than allegory is the more obvious conclusion. Jonah is classed among the "Prophets" and all the other prophets of the Bible are presented in the Bible as literal persons. Furthermore, Jonah is named, his father is named, the town where they lived is named (2 Kings 14:25) and the period in which they lived is given. In other words the times places and characters are not vague and unspecified as they are in, say, the parables spoken by Jesus. The degree of detail associated with Jonah would anywhere in the Bible indicate that the writer is presenting alleged history and not parable or allegory."taken from: ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia Also, consider this information I obtained from another discussion board forum:"Josephus Antiquities IX, 10, 2 wrote:"Now I cannot but think it necessary for me, who have promised to give an accurate account of our affairs, to describe the actions of this prophet, so far as I have found them written down in the Hebrew books. Jonah had been commanded by God to go to the kingdom of Nineveh; and when he was there, to publish it in that city, how it should lose the dominion it had over the nations. But he went not, out of fear; nay, he ran away from God to the city of Joppa, and finding a ship there, he went into it, and sailed to Tarsus, in Cilicia (19) and upon the rise of a most terrible storm, which was so great that the ship was in danger of sinking, the mariners, the master, and the pilot himself, made prayers and vows, in case they escaped the sea: but Jonah lay still and covered [in the ship,] without imitating any thing that the others did; but as the waves grew greater, and the sea became more violent by the winds, they suspected, as is usual in such cases, that some one of the persons that sailed with them was the occasion of this storm, and agreed to discover by lot which of them it was. When they had cast lots, (21) the lot fell upon the prophet; and when they asked him whence he came, and what he had done? he replied, that he was a Hebrew by nation, and a prophet of Almighty God; and he persuaded them to cast him into the sea, if they would escape the danger they were in, for that he was the occasion of the storm which was upon them. Now at the first they durst not do so, as esteeming it a wicked thing to cast a man who was a stranger, and who had committed his life to them, into such manifest perdition; but at last, when their misfortune overbore them, and the ship was just going to be drowned, and when they were animated to do it by the prophet himself, and by the fear concerning their own safety, they cast him into the sea; upon which the sea became calm. It is also reported that Jonah was swallowed down by a whale, and that when he had been there three days, and as many nights, he was vomited out upon the Euxine Sea, and this alive, and without any hurt upon his body; and there, on his prayer to God, he obtained pardon for his sins, and went to the city Nineveh, where he stood so as to be heard, and preached, that in a very little time they should lose the dominion of Asia. And when he had published this, he returned. Now I have given this account about him as I found it written [in our books.]"As far as not doing adequate theological research again you never proved that assertion. I clearly offered the written sources of Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, MacArthur and Dr. Gleason Archer for readers to examine for example. I also offered online Bible commentary sites that offers the opinions of many theologians and Bible scholars.Also, I think the testimony of the science instructor for Seaworld was quite specific regarding the dimensions of a sperm whales gullet. If you take issue with it perhaps you should call Seaworld and get further clarification. I might also suggest personally crawling up a dead sperm whale like the Director of a museum of natural history did although I would not recommend it if you are not on the slimmer side.As far as the 120,000 people in Ninevah who did not know their left hand from their right hand. Theological commentators offer various commentary and if you had reviewed the commentators like you have insisted I did not you would know that this could refer to children or perhaps have been used as way of alluding to their lack of moral and spiritual development (you did find a source that mentions it could have been lack of spiritual development that was being referred to and I am not implying that you did no research in regards to commentaries or other sources). If you read the online commentaries I offered previously (which apparently you never examined which I find ironic) the children aspect is also discussed although it was discussed through the written resources I offered as well.I believe the King of Ninevah issue was adequately addressed in one of the online sources I had cited within my essay. If memory serves it was either in the Lutheran website commentary or in the academic paper that is online that I had cited or both. I do know that the written sources I had suggested the public more than adequately addresses your other objections. I believe the academic paper that I cited that may address your other objections as well but as I have read many sources I cannot say this for sure. As far as Botta is concerned I will have obviously have to do some additional research so I do thank you for your input in that regard.Next, I see you making many assertions that you have not backed up. For example, "if you take the time to read the entire book". Now I see this as being poorly asserted and a rather blowhard comment that is unnecessary. I think you are forgetting like another gentleman seems to have forgotten that the purpose of debate is to enhance the partipants and the publics knowledge and understanding and not to make the most insulting comments. You seem to want to publicize the fact that you serve the public in a academic capacity yet at the same time you seem to have forgotten the cordiality that one is expected to conduct himself as a discussant in a public forum while discussing matters of scholarship. Now I will point out when people are being inconsistent or using logical fallacies but I try not to stoop to such poor tactics as asserting with no proof that someone did not read the entire book of Jonah or calling someone a "fool" or other such unnecessary labels. I try to focus on the behavior and behavior that I can assert with confidence. Now I did mention your inconsistency in regards to you asserting your boredom with this thread. I felt that you asserting discussions regarding the historicity or science (gullet size, for example) as being so incredibly boring and somehow unnecessary to be even trifled with but you also wanted to interject at the same time in a non moderator capacity in those very matters.Lastly, I had made the following request when I posted this string:"Please do not turn this debate string into a open invitation to debate other Bible issues. It is not such an invitation. If you feel strongly about another Bible issue please open a discussion string on that topic. I know this is a reasonable request and I would appreciate your courtesy in this regard."Now Brian you have stated several times that you are a moderator here. I believe as a moderator you have an obligation to set an example and honor the reasonable request of string starters. Now you alledged that Moses did not write the Torah. This allegation is clearly outside the scope of the strings topic. Now if you feel you have a case for the non Mosaic authorship of Moses please offer those allegations outside of this strings post. I see no reason to entertain debate on such topics just as a basic courtesy to the strings readers. If you talk about other issues that are unrelated to the Jonah issue for example the authorship of 1 Corinthians, the Bermuda triangle, the possible second shooter in the bushes who shot JFK, I would argue not only is it a discourtesy to me but it is also a discourtesy to the string's readers. So I would like to know from you now if this is a reasonable request I made. I ask because I have noticed that many skeptics (though not all skeptics) when they feel they are losing ground in a debate that they bring up unrelated matters or exhibit rude behavior. I view this as a indication that they realize they have lost or are making deficient argumentation during a debate. I also feel that bringing up tangents, personal attacks, and rude behavior is often indicative of their realization that the debate is not going the way they would like it to.I will review your commentary later and offer additional commentary if I feel it is necessary but for now here is some of my initial response. I would ask for your indulgence should I not get back to you promptly as I am self employed and at this time I have a lot of tax work and other business concerns to attend to. I regret this fact but I cannot delay attending to these matters any longer. I will let you know right now that the amount of time I decide to devote to your commentary may depend on how you conduct yourself in this debate as a discussant. I would hope your cordiality and attempts to stay on topic improve.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-25-2004]

That's easy. Assertions of the historicity of particular supernatural events aribtrarily assume the ABSENCE of supernatural effects in the connection between the event in question and our present observatory faculties. In other words, you must baselessly assume that you are not being deceived by a supernatural trickster. It begs the question to assert that you can verify a particular supernatural event when you can't falsify the alternative explanations.

I did not call the Jonah story "allegory" - I called it legend.And I note that you really do not deal with the serious points Brian raised.For instance Brian's point that miracles are NOT "scientifically plausible" and therefore out of the stated scope of the essay needs to be dealt with. If you need to invoke miracles then it is because the story is NOT scientifically plausible.The summary of your "scientific" argument might as well be "the story is so vague we can't say that it didn't happen". You don't know what the "great fish" is nor do you know which part of its anatomy the "belly" is (although you provide no support for your assertion that it is the word itself that is vague - for all I know it could simply be an ad hoc invention on your part).And it would be rather good to know what it is that the 19th Century archaeologists said about Nineveh. After all they were RIGHT that there was no city of the physical size attributed to Nineveh in the Bible. So it is far from clear that it is the Bible that was correct and the skeptics wrong.But perhaps it is because you prefer to use unreliable sources which share your biases that you have this problem finding serious support for your claims. Indeed you cannot even see the flawed reasoning - 2 Kings 14 does not support the claim that the Book of Jonah is historical. At best it establishes that Jonah was a historical character - and a rather obscure one at that. And the fact that he is so obscure is a strong hint that he accomplished nothing very amazing in Nineveh - certainly he did nothing there that the author of 2 Kings thought worth mentioning.And I have to add this. The lack of support for many of your assertions that directly bear on the historicity of the account is very much a matter of substance, not style.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-25-2004]

You do, I thought I was actually quite kind to you. I would expect you to reference a source to support your claim. The normal way of referencing a source would be fine. You should include the name of the person(s) you are talking about, the place it was said (book, journal, newspaper article etc.), bibliographical details as well. This is a basic rule of essay writing Ken, you said in a post that you hope to be published, well a publisher will be more critical than I was. No, revise it and include a detailed reference. It truly wasn’t nitpicking, I was assessing it as I would assess any student’s paper. I am sure than any of the teachers/lecturers at the site here will tell you that I was quite lenient. But it is up to you if you don’t believe me. It was nothing to do with undermining your work, I was pointing out a basic rule of essay writing, you MUST reference a source to support any claim you make, don’t you remember this from school? I think your source would also say that the conclusion has to be supported by evidence; you haven’t managed to do this. I am not saying that the events didn’t happen, I am saying that you haven’t supported your claims. Advantage! I am trying to help you improve your writing skills Ken. I know quite a bit about the Old Testament and Syro-Palestinian archaeology Ken and I was using this to assist you. You really need to stop being so defensive, if you think I see you as a threat of any kind then you really have lost it. Will we ask some of them for their opinions? I attack your internet sources because they have not referenced their arguments either! What about the guy who said Botta discovered Nineveh, did he reference a source, and was he correct in his claim? This is why I criticised your sources; I don’t recall a single one that includes a reference. Where did I complain about the belly comment? It isn’t an assertion at all, it is a fact.
How can a miracle be verified as coming from God when the existence of God hasn’t been proven? You could verify an event that was believed to be a miracle, but you cannot verify the supernatural agent behind it. You could only verify it historically if there was a natural explanation for it. But if you don’t believe me then you tell me how we could verify a miracle. Of course miracles can be evaluated and included in an historical account, but the cause of the ‘miracle’ can only be explained by natural means. Once you go including the supernatural then it is no longer history, it is myth. I have already commented on this, but since you don’t appear to understand, we will look at it again. It isn’t the obvious conclusion, consider that THE BOOK OF JONAH does not contain any information about kings and time periods. It includes historical inaccuracies such as the size of Nineveh (I notice you blank this), the population is impossible, it leaves out the name of the king, it uses ‘king’ anachronistically, it includes impossible events, Nineveh is devoid of any geographical or historical detail, Jonah is described a simply a Hebrew, the list is endless. The book does not read a s history.You even admit that the 120 000 people who cannot tell their right hand from their left is not literal! It is pretty bad when you actually undermine your own argument Ken. Even if we grant that Jonah was real, it doesn’t follow that these events are real. Muhammad was real, does this mean the Qur’an was revealed to him by Gabriel? YES!! BUT NOT IN THE BOOK OF JONAH!You are arguing that the book of Jonah is historical, yet you have to use another book from the bible to provide details about Jonah, this weakens your argument that the Book of Jonah is an historical account. Yes, but the details and characters are not all correct. Who was the king of Nineveh? Could you reword this, I really do not know what this means? I actually included this in my reply to you, didn’t you read it?Now where does Josephus say that the Jews considered Jonah a real historical character? But your essay is not concerned with theology; remember it was I who suggested that you should do some theological research? I didn’t take issue with it, I pointed out that you cited different sources that contradicted each other. First of all you say the gullet wouldn’t take anything over a foot and a half, then you provide a source that says it can swallow something four or five feet square, and if I remember correctly didn’t you cite a source that said something about the gullet taking something eight feet wide? What I was trying to tell you is that if you have an example from someone that supports a sperm whale swallowing an object four or five foot square, then it doesn’t make sense to include a source that says a sperm whale cannot swallow anything over a foot and a half. The source for the four or five foot square object would satisfy the requirement. Yes indeed it COULD refer to children, but if it did then you have an even greater historical problem because you then put the population of Nineveh up to about 400-500 thousand people! All these people living in a one by three mile area. It wasn’t an insult, it was advice, the book tells you, go read it and find out. But there is evidence, you stated that you didn’t know what was distressing Jonah, so therefore you cannot have read the reasons in the book. Where have I said anything like this? I offered to help you by highlighting what you have to work on, I also offered to help you by providing materials from libraries that I have memberships at, these include two universities and the largest reference library in Europe, so I fail to see your point. But this is not inconsistent. A topic can be boring because of the quality of the post, but I did tell you the two reasons why I kept reading. I was expecting some answers to my questions plus my position as moderator means I read as many posts as I can. The way you presented them was (is) boring, but I was hoping that you would raise the quality of your post, or that others would become involved. I was actually desperately trying to understand what point you were trying to make, and I wasn’t the only one. If Truthlover hadn’t pointed certain things out I probably would still be none the wiser. I would like to think that you would be courteous enough to respond to my suggestions, I did put a few hours work into this.
But it would be a good idea to discuss one or two things at a time, then move on to something else. Ken, it is no problem, take as along as you need I fully understand how difficult it can be to find the time to post, I am over a week late with a response to CA.Take your time.Brian.

Dear Brian:We seem to have gotten our post crossed and you did not read the entire post I have composed and I added quite a bit of commentary. Please read the entire post because I believe there is something you need to read in that post if we are to further discuss things in a productive manner.Second, I would ask you again to limit your discussion to the content of my material and not to dwell on genetic fallacies or discuss style over substance. If I feel the desire to improve my writing style, I will read the works of such authors as Zinser and Strunk. I would also ask that you read my material closely before criticizing it and to not make the same mistake as ConsequentAtheist. I ask this because you just demonstrated in your critique that you did not read my material closely in two regards (Bartley). I would further add the Bartley critique displayed a gross inattentiveness to read my material closely in that I was very comprehensive in my discussion of Bartley in my essay so I cannot help but believe that part of your problem of you feeling my material is inadequate is that you are not reading my commentary and the links I provided. Perhaps if you lesson your desire to attack my material and spend adequate time reading it such a glaring mistake would be avoided. In short, if you are going to critique my material you should concentrate on the fundamentals and not miss things that I discuss at great length. I also feel that at least one or more of the objections you raised was more than adequately answered in the links I provided as I indicated earlier Lastly, although you did use the word fool in regards to me in jest when one the strings participants gave my posts a favorable appraisal, I did not take offense to it in any way. I was referring to ConsequentAtheist in terms of attempting to attach the moniker of fool to myself. I did not take this to heart however because as it is written: "Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken; lest thou hear thy servant curse thee." - Ecclesiastes 7:21. In short, Brian, I do have a very thick skin. I do expect civil and reasonable behavior, however, and there is less likelihood that I will fully engage a person should a person fail to meet this standard. In fact, there come a point when it is best to totally ignore some individuals due to their behavior. I certainly hope it does not come to that point with us and I do not project at this time it will, although I could be wrong.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-25-2004]

The above cited paper is not a submitted peer reviewed journal paper in theology or archeology in any way.It is basically a web blog written by an amateur Biblicalist called Nathan Wilson.Him and his wife are connected with a ministry and something called the Caleb Project.His only qualifications I could find was a degree from a Covenant College and a M. Divinity from Sangre De Christo Seminary in Westcliffe Colorado. I'm not even sure this place exists anymore, their website doesn't work. Looks like your typical Christian degree mill with no real academic standing.Next time kendemeyer, at least find someone who is a professional theologist from a real school.