Re: Skeptics being wrong about the Bible. The Bible skeptics errancy list

Hi Ken, hope you are well.Regarding the information from the website, I have a few questions that need answering. I disagree, no one ever said that this was an error, this is pure unsupported propaganda. Oh, unless you can reference a critical scholar who questioned this verse of course, then I would have to admit that I was wrong. No he wasn't, your source has just picked a number out of the air. Then again, maybe he was Proconsul for a year, all you would have to do is provide evidence to support this and I would be wrong again.In short then, this claim against this particular verse in the Bible is a work of fiction by your source. He cannot name a single critic so why should we believe him?Next.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 02-29-2004]

Hi Ken,Well here we go on the Demeyer merry-go-round again.In post number one you claimed:"Luke in Acts 18:12, calls Gallio Proconsul, this was questioned by critical scholars but Luke was proven correct. When the Delphi inscription was found it verified some very specific history which before had been questioned. On the inscription it read: As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the Proconsul of Achaia[1]Can I ask you once again to name one scholar who questioned Luke's words?You seem to be having difficulty in supporting anything at all that you post at these forums.In post 22, you attempt to narrow down the search for me (even though it is you who makes the claim) by saying IT was a historian. This is contradictory Ken, first you say 'critical scholars' (plural) questioned Luke's statement, then you say IT (singular) was a historian, so was it one historian or various critical scholars?I found the reply' it appears to be a historian' absolutely hilarious Ken, you should be on the stage.You claim to have taught at a university Ken, do you consider 'it appears to have been a historian' as an adequate answer?You then procede to give us another totally different example in your quest to help me find the culprit! What is that all about?To make matters worse, the new example you give is utterly wrong as well, it is as bare an assertion as your opening one! You do it again! SOME historians, for example....Who are these historians Ken, name one for heaven's sake.What archaeological evidence showed Luke was right?People only have so much patience Ken, mine is running out, I think I have been very fair with you and have even tried to help you improve your essay skills, although you don't agree that you need help.But the sort of things that you are making basic errors with, for example continually saying 'some people' without saying who any of the 'some people' are, is really something that you should not need reminding of.I think it would be a good idea to go to a university website and download their first year students handbook and read through the section on essay writing so you can earn how to construct an argument. Everything you have posted at EvC shows that you really have quite a lot of work to do before you are ready to debate with anyone.Brian.

Hi WJHe didnt say he was taught at a Uni, he said the he was a tutor at a uni.This is the evidence: 8. Brian should have asked if I wanted his editorializing. I was a writing tutor for about a couple of years at a university so I could have gotten my material ready for publishing without his help. This is from HERE I would find it very surprising to believe that Ken had done two years tutoring at a university, however what can we do except take his word for it?Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 03-02-2004]

Hi WJ,I am familiar with this practice too as this type of tutoring is exactly what I do at on a Wednesday and Friday afternoons. Last semsester I tutored an Introduction to the Old Testament course, and this semester I am tutoring an Eastern Religions course, although I am doing this mostly for the experience as my High School job pays really well.In my experience, and yours, it is mostly first year courses that postgrads are asked to tutor, but I do know someone who has helped tutor advanced units. It is also my experience that to be permitted to study at a uni as a postgraduate, the applicant has to have an honours degree of upper second or better, although I hear there are possbile ways around this.I do agree with your conclusion that Ken's quality of discussion is not consistent with what I would expect from a graduate. I honestly mean this when I say that I have had essays from a few 12 year old children that are of better quality than anything Ken produced on the 'Jonah' thread. I am not saying this to be mean to Ken, it is just an observation.On the evidence available to us, I would say that Ken does not have any further or higher educational qualifications, but his tutoring may have been in a different context from the one we are familiar with.Maybe he tutored at Patriot University, I don't think it matters if you can string two words together or not to get a job there.As for twiddling our thumbs, I think it is time that Ken did start to support his assertions, it is becoming exceedingly boring to leave so many loose ends dangling.I do think that Ken brings up some interesting points that could be very enjoyable to debate. However, he doesn't focus on any particular part of an argument for very long at all. His thread on 'Biblical Archaeology' could be a terrific thread, I had a quick look at it and everything he has posted so far is wrong!The Old Testament and Syro-Palestinian archaeology are two major areas of my M.th dissertation and I think, on first impressions anyway, that everything Ken has mentioned so far is junk.The thing is, will it be of any benefit to Ken for me to take an hour or two to reply to each of his posts, will it be beneficial to me to do this? I personally don't think it will because until Ken learns to pick one or two details at a time for discussion, then it will be a waste of time to engage in any discussion with him.Having said this, I better at least reply to some of his 'biblical archaeology' misconceptions.Cheers.Brian.

HI Ken,Can we clarify something before we continue?Are you saying that in 1898 no one knew of any writings from the 3rd or 2nd millenium BCE?Is Schultz saying that there was no writing at all, or just that the Mosaic Law wasn't written?Are you also saying that before the finding of the Code of Hammurabi we did not have any texts dating from before Moses was supposed to have lived?Could you clarify if any, or all of the above are indeed what you are claiming?Brian.

Hi Moose,Thanks for the information, I assumed since Ken was posting here that he must have cleared it with the Queen, I will hold off replying until there has been clarification from Her Majesty.Cheers.Brian.

Hi Ken,I will respond as soon as Asgara gives the go-ahead.Needless to say that MacDowell's pathetic scholarship shines through yet again MacDowell misses out arguably the most famous find relating to this period, namely Tel El Amarna, excavated in 1887, and containing hundreds of tablets that were decyphered very soon after they were found.The Amarna Tablets The Amarna tablets are named after the site Tell el-Amarna (in middle Egypt) where they were discovered. The first Amarna tablets were found by local inhabitants in 1887. They form the majority of the corpus. Subsequent excavations at the site have yielded less than 50 out of the 382 itemized tablets and fragments which form the Amarna corpus known to date.

​

The majority of the Amarna tablets are letters. These letters were sent to the Egyptian Pharaohs Amenophis III and his son Akhenaten around the middle of the 14th century B.C. The correspondents were kings of Babylonia, Assyria, Hatti and Mitanni, minor kings and rulers of the Near East at that time, and vassals of the Egyptian Empire.

​

Almost immediately following their discovery, the Amarna tablets were deciphered, studied and published. There are a great many more texts that refute Macdowell, he seems oblivous to the well established schools of Egyptology and Assyriology from the mid 19th century onwards.Once the Queen gives the go-ahead, I can give you many references to disprove this joke of an argument.I am fairly familiar with Wellhausen, and I think he is beng taken out of context, but we will look into it once we get permission. So please do not reply to this until the Queen says you can.Brian.