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

Ken, this might be seen by some ungenerous souls as you running away from substantive debate on the thread which you have initiated. You did start the ball rolling by giving the case of Gallio. However, you have not addressed the questions raised by Brian in message #2. Until you provide the necessary supporting evidence, you have only made a bald assertion.What is necessary for you to give substance to this and any other claims of the like is:the original statement in the bible;
citation of an historian / archaeologist claiming the statement to be false;
the current evidence which supports the bible's statement and debunks the skeptical historian / archaeologist.That shouldn't be so hard.

Does it? Who? When? In what publication? What exactly did he say?You seem to have completely missed the point of my earlier post. Without the factual details, a lie is as believable as the truth. I suggest you do more homework than blindly following someone else's bald assertions.PS, it's WJ not WI.

I see no evidence that Ken has even been taught at a university.

Brian, the practice which I am familiar with is that university tutors are postgraduates in the field making ends meet whilst pursuing higher qualifications. Therfore I assumed that Ken had at least a university degree of some kind. But this would be inconsistent with the manner in which Ken has presented his arguments sans supporting evidence.Shall we continue to twiddle our thumbs waiting for Ken to provide his supporting evidence for any of the assertions he has made on this thread so far?

Oh mighty queen, I humbly beseech thee that thy unworthy servant Ken be allowed to continue to post in this thy regal thread if he actually presents the supporting citations and other evidence for any of the assertions that he has already posted here. No new assertions should be allowed, only provide the information as I detailed in my message #21 for any of his assertions that bible skeptics have been proven wrong. Banishing him from this thread makes an easy excuse for him.We your eternal servants humbly pray.

Here's another thread which is awaiting Ken's return with one verifiable example of a case where a bible skeptic has been proven wrong and the bible proven right.Come on Ken. Surely in all of those links which you have presented there is at least one case which has the details I listed in message #21, viz:

quote:

---

the original statement in the bible;
citation of an historian / archaeologist claiming the statement to be false;
the current evidence which supports the bible's statement and debunks the skeptical historian / archaeologist.

---

Why do you choose to hide behind the anonymity of "critical scholars", "some historians" and "skeptics"?

My request contained in message #34 is still relevant.