The Amalekites are destroyed again and again and again.....

Hi Buz, Buz, can I ask which ancient writings you have compared the biblical genealogies with?Brian.

Brian,Who would you suggest best represents scholarly consensus on Tel Dan, and what is that consensus? Thanks.

Hi, Personally, I think the most balanced approaches to the inscription, the scholars who have presented a wide range of stances and given what I consider fair conclusions would be Kurt Noll, Neils Peter Lemche, and Frederick Cryer.I can give you what I believe the consensus is on Tel Dan, but I acknowledge that it may not be the consensus.It appears that, from what I have read, there is some agreement that the best interpretation of ‘bytdwd’ is ‘House of David’, and the most common interpretation of this is to accept that the ‘bytdwd’ is a reference to a political entity that was an enemy of the person that the inscription honours. Then, when secondary textual information is added from the Hebrew Bible, that political entity would be the chiefdom centred in Jerusalem in the 9th century BCE.I would also say that the scholars who accept this also believe that the information from the secondary source is undermined when other primary data is introduced. This leads these scholars to hypothesise over the exact character of the political entity mentioned in the inscription.Brian.

That you would find Lemche "the most balanced" is not surprising, nor is it an answer to my question. That's OK. Let me ask you this: would Lemche today agree that "best interpretation of ‘bytdwd’ is ‘House of David’"?[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 01-29-2004]

That depends on which geologists you refer to, those who interpret things like the Grand Canyon your way or those who interpret it my way. You people often forget there's credible geologists on both sides of the debate. Admittedly the majority are with you, but why shouldn't they be? They've nearly all come off the educational assembly line of thought which prevails in favor of secularistic ideology on about everything.

I forget nothing.What YOU forget is that the Flood was abandoned by geology more than a hundred years ago. You forget that the only geologists who support the Flood have religious commitments. You forget that even they cannot work out which strata were supposedly created by the flood. You forget the order in the fossil record which cannot be explained by "flood geology" and that radiometric dating shows that the strata were laid down over a long period of time.It is a fact. The Flood has been disproved by geology.And where is the evidence you claimed to have ? You've been ignoring my requests for long enough.

Hi CA I find that the Lemche articles that I have read to be one of the most balanced, but, obviously I haven’t read every single article written in the subject. Lemche at least admits the possibility that the inscription says ‘House of David’.I don’t know what Lemche thinks today, you would need to ask him. But the articles of his that I read, appear, to me anyway, far more balanced than say Kitchen’s articles.Brian.

This topic seems to have drifted off quite a few times, myself being the biggest culprit.I think that Brian and CA, Paul and Buz, and various combinations of, should open new threads, or re-open old ones if they wish to discuss their non-Amalekite topics.Cheers.AdminBrian

Brian, my statement about the amount of geneological detail was on topic so as to lend credence to the Amalekite account, and I think you would have to acknowledge that there's nothing in mythology that compares to the Biblical record as to family record and geneology, without the need for me to head off topic to defend the obvious.

Hi Buz,I disagree Your statement about the genealogical detail was to lend credence to the Amalekite account, however, in order for the genealogical detail too add that credence you need to support the credibility of your genealogical data.I also do not need to acknowledge anything, I was asking a genuine question. I am interested to know what other writings have you compared the Bible's genealogies with in order to come to your conclusion.You would not be off topic if your comparison was defending the Amalekite account. I am not saying that the Bible's genealogies are not superior, I am just interested to know how you arrive at your conclusion. What 'mythologies' are you talking about?But, as it stands, why should anyone just take your word for it that the genealogical detail in the Bible is superior to any other mythological genealogy?Brian.

Brian, I have no inclination to go further off topic about this, and no time to research the mythologies, but if you think you have a case, why not you do a thread to show that there are mythologies with ever as much entricate geneological family record and data that the Bible offers. I'm calling you on it and saying there's none to come anywhere close. I say, you're beating a dead horse here.

Forum rules :

quote:

---

4.Bare assertions on controversial points should be avoided by providing supporting evidence or argument. Once challenged, support for any assertion should be provided.

---

You have just refused to support your assertion - and indeed admitted to not even knowing if it is true.
I would add that my requests for you to explain HOW you would determine it to be true or not have been ignored. How would you compare it to the genealogy in the Edda that I referred to ?What is more you have presented no real argument of how the supposed detail supports your assertion.At this point you are already in a losing position and in violation of forum rules. It is unnecessary for Brian to do anything more.

HI Buz You have no time to research the mythologies! I thought you already had researched them, how else would you know that they don't compare to the Bible's genealogies? In other words, do your homework for you? How do you know there's none? You admit that you haven't researched the subject. Incredible.Brian.

I agree with Brian that this is just incredible.I'm going to attempt to rehash this particular sub-topic for you and hopefully you will see why it is YOU that need to substantiate your claim.post 77: post 89: post 91: post 99: post 101: Buz, do you understand that it is YOU that made an evidentiary claim? Your opponents on the thread asked for verification of this evidence. You then claimed that you have no idea and tell them prove their point in another thread.This is not how it works and I know you have been told this before. You make a claim...others ask for verification...you supply it. If you don't have verification then don't make the claim.Buz dear, you have a very bad habit of making assertions that you don't feel the need to justify.I'm going to copy forum rule number four for you again. I know that Paul supplied it just a few posts up, but it is a very important rule and I don't think you truly understand it.

quote:

---

4.Bare assertions on controversial points should be avoided by providing supporting evidence or argument. Once challenged, support for any assertion should be provided.

---

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Asgara, with all due respect, I think you are showing partiality here. I'm saying I believe there's no mythology with as much family and geneological data as the Bible. It's just logically quite an accurate assumption. Are you at all aware of how much extensive geneology there is in the Bible. I am and I think Paul and Brian are too. My statement is being challenged. Now I'm expected to go out and read every piece of mythology that exists and post all this data so as to prove my point. Isn't that what you're really asking? Brian seems to know about mythology as well as the Bible. He refuses to cite one mythology that bests the Bible in this. The fair and logical thing for him to do is cite one which proves his point and end this.