Egyptology Sets Up A Straw Man

quote:

---

Never made this silly claim as you know. My claims about God are from the Bible - you know the source which claims to be His word ?

---

Well, other people read the same words (or maybe the words in context), and come to totally different conclusions than you do. Others do not accept the same pieces of writing as you do as being from God.So, no, your concept of God might be influenced by the bible, but it is not from the bible.Now, it seems you took your theology from the interpretaiton of that con man supreme, the now thankfully departed promoter of British Israelism, ufo's and pyriamid power, Dr. Gene Scott. He did know how to say 'Tithe, or look forward to "sliding down the slimy chute straight to Hell" though.

Please rephrase this, it's false-to-fact as written. The average reader (correctly in my opinion) interprets the words "exact scale replica" to mean an identical shape and proportions at a smaller size. That isn't true, the northern hemisphere isnt composed of 4 flat triangular sides on a square base and characterized by hidden seams and so on. The great pyramid doesn't have a mid-atlantic trench or a magnetic flattening at the top.I recognize that it isn't false-to-form, you really are trying to say something rather than intentionally deceive. But the words "exact scale replica" do not say the thing you want them to. If it were me I might use the words "remarkable correspondence" or "obvious mnemonic device" or even "vehicle for hidden knowledge"; but it isn't me, you pick your words, just pick them more carefully.As written you may be giving some poor believer the impression that the northern hemisphere is actually pyramidal in shape rather than rounded, and that the 100.0% of the population who see it as rounded in pictures are only doing so because their Darwinism has distorted their minds. This could have a terrible "Emperor's New Clothes" effect and undermine any further argument you might wish to make.*goes back to watching the horses run around and around*

Atheist rant.Ray

Iblis,Have you read any of the previous GP threads? Looks like you are fully cognizant that this is a magical mystery tour of cloud cuckoo land, so sit back and enjoy! Just realize that it only gets more and more bizarre, you've entered the twilight zone and logic does not apply!wishing you humorous patience
lfen

Just a reminder that threads close at 300 posts.Carry on

useless post, rayand ramoss is right, all your proof is not from the bible, but from someone who has an agenda to make it look so
by the way can you explain your reasoning for saying people are struck blind when they do not agree with the bible? i find nothing that says that god strikes those who do not give him credit blind, other wise its is a baseless claimThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 01-21-2006 11:18 PM

Which part of his interpretation of Romans in Message 255 do you disagree with, and what alternate interpretation would you put in its place?For example, I am unsure if when Paul says "(hence) their minds were darkened" he isn't just reiterating what he has already said about the error he asserts they have fallen into. Ray (following Dr. Scott) seems to be taking this as something above and beyond their own error which is being imposed onto them, similar to the whole "hardening of the heart" scenario we are familiar with from the case of Pharoah in the Exodus storyline.

hmm i must have missed that, over all the other text, i wouldn't say pauls writings are wrong (i understand his meaning) but i don't agree that god would do such a terrible thing, why would a loving god do such a thing, this is pretty much off topic anyway

Ray is always right. Ray is never wrong. People who disagree with Ray are always wrong.

I beg your pardon? You attacked him, he responded directly to you, you ignored his response entirely and repeated the exact same attack, and you can't even explain where you disagree? Are you actively trying to make him look like a martyr? Again, who do you think you are fooling? Both my posts so far have had "Egypt" content, all Ray's posts either promote or defend his "Biblical Egyptology" premise. The person whose posts are off-topic is you, you are the one who picked the fight, acted in bad faith, and are now trying to step away from the heat by whining about the topic. If you do understand it, in some other way than Ray does, than explain what that interpretation is. This isn't rocket science, defend your points or withdraw them, don't try to gloss them over with some bullshit about your mysterious understanding. I dunno, mysterious ways? Obvious fictionality? There's plenty of precedent for it in The Law though. Here, this will be my "Out of Egypt" content for this post, from Exodus These are the very passages we are supposed to be debating the historicity of, and they clearly indicate an intentional figurative "blinding" of the opposition for purposes of making an example out of them. Excuse me? Ray concedes he might be wrong at the drop of a hat, all one has to do is introduce sufficient doubt on his "evidence" for him to withdraw it. Jar demonstrated this just a few posts ago in Message 247.Some of his opposition, on the other hand, can be caught red-handed not even bothering to read before replying, and just gloss it over like it was nothing. Ray would get banned for crap like this instantly!What is this anyway, a civil debate or a bear-baiting ?!?* edited to link citation correctlyThis message has been edited by Iblis, 01-22-2006 02:21 PM

You're almost right. I made an error; Ray has admitted error once in the thousands of posts of his that I hav read, over years on this and many other message boards. But he definitely does not concede that he might be wrong at the drop of a hat ... 99.999999999% of the time he dismisses the possibility with "atheist rant" or "Roman's penalty".Search "LLM" and read that thread and tell me how often he admits the possibility of error, much less the errors themselves.{Note from Adminnemooseus: The "LLM" topic is Longest Land Meridian.}This message has been edited by JonF, 01-22-2006 04:16 PMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-22-2006 04:33 PM

i was wrong, good going but you need to be more civil about it,have you read any of his threads?, he never claims hes wrong, only its someone else being blinded, or no god sensewhen i said it was offtopic i think you missed understood me, i meant asking why god would bline people it would be offtopic, i wasn't saying you were off topic in the context of a all forgiving god who loves everyone, namely the common understanding of the christian god, not the jewish god when has he really ever done this?, people told him something he agreed with it, then 5 posts down he says the same nonsense again no he wouldn't be booted instantly!, he might be told he's wrong a few times, but just like a lot of people who want thier view unquestioned he ignores things even after he agrees with thembut whatever works, all i can say is its a debate and people can be wrong, i was wrong, get over it

Your subtitle seems to be addressed to Admins, your "reply to" is addressed to Jonf, and the first few remarks appear to be addressed to ReverendDG. Just a little confusing.My current policy: I recognize that debaters are human, and sometimes go a little over the line. If the offense is minor, and the debaters are handling it well enough, I will let it go if I judge intervening will be more disruptive.But perhaps we should consider an early closing of this thread. Recent posts have not contributed much to the discussion.

---

Ok, what's all this then? EvC Forum: Longest Land Meridian EvC Forum: Egyptology Sets Up A Straw Man EvC Forum: GENESIS 22:17 / NOT A PROMISE GIVEN TO THE JEWS EvC Forum: Concerns for Percy EvC Forum: The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible. Which came first? EvC Forum: Water under the BridgeAnd so on and so on and so on. The second thing I noticed about the guy after the "Dr. Scott" idolatry was that he tended to concede more points than everyone opposing him combined. Admittedly he doesn't do it in the best graces, obviously it means he's wrong or at least unsupportable a lot, but it's still one of his defining characteristics in the impression he has made on me. Yeah, at this point sure he would, here's an examplehttp://EvC Forum: Human Origins: Let's Talk Mitochondrial EveTook less than a minute. Yes, it's because he's earned such scrutiny, I'm not denying that. But it does mean that everytime someone tosses in a jab about being "off topic" or "baseless" the dude is fighting for his survival. Can you document this? By which I mean, not You're a liar! as some people might interpret it, but rather that I tried to document it myself and couldn't seem to find it happening? Of course I'm getting a little tired now, so I probably missed it somewhere obvious in one of my previous citations.What I did find one tiny bit of along these lines is him being accused of not dropping stuff that he insists he has, as follows EvC Forum: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap Yes you're right, I'm sorry. I was agitated by the off-topic claim because I felt like I was being deprived of the on-topic argument I wanted from you against his interpretation of Romans + Exodus, and my tone really suffered for it. I found a couple of threads in the course of building this post where he has already been critiqued throroughly on this though so don't feel obliged to go beyond your summary, I get it, there are some legitimate interpretations besides old Gene's. But I apologize for letting my disappointment show through in my posting. Oh absolutely, I should have mulled on my response for several hours and perhaps compartmentalized it better. I did consider posting the "Admins" part in the Conseqution thingie, but really my content was directed at the other posters, all I wanted from you guys was some attention to the thread so you could judge whether I was seeing a real injustice happening or misinterpeting things.You do see the irony of it though right? It was like we were proving his point! Yeah maybe, I was really hoping we could get some more views of this Thutmose botch though. Like if for example one of those folks who placed the Exodus 1000 years earlier 'jacked into this Rehoboam vs Thutmose interpretation of the "Kadesh" engravings I think I might be able to learn something from the various claims and counterclaims. I don't know if there is enough room left in the thread for something like that to have a decent chance though. I trust your judgement Anyway here's my last bit of barely-Egyptology for this thread * sorry if I spoiled your thread Ray, hope you get a kick out of the flames it went down in though

Thanks for taking the time to list just a few of the things I have conceded. I could post a few more but I won't.Where is Jon Fleming right about now ?Jon's earlier flame about me never being wrong is easily explained when one remembers that he is a Darwinist and I am a Creationist...not to mention the periodic beating he takes from me at another board.Ray