The Exodus Decoded

[Minimalist]

I'd rather have the fuckin' pope.

[john]

I'd rather have the fuckin' pope.

now wait a minute min -

you are referring to catholics.

arch has made a distinction between catholics and christians -

which he has yet to explain -

and by the way would you please provide substantive evidence, arch? -

but my point is

what part of the hyooman condition

cannot be discussed by this board?

today's garbage is tomorrow's archaeology.




john

[Guest]

I think you boys are on the wrong forum. Talk about your pseudo-archaeology.

Why do you fear the evidences?

It does seem to be getting far afield.

Typical "skeptic." We provide evidence and you just dismiss it!

I'd rather have the fuckin' pope.

Are you serious? I mean, Morgan may be 56, but she could still "rock your dig-site," so to write.

Whereas:



I mean . . . no one is judging your "LifeStyle Choices," certainly. . . .

For this serious reason I have not publicised this site on a board I participate in, because I did not wish to have a Cu[CENSORED--Ed.]t Racist Homophobic Troll appear to expound upon Hancock with HUGE--I mean HUGE--photos and essays he steals from other people. That and ed would hunt me down with his garlic press. He can . . . do . . . things . . . with that garlic press!

Right . . . where was the topic?

Other than archaeologist does anyone else need convincing?

--J.D.

[Minimalist]

arch has made a distinction between catholics and christians -

which he has yet to explain -

He's made it perfectly clear to me. I don't agree but it's clear.

BTW, ever read Martin Luther's comments on Jews?
In case you were ever wondering where Hitler got his ideas.

[Guest]

when you children have finished with your stupidity, theforum is called 'the exodus decoded'.

i have put forth a reasonable theory that explains why there is minimal evidence for the israelite sojourn and wanderings, which no one has been abe to refute credibly.

plus i have posted a quote of humphreys' as to whom the pharaoh was at the time of the exodus. so far, i have only heard from my usual nemesis and denier of reality. hopefully someone else will seriously join in to present a honest and credible opinion sans juvenile moronacy.

[Minimalist]

You have not put forth a 'scientific theory' at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

What you propose is a guess - with only a lack of evidence to 'support' it.

[john]

again, please provide your distinction between christianity and catholicism.

and, what exactly is "moronacy"?

something to do with theocracy?


yrs. truly,


john

[Guest]

You have not put forth a 'scientific theory' at all

i never said it was a scientific theory, i said it was a 'reasonable' one.

[Minimalist]

Reasonable to whom?

[Guest]

You have not put forth a 'scientific theory' at all

i never said it was a scientific theory, i said it was a 'reasonable' one.

Well . . . then allow us to retort:



--J.D.

[Guest]

you never read it---it is in another thread about 20 pages back from its present position.

[Guest]

You presume too much.

However, since I have not encountered this:

i have put forth a reasonable theory that explains why there is minimal evidence for the israelite sojourn and wanderings, which no one has been abe to refute credibly.

in the peer-review literature, and you have not addressed the evidence given to you demonstrating why such a claim is wrong, and your general approach to a rebuttal is to ignore it in a wave of fallacy and indignation, I think it quite reasonable to observe:



--J.D.

[Guest]

the theoryis placed in current biblical archaeology, starting about pg 85. it is in rough form as i have already stated more work needs to be done on it.

if you want to enter a conversation mid-stream, there are proper ways to do that, like being polite. when i put that theory in a paper and submit it to magazines, i will post it here for perusal, until then you will have to make do with the fact that the conversation is moved to another level.

Reasonable to whom?

to those who are serious andopen-minded about the israeli history, of course.

i think a lot of misconceptions and assumptions have been made about israel's past which have led a lot of scholars down the wrong trail and they missed discovery the truth. yes, i put finkelstein and dever in that group because they limit their conclusions to what they find and not contend with other factors.

[Guest]

the[Sic-Ed.] theoryis[Sic-Ed.] placed in current biblical archaeology, starting about pg 85. it[Sic-Ed.] is in rough form as i have already stated more work needs to be done on it.

"i don't want to go searching. . . ."

"Sauce for the goose," my lad. Nevertheless, the objection remains.

if [Sic-Ed.]you want to enter a conversation mid-stream, there are proper ways to do that, like being polite.

Yet is this individual so rude.

. . . when i [Sic-Ed.] put that theory in a paper and submit it to magazines, i [Sic-Ed.] will post it here for perusal, . . .

Peer-reviewed literature, not some fan rag. Before the individual attempts that, I strongly recommend familiarity with the subject and the basics of grammar and punctuation.

. . . until then you will have to make do with the fact that the conversation is moved to another level.

Do not fear, no matter how deep you descend, we will be hear to try to pull you into the world of, if not Gentlemen, at least that of the Great Unwashed.

to [Sic-Ed.] those who are serious andopen-minded [Sic-Ed.] about the israeli [Sic-Ed.] history, of course.

You have them HERE. You have failed to convince them. If anything, you have repelled them. You have demonstrated no interest to debate, no interest to educate yourself, you are rude, petulant, and often times boring. These are all defects that require correction if you expect to be received respectfully and taken seriously.

i [Sic-Ed.] think a lot of misconceptions and assumptions have been made about israel's [Sic-Ed.] past which have led a lot of scholars down the wrong trail [Sic-Ed.] and they missed discovery [Sic-Ed.]the truth.

You may think whatever foolishness you wish; you simply cannot expect the educated to swallow it. Cyrus Teague "thought" the world was hollow, "and we live on the inside." Velikovsky "thought"--well, he thought a lot of foolish things, quite rudely and passionately. None survived scrutiny or confrontation with facts.

yes [Sic-Ed.], i [Sic-Ed.] put finkelstein [Sic-Ed.] and dever [Sic-Ed.] in that group because they limit their conclusions to what they find and [Sic-Ed.] not contend with other factors.

Ipse dixit.

No, you just dislike what they say. That is a weak and cowardly approach to scholarship.

--J.D.

[Minimalist]

"There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice....".

-Thomas Paine