Noah's Flood...

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:17 pm

Yes, arch..."strain credulity."

As in:

Most of us at one time or another have come across stories in the Bible that strain credulity, i.e., God made the sun stand still so a war could be fought, the story of Adam and Eve, a woman being turned into a literal pillar of salt, bushes bursting into flame with divine fiats to do this or that. It could go on and on.

http://www.amazon.com/Sins-Scripture-Ex ... 0060762055

BTW, this seems like a fine book!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:20 pm

And Spong is no atheist.

--J.D.

P.S. Regarding "credulity," one should not floccinaucinihilipilificate the importance of a good dictionary.

P.P.S. In the rain.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:31 pm

And Spong is no atheist

Well...one bible-thumping jackass who reviewed the book said "why didn't he just call it "I Hate The Bible."

What a great title for a book. Would have the archies of the world spitting blood.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:45 pm

Well, ol' Gerd Lüdemann did produce the wonderful The Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible.

It has a phenomenal discussion of the hrm, or biblical demands for human sacrifice. Lüdemann is an example of what archaeologist is suffering through as we write: beginning doubt in the veracity of the biblical myths. Unlike archaeologist, Lüdemann was honest enough to confront his doubts and prove an honest scholar. This is why his work is cited in the peer-reviewed literature while what archaeologist cites survives only on religious blogs and the delusions of fundamentalists.

--J.D.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:09 pm

How do you think all those other dogs got here?

breeding isn't just a modern day discovery.

i read through most of the reviews and it is easy to see that those who want to live the way they want to are using spong as their justification for their lifestyles.

the reason the Bible is so hated, is tat it calls people to change their lives and live under God's rules. that is why there is always so much resistance to archaeological finds that support or prove the Bible. it means those finds not only validate the biblical historical accounts but alsdo the theological ones as well.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:20 pm

I hate the bible because it is full of shit and people like you use it to try to shove your points of view down other people's throats.

It certainly has no effect on the way I live my life. No more than the Osiris myth which probably has just as much validity.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:26 pm

people like you use it to try to shove your points of view down other people's throats.

i don't shove things, i let people decide for themselves but i will discuss and refute other people's points when they are wrong.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:28 pm

it has been several pages now but i still don't see an answer to my challenge...detractors are great at criticizing but never any good at posting legitimate arguments in support of their position

john · Post by **john** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:30 pm

so -

what you're really saying is that noah loaded two dogs aboard a sixteen foot skiff (one must assume the dogs were of opposite sex, or we have yet another hundred page argument going here), and that the multiplication of the species to the extent we know today - from our two ur dogs - happened in the last 12k years - your event horizon for the creation of the earth as you have proclaimed it.

now, it is possible that noah mixed his genetic line with the dogs, but lets not go there for the moment.

and it does solve the problem of the size of the ark.

so, really , the ark hunters should be looking for said skiff, rather than some behemoth structure.

and the rather simple post i made earlier about documenting the proliferation of the species from - per you - a simple pair of dogs (plus or minus noah, of course) in the last 12k years should also put paid to all these horrible evolutionists.

documentation, bitte?

john

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:14 pm

archaeologist wrote:the reason the Bible is so hated, is tat it calls people to change their lives and live under God's rules.

Rules such as child sacrifice and genocide?

No small wonder. . . .

. . . that is why there is always so much resistance to archaeological finds that support or prove the Bible.

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam with a dash of cadit quaestio. Next time, go for the fallacy trifecta and add an ad crumen or ad misericordiam or something.

Much of the point that the individual has tried to ignore is that archaeological finds disprove the Bible histories.

Why so much resistance to that?

Fear of course. Here is the revelation:

it means those finds not only validate the biblical historical accounts but alsdo the theological ones as well.

Which theology? However that is the crux: he so wants external validation of his theology.

He will not find it. The texts, themselves, contradict themselves theologically no matter how hard he sticks his finders in his eyes to avoid seeing it. I have been "patient" not to bring up these contradictions, because I am sure the rest of the Noble Readership have seen them all before.

Yet does he paint himself into a "box" so to write. By clinging to such inerrancy, once it is disproven, he is lost in the wilderness like . . . like . . . a lost person.

Sad, actually. I would offer him the sage advice of a mentor: do you have faith because of or inspite of scripture.

If "because of," then one is doomed to ignorance, for only by adhering to ignorance, can they sustain such a belief.

--J.D.

john · Post by **john** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:22 pm

Doctor X wrote:
archaeologist wrote:the reason the Bible is so hated, is tat it calls people to change their lives and live under God's rules.
Rules such as child sacrifice and genocide?

No small wonder. . . .

. . . that is why there is always so much resistance to archaeological finds that support or prove the Bible.
Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam with a dash of cadit quaestio. Next time, go for the fallacy trifecta and add an ad crumen or ad misericordiam or something.

Much of the point that the individual has tried to ignore is that archaeological finds disprove the Bible histories.

Why so much resistance to that?

Fear of course. Here is the revelation:

it means those finds not only validate the biblical historical accounts but alsdo the theological ones as well.
Which theology? However that is the crux: he so wants external validation of his theology.

He will not find it. The texts, themselves, contradict themselves theologically no matter how hard he sticks his finders in his eyes to avoid seeing it. I have been "patient" not to bring up these contradictions, because I am sure the rest of the Noble Readership have seen them all before.

Yet does he paint himself into a "box" so to write. By clinging to such inerrancy, once it is disproven, he is lost in the wilderness like . . . like . . . a lost person.

Sad, actually. I would offer him the sage advice of a mentor: do you have faith because of or inspite of scripture.

If "because of," then one is doomed to ignorance, for only by adhering to ignorance, can they sustain such a belief.

--J.D.

two dogs and a skiff.

simplicissimus est.

j

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:31 pm

However that is the crux: he so wants external validation of his theology.

Isn't that always a sign of weakness of faith?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:34 pm

Absolutely!

--J.D.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:05 am

Isn't that always a sign of weakness of faith

why would i need any external validation? nor do i have a weaknessof faith.

what i do have are detractors ignoring the challenge and thinking they are something special because they took the coward's way out.

i have been vilified because i missed quesrions or ignored them yet as i recall, no one answered anyof my questions and i have been wiatingmonths for that to happen

plus i am waiting 2 weeks now for a credible answer to my challenge, so i guess i am not the one with no credibility. it is so easy to criticize and accuse but it is far more difficult to defend one's position and stick to it.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:15 am

archaeologist wrote:why would i need any external validation?

Because you clearly have doubts.

nor do i have a weaknessof faith.

Your actions indicate otherwise.

what i do have are detractors ignoring the challenge and thinking they are something special because they took the coward's way out.

You describe yourself well.

i have been vilified because i missed quesrions or ignored them yet as i recall, no one answered anyof my questions and i have been wiatingmonths for that to happen

I renew the suggestion to compose posts in a word-processing program first. It saved me from some "interesting" constructions in the Historical Junior Pontification.

Nevertheless, you seem to ignore difficult questions--like Which Flood Myth is the Correct One--and try to dismiss contrary evidence with fallacious pleading--such as trying to ignore what the implications of the requirement of such a volume of water delivered in such an amount of time. You also fail to provide evidence for your position.

plus i am waiting 2 weeks now for a credible answer to my challenge, . . .

What do I win? Randi offers a $1,000,000!

Nevertheless, I am unaware of any challenge you have issued that has not only been met, it has been decimated. That you ignore such remains your error but certainly explains the less-than-forgiving-counternance to your, frankly, insincere posting style.

--J.D.