Archaeologica.org

Arch you need to credit your quotes to someone. Not only to avoid charges of plagiarism, but so we know you didn't make it up or that you're not quoting Peewee Herman or someone equally as stupid

please... give me a little credit for being honest besides any religious person i quote you would equate them with pee wee herman. i believe i pulled that one from 'answers in genesis' i threw itout there just to see what kindof response i would get.

i amsurei could get a more scholarly source to corroborrate as we know that to be true. the style of the tablets is not whatis important itis the names and palces that confirm the bilbical usage of the same.

Doctor X wrote:

Minimalist wrote:You are making yourself irrelevant, Doc.

Come back when you have more to offer than one word.

Your fascination is neither required nor welcome.

Can't help fools.

--Sanjuro

--J.D.

I declared impasse days ago. You are keeping this dumb argument going.

i believe i pulled that one from 'answers in genesis'

I figured you pulled it out of your ass......same thing, I guess.

Doctor X wrote:

Minimalist wrote:I declared impasse days ago.

Your declaration is as irrelevant as it is conceited.

You are keeping this dumb argument going.

It is only "dumb" in that you have no rebuttal but like to pretend you do.

I rather think my "pretend" relationship is more . . . "fruitful?"

--J.D.

I disagree. You are going to need a lot more than what you have to convince me that Saul/Paul was not just some huckster promoting a new religion and I have long since concluded that you accept his one written word as..........'gospel'....if you'll forgive the reference!

Thus, it seems pointless to continue but WTF....I'm here every day.

I've read it. What part of "I'm not impressed" don't you comprehend.

If you do, good for you. You can believe in the Easter Bunny and it doesn't mean shit to me.

I don't.

Impasse.

You guys be nice. (Bob and Doc) You essentially agree on everything except the Paul stuff. Why quibble over some unimportant jesus freak?

I'm perfectly willing to let it go as something irrelevant in any case.

BTW, Doc....Arch is the one who points to "scripture" as accurate...not me.

I figured you pulled it out of your ass......same thing, I guess.

i wanted to see if i could get an unbiased, unprejudiced response that normally comes from seeing the source and not looking at the evidence.

the lesson here is that if it comes from a religious source, it is dismissed based upon that fact and not what it says. then there is the fact that no matter what source i bring, it is automatiucally dismissed without a fair hearing because it supports the Bible.

which in turn undermines any argument my opponents have for being scientific or objective. so the 'playing'/ discussion field is sloped in the direction of the opponents of the Bible. or so they think.

Don't worry, arch. God will get us.

C'mon archaeologist, give 'em some references to like.