PaulK writes:
Which shows that you fail to understand the difference between validity and soundness. If you included the statement "I refernced him because he is always right and never wrong" your argument WOULD be logically valid, but unsound because that premise is false.
Validity: "founded on truth or fact".
Soundness:"free from fault or error"
If I made the statement in this manner, as you quote me above, it would be niether, valid or sound, per the definitions. To reduce it to, I am quoting him because he is an authority, is niether, invalid or unsound, regardless of the outcome of the information. The statement in and of itself violates no principle of incorrect reasoning, therefore not a logical fallacy. The mere fact that you and I can debate this ambiguous point, should also show what I stated earlier, that often times the very terms themselves "logical fallacy", etc,can be ambiguous and over applied to any situation or statement. Think about it.
Let us remember that your "demonstration" was "analogies" which you weren't even prepared to defend as validly speaking to the actual examples. Moreover it is false to claim that there was opposition to the vague and general point you state. as has already been dealt with. You didn't even attempt to show that Rahvin ignored THAT point although you were quite willing to accuse him of doing so and insult him for it.
I never accused Rahvin of believing in or using miracles as an argument in his post. My contention was that if you reference them in connection with the scriptures and the historical accuracy, it could offer another explanation for the physical evidence we now see, this was the only point I was making, you blew it all out of shape. My analogies were not intended as an argument in this connection or in counter to him but as an"illustration" to the application of the point, not argument I was making.
I further stated that if I were going to cite miracles as evidence I would support them with the obvious physical evidence of the existence of God or a creator. If an omnipotent and omnisceint being exists then it would be no problem for miracles to be a part of the deity. This could be advanced as evidence in this thread in conjunction with examination of the OP or it could be explored in another thread. Either, I dont think would violate the thread itself. It just depends what folks want to do and that is appaernetly not up to me.
Lets put in question form. If God exists and miracles did happen as the scriptures indicated, could and would it change the physical evidence that we now examine? Yes or No?
I might also add that Rahivn's very categorical statement that "the extraordinary claims are where the scriptures break down" and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", could be construed as and argument, while not agreeing with there existence, in fact that is why I addressed it in the first place.
Further, since you still have not posted any credentials that I "requested", I know you are not required, but since you have not I must assume you are as "unqualified" and "biased" as I am to speak on historical matters. Since we both are and you refuse to place your credentials here (probably because you do not possess any)maybe we can leave the "unqualified" and "biased" for those that possess such credentials. Sound like a plan to you?
Also, you never told me what problems the Gap theory presents in connection with this aspect of the discussion.
CFO writes:
Very true, we have a ton of evidence supporting the Bible
{Why is he not allowed to post to this thread or am I not allowed to ask?}
Brian writes:
There is indeed.
But none for anything from The Book of Genesis through to the end of the Book of Judges.
But we do have a ton of contrary evidence for most of the narratives.
Thanks for that very big admission of a ton of evidence for most of the scriptures.
But the expression, "none for anything" in connection with Genesis-Judges is hardly descriptive of the actual situation and notice I did not say evidence. Again there is a difference between a lack of evidence presently or absence of verification, verses no indication or reference of things, peoples or places. You categorical statement is unwarrented for a couple of reasons. As I promised I would go back through the Biblical and innerancy threads and see what had been presented. And as I suspected much fine information had been presented in this area. As an example of this I would refer you to the thread, ' Exodus, Merneptah and the Isrealites'. In this thread IamJoseph, presents some very fine arguments, examples and illustrations to counter this point of a "ton of contrary evidence. Most of the areas where the "evidence" as you call it, or "not present", as I would call it, you would say are"appauling" and "lacking", are actually very interprative depending on who you reference. The mere fact that there is "evidence" at all for scholars to debate is indicative of high degree of accuracy on the Bibles part, wouldnt you say? here are some examples of Josephs arguments and presentations. I would highly recommend others to read this thread , it is a good one
IAM writes in post 3;
I don't think so. You are trivialising the word 'myth' here. The descriptions in the book of Exodus contains too many authentic, historical details, and too many dates and names - to be classified as myth so strongly. Nor is it true, and without any substance, that this document is one of many others who may be classified as myth: nothing like this document exists anywhere else. In a period where history is difficult to find evidence for, aside from stone etchings, we have numerous archeological evidences of the Israelites embedded in this period and this region, interacting with all the surrounding nations - aside from the book of Exodus, and these are not limited to the one Egyptian stele. Please show us any historical writing with as much backup? Myths don't come with such back-up; nothing does. First, stop and think.
Post 14 of the same thread by IamJoseph
Excerpt/Quotes:
Merneptah Stele
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Merneptah Stele (also known as the Israel Stele or Victory Stele of Merneptah) is the reverse of a large granite stele originally erected by the Ancient Egyptian king Amenhotep III, but later inscribed by Merneptah who ruled Egypt from 1213 to 1203 BC. The black granite stela primarily commemorates a victory in a campaign against the Libu and Meshwesh Libyans and their Sea People allies, but its final two lines refer to a prior military campaign in Canaan in which Merneptah states that he defeated Ashkelon, Gezer, Yanoam and Israel among others.[1] The stele was discovered in the first court of Merneptah's mortuary temple at Thebes by Flinders Petrie in 1896.[2] Petrie remarked "This stele will be better known in the world than anything else I have found" [3]and is now in the collection of the Egyptian Museum at Cairo; a fragmentary copy of the stele was also found at Karnak.[4]
--------------
The Merneptah Stela, now in the Cairo Museum, is probably the most analyzed ancient text outside of the Bible.
Undoubtedly, the most important mention of Israel outside the Bible is that in the Merneptah, or “Israel,” Stela. Discovered in 1896 in Merneptah's mortuary temple in Thebes by Flinders Petrie, the stela is a poetic eulogy to pharaoh Merneptah, who ruled Egypt after Rameses the Great, ca. 1212-1202 BC. Of significance to Biblical studies is a short section at the end of the poem describing a campaign to Canaan by Merneptah in the first few years of his reign, ca. 1210 BC. One line mentions Israel: “Israel is laid waste, its seed is not.” Here we have the earliest mention of Israel outside the Bible and the only mention of Israel in Egyptian records.
Since the date of the reference to Israel in the
. . ..
Hasel's study of the Merneptah Stela is extremely important. It clears up a number of misconceptions and focuses attention on the true significance of the stela. It indicates that Israel was well established in Canaan in the late 13th century BC and was a significant political force to be reckoned with. Hasel concludes,
Israel functioned as an agriculturally-based/sedentary socioethnic entity in the late 13th century B.C., one that is significant enough to be included in the military campaign against political powers in Canaan. . While the Merneptah stela does not give any indication of the actual social structure of the people of Israel, it does indicate that Israel was a significant socioethnic entity that needed to be reckoned with (1994: 54; 56, n. 12).
----------------
The area of Bethsaida is first known from the Amarna letters, a 14th century BCE correspondence between Egyptian pharaohs and rulers in Palestine under Egyptian administration. From the 10th century BCE Bethsaida was the capital of a small Aramaean kingdom, called Geshur; mentioned in the Bible.
The Discovery of the Hittites
The Hittites played a prominent role in Old Testament history. They interacted with biblical figures as early as Abraham and as late as Solomon. They are mentioned in Genesis 15:20 as people who inhabited the land of Canaan.
The discovery of the Hittites has proven to be one of the great archaeological finds of all time. It has helped to confirm the biblical narrative and had a great impact on Middle East archaeological study. Because of it, we have come to a greater understanding of the history of our language, as well as the religious, social, and political practices of the ancient Middle East.
Important Egyptian Discoveries Relating to the Bible.
1. Rosetta Stone discovered in 1799. This led to the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics.
2. Merneptah's Stele. First mention of "Israel" in Egyptian texts. Stele dates to about 1210 BC.
3. Amarna Letters (14th century BC). Letters written from Canaanite scribes in Akkadian to king Akhenaten about the conditions in Canaan, especially the troublesome Hapiru which probably refers to the Hebrews.
4. Inscriptions at Karnak. Karnak is the largest temple complex in the world. There also may be the earliest depiction of the Israelites.
5. Mortuary Temple of Rameses III at Medinet Habu. It depicts the battle with the Sea People. One of the five groups of Sea Peoples was the Philistines. There are carvings of what the Philistines looked like.
This message is a reply to:
Message 12 by jar , posted 07-18-2007 08:22 AM
Replies to this message:
Message 15 by jar , posted 07-18-2007 11:26 AM
Message 16 by Brian , posted 07-18-2007 11:49 AM
Message 18 by PaulK , posted 07-18-2007 12:44 PM
In post 22 , of the same thread IAJ states:
The articles were fine - reputable and in parallel with a host of others, but your article may not be. The Israel stele is definitely true to its time - so are the names listed. The world knows of the Hitites, Canaan, the Moabs, Ramases, Pithom and the ancient Egyptian diets and preist names, for example, from the OT - 1000s of years before archeology was invented. Earlier, someone even asked whether the OT calendar was accurate and the oldest - and these links were also supplied: it shows a lack of credibility in knowledge and conclusions made.
Joeseph writes again in post 23:
The philistines were around in the time of the Patriachs - some 400 years before Moses. There was an attempt by the tribe of Benjamin to escape egypt, which the other tribes did not agree with, and this tribe were massacred by the Philistines along the coastal route, almost 40,000 of them. This is what is the meaning of the verse: "The people might change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt." The bones of the benjamin tribe would scare the Israelites in Moses' time - the reason another route was taken. The philistines emerged and disappeared from the M/E exactly as depicted in the OT. I doubt whether you have sufficiently contemplated what you are inferring: that a myth was made of a 3000 year period, with fake stats along every 200 year period: your kidding!
In post 76, Brian writes:
This is just silly. The earliest extant texts are the Dead Sea Scrolls, written more than one thousand years after the alleged event, so how do you know it is least distorted? Do you really think that the DSS texts are identical to earlier texts and if so why?
BTW, pick almost any ancient near eastern texts and they have not been altered at all. The Amarna Letters, Nuzi Texts, Mari Texts and so on, and you have original ancient texts, what do we have for the Bible? Not a single original text, and the earliest extant is over 1500 years after some events described init, that is pretty underwhelming.
Joseph writes:
No, its not silly at all, and your remarks are not intelligent concerning ancient history and evidences. Firstly, the exact dates of this event are in dispute, which is not surprising or a negation of the event. The amarna and other finds are granite relics, discovered recently, and are not capable of changes while buried in the earth - these are now housed in museums. With the scrolls, that date is not when it was written: the scrolls represent a parcel of every book of the OT (except the book of esther), written 100 years apart the previous 1000 years, stretching from the Mosaic to psalms and prophetic scrolls, each identifying dates, names and places. There is nothing like this anywhere else, and it is not silly: it signifies multiple, ongoing historical credibility. The scrolls are also the same with today's OT, and the Septuagint of 300 BCE. In any case the scrolls, unchanged for 2300 years, represents the world's most undistorted document - excepting only stone etchings and relics which have been in the earth. IOW, there is no scripture or book which is unchanged for 2300 years. There is the book of the dead, but this is a prayer/epitaph, as opposed an historical document, and there is Hamurabi, which date is in much dispute: but that's about it. What's silly about it - the scrolls is also the first/oldest alphabetical books, and among 2 or 3 equivalent confirmations of ancient M/E history. The eight ruling chieftons of canaan, the moabites, the medianites and the philistines are foremost recordings of the OT.
The entire thread is very enlightening. Joseph's knowledge of these matters shows an inderstanding that virtually renders the title of the current thread as invalid and inaccurate. At bear minimun it demonstrates that Brian's comment about a "ton of evidence to the contrary" as completly silly. A simple reading of this thread renders his (Brians) comments as on "only" counterfactual and that is a far cry from a ton of evidence.
'A precisely stated proposition'
If a ton of evidence DOES exists for the majority of the Bible as Brian has addmitted, and the rest of the evidence that does exist for Genesis-Judges (some of which is present)is debated by scholars and therefore interprative, it would follow that the scriptures do NOT have an appauling lack of evidence from a historical context and this renders the OP thread as invalid, illogical and inaccurate. How is that for a precisely stated proposition, fellas.
It is agreed that lack of some evidence, doesnt lend assistance support to the overall document. But when specific evidence, like that Joseph has demonstrated exists and that that evidence is scrutinized by scholars, it points to the fact that "some" evidence actually does exist in support of Genesis-Judges.
Waiting of every single thing mentioned to be corroborated or verified, is simply not an objective, fair or reasonable manner in which to proceed. If it were, then ofcourse we would have to throw out the ToE, as well, or for that matter, any thoery at all.
Iyx2no writes:
Actually, I was being a bit sarcastic there. my assessment of the thread was you badly stating your position; Admin forwarding it; crashfrog, RAZD, PaulK, Dr Adequate, Chiroptera, Subbie, modulous, molbiogirl, and anyone else who made a peep on the thread ripping you a new a-hole.
Now, your apparent inability to ascertain that more then one a-hole is non-standard seems to have persisted, and informs my comprehension as to how any argument will find you in the future.
Well, since Quisp doesnt like my arguments and comments we should close up and go home. Give me a break. Here's and idea, actually present an argument in refutation to that thread and its main arguments, then I will happy to respond to something more than YOUR sarcasm and complaing.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
