Cute picture, but labels aren't arguments ... and certainly not discussions.
Again, you need to show your work.
For a nutshell example, when someone claims a miracle it's a violation of physics. That's kinda the deal. If it weren't, it wouldn't be a miracle. Bronze Age history is sketchy largely because even the historians didn't have a modern sense of recording events accurately, but rather they were all about telling good stories.
God
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:58 AMAgain, you need to show your work. Dunno why you look at me. To quote your post again...
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:02 AMYet a whole lot of religious apologists would like us to accept questionable ancient history as a refutation...Your argument is against a straw man. When you get those "whole lot of religious apologists" to respond as the group you say the are, let me know. Most strawmen I have known don't talk back. Would be curious to see it happen.
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:02 AMYet a whole lot of religious apologists would like us to accept questionable ancient history as a refutation...Your argument is against a straw man. When you get those "whole lot of religious apologists" to respond as the group you say the are, let me know. Most strawmen I have known don't talk back. Would be curious to see it happen.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: B0B on Yesterday at 06:15 AMYour argument is against a straw man. When you get those "whole lot of religious apologists" to respond as the group you say the are, let me know. Most strawmen I have known don't talk back. Would be curious to see it happen.
The specifics are in all the stuff you chose not to bother with though.
When people claim that we should accept the miracles presented by the Bible, they're asking us to count questionable ancient history over established physics.
You can use that as a key of a sort, and now you should be able to understand the original post:
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:02 AMQuote from: B0B on Jun 28, 2017, 01:20PMDon't forget, human records of history or events is never foolproof.Yet a whole lot of religious apologists would like us to accept questionable ancient history as a refutation, or a very specific set of one off suspensions of established physics ... and they like to argue that those who don't go there are just dismissing these special one off cases of questionable ancient history being allegedly more reliable than physics, out of hand, as if we don't need extraordinary evidence to determine that reality functioned very, very differently for certain special cases in which they're invested. And they manage to at least appear to be scandalized by this dismissiveness on the part of those who don't choose questionable ancient history over established physics, when even solid, relatively recent history would present a conundrum.
The specifics are in all the stuff you chose not to bother with though.
When people claim that we should accept the miracles presented by the Bible, they're asking us to count questionable ancient history over established physics.
You can use that as a key of a sort, and now you should be able to understand the original post:
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 05:02 AMQuote from: B0B on Jun 28, 2017, 01:20PMDon't forget, human records of history or events is never foolproof.Yet a whole lot of religious apologists would like us to accept questionable ancient history as a refutation, or a very specific set of one off suspensions of established physics ... and they like to argue that those who don't go there are just dismissing these special one off cases of questionable ancient history being allegedly more reliable than physics, out of hand, as if we don't need extraordinary evidence to determine that reality functioned very, very differently for certain special cases in which they're invested. And they manage to at least appear to be scandalized by this dismissiveness on the part of those who don't choose questionable ancient history over established physics, when even solid, relatively recent history would present a conundrum.
-
ttf_B0B
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:00 pm
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 06:39 AMThe specifics are in all the stuff you chose not to bother with though. Because they weren't all that specific, nor actually addressed to me but rather some ambiguous group... yeah.. I mentioned that.
Byron, you use reason and evidence like the GOP uses morals and ethics... something to bash opponents over, without need for them themselves.
Now, you have you own little bs post to play in. Is there any need to bring out your ruler in here? Millimeters aren't exactly impressive anyhow.
Byron, you use reason and evidence like the GOP uses morals and ethics... something to bash opponents over, without need for them themselves.
Now, you have you own little bs post to play in. Is there any need to bring out your ruler in here? Millimeters aren't exactly impressive anyhow.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
You're right ... after a fashion.
Pretty sure I didn't really need to explain that post to you, regardless of what your reactions indicated.
Pretty sure I didn't really need to explain that post to you, regardless of what your reactions indicated.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 06:39 AM
Yet a whole lot of religious apologists would like us to accept questionable ancient history as a refutation, or a very specific set of one off suspensions of established physics ... and they like to argue that those who don't go there are just dismissing these special one off cases of questionable ancient history being allegedly more reliable than physics, out of hand, as if we don't need extraordinary evidence to determine that reality functioned very, very differently for certain special cases in which they're invested. And they manage to at least appear to be scandalized by this dismissiveness on the part of those who don't choose questionable ancient history over established physics, when even solid, relatively recent history would present a conundrum.
It really does keep coming back to presuppositions doesn't it?
Yet a whole lot of religious apologists would like us to accept questionable ancient history as a refutation, or a very specific set of one off suspensions of established physics ... and they like to argue that those who don't go there are just dismissing these special one off cases of questionable ancient history being allegedly more reliable than physics, out of hand, as if we don't need extraordinary evidence to determine that reality functioned very, very differently for certain special cases in which they're invested. And they manage to at least appear to be scandalized by this dismissiveness on the part of those who don't choose questionable ancient history over established physics, when even solid, relatively recent history would present a conundrum.
It really does keep coming back to presuppositions doesn't it?
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 07:03 AMIt really does keep coming back to presuppositions doesn't it?
Or rather, verification, and I'd also say intellectual humility (the acceptance of the vagaries of human brain ownership and what that means regarding our thinking and perceptions, basically).
Or rather, verification, and I'd also say intellectual humility (the acceptance of the vagaries of human brain ownership and what that means regarding our thinking and perceptions, basically).
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: Baron von Bone on Yesterday at 07:20 AM
Or rather, verification, and I'd also say intellectual humility (the acceptance of the vagaries of human brain ownership and what that means regarding our thinking and perceptions, basically).
In other words, presuppositions about verification.
Or rather, verification, and I'd also say intellectual humility (the acceptance of the vagaries of human brain ownership and what that means regarding our thinking and perceptions, basically).
In other words, presuppositions about verification.
-
ttf_timothy42b
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:57 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Yesterday at 07:03 AMIt really does keep coming back to presuppositions doesn't it?
Presuppositions acquire a unique importance in theology and similar fields where measurable data is impossible to attain.
Hard sciences really are different. That influence is easily overwhelmed by evidence.
We can't measure the mass or density of an angel, nor even prove existence. We can make theoretical deductions about the nature, but there is no way to test. Nobody has an equivalent to a supercollider, or even a high school chemistry lab.
Presuppositions acquire a unique importance in theology and similar fields where measurable data is impossible to attain.
Hard sciences really are different. That influence is easily overwhelmed by evidence.
We can't measure the mass or density of an angel, nor even prove existence. We can make theoretical deductions about the nature, but there is no way to test. Nobody has an equivalent to a supercollider, or even a high school chemistry lab.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: timothy42b on Yesterday at 07:48 AMPresuppositions acquire a unique importance in theology and similar fields where measurable data is impossible to attain.
Hard sciences really are different. That influence is easily overwhelmed by evidence.
We can't measure the mass or density of an angel, nor even prove existence. We can make theoretical deductions about the nature, but there is no way to test. Nobody has an equivalent to a supercollider, or even a high school chemistry lab.
They also have a strong importance in historical investigations, which is what a considerable part of the discussion often involves.
Hard sciences really are different. That influence is easily overwhelmed by evidence.
We can't measure the mass or density of an angel, nor even prove existence. We can make theoretical deductions about the nature, but there is no way to test. Nobody has an equivalent to a supercollider, or even a high school chemistry lab.
They also have a strong importance in historical investigations, which is what a considerable part of the discussion often involves.
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
I think we would have better odds teaching an ant calculus than teaching a sceptic who insist they have the mental capacity to fully understand God.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ddickerson on Yesterday at 05:02 PMI think we would have better odds teaching an ant calculus than teaching a sceptic who insist they have the mental capacity to fully understand God.
Only the religious seek to fully understand God. This skeptic only wants to have a basic understanding so that I may try to see some of the vast number of oddities, contractions and inconsistencies that plague both testaments of the Bible in the right 'light', so to speak.
Like, why would the Assyrians need 185,000 soldiers to sack Jerusalem in 721 BC when the City only had a total population of less than 25,000? Why we can find no historical account of finding 185,000 soldiers dead in their beds but we can find a historical account of the campaign? Why we can find no archaeologic evidence for the burial of 185,000 soldiers in the vicinity of Jerusalem?
I could probably write 3 questions like that about hundreds of 'strange' events from both testaments.
Only the religious seek to fully understand God. This skeptic only wants to have a basic understanding so that I may try to see some of the vast number of oddities, contractions and inconsistencies that plague both testaments of the Bible in the right 'light', so to speak.
Like, why would the Assyrians need 185,000 soldiers to sack Jerusalem in 721 BC when the City only had a total population of less than 25,000? Why we can find no historical account of finding 185,000 soldiers dead in their beds but we can find a historical account of the campaign? Why we can find no archaeologic evidence for the burial of 185,000 soldiers in the vicinity of Jerusalem?
I could probably write 3 questions like that about hundreds of 'strange' events from both testaments.
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
Quote from: BillO on Today at 09:31 AM...
Like, why would the Assyrians need 185,000 soldiers to sack Jerusalem in 721 BC when the City only had a total population of less than 25,000? ...
Probably because it sounds better to lose 10:1 than if it were a pitched battle or (heaven forfend!) a smaller force!
Again, my issue is those who claim the Bible is a literal document. It's approximate. I would expect any document that has been handed down as it has to be that way.
Many of the "events" in the Bible are actually from cultures before the Jews existed. Note that we have to go three chapters into Genesis before we come to Abraham, the first Jew. Must have been a lot of folks out there before there were Jews.
Like, why would the Assyrians need 185,000 soldiers to sack Jerusalem in 721 BC when the City only had a total population of less than 25,000? ...
Probably because it sounds better to lose 10:1 than if it were a pitched battle or (heaven forfend!) a smaller force!
Again, my issue is those who claim the Bible is a literal document. It's approximate. I would expect any document that has been handed down as it has to be that way.
Many of the "events" in the Bible are actually from cultures before the Jews existed. Note that we have to go three chapters into Genesis before we come to Abraham, the first Jew. Must have been a lot of folks out there before there were Jews.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BGuttman on Today at 09:49 AMAgain, my issue is those who claim the Bible is a literal document. It's approximate.
I agree and would add that it's also more than just a little fanciful.
I agree and would add that it's also more than just a little fanciful.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Today at 12:10 PMI agree and would add that it's also more than just a little fanciful.
For some.
For some.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Today at 01:33 PMFor some.
If for you it's not fanciful then please feel free to explain the 721 BC siege on Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:32-35 in the Bible). You can just simply answer my previous 3 questions:
1) Like, why would the Assyrians need 185,000 soldiers to sack Jerusalem in 721 BC when the City only had a total population of less than 25,000?
2) Why we can find no historical account of finding 185,000 soldiers dead in their beds but we can find a historical account of the campaign?
3) Why we can find no archaeologic evidence for the burial of 185,000 soldiers in the vicinity of Jerusalem?
Or if this one is too tough, would you like me to drag another 'strange and fanciful' moment from the Bible?
If for you it's not fanciful then please feel free to explain the 721 BC siege on Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:32-35 in the Bible). You can just simply answer my previous 3 questions:
1) Like, why would the Assyrians need 185,000 soldiers to sack Jerusalem in 721 BC when the City only had a total population of less than 25,000?
2) Why we can find no historical account of finding 185,000 soldiers dead in their beds but we can find a historical account of the campaign?
3) Why we can find no archaeologic evidence for the burial of 185,000 soldiers in the vicinity of Jerusalem?
Or if this one is too tough, would you like me to drag another 'strange and fanciful' moment from the Bible?
-
ttf_Exzaclee
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
God
All of the questionable and inconsistent stuff in the bible and you guys pick the most easily defendable statements to go after.
Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 01, 2017, 09:49AMProbably because it sounds better to lose 10:1 than if it were a pitched battle or (heaven forfend!) a smaller force!
Quote from: BillO on Jul 01, 2017, 09:31AMLike, why would the Assyrians need 185,000 soldiers to sack Jerusalem in 721 BC when the City only had a total population of less than 25,000? Why we can find no historical account of finding 185,000 soldiers dead in their beds but we can find a historical account of the campaign? Why we can find no archaeologic evidence for the burial of 185,000 soldiers in the vicinity of Jerusalem?
Attacking a fortified city usually requires much greater numbers than the force being attacked. The occupying force usually enjoys quite a defensive advantage. Given the time and common weapons/tactics used, that number is only questionable if you consider the cost of feeding and transporting an army that size. Maybe 185K is a high estimate, but it's not unreasonable. I think you'd be stupid to go with less than 100K. Jerusalem of old very likely had grain stores for long term sieges and easy access to fresh water. An attacking force would do better to overwhelm with force than hope to starve them out.
Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 01, 2017, 09:49AMProbably because it sounds better to lose 10:1 than if it were a pitched battle or (heaven forfend!) a smaller force!
Quote from: BillO on Jul 01, 2017, 09:31AMLike, why would the Assyrians need 185,000 soldiers to sack Jerusalem in 721 BC when the City only had a total population of less than 25,000? Why we can find no historical account of finding 185,000 soldiers dead in their beds but we can find a historical account of the campaign? Why we can find no archaeologic evidence for the burial of 185,000 soldiers in the vicinity of Jerusalem?
Attacking a fortified city usually requires much greater numbers than the force being attacked. The occupying force usually enjoys quite a defensive advantage. Given the time and common weapons/tactics used, that number is only questionable if you consider the cost of feeding and transporting an army that size. Maybe 185K is a high estimate, but it's not unreasonable. I think you'd be stupid to go with less than 100K. Jerusalem of old very likely had grain stores for long term sieges and easy access to fresh water. An attacking force would do better to overwhelm with force than hope to starve them out.
-
ttf_drizabone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:22 pm
God
I asked google about numbers and ratio's of armies in sieges and all I could see was info about modern war or computer games. But my search wasn't extensive.
Although the figure of 45,000 troops in the offensive army in the siege of Minas Tirith is reliable I don't know how many defenders there were.
Although the figure of 45,000 troops in the offensive army in the siege of Minas Tirith is reliable I don't know how many defenders there were.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: drizabone on Jul 01, 2017, 03:47PMI asked google about numbers and ratio's of armies in seiges and all I could see was info about modern war or computer games. But my search wasn't extensive.
I'm not able to check out some of my historical sources in my library right now, but if I'm not mistaken this siege was part of a larger campaign that was supposed to include an invasion of Egypt and that the Assyrians also made extensive use of allies and mercenaries, sometimes in large numbers.
I can't give you details yet, but my "gut level" read of this is that it's not the "blockbuster" example of a biblical problem that a couple of you seem to imply.
I'll try to find out a little more later.
I'm not able to check out some of my historical sources in my library right now, but if I'm not mistaken this siege was part of a larger campaign that was supposed to include an invasion of Egypt and that the Assyrians also made extensive use of allies and mercenaries, sometimes in large numbers.
I can't give you details yet, but my "gut level" read of this is that it's not the "blockbuster" example of a biblical problem that a couple of you seem to imply.
I'll try to find out a little more later.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Somehow, the divinely-inspired prophets who wrote the Bible didn't foresee fact-checkers.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 01, 2017, 03:02PMIf for you it's not fanciful then please feel free to explain the 721 BC siege on Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:32-35 in the Bible). You can just simply answer my previous 3 questions:
1) Like, why would the Assyrians need 185,000 soldiers to sack Jerusalem in 721 BC when the City only had a total population of less than 25,000?
2) Why we can find no historical account of finding 185,000 soldiers dead in their beds but we can find a historical account of the campaign?
3) Why we can find no archaeologic evidence for the burial of 185,000 soldiers in the vicinity of Jerusalem?
Or if this one is too tough, would you like me to drag another 'strange and fanciful' moment from the Bible?
Do we know all things? Hell ok. There's a lot we don't know.
We will NEVER understand everything. We know more now than we did 200 years ago. No?
And to pile on top of that, you don't know what you don't know.
I don't see why it's such an issue with non believers that most people believe in God. I take much of what I believe on faith. It hasn't steered me wrong this far.
1) Like, why would the Assyrians need 185,000 soldiers to sack Jerusalem in 721 BC when the City only had a total population of less than 25,000?
2) Why we can find no historical account of finding 185,000 soldiers dead in their beds but we can find a historical account of the campaign?
3) Why we can find no archaeologic evidence for the burial of 185,000 soldiers in the vicinity of Jerusalem?
Or if this one is too tough, would you like me to drag another 'strange and fanciful' moment from the Bible?
Do we know all things? Hell ok. There's a lot we don't know.
We will NEVER understand everything. We know more now than we did 200 years ago. No?
And to pile on top of that, you don't know what you don't know.
I don't see why it's such an issue with non believers that most people believe in God. I take much of what I believe on faith. It hasn't steered me wrong this far.
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 01, 2017, 09:31AMOnly the religious seek to fully understand God. This skeptic only wants to have a basic understanding
No, the skeptic refuses to believe in God because of all the things they don't understand. They think they have the intellectual capability to have a full understanding of God, and when they don't, they reject Him.
You don't understand how the Jews beat off a superior force, yet in our own times, 1967, we got to see it first hand. However, for skeptics, you still question(mockingly) what's in the Bible. LOL!
No, the skeptic refuses to believe in God because of all the things they don't understand. They think they have the intellectual capability to have a full understanding of God, and when they don't, they reject Him.
You don't understand how the Jews beat off a superior force, yet in our own times, 1967, we got to see it first hand. However, for skeptics, you still question(mockingly) what's in the Bible. LOL!
-
ttf_Exzaclee
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
God
Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 02, 2017, 06:14AMNo, the skeptic refuses to believe in God because of all the things they don't understand. They think they have the intellectual capability to have a full understanding of God, and when they don't, they reject Him.
Skeptics refuse to believe in what they have no evidence for. The bible, if it's your only evidence, wouldn't stand up in trial. For starters you're convinced that it is the complete word of god when it doesn't even contain all of the books (thanks Constantine.) I distinctly remember Revelation 22:18-19 prohibiting alteration to the bible, and this isn't the only time that Western followers of christ have violated that particular order. Secondly, there are so many problems with the English translation of those books that were included that even allowing for the source material to be of god, there is no argument you could make that the resulting translations are the unadulterated word of god without moving the goalposts. The main problem you're going to have with skeptics is that you still insist, despite centuries of scholarship otherwise, to present the bible as a literal accounting of things that actually happened. There are "histories" in the bible that were meant to be understood as a record of actual events. Historians might fudge a few facts every now and then but dwelling upon inconsistencies in the historical record is a fools errand: every historical account of every thing that ever happened has inconsistencies and the bible is no different. And then there are fanciful stories that confer metaphysical powers upon people that are not meant to be taken literally - and the followers of this book can't tell the difference between the two. With its inconsistencies, questionable moral examples and outright contradictions, good luck getting anyone who has the full use of their intellectual abilities to just blindly accept the word of this heavily edited and badly translated book as the infallible word of God. It certainly doesn't help that many of this book's most fervent supporters have apparently ignored the core of Christ's teachings through their actions.
Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 02, 2017, 06:14AMYou don't understand how the Jews beat off a superior force, yet in our own times, 1967, we got to see it first hand. However, for skeptics, you still question(mockingly) what's in the Bible. LOL!
In 1967, the Israelis were better armed, better trained and had probably the most complete intelligence picture an army has ever had of an enemy thanks to CIA help and of course their own amazing intelligence service. The Israelis beat a larger force, yes, but hardly what one would call "superior." Intelligence briefings given to Johnson before the war stated that while the IDF was outnumbered by the combined forces of its neighbors, it enjoyed a "qualitative superiority in all aspects of combat operations." I'll explain: If I am attacked by 50 men wielding clubs and I manage to fend them off using my M249, I'm not defeating a superior force - simply a larger one. It is technology, not God, that saves me in this situation. God would've hopefully inspired those 50 men to find another way to solve their problem than attacking me with clubs - I mean, hell, this is Oklahoma and most of those 50 would've been "Christians." The Israelis defeated their neighbors in 1967 with superior firepower, not a superior God.
Skeptics refuse to believe in what they have no evidence for. The bible, if it's your only evidence, wouldn't stand up in trial. For starters you're convinced that it is the complete word of god when it doesn't even contain all of the books (thanks Constantine.) I distinctly remember Revelation 22:18-19 prohibiting alteration to the bible, and this isn't the only time that Western followers of christ have violated that particular order. Secondly, there are so many problems with the English translation of those books that were included that even allowing for the source material to be of god, there is no argument you could make that the resulting translations are the unadulterated word of god without moving the goalposts. The main problem you're going to have with skeptics is that you still insist, despite centuries of scholarship otherwise, to present the bible as a literal accounting of things that actually happened. There are "histories" in the bible that were meant to be understood as a record of actual events. Historians might fudge a few facts every now and then but dwelling upon inconsistencies in the historical record is a fools errand: every historical account of every thing that ever happened has inconsistencies and the bible is no different. And then there are fanciful stories that confer metaphysical powers upon people that are not meant to be taken literally - and the followers of this book can't tell the difference between the two. With its inconsistencies, questionable moral examples and outright contradictions, good luck getting anyone who has the full use of their intellectual abilities to just blindly accept the word of this heavily edited and badly translated book as the infallible word of God. It certainly doesn't help that many of this book's most fervent supporters have apparently ignored the core of Christ's teachings through their actions.
Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 02, 2017, 06:14AMYou don't understand how the Jews beat off a superior force, yet in our own times, 1967, we got to see it first hand. However, for skeptics, you still question(mockingly) what's in the Bible. LOL!
In 1967, the Israelis were better armed, better trained and had probably the most complete intelligence picture an army has ever had of an enemy thanks to CIA help and of course their own amazing intelligence service. The Israelis beat a larger force, yes, but hardly what one would call "superior." Intelligence briefings given to Johnson before the war stated that while the IDF was outnumbered by the combined forces of its neighbors, it enjoyed a "qualitative superiority in all aspects of combat operations." I'll explain: If I am attacked by 50 men wielding clubs and I manage to fend them off using my M249, I'm not defeating a superior force - simply a larger one. It is technology, not God, that saves me in this situation. God would've hopefully inspired those 50 men to find another way to solve their problem than attacking me with clubs - I mean, hell, this is Oklahoma and most of those 50 would've been "Christians." The Israelis defeated their neighbors in 1967 with superior firepower, not a superior God.
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: Exzaclee on Jul 02, 2017, 07:11AMSkeptics refuse to believe in what they have no evidence for.
Yep, that pretty well sums up their view. They have the miracle of an entire planet to investigate, (God's Creation), and limit what they believe to only what they can see, as evidence. That's the illustrative point I was making with the Ant.
Quote
The Israelis defeated their neighbors in 1967 with superior firepower, not a superior God.
You do realize that the nation of Israel is about the size of an ant, with regards to the entire Arab continent that they share? (who oppose them) And yet, you don't see the miracle in their ability to defend themselves? Also, factor in that they have only been there in their present location since 1948? As opposed to all of the Arab world being there since the beginning of time. IOW, they are the new neighbors.
Going back to the Bible, remember how a lowly force of Israelites conquered Jericho, even though, as was previously suggested, the people defending their base has the advantage over the forces trying to overtake them, even as they are outnumbered? That was the excuse given about how the Israelites were able to win over a superior force of 180,000?? 180,000 versus 25,000 as stated earlier.
Yep, that pretty well sums up their view. They have the miracle of an entire planet to investigate, (God's Creation), and limit what they believe to only what they can see, as evidence. That's the illustrative point I was making with the Ant.
Quote
The Israelis defeated their neighbors in 1967 with superior firepower, not a superior God.
You do realize that the nation of Israel is about the size of an ant, with regards to the entire Arab continent that they share? (who oppose them) And yet, you don't see the miracle in their ability to defend themselves? Also, factor in that they have only been there in their present location since 1948? As opposed to all of the Arab world being there since the beginning of time. IOW, they are the new neighbors.
Going back to the Bible, remember how a lowly force of Israelites conquered Jericho, even though, as was previously suggested, the people defending their base has the advantage over the forces trying to overtake them, even as they are outnumbered? That was the excuse given about how the Israelites were able to win over a superior force of 180,000?? 180,000 versus 25,000 as stated earlier.
-
ttf_Exzaclee
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
God
Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 02, 2017, 07:31AM
You do realize that the nation of Israel is about the size of an ant,
What the hell does the size of the country have to do with it? They had superior training, superior intelligence and most importantly superior technology. A modern war can't be won against a modern military without control of the skies and the israelis had the far superior airforce. There is no miracle in their ability to defend theirselves - it's math. They have the better guns. They have the better airforce. They have better intelligence capabilities and they have an ally in the US with the strongest and most advanced military on the planet. Do you not understand the difference in technology? Did you not get my analogy with the club and the automatic weapon? Vietnam defeating the U.S. is a much better example of an enemy overcoming a superior force but God forbid we ever see ourselves as overzealous aggressors or the Vietnamese currying favor with God.
You really need to bone up on your military history if you want to win this argument.
You do realize that the nation of Israel is about the size of an ant,
What the hell does the size of the country have to do with it? They had superior training, superior intelligence and most importantly superior technology. A modern war can't be won against a modern military without control of the skies and the israelis had the far superior airforce. There is no miracle in their ability to defend theirselves - it's math. They have the better guns. They have the better airforce. They have better intelligence capabilities and they have an ally in the US with the strongest and most advanced military on the planet. Do you not understand the difference in technology? Did you not get my analogy with the club and the automatic weapon? Vietnam defeating the U.S. is a much better example of an enemy overcoming a superior force but God forbid we ever see ourselves as overzealous aggressors or the Vietnamese currying favor with God.
You really need to bone up on your military history if you want to win this argument.
-
ttf_Bruce the budgie
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Offered without further comment: Drilling For Oil, Based On The Bible: Do Oil And Religion Mix?
-
ttf_Exzaclee
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
God
"Gawd created the earth so we could destroy it, says so right hyur in the bible"
okay, that's not an actual quote from the article...
but this is:
"Never mind that three Old Testament scholars consulted for this report say the ancient Hebrew word in Deuteronomy is olive oil, not petroleum. Zion is undeterred in its mission."
okay, that's not an actual quote from the article...
but this is:
"Never mind that three Old Testament scholars consulted for this report say the ancient Hebrew word in Deuteronomy is olive oil, not petroleum. Zion is undeterred in its mission."
-
ttf_Bruce the budgie
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
aand we're back to the "traduttore traditore" issues of fallible present-day humans pontificating about the literal meaning of a text without having a working knowledge of ancient Hebrew, let alone an immersive fluency informed by the cultural predispositions of its time. N.B. those cultural frames may have undergone several shifts, even while it was a living language.
Regarding Mr. D's latest straw man: As a skeptic, I can marvel at the world I live in, or at least the parts of it I've experienced, without claiming to understand it all. It is the discovery that floats my boat, not the inventory of stuff I think I already know.
Regarding Mr. D's latest straw man: As a skeptic, I can marvel at the world I live in, or at least the parts of it I've experienced, without claiming to understand it all. It is the discovery that floats my boat, not the inventory of stuff I think I already know.
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
I'm with Bruce the Budgie here. I really get interested when archaeologists find things mentioned in the Bible. I don't expect them to prove it outright; just show that things were there and at approximately the correct time.
There are a lot of errors and approximations in the Bible, as I've mentioned before. Many of the Teachings are good morality. I don't discard the Bible as total trash; there are a lot of good things in it.
Nothing would make me happier than our space explorations find a planet with Slarty Bardfarst (character in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy") who was the designer of all the features on Earth. We could call him "God" and be confident we know who he is.
There are a lot of errors and approximations in the Bible, as I've mentioned before. Many of the Teachings are good morality. I don't discard the Bible as total trash; there are a lot of good things in it.
Nothing would make me happier than our space explorations find a planet with Slarty Bardfarst (character in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy") who was the designer of all the features on Earth. We could call him "God" and be confident we know who he is.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: Bruce the budgie on Jul 02, 2017, 09:46AMOffered without further comment: Drilling For Oil, Based On The Bible: Do Oil And Religion Mix?
that article was from several years ago so I looked up history for the company ZN
After many years of no apparent earnings and a slow decline of the stock price from a high of $17 in 2009 to to about $1.25, recently there has been a recent run up in the price to over $3.50 that seems to exactly coincide with these events...
April 19
QuoteSHAREHOLDER ALERT: Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP Is Investigating Zion Oil and Gas, Inc. for Potential Breaches Of Fiduciary Duty By Its Board of Directors
(These kind of lawsuits are a rather common when a stock does poorly so it may not necessarily be a sign of anything really illegal going on.)
April 26
Quote
Press Release: Zion Oil & Gas Appoints New Board Directors
They've also started a new well in May but no oil found yet. The stock price increase must just be optimism.
that article was from several years ago so I looked up history for the company ZN
After many years of no apparent earnings and a slow decline of the stock price from a high of $17 in 2009 to to about $1.25, recently there has been a recent run up in the price to over $3.50 that seems to exactly coincide with these events...
April 19
QuoteSHAREHOLDER ALERT: Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP Is Investigating Zion Oil and Gas, Inc. for Potential Breaches Of Fiduciary Duty By Its Board of Directors
(These kind of lawsuits are a rather common when a stock does poorly so it may not necessarily be a sign of anything really illegal going on.)
April 26
Quote
Press Release: Zion Oil & Gas Appoints New Board Directors
They've also started a new well in May but no oil found yet. The stock price increase must just be optimism.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: Bruce the budgie on Jul 02, 2017, 10:16AMaand we're back to the "traduttore traditore" issues of fallible present-day humans pontificating about the literal meaning of a text without having a working knowledge of ancient Hebrew.
And let's not forget that many of the stories depicted in the bible originated from a time long before the advent of ancient Hebrew.
Hey, I've got a question? Where did Noah get cougars from? Or anacondas? Or Kangaroos?
And let's not forget that many of the stories depicted in the bible originated from a time long before the advent of ancient Hebrew.
Hey, I've got a question? Where did Noah get cougars from? Or anacondas? Or Kangaroos?
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 02, 2017, 10:34AMAnd let's not forget that many of the stories depicted in the bible originated from a time long before the advent of ancient Hebrew.
Hey, I've got a question? Where did Noah get cougars from? Or anacondas? Or Kangaroos?
From Amazon.com. Duh
Hey, I've got a question? Where did Noah get cougars from? Or anacondas? Or Kangaroos?
From Amazon.com. Duh
-
ttf_Bruce the budgie
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BGuttman on Jul 02, 2017, 10:23AMI really get interested when archaeologists find things mentioned in the Bible.
That corner of the world is layered with and upon antiquity. See, for example, the etymology of the first syllable of Tel Aviv.
I get amused when textual explorers go looking for the remains of Noah's ark without consulting the shepherds and other villagers familiar with the slopes of Ağrı Dağı. If we ever meet, your next pan-galactic gargle blaster will be my treat, as long as you're willing to sit through the three minutes it takes me to recite Marriott Edgar's "The 'Ole in the Ark".
"One evening at dusk, as Noah stood on his ark, putting green oil in starboard side lamp, his wife came along and said..."
Then BillO may give us a verse or two about Gilgamesh, if he likes.
That corner of the world is layered with and upon antiquity. See, for example, the etymology of the first syllable of Tel Aviv.
I get amused when textual explorers go looking for the remains of Noah's ark without consulting the shepherds and other villagers familiar with the slopes of Ağrı Dağı. If we ever meet, your next pan-galactic gargle blaster will be my treat, as long as you're willing to sit through the three minutes it takes me to recite Marriott Edgar's "The 'Ole in the Ark".
"One evening at dusk, as Noah stood on his ark, putting green oil in starboard side lamp, his wife came along and said..."
Then BillO may give us a verse or two about Gilgamesh, if he likes.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 02, 2017, 07:31AM 180,000 versus 25,000 as stated earlier.
Well, it would not have been 25,000. 25,000 was the entire population of Jerusalem at the time. Nearly 2/3 of those would have been women and children. Not all the remaining 8,000 would have been soldiers - most would be merchants, farmers, short order cooks, fat rich people, rabbis, etc... So maybe 2,500 soldiers?
You all seem to be missing the point though. My point is that Sennacherib would never have brought an army of 185,000 to bear on Jerusalem.
1) His whole army was only about 185,000. He did not loose it during the siege of Jerusalem as is evidenced by his many battles after that one.
2) He never used a field armies larger than about 50,000 because of the logistics required to keep them supplied, and that size diminished as the distance from supplies increased. Jerusalem is some 560 miles from Nineveh.
So my point is, there were never 185,000 Assyrian soldiers. The Bible is not correct about this and it's claim God killed 185,000 soldiers in their beds is hogwash. As Zac points out, that is just one tiny bit of hogwash found in the Bible.
Well, it would not have been 25,000. 25,000 was the entire population of Jerusalem at the time. Nearly 2/3 of those would have been women and children. Not all the remaining 8,000 would have been soldiers - most would be merchants, farmers, short order cooks, fat rich people, rabbis, etc... So maybe 2,500 soldiers?
You all seem to be missing the point though. My point is that Sennacherib would never have brought an army of 185,000 to bear on Jerusalem.
1) His whole army was only about 185,000. He did not loose it during the siege of Jerusalem as is evidenced by his many battles after that one.
2) He never used a field armies larger than about 50,000 because of the logistics required to keep them supplied, and that size diminished as the distance from supplies increased. Jerusalem is some 560 miles from Nineveh.
So my point is, there were never 185,000 Assyrian soldiers. The Bible is not correct about this and it's claim God killed 185,000 soldiers in their beds is hogwash. As Zac points out, that is just one tiny bit of hogwash found in the Bible.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: Bruce the budgie on Jul 02, 2017, 10:50AMThen BillO may give us a verse or two about Gilgamesh, if he likes.
Ahh, you mean the original flood story? The one that was plagiarized (incorrectly I might add) for genesis?
Ahh, you mean the original flood story? The one that was plagiarized (incorrectly I might add) for genesis?
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 02, 2017, 11:04AMWell, it would not have been 25,000. 25,000 was the entire population of Jerusalem at the time. Nearly 2/3 of those would have been women and children. Not all the remaining 8,000 would have been soldiers - most would be merchants, farmers, short order cooks, fat rich people, rabbis, etc... So maybe 2,500 soldiers?
You all seem to be missing the point though. My point is that Sennacherib would never have brought an army of 185,000 to bear on Jerusalem.
1) His whole army was only about 185,000. He did not loose it during the siege of Jerusalem as is evidenced by his many battles after that one.
2) He never used a field armies larger than about 50,000 because of the logistics required to keep them supplied, and that size diminished as the distance from supplies increased. Jerusalem is some 560 miles from Nineveh.
So my point is, there were never 185,000 Assyrian soldiers. The Bible is not correct about this and it's claim God killed 185,000 soldiers in their beds is hogwash. As Zac points out, that is just one tiny bit of hogwash found in the Bible.
Bill. What if they found proof of these soldiers tomorrow. Knowing lots of the Bible has been proven historically accurate, at what point do you change your mind.
You all seem to be missing the point though. My point is that Sennacherib would never have brought an army of 185,000 to bear on Jerusalem.
1) His whole army was only about 185,000. He did not loose it during the siege of Jerusalem as is evidenced by his many battles after that one.
2) He never used a field armies larger than about 50,000 because of the logistics required to keep them supplied, and that size diminished as the distance from supplies increased. Jerusalem is some 560 miles from Nineveh.
So my point is, there were never 185,000 Assyrian soldiers. The Bible is not correct about this and it's claim God killed 185,000 soldiers in their beds is hogwash. As Zac points out, that is just one tiny bit of hogwash found in the Bible.
Bill. What if they found proof of these soldiers tomorrow. Knowing lots of the Bible has been proven historically accurate, at what point do you change your mind.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 02, 2017, 11:12AMKnowing lots of the Bible has been proven historically accurate, at what point do you change your mind.
Knowing lots of the Bible has been proven historically inaccurate, at what point do you change your mind.
Knowing lots of the Bible has been proven historically inaccurate, at what point do you change your mind.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jul 02, 2017, 11:46AMKnowing lots of the Bible has been proven historically inaccurate, at what point do you change your mind.
Thanks for a direct answer. Bill.
"Ya gotta have faith"
You apparently lack it so....
Thanks for a direct answer. Bill.
"Ya gotta have faith"
You apparently lack it so....
-
ttf_Bruce the budgie
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 02, 2017, 11:09AMAhh, you mean the original flood story? The one that was plagiarized (incorrectly I might add) for genesis?
As a musician, you probably already know that good artists borrow, while great ones steal.
@ronkny, our guest room's bed is covered with a quilt whose top was pieced together, in the pattern called pinwheel, by a now elderly family member, who also did the quilting in a stylized foliate design. We've taken appropriate care of it, without reverence or preciousness. I don't think a baby ever spit up on it, but if it happened, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Point being, the overall feel of warmth comes from the coherence of all the pieces. A hole might let in a draft, reducing the enveloping comfort level to something like "it's better than nothing, but I wish my toes were warmer."
The begats and smitings in the Bible are interesting to some. Tonsorial regulations and diagnostic signs of leprosy are also interesting, but scarcely applicable in today's world. The NT has some worthy stories in it, but I've never understood why that fig tree had to die for being in an inconvenient phase of its seasonal round.
A well-read Catholic of my acquaintance once loaned me a copy of Bruce Chilton's Rabbi Jesus which I found fascinating. It goes into the cultural details of the time surrounding that ministry, as well as the spiritual journey of the carpenter (most likely a teknon, a sort of handyman or construction worker) at the center of it. Recommended reading to anyone interested, it even explores the attitudes of the time towards a mamzer, or child of uncertain paternity.
As a musician, you probably already know that good artists borrow, while great ones steal.
@ronkny, our guest room's bed is covered with a quilt whose top was pieced together, in the pattern called pinwheel, by a now elderly family member, who also did the quilting in a stylized foliate design. We've taken appropriate care of it, without reverence or preciousness. I don't think a baby ever spit up on it, but if it happened, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Point being, the overall feel of warmth comes from the coherence of all the pieces. A hole might let in a draft, reducing the enveloping comfort level to something like "it's better than nothing, but I wish my toes were warmer."
The begats and smitings in the Bible are interesting to some. Tonsorial regulations and diagnostic signs of leprosy are also interesting, but scarcely applicable in today's world. The NT has some worthy stories in it, but I've never understood why that fig tree had to die for being in an inconvenient phase of its seasonal round.
A well-read Catholic of my acquaintance once loaned me a copy of Bruce Chilton's Rabbi Jesus which I found fascinating. It goes into the cultural details of the time surrounding that ministry, as well as the spiritual journey of the carpenter (most likely a teknon, a sort of handyman or construction worker) at the center of it. Recommended reading to anyone interested, it even explores the attitudes of the time towards a mamzer, or child of uncertain paternity.
-
ttf_BillO
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 02, 2017, 11:12AMBill. What if they found proof of these soldiers tomorrow. Knowing lots of the Bible has been proven historically accurate, at what point do you change your mind.
Actually it was Robert that answered you before, but aside from what he said (which I agree with) I'd be delighted if they found proof that the soldiers existed. It would be a significant update in history, and the bible would have one less fanciful story. Sounds like a win-win to me. But that would be just one in many hundreds. Further, it's not just the fanciful stories. I just can't take the mental anguish I go through trying to reconcile this image of a loving, caring benevolent God with the most infamous serial mass murderer presented to us in the pages of the Bible.
Actually it was Robert that answered you before, but aside from what he said (which I agree with) I'd be delighted if they found proof that the soldiers existed. It would be a significant update in history, and the bible would have one less fanciful story. Sounds like a win-win to me. But that would be just one in many hundreds. Further, it's not just the fanciful stories. I just can't take the mental anguish I go through trying to reconcile this image of a loving, caring benevolent God with the most infamous serial mass murderer presented to us in the pages of the Bible.
-
ttf_ddickerson
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: Exzaclee on Jul 02, 2017, 08:26AMWhat the hell does the size of the country have to do with it? They had superior training, superior intelligence and most importantly superior technology. A modern war can't be won against a modern military without control of the skies and the israelis had the far superior airforce. There is no miracle in their ability to defend theirselves - it's math. They have the better guns. They have the better airforce. They have better intelligence capabilities and they have an ally in the US with the strongest and most advanced military on the planet. Do you not understand the difference in technology? Did you not get my analogy with the club and the automatic weapon? Vietnam defeating the U.S. is a much better example of an enemy overcoming a superior force but God forbid we ever see ourselves as overzealous aggressors or the Vietnamese currying favor with God.
You really need to bone up on your military history if you want to win this argument.
I'm not trying to win this argument. In fact, I'm just commenting on it. You think that it is 'normal' for this small a country, this new country, to all of a sudden be superior in all the ways you pointed out? What was every body else doing? Attending a siesta eating fajitas?
BTW, Vietnam did not defeat the United States. You need to go back and read the real history. If that's what your HS taught you, they did you a disservice. Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I hope that you enjoy your Independence Day holiday!
You really need to bone up on your military history if you want to win this argument.
I'm not trying to win this argument. In fact, I'm just commenting on it. You think that it is 'normal' for this small a country, this new country, to all of a sudden be superior in all the ways you pointed out? What was every body else doing? Attending a siesta eating fajitas?
BTW, Vietnam did not defeat the United States. You need to go back and read the real history. If that's what your HS taught you, they did you a disservice. Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I hope that you enjoy your Independence Day holiday!
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 01, 2017, 05:01PMI don't see why it's such an issue with non believers that most people believe in God.
It becomes an issue when the believers want to marginalize the non-believers (or other-believers) in matters that should have nothing to do with religious belief and yet cite their belief system as the justification.
And it becomes an issue when that belief-system is some cartoon version of the Bible made up of cherry-picked fragments that conveniently happen to say the believers should be preferenced over the non-believers.
And it becomes an issue when we know the believers aren't really walking the talk themselves but still still want to require everyone else to.
It becomes an issue when the believers want to marginalize the non-believers (or other-believers) in matters that should have nothing to do with religious belief and yet cite their belief system as the justification.
And it becomes an issue when that belief-system is some cartoon version of the Bible made up of cherry-picked fragments that conveniently happen to say the believers should be preferenced over the non-believers.
And it becomes an issue when we know the believers aren't really walking the talk themselves but still still want to require everyone else to.
-
ttf_BGuttman
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:15 pm
God
Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 02, 2017, 02:03PM...
BTW, Vietnam did not defeat the United States. You need to go back and read the real history. If that's what your HS taught you, they did you a disservice. Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I hope that you enjoy your Independence Day holiday!
[actually, it was falafel...]
In Vietnam, the Viet-Cong with their North Vietnamese support defeated South Vietnam with their US support. We were forced to make an unceremonious withdrawal. Not much different from what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1980. Nobody has invaded the US since Japan in 1942. The Japanese only took two of the Aleutian Islands as well as a bunch of US territories in the Pacific; and they were repulsed.
Keep believing what you want, but understand that only the Truth is true.
BTW, Vietnam did not defeat the United States. You need to go back and read the real history. If that's what your HS taught you, they did you a disservice. Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I hope that you enjoy your Independence Day holiday!
[actually, it was falafel...]
In Vietnam, the Viet-Cong with their North Vietnamese support defeated South Vietnam with their US support. We were forced to make an unceremonious withdrawal. Not much different from what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1980. Nobody has invaded the US since Japan in 1942. The Japanese only took two of the Aleutian Islands as well as a bunch of US territories in the Pacific; and they were repulsed.
Keep believing what you want, but understand that only the Truth is true.
-
ttf_robcat2075
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 02, 2017, 02:03PMI'm not trying to win this argument. In fact, I'm just commenting on it. You think that it is 'normal' for this small a country, this new country, to all of a sudden be superior in all the ways you pointed out?
"Normal" isn't the measure here.
It's not normal to win an event at the Olympics, but one person will. The one who is most prepared, most trained and most ready.
The Israeli superiority wasn't "sudden". Consider that a generation has passed between 1948 and 1967. More than enough time to train and equip an army.
Quote What was every body else doing? Attending a siesta eating fajitas?Sort of. I would say the Arab side was not well-served by their generally condescending attitudes about the intelligence, abilities and strength of Jews as individuals and as a nation.
The Arab side did seem to have an equipment and numbers advantage but poor training, poorer command and poorer operations more than negated that.
"Normal" isn't the measure here.
It's not normal to win an event at the Olympics, but one person will. The one who is most prepared, most trained and most ready.
The Israeli superiority wasn't "sudden". Consider that a generation has passed between 1948 and 1967. More than enough time to train and equip an army.
Quote What was every body else doing? Attending a siesta eating fajitas?Sort of. I would say the Arab side was not well-served by their generally condescending attitudes about the intelligence, abilities and strength of Jews as individuals and as a nation.
The Arab side did seem to have an equipment and numbers advantage but poor training, poorer command and poorer operations more than negated that.
-
ttf_Exzaclee
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:53 am
God
Quote from: ddickerson on Jul 02, 2017, 02:03PM]You think that it is 'normal' for this small a country, this new country, to all of a sudden be superior in all the ways you pointed out? What was every body else doing? Attending a siesta eating fajitas?
BTW, Vietnam did not defeat the United States. You need to go back and read the real history. If that's what your HS taught you, they did you a disservice. Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I hope that you enjoy your Independence Day holiday!
When said country has some serious financial backing, great training, better equipment and leadership... well, yes, I expect them to be superior. The Arab countries were mainly allied with soviet interests and without soviet advisors and commanding officers they were pretty useless in the field. The Soviets wanted to avoid a direct shooting war with the US at all costs and did not get involved. Hell, our own intelligence estimates predicted a war that would take 4-10 days. Last I checked, the CIA doesn't figure in God or miracles when doing intelligence assessments. It's not a miracle when the outcome is easily predictable.
If you think that what we did in Vietnam is "winning", you're high as a kite. The communists won. The south lost. I know... I grew up in Midwest City, OK, home to thousands of refugees from the war. Try telling them they won, I'm sure they'd love to hear DD's alternate history.
BTW, Vietnam did not defeat the United States. You need to go back and read the real history. If that's what your HS taught you, they did you a disservice. Anyway, I'm not here to argue. I hope that you enjoy your Independence Day holiday!
When said country has some serious financial backing, great training, better equipment and leadership... well, yes, I expect them to be superior. The Arab countries were mainly allied with soviet interests and without soviet advisors and commanding officers they were pretty useless in the field. The Soviets wanted to avoid a direct shooting war with the US at all costs and did not get involved. Hell, our own intelligence estimates predicted a war that would take 4-10 days. Last I checked, the CIA doesn't figure in God or miracles when doing intelligence assessments. It's not a miracle when the outcome is easily predictable.
If you think that what we did in Vietnam is "winning", you're high as a kite. The communists won. The south lost. I know... I grew up in Midwest City, OK, home to thousands of refugees from the war. Try telling them they won, I'm sure they'd love to hear DD's alternate history.
-
ttf_John the Theologian
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:49 am
God
Quote from: robcat2075 on Jul 01, 2017, 04:01PMSomehow, the divinely-inspired prophets who wrote the Bible didn't foresee fact-checkers.
As i promised yesterday, I did a little "fact checking" on the text about the 185,000 dead at the "siege of Jerusalem."
Here is what I found, although the historians all admit that there are a number of gaps in the available data.
1. It was part of a much bigger campaign and most historians are quick to explain that the number is way too small for a typical army such as would be used to invade Egypt or repulse an Egyptian/ Ethiopian army which was coming out to meet the Assyrians so that the number was only a portion of the army
2. This means that the siege of Jerusalem was probably a "side show" in the campaign. How many Assyrians were actually at Jerusalem is unknown because Isaiah 33:36 and the parallels in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles simply says that the deaths occurred "in the camp of the Assyrians" and they seem to have had camps in both Lachish/Libnah as well as Jerusalem.
3. The biblical text actually seems to imply that the 185,000 were not in Jerusalem, but in Libnah after they had left Lachish-- cf. Isaiah 37:8 and the probable location in the link below. The exact locations of these towns was unknown until very recently when a good candidate has been discovered, but excavations are very new there. Here's link:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/israel-biblical-libnah-iron-age-settlement-kingdom-judah-found-tel-burna-1486930
4. The text says that the king had heard about the invading army and was apparently worried-- cf. Isaiah 33:7-- the king has been identified as an Ethiopian who was ruling Egypt at the time by historians.
5. The ancient Greek historian, Herodotus, recounts that in his historical research he was told of the destruction of a large Assyrian/Arabian army-- probably the allies/mercenaries that I suggested earlier.
6. Herodotus claims that the A/A army was destroyed because of a horde of mice that had gnawed all of the bow strings, quivers, and shield handles of that army and made them defenseless. A fair number of modern historians have speculated that the deaths could have been from plague brought by the mice. See Keller's The Bible as History for this. (p, 261 on my edition, but it has gone through multiple editions.) Keller also gives credence to a mass grave at Lachish with a large number of skeletons as hinting that the A/A army had suffered a large sudden loss. Lachish was where the main Assyrian army was before moving to Libnah. That is possible, but not certain.
7. Regardless of how the A/As were killed, we have data that points to a high likelihood of a sizable number killed. The death being attributed to the "angel of the Lord" would not preclude the use of means such as plague because other biblical texts have same "natural" means attributed to the hands of God.
8. We know for certain from other ancient Near Eastern accounts that Sennacherib, the Assyrian king, was typical in that he rarely recorded his defeats, but basically only recorded his victories.
The bottom line is that I could find no discussion of the text in the biblical historians that I consulted that this was somehow a serious problem for those who believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible. Most said that there were unanswered questions, but not problems.
Just thought I'd let you know what my "fact checking" unearthed.
As i promised yesterday, I did a little "fact checking" on the text about the 185,000 dead at the "siege of Jerusalem."
Here is what I found, although the historians all admit that there are a number of gaps in the available data.
1. It was part of a much bigger campaign and most historians are quick to explain that the number is way too small for a typical army such as would be used to invade Egypt or repulse an Egyptian/ Ethiopian army which was coming out to meet the Assyrians so that the number was only a portion of the army
2. This means that the siege of Jerusalem was probably a "side show" in the campaign. How many Assyrians were actually at Jerusalem is unknown because Isaiah 33:36 and the parallels in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles simply says that the deaths occurred "in the camp of the Assyrians" and they seem to have had camps in both Lachish/Libnah as well as Jerusalem.
3. The biblical text actually seems to imply that the 185,000 were not in Jerusalem, but in Libnah after they had left Lachish-- cf. Isaiah 37:8 and the probable location in the link below. The exact locations of these towns was unknown until very recently when a good candidate has been discovered, but excavations are very new there. Here's link:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/israel-biblical-libnah-iron-age-settlement-kingdom-judah-found-tel-burna-1486930
4. The text says that the king had heard about the invading army and was apparently worried-- cf. Isaiah 33:7-- the king has been identified as an Ethiopian who was ruling Egypt at the time by historians.
5. The ancient Greek historian, Herodotus, recounts that in his historical research he was told of the destruction of a large Assyrian/Arabian army-- probably the allies/mercenaries that I suggested earlier.
6. Herodotus claims that the A/A army was destroyed because of a horde of mice that had gnawed all of the bow strings, quivers, and shield handles of that army and made them defenseless. A fair number of modern historians have speculated that the deaths could have been from plague brought by the mice. See Keller's The Bible as History for this. (p, 261 on my edition, but it has gone through multiple editions.) Keller also gives credence to a mass grave at Lachish with a large number of skeletons as hinting that the A/A army had suffered a large sudden loss. Lachish was where the main Assyrian army was before moving to Libnah. That is possible, but not certain.
7. Regardless of how the A/As were killed, we have data that points to a high likelihood of a sizable number killed. The death being attributed to the "angel of the Lord" would not preclude the use of means such as plague because other biblical texts have same "natural" means attributed to the hands of God.
8. We know for certain from other ancient Near Eastern accounts that Sennacherib, the Assyrian king, was typical in that he rarely recorded his defeats, but basically only recorded his victories.
The bottom line is that I could find no discussion of the text in the biblical historians that I consulted that this was somehow a serious problem for those who believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible. Most said that there were unanswered questions, but not problems.
Just thought I'd let you know what my "fact checking" unearthed.
-
ttf_badger
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:23 pm
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: John the Theologian on Jun 30, 2017, 07:24AMIn other words, presuppositions about verification.
In other words, the rejection of presumption in favor of actual data/evidence--accepting uncertainty rather than pretending to have an answer.
But yeah, presuppositionalism is rather convenient fallback position, if you can really buy it anyway.
In other words, the rejection of presumption in favor of actual data/evidence--accepting uncertainty rather than pretending to have an answer.
But yeah, presuppositionalism is rather convenient fallback position, if you can really buy it anyway.
-
ttf_Baron von Bone
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:59 am
God
Quote from: ronkny on Jul 02, 2017, 10:38AMFrom Amazon.com. Duh
Okay, got to give credit for that one ... heh.
Okay, got to give credit for that one ... heh.
-
ttf_ronkny
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:58 am
God
Quote from: BillO on Jul 02, 2017, 01:48PMActually it was Robert that answered you before, but aside from what he said (which I agree with) I'd be delighted if they found proof that the soldiers existed. It would be a significant update in history, and the bible would have one less fanciful story. Sounds like a win-win to me. But that would be just one in many hundreds. Further, it's not just the fanciful stories. I just can't take the mental anguish I go through trying to reconcile this image of a loving, caring benevolent God with the most infamous serial mass murderer presented to us in the pages of the Bible.
I was being sarcastic when robo answered a question aimed at you. No worries
SO can I assume the entire Bible would have to be true for you to believe? That was my question. At what point?
I was being sarcastic when robo answered a question aimed at you. No worries
SO can I assume the entire Bible would have to be true for you to believe? That was my question. At what point?