21 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieof course, as always, if someone's claim is proven to be incorrect, then all of the claims ever made by that person are incorrect and that person is never to be trusted.
the opinions of mere mortals, Jericho was destroyed at the time that the Bible states, indeed shall we look up those archaeologists who stated that there was no such place as the Biblical Jericho only to have their room full of mirrors smashed, well then, dont get wide or ill load the cannons!
For this reason numerous scholars date the fall of Jer ...[text shortened]... uch for her testimony, looks like the pillars of Zhalansi god are rather shaky to say the least!
by this reasoning all you have to do to disprove evolution is to find an evolutionist (let's say dawkins) and ask his mother if he/she ever lied. or ask his highschool girlfriend if he ever lied to her to get laid. that would be enough
21 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieoh so when it is close to the date you want, the isotope dating methods are acceptable.
Perhaps you had better sit down for it Agers! what's that the sound of your jaw dropping to the floor, worth the wait!
Dr. Bryant G. Wood, an archaeologist from the University of Toronto, Canada, has taken a fresh look at the evidence from Jericho. According to The New York Times, he has concluded that Dr. Kenyon “had been looking for the wrong k ...[text shortened]... you cite a reference Agers, make sure they know what they are looking for and where to find it!
21 Jan 11
Originally posted by Zahlanzinaturally, you want me to argue against my own arguments and against my own points of reference, ????? give it up Zhalanzi, Jericho got zapped and that's that!
oh so when it is close to the date you want, the isotope dating methods are acceptable.
21 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe recent sequence of posts in this thread say otherwise (at least, not zapped in the way your Bible says). What you've actually shown is some Bible zealot disagrees with his better informed archaeological peers...so what!?
naturally, you want me to argue against my own arguments and against my own points of reference, ????? give it up Zhalanzi, Jericho got zapped and that's that!
21 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Agergbetter informed archaeological peers, you Noobs!
The recent sequence of posts in this thread say otherwise (at least, not zapped in the way your Bible says). What you've actually shown is some Bible zealot disagrees with his better informed archaeological peers...so what!?
Excavators have found that the houses in ancient Jericho had abundant supplies of stored grain. This is interesting, since the Bible indicates that Jericho fell shortly after the spring harvest and without a drawn-out starvation siege. (Joshua 3:14-16) Both are good reasons why Jericho’s houses would have been well-stocked with grain when the city was destroyed.
Scientists are rather grudging when it comes to admitting the accuracy of the Bible. Thus, the Times quotes one eminent scholar as saying in response to Wood’s findings: “There is no doubt that a good deal of information found in the Bible has a grain of truth in it.” Yet, as more and more Scriptural accounts are supported by modern scientific and archaeological discoveries, it is clear to the unbiased that the Bible is far from a collection of falsehoods interspersed with occasional grains of truth. As the Bible itself says: “Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.”—Romans 3:4.
While current interpretations of archaeological excavations at Jericho are of interest, true Christians ‘walk by faith, not by sight.’ (2 Corinthians 5:7) Their faith does not depend on archaeology. With or without archaeological evidence, the Bible repeatedly proves to be a reliable source of information regarding the past, the present, and the future.—Psalm 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19-21.
source:Jehovahs Witnesses
21 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLemme guess, this eminent scholar, as the Times alleges was yet another young earth creationist Bible thumper, on a crusade to prove his twinkle dust sky fairy with a mean streak really did exist...Do you mind if just belly laugh at all this? 😵
better informed archaeological peers, you Noobs!
Excavators have found that the houses in ancient Jericho had abundant supplies of stored grain. This is interesting, since the Bible indicates that Jericho fell shortly after the spring harvest and without a drawn-out starvation siege. (Joshua 3:14-16) Both are good reasons why Jericho’s houses woul ...[text shortened]... past, the present, and the future.—Psalm 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19-21.
source:Jehovahs Witnesses
21 Jan 11
Originally posted by Agergit will be no less irreverent than that which has gone before! You may scoff, the facts fit the Biblical picture and no amount of secular speculation can mar these points, which in themselves prove nothing, but when taken together form a tapestry of truth indicating that Bible is reliable and trustworthy.
Lemme guess, this eminent scholar, as the Times alleges was yet another young earth creationist Bible thumper, on a crusade to prove his twinkle dust sky fairy with a mean streak really did exist...Do you mind if just belly laugh at all this? 😵
21 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, let me remind you that the challenge I posed to you a few pages back was for you to demonstrate that God_{Zahlanzi} is a lesser formulation of "God" than God_{Robbie Carrobie} without assuming your own bias; yet in our recent exchange, inspite of your acknowledgement that the work of these "eminent scholars" you provide to justify your case is counter to what is accepted in scholarly circles, you continue to champion these as true based entirely upon the strength of your own biased conviction.
it will be no less irreverent than that which has gone before! You may scoff, the facts fit the Biblical picture and no amount of secular speculation can mar these points, which in themselves prove nothing, but when taken together form a tapestry of truth indicating that Bible is reliable and trustworthy.
You in essence assume X to deduce X 😵
21 Jan 11
Originally posted by Agergi have stated it again and again and again Agers, Zhalanzi has made his own God, taken the bits he likes and discarded the bits he doesn't, i have not. Its as simple as that!
Robbie, let me remind you that the challenge I posed to you a few pages back was for you to demonstrate that God_{Zahlanzi} is a lesser formulation of "God" than God_{Robbie Carrobie} without assuming your own bias; yet in our recent exchange, inspite of your acknowledgement that the work of these "eminent scholars" you provide to justify your case is counter ...[text shortened]... y upon the strength of your own biased conviction.
You in essence assume X to deduce X 😵
21 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie and Vishna use the same retorics: "I am right, and if you don't agree with me, I am right anyway."
i have stated it again and again and again Agers, Zhalanzi has made his own God, taken the bits he likes and discarded the bits he doesn't, i have not. Its as simple as that!
21 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm well aware of what you have stated over and over again Robbie, and the claim of yours that "Zhalanzi has made his own God, taken the bits he likes and discarded the bits he doesn't" is consistent with Zahlanzi's position on the matter that the Bible is not 100% true; indeed this is one of the things that defines God_{Zahlanzi}.
i have stated it again and again and again Agers, Zhalanzi has made his own God, taken the bits he likes and discarded the bits he doesn't, i have not. Its as simple as that!
Until you can clearly demonstrate that God_{Zahlanzi} which is a god that is not associated with the bad bits of a human written Bible (instead, these being the actions of primitive man with his propensity for violence and deceit) is a lesser formulation of "God" than God_{Robbie Carrobie} who is defined by a literal interpretation of all that is said in the JW version of the Bible, you have no basis for any assertions that he is superceding the morality of "God".
22 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewell aren't you already doing that? you don't believe isotope dating (you don't understand it is a more accurate description). but in this case isotope dating confirms your claims. so you accept it.
naturally, you want me to argue against my own arguments and against my own points of reference, ????? give it up Zhalanzi, Jericho got zapped and that's that!
can you not see you have no credibility as a debater? that nobody ever discusses stuff with you but rather they enjoy showing you how flawed your logic is because you are so easy?
you are like the cheap vacation spot everyone goes to when they have no money. except in this case you are the lame debater everyone debates with when they are too lazy to debate with hamilton or twhitehead or many others. because they are hard work whereas you ... are not.
22 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziahhh the personal attack, last bastion of the truly desperate! more sprinkles on your God Zhalanzi? perhaps you would like a maraschino cherry to place it on top. Look Zhalanzi, when it stops being fun, i suggest you get out, your taking yourself way too seriously, sitting up there on your chocolate marzipan fountain!
well aren't you already doing that? you don't believe isotope dating (you don't understand it is a more accurate description). but in this case isotope dating confirms your claims. so you accept it.
can you not see you have no credibility as a debater? that nobody ever discusses stuff with you but rather they enjoy showing you how flawed your logic is ...[text shortened]... th hamilton or twhitehead or many others. because they are hard work whereas you ... are not.
22 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Agergthis is so full of assumptions and holes it resembles a pair of Zhalanzis stringy underpants! Why this point yet evades you, i do not know, it has absolutely nothing to do with me or my beliefs, or my interpretations, or our translation of the scriptures or whether its the result of human actions or otherwise, Zhalanzi has invented his own God, it really is that simple and no amount of postulating or conditional clauses or provisos will make that otherwise, its merely an attempt to cloud the issue. A truly castle made of sand type of post!
I'm well aware of what you have stated over and over again Robbie, and the claim of yours that "Zhalanzi has made his own God, taken the bits he likes and discarded the bits he doesn't" is consistent with Zahlanzi's position on the matter that the Bible is not 100% true; indeed this is one of the things that defines God_{Zahlanzi}.
Until you can clea /b], you have no basis for any assertions that he is superceding the morality of "God".