Continuing research into the possibility of the reality of the Exodus, and current data/conclusions.

[2PhiloVoid]

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]! What a useless thread.

 

[SelfSim]

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]! What a useless thread.

Who's cursing?
I'd agree the thread is a useless one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok I'll bite .. why should this book of Numbers not be taken as also being subject to your, (somehow offensive), slang term of 'Arab phoning'?

It's not MY Arab phoning.

It's academia doing the Arab phoning, as the OP demonstrates.

Let's quit the quibbling.

In YOUR OPINION, how many Israelites left Egypt?

Academia says 20,000.

The King James Bible says 603,550.

What say you?

 

[AV1611VET]

What a useless thread.

I disagree.

 

[SelfSim]

It's not MY Arab phoning.

It's academia doing the Arab phoning, as the OP demonstrates.

Let's quit the quibbling.

In YOUR OPINION, how many Israelites left Egypt?

Academia says 20,000.

The King James Bible says 603,550.

What say you?

Its unknown .. and the evidence based inference leads to the conclusion that the Exodus (of Israelites) is likely to have never happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its unknown .. and the evidence based inference leads to the conclusion that the Exodus (of Israelites) is likely to have never happened.

Fair enough.

I can't say as I blame you for not wanting to get involved.

Will you at least admit that the OP is citing an academic source, when it says only 20,000 left Egypt?

In my opinion, it is.

 

[SelfSim]

Fair enough.

I can't say as I blame you for not wanting to get involved.

Will you at least admit that the OP is citing an academic source, when it says only 20,000 left Egypt?

In my opinion, it is.

They're all academic sources .. spread throughout history ... having radically different sources & methods.

 

[sjastro]

We've been through this before, haven't we?

The question has to be asked do you have a shred of self respect because you make yourself look like a fool in practically every thread you attempt to derail?
If your claim of being able to derive Ussher's creation date with a calculator is true which I frankly I don't believe, then you can prove me wrong by the using the same calculator to work out the creation dates based on Matthew's and Luke's genealogies.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I disagree.

You have barely even begun to argue anything other than that "the Bible is valuable." All of your stonewalling doesn't serve as an extensive descriptions about what the conceptual measures are by which anyone can evaluate the contents of the Bible. Much, if not most, of what you aver to affirm is noticeably IPSO FACTO statements with no meat on the bones.

Basically, all of your collective statements just say something along the lines of: the Bible exists, so therefore, believe it. But that is not an explanation of anything.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who's cursing?
I'd agree the thread is a useless one.

Technically, it's me who is supposedly "cursing." I wrote O*M*G*!, but with a periods rather than asterisks as I've done here and I got "cited."

Oh, my goodnes! isn't permitted here.

 

[SelfSim]

Technically, it's me who is supposedly "cursing".

Ok. Thanks for resolving the ambiguities in my mind.
(That rule you mention there seems over-the-top, to me too).

 

[AV1611VET]

They're all academic sources .. spread throughout history ... having radically different sources & methods.

Thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

If your claim of being able to derive Ussher's creation date with a calculator is true which ...

... it isn't.

Show me where I said that.

... frankly I don't believe, then you can prove me wrong by the using the same calculator to work out the creation dates based on Matthew's and Luke's genealogies.

Wow.

After I said you need three sources (Genesis 5, Genesis 10, and 1 Chronicles 1-9), you come back with this doosey!

I'll tell you what.

How about you first take [5 + 4 + 3 = 12] and use the same calculator to show me [8 + 8 = 12]?

Fair enough?

 

[AV1611VET]

You have barely even begun to argue anything other than that "the Bible is valuable."

The Bible is indeed valuable, if It is being used by academia to show that It is a product of retrospective falsification by taking 20,000 and retrospectively falsifying it to 603,550.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok. Thanks for resolving the ambiguities in my mind.
(That rule you mention there seems over-the-top, to me too).

I hate that phrase.

My wife, who used to be a secretary in a Fortune 100 company, reported it to administration, when they used those initials as part of an advertisement campaign.

They respectfully removed it.

 

[SelfSim]

I hate that phrase.

My wife, who used to be a secretary in a Fortune 100 company, reported it to administration,

Wow! I heard there are people like that in the world .. but only in a very particular part of the world .. for some strange reason ..(?)

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow! I heard there are people like that in the world .. but only in a very particular part of the world .. for some strange reason ..(?)

Welcome to Earth.

We're not all "non -ists".

 

[sjastro]

... it isn't.

Show me where I said that.

This is becoming embarrassing.
In your post #365

I did it myself with a calculator and got nearly the same results as he did.

So, as I say, I use his numbers for the sake of Occam's razor.

Wow.

After I said you need three sources (Genesis 5, Genesis 10, and 1 Chronicles 1-9), you come back with this doosey!

I'll tell you what.

How about you first take [5 + 4 + 3 = 12] and use the same calculator to show me [8 + 8 = 12]?

Fair enough?

What are babbling on about now?
In the span of a few hours you have gone from boldly asserting you nearly got same answer as Ussher's with a calculator to straight out denial.
My description of your about face would incur a forum ban.

If you were able to calculate the creation dates using Matthew's and Luke's genealogies which is as unlikely as your boast of nearly verifying Ussher's date, you would get two different creation dates which also differs from Ussher's.
This has been shown by scholars so which if any is the correct date?
It makes a shambles of your prime directive of the Bible not being contradicted as by using it to determine a creation date, the Bible gives inconsistent results.

 

[SelfSim]

Welcome to Earth.

We're not all "non -ists".

Well I did confine what I said to 'a very particular part of the world'/Earth .. and not the Earth.
You must've misread my post(?)

 

[SelfSim]

If you were able to calculate the creation dates using Matthew's and Luke's genealogies which is as unlikely as your boast of nearly verifying Ussher's date, you would get two different creation dates which also differs from Ussher's.
This has been shown by scholars so which if any is the correct date?
It makes a shambles of your prime directive of the Bible not being contradicted as by using it to determine a creation date, the Bible gives inconsistent results.

.. (and its not the calculator that's inconsistent there either) ..