A new error

[pshun2404]

The Lapis Tiburtinus inscription refers to a pro praetor that says when he became governor of Syria he had entered the office for the second time (Latin,iterum). Now granted there is no name attached but some believe this to have been Quirinius. Now if that is true, then the alleged conflict is resolved (since this was the census ordered by Caesar Augustus). But as is the problem with all ancient history the written sources are sparse at best, but I want you to know I do recognize the conflict many have because neither side has “proof”, but as for Ramsey (pardon the spelling error) you are incorrect on both counts:

a) He was a great Scholar and a world renowned Archaeologist, and

b) He was an atheist who did NOT believe in God or the Bible as historically accurate until after his fact finding journey

However since this is such a diversion from the OP I have to ask if there is some relative point to the OP or is it being dome on purpose to divert?

 

[pshun2404]

Did you even read that? He made no claim of being an atheist. And he was not a valid authority to rely on in the first place.

No he does not refer to himself as an "atheist", he claimed he did not believe and went out to prove the record false. If he was a Christian he would have already believed it, and been trying to prove it true.

 

[bhsmte]

The Lapis Tiburtinus inscription refers to a pro praetor that says when he became governor of Syria he had entered the office for the second time (Latin,iterum). Now granted there is no name attached but some believe this to have been Quirinius. Now if that is true, then the alleged conflict is resolved (since this was the census ordered by Caesar Augustus). But as is the problem with all ancient history the written sources are sparse at best, but I want you to know I do recognize the conflict many have because neither side has “proof”, but as for Ramsey (pardon the spelling error) you are incorrect on both counts:

a) He was a great Scholar and a world renowned Archaeologist, and

b) He was an atheist who did NOT believe in God or the Bible as historically accurate until after his fact finding journey

However since this is such a diversion from the OP I have to ask if there is some relative point to the OP or is it being dome on purpose to divert?

Are you doubling down on point B?

 

[pshun2404]

Bhs...regarding the OP...the Bible clearly indicates that only some groups of Canaanites were "wiped out" and that others carried on...I believe this is true and accurate and that thus being so their genes would have continued on to later times...

So do you agree or disagree with that?

If so then you should also agree that the conclusion of having disproved the Bible's claim (this matter) is in error and in fact demonstrates it. True or false?

 

[bhsmte]

Bhs...regarding the OP...the Bible clearly indicates that only some groups of Canaanites were "wiped out" and that others carried on...I believe this is true and accurate and that thus being so their genes would have continued on to later times...

So do you agree or disagree with that?

If so then you should also agree that the conclusion of having disproved the Bible's claim (this matter) is in error and in fact demonstrates it. True or false?

Nothing to do with my question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Lapis Tiburtinus inscription refers to a pro praetor that says when he became governor of Syria he had entered the office for the second time (Latin,iterum). Now granted there is no name attached but some believe this to have been Quirinius. Now if that is true, then the alleged conflict is resolved (since this was the census ordered by Caesar Augustus). But as is the problem with all ancient history the written sources are sparse at best, but I want you to know I do recognize the conflict many have because neither side has “proof”, but as for Ramsey (pardon the spelling error) you are incorrect on both counts:

a) He was a great Scholar and a world renowned Archaeologist, and

b) He was an atheist who did NOT believe in God or the Bible as historically accurate until after his fact finding journey

However since this is such a diversion from the OP I have to ask if there is some relative point to the OP or is it being dome on purpose to divert?

Nope, he was a Christian. The source that I had said nothing about him being an atheist and at that time atheism was a rarity. It would have been noted.

The reason it took this immediate detour was because of the way that you wrote the OP. You have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No he does not refer to himself as an "atheist", he claimed he did not believe and went out to prove the record false. If he was a Christian he would have already believed it, and been trying to prove it true.

No, he was merely skeptical about the historical claims made by Luke. You read far too much into his statement.

Like it or not he was a Christian, and an incompetent scholar, or did you not see his opinion about all of the Pauline letters?

 

[pshun2404]

Nothing to do with my question.

Nothing to do with the OP...

 

[bhsmte]

Nothing to do with the OP...

Everything to do with a claim you keep making.

 

[pshun2404]

Nope, he was a Christian. The source that I had said nothing about him being an atheist and at that time atheism was a rarity. It would have been noted.

The reason it took this immediate detour was because of the way that you wrote the OP. You have no one to blame but yourself.

No it would not...most scholars in those days did not announce their personal views about such things unless it had to do with a particular argument or point they were refuting or defending and even then the evidence would be indirect evidence not direct evidence (with the exception of a few atheists who held "Atheism" as a platform or a few "Fundamentalist" Christians with their platform). No one else really cared....

So now how about addressing the OP...are they incorrect in assuming the Bible says that the Israelites wiped out ALL the Canaanites or correct...

 

[bhsmte]

No it would not...most scholars in those days did not announce their personal views about such things unless it had to do with a particular argument or point they were refuting or defending and even then the evidence would be indirect evidence not direct evidence (with the exception of a few atheists who held "Atheism" as a platform or a few "Fundamentalist" Christians with their platform). No one else really cared....

So now how about addressing the OP...are they incorrect in assuming the Bible says that the Israelites wiped out ALL the Canaanites or correct...

How about supporting your own claims?

 

[pshun2404]

Everything to do with a claim you keep making.

The claim I am making is this...these scientists are incorrect in their assumption that the Bible's account regarding this peoples is false (it actually agrees with what they discovered...both that they continued and that their source is from the Iran/Iraq areas and this makes Biblical sense because they are the sons of Canaan)

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it would not...most scholars in those days did not announce their personal views about such things unless it had to do with a particular argument or point they were refuting or defending and even then the evidence would be indirect evidence not direct evidence (with the exception of a few atheists who held "Atheism" as a platform or a few "Fundamentalist" Christians with their platform). No one else really cared....

So now how about addressing the OP...are they incorrect in assuming the Bible says that the Israelites wiped out ALL the Canaanites or correct...

No, you made an incorrect claim. Only certain Christian apologists, and rather weak ones at that, make that claim about Ramsay. You have no business complaining since you continued this derail with a mistake that you will not own up to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim I am making is this...these scientists are incorrect in their assumption that the Bible's account regarding this peoples is false (it actually agrees with what they discovered...both that they continued and that their source is from the Iran/Iraq areas and this makes Biblical sense because they are the sons of Canaan)

What scientists have made that claim? More slurs against people not here to defend themselves.

 

[bhsmte]

The claim I am making is this...these scientists are incorrect in their assumption that the Bible's account regarding this peoples is false (it actually agrees with what they discovered...both that they continued and that their source is from the Iran/Iraq areas and this makes Biblical sense because they are the sons of Canaan)

Post 66.

 

[Speedwell]

Bhs...regarding the OP...the Bible clearly indicates that only some groups of Canaanites were "wiped out" and that others carried on...I believe this is true and accurate and that thus being so their genes would have continued on to later times...

So do you agree or disagree with that?

If so then you should also agree that the conclusion of having disproved the Bible's claim (this matter) is in error and in fact demonstrates it. True or false?

I don't believe that the article claims that the Bible tells that the entire Canaanite gene pool was extinguished. What it is telling us is that the "conquest" of Canaan was more protracted, perhaps more peaceful and had less to do with the genocidal blitzkrieg described in Joshua 2-11 than is generally supposed. It may even have been carried out to a large extent by indigenous people. This is something that biblical archaeologists have been telling us for years, so it's hardly news anyway.

 

[Speedwell]

No he does not refer to himself as an "atheist", he claimed he did not believe and went out to prove the record false. If he was a Christian he would have already believed it, and been trying to prove it true.

Believed what? Ramsay believed in a late dating for Acts and set out trying to prove it. His studies led him to believe in an early date and increased his confidence in the historical accuracy of the book. He was at the start and remained a Christian throughout. I think your quote mine is starting to play out.