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

[Ophiolite]

Does that include our constitution, which is now over two centuries old?

Or is our constitution somehow exempt?

How could the problems of oral transmission apply to a document that is not the product of oral tradition? So, yes, your Constitution is exempt because it was written down and signed, and the original is still available for comparison.

Where we do see the problems of oral tradition coming into play is in the bizarre beliefs that maga republicans openly and persistently promote as being part of the Constitution, each parroting, the other and seemingly having as their original source the Donald.

 

[AV1611VET]

How could the problems of oral transmission apply to a document that is not the product of oral tradition? So, yes, your Constitution is exempt because it was written down and signed, and the original is still available for comparison.

Then the idea of the book of Numbers getting Arab phoned can take a hike.

Let's say academia's lie is correct; and 20,000 crossed the Red Sea -- (or went around it during sjastro's phantom sand storm that occurred one thousand years prior to Persia's legitimate sand storm).

Then, one hundred years later, retrospective falsification sets in and they start claiming it was 30,000 that escaped from Egypt.

Any priest could simply go to the book of Numbers, housed in the Temple, and look up the correct number and make the person or persons claiming it was 30,000 recant.

Neogaia says his article says 20,000.

And when I asked him if said article specified how many from each of the tribes -- (like the Bible does) -- he said it does.

And I'm having a hard time believing that.

But even if the article does, then the article not only Arab Phones the total from 603,550 to 20,000; but the article Arab Phones each of the twelve tribes total numbers as well.

And this is exactly the kind of shenanigans I'm talking about, when I say academia will chisel, force-fit, move the decimal place, and/or do anything it can to make their ideas fit.

In this case, I think it's called number crunching.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where we do see the problems of oral tradition coming into play is in the bizarre beliefs that maga republicans openly and persistently promote as being part of the Constitution, each parroting, the other and seemingly having as their original source the Donald.

Ya -- you academians should, in my opinion, stick to the political threads and leave us to handle your junk science.

At least in the political threads, you guys can rant & rave without having to face the music of a Source Document.

 

[SelfSim]

Then the idea of the book of Numbers getting Arab phoned can take a hike.

Let's say academia's lie is correct; and 20,000 crossed the Red Sea -- (or went around it during sjastro's phantom sand storm that occurred one thousand years prior to Persia's legitimate sand storm).

Then, one hundred years later, retrospective falsification sets in and they start claiming it was 30,000 that escaped from Egypt.

Any priest could simply go to the book of Numbers, housed in the Temple, and look up the correct number and make the person or persons claiming it was 30,000 recant.

Neogaia says his article says 20,000.

And when I asked him if said article specified how many from each of the tribes -- (like the Bible does) -- he said it does.

And I'm having a hard time believing that.

But even if the article does, then the article not only Arab Phones the total from 603,550 to 20,000; but the article Arab Phones each of the twelve tribes total numbers as well.

And this is exactly the kind of shenanigans I'm talking about, when I say academia will chisel, force-fit, move the decimal place, and/or do anything it can to make their ideas fit.

In this case, I think it's called number crunching.

.. and that's coming from someone who bases all historical dating on Usher's academic take on chronology.
Hypocrite!

 

[AV1611VET]

.. and that's coming from someone who bases all historical dating on Usher's academic take on chronology.

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.

 

[SelfSim]

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

(A calculator directly resulting from academic research ..)

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

(As usual, a false equivalancy ..)

 

[AV1611VET]

(A calculator directly resulting from academic research ..)

If using a calculator makes me a hypocrite, what does using a computer make you?

 

[SelfSim]

If using a calculator makes me a hypocrite, what does using a computer make you?

Consistent .. (if you were to actually think about it).

 

[Ophiolite]

Ya -- you academians should, in my opinion, stick to the political threads and leave us to handle your junk science.

At least in the political threads, you guys can rant & rave without having to face the music of a Sourc

Then the idea of the book of Numbers getting Arab phoned can take a hike.

Let's say academia's lie is correct; and 20,000 crossed the Red Sea -- (or went around it during sjastro's phantom sand storm that occurred one thousand years prior to Persia's legitimate sand storm).

Then, one hundred years later, retrospective falsification sets in and they start claiming it was 30,000 that escaped from Egypt.

Any priest could simply go to the book of Numbers, housed in the Temple, and look up the correct number and make the person or persons claiming it was 30,000 recant.

Neogaia says his article says 20,000.

And when I asked him if said article specified how many from each of the tribes -- (like the Bible does) -- he said it does.

And I'm having a hard time believing that.

But even if the article does, then the article not only Arab Phones the total from 603,550 to 20,000; but the article Arab Phones each of the twelve tribes total numbers as well.

And this is exactly the kind of shenanigans I'm talking about, when I say academia will chisel, force-fit, move the decimal place, and/or do anything it can to make their ideas fit.

In this case, I think it's called number crunching.

I gave up half way through. Neogaia is exploring his belief system more than exploring the historical accuracy of Exodus. I wish him well on that exploration. I became more involved in it than I would, in retrospect, have wished.

Consequently, and for other reaseons, I have no especially strong interest in whether 2,000,000 or 200,000 or 200 Hebrews escaped from slavery in Egypt (despite having lived there for four years (Me, not the Hebrews, they - apparently - were there longer, or not, as the case may be)).

I responded to your post because you had asked the astoundingly silly question as to why the Constitution had not been corrupted by oral transmission. It's pedantic of me I know, but when I see such flagrant nonsense its difficult for me not to comment. If you want to avoid such interventions from me in future don't ask such silly questions.

 

[sjastro]

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.

Since you know how to use a calculator, work out the creation date based on the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke.

 

[SelfSim]

It's pedantic of me I know, but when I see such flagrant nonsense its difficult for me not to comment. If you want to avoid such interventions from me in future don't ask such silly questions.

Posing silly questions, I think, appears to be a kind of last-ditch attempt, at regaining some twisted sense of self-satisfaction(?)
Silly questions also appear to be a close relative to the incomprehensible postings also(?)

 

[AV1611VET]

I responded to your post because you had asked the astoundingly silly question as to why the Constitution had not been corrupted by oral transmission. It's pedantic of me I know, but when I see such flagrant nonsense its difficult for me not to comment. If you want to avoid such interventions from me in future don't ask such silly questions.

I'm glad you feel the way you do about my example (the Constitution).

Because that's the way I feel when someone tells me the Bible is an example of retrospective falsification.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since you know how to use a calculator, work out the creation date based on the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke.

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

I got the wrong answer, did I?

Instead of making yourself look bad, why don't you do the math yourself?

Again, all you need is a calculator and Genesis 5, Genesis 10, and 1 Chronicles 1-9.

And if your answer differs with mine, and mine differs with Usher, then simply employ Occam's razor.

 

[AV1611VET]

Posing silly questions, I think, appears to be a kind of last-ditch attempt, at regaining some twisted sense of self-satisfaction(?)

That wasn't a silly question.

That was a serious challenge to test for yourself how impossible it is to allow a decimal place to slide like that.

In accounting, you're taught to use the source document when transcribing numbers to other documents.

In other words, if the source document (SD) says $100.00, you post $100.00 into Document A.

Then, if you have to post it to yet another document, say Document B, you go back and post it from the source document, not from Document A, and so on.

That way, you avoid making mistakes.

SD → Document A, then SD → Document B, SD → C.

Not: SD → Document A, then Document A → Document B, then Document B → Document C.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm glad you feel the way you do about my example (the Constitution).

Because that's the way I feel when someone tells me the Bible is an example of retrospective falsification.

The US Constitution originates from the principle of empowering human freedoms.

The Bible originates from the principle of subjugating humans .. irrespective of supposed retrospections.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm glad you feel the way you do about my example (the Constitution).

Because that's the way I feel when someone tells me the Bible is an example of retrospective falsification.

The difference is that I have never stated explicitly or implicitly that the Bible is an example of retrospective falsification. Nor have I even seriously entertained the notion that it met the criteria to be considered an example of retrospective falsification. Whereas you assuredly, on record, explicitly asked your question concerning the impact of oral transmission on the US Constitution.

 

[AV1611VET]

The US Constitution originates from the principle of empowering human freedoms.

The Bible originates from the principle of subjugating humans .. irrespective of supposed retrospections.

Then test it this way:

Write the words to the Star Spangled Banner down, give it to someone to read, and have them write it down and give to someone else to read, etc. and so on.

Then compare the last person's version to the original.

Aren't you guys supposed to test everything?

Take your own advice.

Try it.

I dare you.

 

[AV1611VET]

The difference is that I have never stated explicitly or implicitly that the Bible is an example of retrospective falsification.

Can't say as I blame you for that.

I wouldn't want any part of that either.

You'd make yourself look bad.

 

[Ophiolite]

Can't say as I blame you for that.

I wouldn't want any part of that either.

You'd make yourself look bad.

If I wanted to look bad I would only have to copy the master. I tip my hat to you. And I think its time to take another rest from your obfuscations olfactory effusions and avoidance tactics par excellence. Bon voyage.

 

[SelfSim]

Then test it this way:

Write the words to the Star Spangled Banner down, give it to someone to read, and have them write it down and give to someone else to read, etc. and so on.

Then compare the last person's version to the original.

Aren't you guys supposed to test everything?

Take your own advice.

Try it.

I dare you.

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'?