Flood, literal or not?

[flatworm]

Hey look if they've got his dental records then

We have the marked coffin. What do you have? Nothing.

ignore everything I've said as I'm obviously wrong.Known for their honesty were they?

FoeHammer.

The ancient egyptians are known for keeping good records, yes.

On one side, we have a mummy, a coffin, and various contemporary writings on the reign of Tuthmoses III that don't mention him drowning in the Red Sea.

On the other hand, we have the claim of some anonymous guy on the internet with an obvious bias.

Boy, that's a tough one.

Added: Remember, for the ancient egyptians, the pharaoh was a god. Substituting some shmuck's body for his would be akin to the Catholic church hanging a painting of the Raptor Jesus over the altar in St. Peter's.

 

[thaumaturgy]

And you a catholic? Pot, kettle, black, are three words that come immediately to my mind.

FoeHammer.

CLAAAASSY! Those Catholics and their insupportable beliefs! We all know that Catholics and their bizarre supernatural beliefs are things only children could believe whereas the beliefs of Baptists is spot on. Perfectly rational.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are showing ZERO interest in historical accuracy and an interest in only what you can pull out of the text?

Par for the course

My old signature used to say: If it disagrees with the 1611 King James Bible - It's Wrong.

Or something like that.

By the way, what does the fact that I (or anyone for that matter) don't know what that particular pharaoh's name have anything to do with showing ZERO interest in historical accuracy?

Please, by all means, YOU go ahead and tell us what his name is.

(Be careful though, I might post something that disagrees - but I won't falsely accuse you of ZERO accuracy.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Foxe's Book of Martyrs was first published in 1563 CE. By that time the core of the canon had long since been hashed out. Of course to this day there is no overall Christian consensus on an overall biblical canon.

I think my sarcasm went over your head, so I'll spell it out.

Matthew didn't falsefy anything, or hijack any OT prophecies - people don't become martyrs for something they know is a lie.

 

[FishFace]

My old signature used to say: If it disagrees with the 1611 King James Bible - It's Wrong.

Which is how we know you have zero interest in historical accuracy. If it disagrees with you unsupportable dogma, you discount it. That's not science or history or even rational.

 

[flatworm]

I think my sarcasm went over your head, so I'll spell it out.

Matthew didn't falsefy anything, or hijack any OT prophecies - people don't become martyrs for something they know is a lie.

If, indeed they were martyred and if, indeed, they knew it was a lie and didn't simply accept what had been passed down in oral traditions.

Also, if you don't believe people are willing to believe something they just made up, with fanatical tenacity, you must have been ignoring some of the many creationist "theories" that have come up on this board.

Do you have an extrabiblical source for any of this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is how we know you have zero interest in historical accuracy. If it disagrees with you unsupportable dogma, you discount it. That's not science or history or even rational.

Well, we'll just wait then for Steezie to tell us his name - how's that?

Unless YOU know it --- (and I'm sure you do, because YOU do have an interest in historical accuracy, right)?

 

[Shemjaza]

So because this guy disagrees with about 95% of the Egyptological community...its right?

I guess it's the same as YEC being right because most scientists accept evolution.

Remember Archeologists are just as much a part of the EAC as Biologists and Geologists.

 

[flatworm]

Well, we'll just wait then for Steezie to tell us his name - how's that?

Unless YOU know it --- (and I'm sure you do, because YOU do have an interest in historical accuracy, right)?

Vet, I think the point of that whole discussion was that there is no credible archaeological case to be made that the incident described actually happened. That's why you can't identify the pharaoh in any way that holds water.

 

[AV1611VET]

If, indeed they were martyred and if, indeed, they knew it was a lie and didn't simply accept what had been passed down in oral traditions.

So much for historical accuracy.

 

[grimbly]

And you a catholic? Pot, kettle, black, are three words that come immediately to my mind.

FoeHammer.

Well that presupposes that you have a mind. So far I haven't seen much evidence of that but here's your chance to wow us with your brilliance.

You recommended Vieth as a source of information. Do you stand by his arguments. Are they well thought out and factual?

Are you willing to defend his arguments? Time to put up or shut up!

Careful how you answer this because it may force you to actually think.

 

[AV1611VET]

Vet, I think the point of that whole discussion was that there is no credible archaeological case to be made that the incident described actually happened. That's why you can't identify the pharaoh in any way that holds water.

I was asked the name of the pharaoh of the Exodus, despite the fact that the Bible doesn't give us his name.

When I responded that I don't know his name, I was accused of historical inaccuracy for some reason.

Now --- you historically accurate people please tell me his name, or be mature enough to admit I was right when I said I don't know his name.

Fair enough?

 

[flatworm]

I was asked the name of the pharaoh of the Exodus, despite the fact that the Bible doesn't give us his name.

When I responded that I don't know his name, I was accused of historical inaccuracy for some reason.

Now --- you historical accurate people please tell me his name, or be mature enough to admit I was right when I said I don't know his name.

Fair enough?

Did I not make myself clear? There is no name because the exodus story is fictional.

So for the record, you are right when you said you don't know his name. The historical inaccuracy doesn't come from you not knowing, but from your presumption that said pharaoh actually existed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did I not make myself clear? There is no name because the exodus story is fictional.

So for the record, you are right when you said you don't know his name. The historical inaccuracy doesn't come from you not knowing, but from your presumption that said pharaoh actually existed.

Got it --- thanks --- I'll leave you history professors to yourselves now.

 

[flatworm]

So much for historical accuracy.

Can you show extrabiblical evidence for the provenance of Gospel of Matthew, for the very existence of the apostle Matthew or for his martyrdom?

 

[Steezie]

When I responded that I don't know his name, I was accused of historical inaccuracy for some reason.

Actually you cited a "dictionary" that gave a name that that was, at best, a total mutilation of a Pharaoh who we can prove was NOT the Pharaoh of the Exodus

And I accused you of NOT CARING about historical accuracy unless it supports your idea.

Now --- you historical accurate people please tell me his name

Ramses the Second who was Pharaoh during the Nineteenth Dynasty who ascended to the throne on May 31st of 1279 BC untill his death in 1213 bc and was burried in the tomb now known as KV7

 

[thaumaturgy]

IMatthew didn't falsefy anything, or hijack any OT prophecies - people don't become martyrs for something they know is a lie.

But people die for mistaken ideas all the time. There are a number of people who believed David Koresh who were more than willing to go up in flames with him in Waco. There were many people who willingly drank cyanide-laced Koolaid with Jim Jones in Guyana. There were many people in California who were more than happy to "hop the comet" with Heaven's Gate.

Dying proves nothing except that you truly believe in something enough to give up your life.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Got it --- thanks --- I'll leave you history professors to yourselves now.

Woo hoo! History Perfesser Party! AV's gone and now we can crank up the History House Music and drop our History Ecstasy!

Oh man, I scored this really cool book by Israel Finkelstein here...you guys want some?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Got it --- thanks --- I'll leave you history professors to yourselves now.

Well, I'm just a literature professor, but now that we've proven the Old Testament to be historically wrong, where do we go from here?

 

[Beastt]

Got it --- thanks --- I'll leave you history professors to yourselves now.

That would be one option. Another would be to realize that you've just learned something. Is learning so bad that you have to run off? Granted, it's a blow to the ego when one has extended themself for the counter-argument but it's actually quite a positive thing to learn something. Running away only keeps them from learning more.

I think it's fair to say that we can all learn something from others. Sometimes it's a matter of being open to the possibility and sometimes it's a matter of being forced into a corner by having every counter-argument we can present, beaten through debate.

More often than not, running away demonstrates that what you've learned is contrary to what you wanted to hold as truth and leaving helps to shield you against learning additional information which might be contrary to your desired beliefs.

Perhaps you will consider staying? When person-A knows something believed by person-B to be wrong, is it a negative act for person-A to demonstrate the lack of validity to the belief held by person-B?

We're not your enemy.